Finding Aid on South Carolina

David Library of the American Revolution

including the

British Colonial Office Papers (CO5)—South Carolina

David Library Microfilm Set 550b

Prepared by David Swain, Volunteer Researcher, December 2019

Contents

CO5 British Colonial Office Papers for South Carolina

They are contained in Volumes (or bundles of manuscripts) numbered by the British

Public Records Office from 358 through 535. As recorded in the British Public Record

Office List of Colonial Office Records, reprinted by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New

York, 1963, the South Carolina Papers are organized into categories as follows:

______________________________________________________________________

 Board of Trade Correspondence Volumes 358 to 381 (1720 to 1775)

(BT numbered sets A. to P.; Drafts)

 Secretary of State Correspondence Volumes 382 to 397 (1699 to 1784)

 Entry Books of Letters, Commissions, Volumes 398 to 410 (1674 to 1781)

Warrants, Grants, Instructions, Etc.

 Acts (of the Colonial Government) Volumes 411 to 424 (1663 to 1770)

 Sessional Papers (of the Colonial Volumes 425 to 507 (1721 to 1773)

Government)

 Shipping Returns Volumes 508 to 511 (1716 to 1765)

 Miscellaneous Volumes 512 to 535 (1759 to 1782)

______________________________________________________________________

Tables: List with Numbers and Approximate Locations

Contents

Table 1: CO5 British Colonial Office Papers for South Carolina available on

microfilm at the David Library of the American Revolution (DLAR)

Contents

Table 2: CO5 British Colonial Office Papers for South Carolina NOT available on

microfilm at the DLAR

Contents

Table 3: Summary Contents of David Library (DLAR) Microfilmed Papers for

South Carolina, by Reel and Volume, including Dates, Document Numbers, and

Frame Numbers

Introduction: Winners and Losers

Table 4

RETURN OF PEOPLE FROM SOUTH CARO LINA, CHARLESTOWN, 13th DECEMBr.,

1782.

Introduction: Top Officials

Table 5: Lords of Trade, According to Dates of First and Last Recorded

Signature on Microfilmed Draft Letters from the Board of Trade and Plantations,

for dates from 1720 to 1774

Introduction: Top Officials

Table 6a: Secretaries of State for the Southern Department (1727 to 1768)

Introduction: Top Officials

Table 6b: Secretaries of State for the Colonies (1768 to 1782)

Introduction: Top Officials

Table 6c: Secretaries of State for the Home Department (1782 to 1789)

Introduction: Top Officials

Table 7a: Transition Governor of South Carolina

Introduction: Top Officials

Table 7b: Royal Governors of South Carolina (1721 to 1775)

Introduction: Top Officials

Table 7c: Leaders of British Military Occupation and Rule in Charleston, for

over two years, with a Civilian Component

Introduction: Colonial Leadership

Table 8: Longevity of South Carolina Governors and Acting Governors

Introduction: Archival Confusion

Table 9: Analysis of Numbered Letters: (with contextual notes)

● between Board of Trade and South Carolina Governors/Acting Governor, and

● between Secretaries of State and South Carolina Governors/Acting Governor

Introduction: Archival Confusion

Table 10: Locations of Actual Documents and Abstracts of Documents, for

Incoming and Outgoing Correspondence Separately

Introduction: Archival Anomalies

Table 11: Archival Anomalies in the Microfilmed South Carolina Colonial Papers

Introduction: Archival Anomalies

Table 12: Contents of Reel 8 Volume 397: A Collection of Batches of Papers

Reel 3 volume 382 beginning

Table 13: Summary of Content and Organization of Microfilmed Secretary of

State correspondence and related documents found in Reels 3 (Volume 382)

through 8 (Volume 397)

Reel 4 Volume 386 beginning

Table 14: Understanding the fractured chronology of Volume 386

Reel 8 Volume 397 beginning

Table 15: Changing content in Secretary of State incoming correspondence

Reel 8 Volume 397 end

Table 16: Shift of important issues in Secretary of State incoming

correspondence (Reel 8 documents 172 to 205, August 1781 to mid-1782) from

British allegiance and loyalty, colonial obedience, and military progress to

economic prosperity, including the status of slavery

Reel 13 beginning

Table 17: South Carolina Microfilmed Papers as Organized into Two Distinct

Categories—“Royal Colony” (1720 to 1775) and “Post-Colony” (1775 to 1782)

Reel 13 beginning

Table 18: Contents of “Miscellaneous Papers” in Reel 13

Reel 13 Volume 513 beginning

Table 19: Summary of results for Ascertaining the Depreciation in Paper

Currency by Board of Police, November 1780

Reel 13 Volume 513 beginning

Table 20: Chronology of Meeting Summaries of Proceedings in Volumes 519

and 521 to 526 for the Board of Police and Volume 520 for the Council, 1780 to

1782

Reel 14 beginning

Table 21: Contents of Miscellaneous papers in Reel 14

Reel 14 Volume 527 beginning

Table 22: Declarations of Allegiance and Certificates of Declarations of

Allegiance, Charleston, mid-June 1780 to July 1781

Reel 14 Volume 535 beginning

Table 23: Demands Brought Against the Sequestered Estates, January 1781

DLAR Collection of CO5 South Carolina Colonial Papers

The David Library of the American Revolution’s (DLAR) collection of microfilmed

documents includes most but not all of the CO5 South Carolina Colonial Papers. Table

1 and Table 2 below identify what papers are included in the DLAR microfilm collection

and what papers are not.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 1: CO5 British Colonial Office Papers for South Carolina available on

microfilm at the David Library of the American Revolution (DLAR)

 Board of Trade Incoming Correspondence

Reel 1 Volumes 376, 377 (1756 to 1764) (BT numbered sets L., M.)

Reel 2 Volumes 378 to 380 (1764 to 1775) (BT numbered sets N. to P.)

Reel 3 begin Volume 381 (1722 to 1774) Outgoing drafts

 Secretary of State Incoming Correspondence

Reel 3 end Volume 382 (1699 to 1724)

Reel 4 Volumes 385, 386 (1744 to 1776)

Reel 5 Volumes 389, 390 (1748 to 1767)

Reel 6 Volumes 391 to 394 (1767 to 1772) (SS numbered sets A. to D.)

Reel 7 Volumes 395, 396 (1773 to 1777)

Reel 8 Volume 397 (1780 to 1784)

 Board of Trade Abstracts of Land Grants

Reel 9 Volume 398 (1674 to 1765)

Reel 10 beginVolume 399 (1768 to 1773)

 Board of Trade Abstracts of Commissions, Instructions, Etc.

Reel 10 end Volume 400, 401 (1720 to 1739) (Parts A.& B.)

Reel 11 Volume 404 (1760 to 1774) (Part E.)

Reel 12 begin Volume 405 (1774 to 1775) (Part F.)

 Board of Trade Abstracts of Incoming Correspondence

Reel 12 ctd. Volume 406 (1721 to 1756)

 Secretary of State Abstracts of Correspondence

Reel 12 ctd. Volumes 407, 408 (1766 to 1782) (Outgoing)

Reel 12 end Volumes 409, 410 (1767 to 1781) (Incoming)

 Miscellaneous: Treasurer’s Accounts

Reel 13 begin Volume 512 (1759 to 1763)

 Miscellaneous: Board of Police

Reel 13 ctd. Volume 513 (1777 to 1780) Evidence laid before

commissioners to ascertain

depreciation in paper currency

Reel 13 ctd. Volumes 514 to 518 (1781 to 1782) Orders; Dockets of causes for

trial; Lists of causes; Rules;

Receipts for papers, etc.

Reel 13 end Volume 519 to 526 (1780 to 1782) Proceedings

 Miscellaneous: Declarations and Certificates of Declarations of Allegiance

Reel 14 begin Volumes 527 to 529 (1780 to 1781) (Declarations)

and 532 to 534

Volumes 530, 531 (1780 to 1781) (Certificates of Declarations)

 Miscellaneous: Demands Brought Against Sequestered Estates

Reel 14 end Volume 535 (1781)

______________________________________________________________________

Table 2: CO5 British Colonial Office Papers for South Carolina NOT available on

microfilm at the DLAR

 Board of Trade correspondence

Volumes 358 to 375 (1720 to 1757) (BT numbered sets A. to K.)

 Secretary of State correspondence

Volumes 383, 384 (1715 to 1743)

Volumes 387, 388 (1715 to 1746)

 Board of Trade Abstracts of Commissions, Instructions, Etc.

Volume 402, 403 (1768 to 1773) (Parts C., D.)

 Acts of Colonial Government

Volumes 411 to 424 (1663 to 1770)

 Sessional Papers of Colonial Government (Council, Assembly, Council in Assembly)

Volumes 425 to 507 (1721 to 1773)

 Shipping Returns

Volumes 508 to 511 (1716 to 1765)

______________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Table 3: Summary Contents of David Library (DLAR) Microfilmed Papers for

South Carolina, by Reel and Volume, including Dates, Document Numbers, and

Frame Numbers

Reel 1

Volume 376

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), begin

February 3, 1756 to July 20, 1760 Documents 1 to 84 [Frames 1 to 214]

Volume 377

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continue

May 6, 1760 to July 2, 1764 Documents 85 to 194 [Frames 1 to 438]

Reel 2

Volume 378

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continue

August 20, 1764 to November 10, 1767 Documents 1 to 88 [Frames 1 to 275]

Volume 379

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continue

May 30, 1768 to November 6, 1770 Documents 89 to 156 [Frames 1 to 157]

Volume 380

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), end

October 16, 1770 to November 10, 1775 Documents 157 to 222 [Frames 1 to 151]

Reel 3

Volume 381

Board of Trade Correspondence (outgoing drafts)

August 16, 1720 to October 25, 1774 Documents 1 to 151 [Frames 1 to 393]

(drafts may have been written in letter books with possibly one or more missing,

resulting in gap with no drafts dated between November 28, 1738 and June 25, 1764)

Volume 382

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), begin

July 24, 1699 to August 22, 1724 Documents 152 to 211 [Frames 1 to 134]

Reel 4

Volume 385 (Volumes 383 and 384 [1715 to 1748] not microfilmed here)

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

August 26, 1719 to March 30, 1753 Documents 1 to 64 [Frames 1 to 227]

(mostly 1743 to 1753, with a 1719 outlier, organized into two sets, from 1743 to 1750,

and from 1750 to 1753, each set organized in roughly reverse chronological order)

Volume 386

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

? 1721 to August 19, 1775 Documents 65 to 139 [Frames 1 to 209]

(mostly 1753 to 1761, with substantial gaps between 1757 and 1759, and with outliers

to 1721 and to 1775; organized into several sets, each roughly chronological, but with

the sets themselves not organized chronologically)

Reel 5

Volume 389 (Volumes 387 and 388 [1715 to 1746] not microfilmed here)

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

January 30, 1747 to December 31, 1751 Documents 1 to 110 [Frames 1 to 264]

Volume 390

Secretary of State Correspondence, (incoming), continue

November 3, 1762 to October 8, 1767 Documents 111 to 187 [Frames 1 to 231]

Reel 6

Volume 391

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

November 10, 1767 to December 10, 1768 Documents 1 to 37 [Frames 1 to 80]

Volume 392

Secretary of State Correspondence, (incoming), continue

November 8, 1768 to December 9, 1769 Documents 38 to 65 [Frames 1 to 59]

Volume 393

Secretary of State Correspondence, (incoming), continue

May 6, 1769 to December 24, 1770 Documents 66 to 129 [Frames 1 to 131]

Volume 394

Secretary of State Correspondence, (incoming), continue

January 21, 1771 to December 14, 1772 Documents 130 to 208 [Frames 1 to 182]

Reel 7

Volume 395

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

December 16, 1772 to October 28, 1773 Documents 1 to 29 [Frames 1 to 78]

Volume 396

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

December 24, 1773 to November 26, 1777 Documents 47 to 172 [Frames 1 to 319]

Reel 8

Volume 397

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), end

May 1, 1779 to March 1, 1784 Documents 1 to 205 [Frames 1 to 458]

Reel 9

Volume 398—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Abstract of Land Grants, begin

February 9, 1674 to October 31, 1765 1 Document [Frames 2 to 142]

Reel 10

Volume 399

Abstract of Land Grants, end

May 7, 1767 to May 18, 1773 11 Documents [Frames 1 to 71]

Volume 400

[Board of Trade Abstracts of] Commissions, Instructions, Etc. (incoming and

outgoing) Part A

August 15, 1720 to August 20 1730 Numerous Documents [Frames 1 to 395]

Volume 401

[Board of Trade Abstracts of] Commissions, Instructions, Etc. (incoming and

outgoing) Part B (Parts C and D not microfilmed here)

October 21, 1730 to July 19, 1739 Numerous Documents [Frames 1 to 418]

Reel 11

Volume 404 (Volumes 402 and 403 [Parts D and C, 1739 to 1760] not microfilmed

here)

[Board of Trade Abstracts of] Commissions, Instructions, Etc. (incoming and

outgoing) Part E (Parts C and D not microfilmed here)

November 11, 1760 to October 25, 1774 92 Documents [Frames 1 to 498

plus unnumbered 500 to 513]

Reel 12

Volume 405

[Board of Trade Abstracts of] Commissions, Instructions, Etc. (incoming and

outgoing) Part F

June 20, 1774 to June 1, 1775 7 Documents [Frames 1 to 148]

Volume 406

Abstracts of letters to the Board of Trade (incoming)

July 13, 1721 to December 6, 1756 163 Documents [Frames 1 to 55]

Volume 407

Abstracts of letters from Secretary of State (outgoing), begin

August 8, 1766 to October 8, 1767 11 Documents [Frames 1 to 10]

Volume 408

Abstracts of letters from Secretary of State (outgoing), end

February 20, 1768 to February 6, 1782 106 Documents [Frames 1 to 158]

Volume 409

Abstracts of letters to Secretary of State (incoming), begin

December 8, 1766 to June 1, 1772 101 Documents [Frames 1 to 254]

Volume 410

Abstracts of letters to Secretary of State (incoming), end

April 27, 1772 to December 28, 1781 79 Documents [handwritten Frames 1 to 313

stamped Frames 1 to 158]

Reel 13

Volume 512 (no Volumes 411 through 511 ae microfilmed here)

Treasurer’s Accounts

1758 to 1763 Documents 1 to 6 [Frames 1 to 95]

Volume 513

Board of Police: Evidence Laid before the Commissioners for Ascertaining the

Depreciation in Paper Currency

November 5, 1780 1 Document [Frames 1 to 24]

Volume 514

Board of Police: Judicial Orders

October 20 to December 15, 1781 1 Document [Frame 1 to 3]

Volume 515

Board of Police: Docket of Causes for Trial

April 1781 to October 1782 1 Document [Frames 1 to 29]

Volume 516

Board of Police: List of Judicial Causes

May 29, 1781 to August 5, 1782 1 Document [Frames 1 to 10]

Volume 517

Board of Police: Judicial Rules

February to October 24, 1782 1 Document [Frames 1 to 6]

Volume 518

Board of Police: Receipts for Court Papers

May 22 to November 25, 1782 1 Document [Frames 1 to 3]

Volume 519

Board of Police: Board Proceedings, begin

June 23 to October 24, 1780 1 Document [Frames 1 to 43]

Volume 520

Board of Police: Council Proceedings

June 13, 1780 to October 22, 1780 1 Document [Frames 1 to 37]

Volume 521

Board of Police: Board Proceedings, continue from Volume 519

November 6, 1780 to May 7, 1781 1 Document [Frames 1 to 65]

Volume 522

Board of Police: Board Proceedings, continue

May 9 to October 19, 1781 1 Document [Frames 1 to 44]

Volume 523

Board of Police: Board Proceedings, continue

October 23, 1781 to February 4, 1782 1 Document [Frames 1 to 37]

Volume 524

Board of Police: Board Proceedings, continue

November 9, 1781 to March 25, 1782 1 Document [Frames 1 to 4]

Volume 525

Board of Police: Board Proceedings, continue

March 19 to May 24, 1782 1 Document [Frames 1 to 6]

Volume 526

Board of Police: Board Proceedings, end

September 5 to October 29, 1782 1 Document [Frames 1 to 19]

Reel 14

Volume 527

Declarations of Allegiance to the King, begin

Mid-June to late August 1780 205 Declarations [Frames 1 to 69]

Volume 528

Declarations of Allegiance to the King, continue

Late August to mid-September 1781 282 Declarations [Frames 1 to 94]

Volume 529

Declarations of Allegiance to the King, continue

Mid-September to early November 1780 291 Declarations [Frames 1 to 98]

Volume 530

Certificates of Declarations of Allegiance to the King, begin

May 1780 to June 1781 297 Certificates of Declaration [Frames 1 to 100]

Volume 531

Certificates of Declarations of Allegiance to the King, continue

May 1780 to June 1781 303 Certificates of Declaration [Frames 1 to 101]

Volume 532

Declarations of Allegiance to the King, continue (from Volume 529)

Early November 1780 to late April 1781 297 Declarations

[Frames 1 to 98 plus 1A & 14A]

Volume 533

Declarations of Allegiance to the King, continue

Early May to mid-June 1781 147 Declarations [Frames 1 to 50]

Volume 534

Declarations of Allegiance to the King, end

Late May to late July 1781 87 Declarations [Frames 1 to 29]

Volume 535

Demands brought against Sequestered Estates

January 5, 1781 2 documents [Frames 1 to 79]

______________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Contents of the Introduction

______________________________________________________________________

Historical Context: The British Royal Colony of South Carolina

(from before 1720 to 1775)

Economic Development

Relations with Spain and later with France

Relations with Georgia

Relations with Indian Nations

Separation, Boundaries, and Relations with North Carolina

Evolution and Divergence of Values after 1763

Prosperity, Freedom, and Rights vs Loyalty and Obedience to the King

From Protest to Rebellion to Revolution

Transition between Death of a Colony and Birth of a State

(from September 1775 to December 1782)

Governor Campbell’s Response to Collapse of South Carolina Colonial

Government

Attempting to Re-establish the Colonial Government:

try: Military Attack on Charleston, June 28, 1776

try: Encouraging Loyalist Insurgency in the Interior, 1775 to 1777

try: British Military Siege and Capture of Charleston, May 12, 1780

try: General Clinton’s Offer of Parole/Amnesty/Pardon to Prisoners

of War Who Declare Allegiance to the King, 1780

try: British Military Occupation of Charleston, including a Board

of Police and Declarations of Allegiance, May 12, 1780 to

December 14, 1782

try: Bull’s Last Stand Leading the Board of Police, 1781 to 1782

try: Cornwallis’ “Offensive” Military Operation in Southern Colonies,

1781

The Rug Pulled Out: End of Attempts to Re-establish Colonial Government

after Cornwallis Surrender and Parliament withdrawal from Commitment

to the War, October 1781 to February 1782

From Colonial to Post-Colonial Thinking: Preparing for British Evacuation of

Charleston and Beyond, 1781 to 1782 and Beyond

Changing Values: Loyalty vs. Prosperity

State of South Carolina: Alternative Government on the Threshold, 1782

Evacuation of Charleston and Demise of Colonial South Carolina,

December 14, 1782

Winners and Losers: Demographic and Geographic Impacts of Britain’s

Evacuation of Charleston, December 1782

Colonial Government Structure

British Empire Structure

Royal Colony of South Carolina Structure

British Military Structure for Occupation of Charleston

Top Officials of British and South Carolina Colonial Governments

King

Lords of Trade

Secretaries of State

Secretary of State for the Southern Department (1727 to 1768)

Secretary of State for the Colonies (1768 to 1782)

Secretary of State for the Home Department (1782 to 1789)

Colonial Governors and other leaders in South Carolina

Transition Governor (1719 to 1721)

Royal Governors (1721 to 1775)

Charleston Occupation Leaders (1780 to 1782)

British Military Commander

Intendant General of Board of Police

Colonial Leadership: Longevity and Effectiveness in Office

Organizing Correspondence: Focus on Archiving

Archival Organizing:

Chronological Bundles

Document Numbering by Archivists

Letter Numbering by Writer

Maintaining and Numbering Extracts, Abstracts, Summaries,

and Transcripts of Actual Documents

Archival Confusion: Too Many Numbering Systems

Archival Anomalies: Time Gaps, Irregular Ordering; Unexpected Contents

Secondary References

______________________________________________________________________

Historical Context: British Royal Colony of South Carolina

(from before 1720 to 1775)

A British proprietary colony of Carolina was established in 1663, centered on the site of

what became the city of Charleston, which developed as one of the few urban centers in

British North America (along with Philadelphia, New York, and Boston). Between 1719

and 1729 that colony morphed 1) into two separate colonies of North Carolina and

South Carolina and 2) into a royal colony, under the King’s control rather than that of

private trustees.

Economic Development

Both the proprietary colony and the royal colony were preoccupied during their early

years mostly with issues of economic development. The British Empire supported

colonization to provide economic benefits for the home territories. If the colonies

themselves prospered, that was an added benefit, not the prime goal. The colonies

were expected to provide primarily agricultural goods, both for human consumption and

as raw materials for manufacturing in the home country. Commerce and trade also

were intended to benefit home-country people and only secondarily colonists.

In the British governmental system, the Board of Trade and Plantations sought to

encourage, regulate, and even subsidize economic development on the colonies. In

some ways, the Board of Trade is like an American Chamber of Commerce, except that

the latter is a private interest group, while the Board of Trade functioned near the top

levels of the British government, engaging in aspects of governance and

intergovernmental relations. In South Carolina, the economic model the Board of Trade

encouraged was plantation agriculture, using African slave labor to produce subtropical

staple crops such as grains, rice, cotton, indigo, and hemp, as well as timber and naval

stores.

In South Carolina, colonial government found it necessary to engage in three kinds of

external relations to support economic development (as well as frontier security):

relations with Spain, relations with Georgia, and relations with Indians. Only after

1763 did these governance/relations functions get taken over by the Secretaries of

State. To a large extent, concern for these relations and their changes over time

became the primary concerns of colonial governments like South Carolina’s until after

1763. (See several extended notes after Reel 1 document 1.)

Relations with Spain and later with France

Before the 1750s, the imperial/colonial empire of Spain represented the most proximate

and hostile competitor European power for South Carolina. Spanish Florida was an

important northern corner piece of Spanish American territory. Until 1733, South

Carolina and Spanish Florida shared a lengthy but ill-defined frontier border. Relations

between the Spanish and English in this colonial backwater were occasionally hostile.

Incursions and provocations on both sides led to periodic flurries of diplomatic activity,

gloomy predictions of dire danger for South Carolina, and calls to expand the colony’s

security forces and fortifications.

By the 1750s, the growing influence of the French north and west of British America

shifted Britain’s strategic focus, leading to the French and Indian War from 1754 to 1763

in America (Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 in Europe).

In 1763, Europe and Britain’s American colonies came out of these wars with Britain the

winner and both France and Spain hostile losers. In subsequent years, the situation did

not change much by the mid-1770s—except for Britain’s relations with her American

colonies. In 1763 Britain and America were, by definition, on the same side. By 1775

they had become enemies. This provided some leverage for France and Spain to get

back at Britain—by allying with the American colonies. The results were significant in

determining the outcome of the Revolutionary War. France was a hard-to-get ally for

the Americans, but a French fleet showed up on the Virginia coast in fall 1781 at just the

right moment to rule the waves just long enough to deny to General Cornwallis’ British

army supplies and an escape route by sea, forcing Cornwallis to surrender. The

dominoes that toppled as a result of this surrender led inevitably to American victory.

Spain also bided its time getting involved, until the timing was right for them to launch

successful attacks against British West Florida from New Orleans and Havana. In May

1781, the result was British loss of an American colony that was not even among the 13

rebellious colonies. The 1783 Paris peace treaty returned British East Florida as well to

Spain control (Florida had been Spanish since the 16

Century but had been awarded

to Britain in 1763.) (See in Reel 8 British General Henry Clinton’s report with supporting

documents to Secretary of State Germain with details on how in March 1780, Spain

conquered Mobile in West Florida with minimal British resistance. These papers

apparently were filed by Secretary of State archivists under “South Carolina” only

because Clinton sent his report to Germain while he was at Charleston in May 1780,

having just captured that city from its American defenders after a siege.

Relations with Georgia

Georgia was established in 1733 as a proprietary colony, its territory carved out of what

had previously been considered Carolina territory, all the way to the border with Spanish

Florida. Now, South Carolina no longer faced Spanish territory directly. But it did face a

new British colonial competitor, Georgia. In an interesting episode of the 1750s and

early 1760s, South Carolina Governor Thomas Boone made an aggressive economic

and political point of advertising land grants available in territory located south of

the Altamaha River. This coastal territory is a fair distance south of Georgia capital

Savannah, adjacent to the border with Spanish Florida. After 1733, this territory had no

claim to being contiguous with any South Carolina territory. Naturally the colonial

Governor of Georgia complained to London, and the British government required South

Carolina to disavow these land grants (see note after Reel 1 document 160 and related

documents).

With less competition, both Georgia and South Carolina responded to British

government policy and pressures from European countries for Britain’s colonies to

support organized settlements of Protestants especially from France, Germany, and

Switzerland. In South Carolina, several such settlements were both officially

encouraged and publicly subsidized, especially in the 1730s and the 1760s. Names of

settlements included Purryville (or Purryborough, which was French Swiss) and New

Bordeaux (which was French and German). Names of organizer/promoters included

Jean Louis Gilbert and Jean-Pierre Purry (both initially in 1731), and Louis de Mesnil de

Saint Pierre (1764 and in the early 1770s at New Bordeaux). Another group of

Germans, supported by South Carolina, settled in the disputed territory south of the

Altamaha River in Georgia before being forced to move. Germans settled

independently as well in scattered locations in South Carolina’s interior uplands. Today

these settlements are no longer ethnically identifiable, although the place names

continue to be used. (See especially note after Reel 2 document 176 and surrounding

documents.)

Relations with Indian Nations

Together and separately, all of the English colonies contended with problematic and

often hostile relations with Indian Nations whose territories English settlers had taken

over and continued to expand into. English policy sought if possible to accommodate

rather than to exterminate Native Americans. For the British, Indians (their term) were

useful intermediaries (potential pawns—allies rather than foes) in the ongoing hostilities

among European nations for world imperial and colonial power. British officials held

“talks” and signed treaties with Indian leaders, stylized negotiations designed to elicit

friendship, to convince Indian nations to side with and fight for the British side in

European wars fought in America, and to intimidate Indians into patterns of peaceful

coexistence. They gave “presents” to Indians, “free” goods designed to attract

friendship and to foster obedience and dependency, and they operated trading posts,

selling European goods to Indians, also to foster dependency. On the colonial frontiers,

Indians were not welcome intermediaries but competitors for land. In the Native

American warrior cultures, competition meant violence. The British did not understand

this, so, when their various “carrots” did not work, British colonial officials did not

hesitate to us the stick.

After years of simmering hostility tempered by presents and trade with the Creek

Indians, the expanding South Carolina frontier encountered the Cherokee Indians

farther inland in the late 1750s. South Carolina Governor Henry William Lyttelton tried

the usual “carrot” approaches but quickly lost patience and led his militia in 1759 into

what has since been named the Anglo-Cherokee War, a brutal, bloody, frontier

confrontation that left the Cherokee population decimated and its lands, crops, and

homes burned. It took the British three summers to do the job. When the militia failed

to subdue the Indians in 1759, regular British soldiers were borrowed in the summer of

1760, but their leader didn’t understand the degree of brutality required and left South

Carolina prematurely for more attractive military activities. Finally, in 1761, a sufficiently

brutal British army force completed the ugly task.

Since Governor Lyttelton had left South Carolina in spring 1760 (promoted to be

Governor of Jamaica), it fell to Lieutenant Governor William Bull II, as acting governor,

to guide South Carolina through this sordid period.

After this demonstration of brute power, Indian relations became more subdued. At

about the same time, the Seven Years War ended in 1763. This European war, called

the French and Indian War in America, pitted France and Spain against Britain (and its

colonies). In America, the British used various approaches, seeking to maintain positive

Indian relations and reduce the numbers of Indians allied with the French. South

Carolina participated in these efforts with various Nations, except for the Cherokees

whom they had just defeated.

(Since Indian affairs were so important for South Carolina economic development and

settlement expansion, as well its security from frontier violence, correspondence on the

subject was pervasive. In the Secretary of State correspondence, especially in Reel 3

and 4, see frequent correspondence in the 1750s and early 1760s about trade,

presents, and negotiations for friendship with particular Indian Nations. Both Board of

Trade and Secretary of State correspondence, in Reels 1 and 5 respectively, contain

detailed, overlapping, and duplicative correspondence about the violence of the Anglo-

Cherokee War between 1759 and 1761. Although by the late 1760s and early 1770s,

South Carolina had moved on to focus more on political issues that were leading toward

revolution, isolated correspondence as late as 1774 occasionally reports on frontier

violence involving Indians and raises the possibility of impending war with the Indians.)

Separation, Boundaries, and Relations with North Carolina

Britain won the war, giving the British King an opportunity to try a new approach to calm

down frontier violence. This approach was separation. His Declaration of 1763 drew

a line along the crest of the Appalachian Mountains. Land to the east was available for

colonial settlement. Land on the west side was reserved as Indian territory. The line

never worked very well, partly because many frontier people refused to accept it and

partly because European population expansion continually shifted the actual boundary

line on the ground.

Boundary lines on the frontier were also becoming necessary to manage population

growth and mobility in frontier areas between colonies. By as early as 1757, surveying

a North Carolina/South Carolina boundary line had become a political priority. By as

late as 1772, the issue remained open and unresolved. Between those years, the

South Carolina Colonial Papers reveal multiple, frequent efforts draw, redraw, and

extend the boundary running from the Atlantic Ocean to the mountains, between the

colonies of North Carolina and South Carolina. The issue seemed perennial.

Surveying a line was a time-consuming physical challenge on the frontier, but it was

also fraught with political consequences, which often slowed down or stalemated the

surveying. Plus, as soon as a line could be surveyed, settlement patterns changed and

a line once agreed to became obsolete.

Both governors had a stake in supporting efforts to establish a firm boundary, but both

wanted to influence the decision-making process to the advantage of his colony. As a

sampling of the documentary evidence, see:

Reel 1 document 8 and note following (1757)

Reel 2 document 160 and note following (1763)

Reel 6 document 196 (1772)

Evolution and Divergence of Values after 1763

In the years immediately following the end of the war period of 1754 to 1763, major

changes were altering the values and culture of British America. It was a time to

focus on domestic prosperity and private entrepreneurialism, on opportunity on the

frontier rather than on fear of the Indians, who were being subdued by military force.

This, many argued, made it a time to reduce governmental burdens from the heavy

demands of wartime. However, the British government had large war debts to pay off,

and loyal Britishers were expected to pay, including especially those living in the

American colonies, who had, from a British perspective, gained the most from the

expenses of the war.

Prosperity, Freedom, & Rights vs. Loyalty & Obedience to the King

Ripples from this new mindset began to flow together into streams of thought that

challenged unquestioned acceptance of Britain’s “burdens” and that posited

“rights” of British people to prosper free from such burdens. From the perspective

of British governments both in London and in the colonies, the new mindset increasingly

was viewed to be dangerous to the sovereignty of the British political and imperial

system. As some Americans raised the concepts of prosperity, freedom, and rights,

governments responded with concepts of loyalty and obedience to the King. The

result was an emerging and growing protest movement against British authority. In

1765, the British Parliament stepped into this morass with the Stamp Act, which they

conceived to be a relatively harmless way to raise some revenue to pay down on the

war debt.

From Protest to Rebellion to Revolution

If they had been paying more attention to politics already current in their American

colonies, they would have been warned against such unrealistic thinking. Since the late

1750s, South Carolina’s Commons (lower) House of Assembly had begun and was

gradually escalating a running battle with the Governor and his Royal Council over

various issues of financial and political control in South Carolina’s colonial government.

Documents scattered throughout the Board of Trade and Secretary of State’s official

correspondence with dates from 1758 to 1775 tell a story of progressively less civil

discourse and less institutional mutual respect, along with greater differences in

constitutional positions and greater intransigence in insisting on those positions.

See in particular the following clusters of documents:

Reel 1 documents between about 32 and 48 (1758 to 1759)

Reel 1 documents between about 141 and note after and 151 (1762)

Reel 2 documents between about 15 and note after and 67 (1765 to 1766)

Reel 2 documents between about 122 and note after and 145 (1770)

Reel 6 documents between about 8 and 191 (1770 to 1772)

Reel 7 documents between about 29 and 128 (1773 to 1775)

An interesting articulation of the “rebel” position caused a stir in Charleston in

February 1775. William Henry Drayton was a younger member of one of South

Carolina’s oldest and wealthiest planter families. Consistent with his background, he

had already been appointed to positions of political leadership in the colonial

government and in 1766 had supported the government on enforcement of the Stamp

Act. However he, having struggled like others of his generation with the issues of

loyalty vs. freedom, made his choice known in a very public way, by writing out his

argument in a published pamphlet. Naturally, acting governor Bull and the Council

found it necessary to suspend William Henry from its membership. The Council

member leading the discussion on suspension was his father, John Drayton, and he

was married to William Bull II’s daughter—one of many examples of leading families

splitting by generation over loyalty vs. rebellion. William Henry Drayton went on to be a

vocal and influential “rebel” leader, including serving on the Continental Congress in

1778-1779. While in Philadelphia, he died after having contracted typhus. (For the text

of William Henry’s pamphlet, see Reel 7 document 77. For the controversy over the

pamphlet and William Henry’s suspension from the Council, see note after Reel 2

document 218 and surrounding documents.)

This corpus of documents plus a scattering of many more, understood together, provide

a remarkable reflection of the overall economic/political/constitutional debate turned into

conflict that eventually led the British Empire and 13 of its American colonies to war and

then separation, resulting in demise of the Royal Colony of South Carolina.

The demise of colonial South Carolina is a complicated matter, however. It was not

caused alone by a movement of American protest, rebellion, and revolution, although

this was a crucial ingredient. It also came about because of missed opportunities and

inadequacies in the functioning of the colonial government of South Carolina itself.

These South Carolina Colonial Papers tell mostly the story of the royal colony of South

Carolina—from the British, colonial perspective. They also tell us something of the story

of the American anti-colonial movement, also from a British perspective.

Before moving on to the transition period during which colonial South Carolina died a

slow death, it will be useful to review in summary form from a more American

perspective the outlines of the movement’s progress from protest to rebellion to

revolution. This perspective tells a story of American reaction to British abuses and

injustices by a colonial system that did not understand American values, rather than, as

the British saw it, a story of American excessive, obsessive, unjustified, and

unconstitutional conflict against a benevolent British system.

Sometimes changes come about slowly, without a specific instigator, influence, or

tipping point. Sometimes “watershed moments” are evident. In the case of British-

American colonial separation, the movement for change in South Carolina began

sometime in the 1750s without fanfare as expressions of protest within the system.

In the mid-1760s, something sparked the protest movement to begin thinking in terms of

rebellion against aspects of the system rather than merely protesting within the system.

The South Carolina Colonial Papers suggest that the spark came from the mixing of

contrasting, conflicting sources: Newly optimistic thinking, following Britain’s military

victory over France, Spain and Indian Nations in 1763, about opportunities for private

prosperity with a reduced governmental burden, clashed with British governmental

pressures to increase the financial burden on colonists to pay off the war debt. This

explosive combination first combusted as a result of British attempts to enforce its new

Stamp Act in 1765 and 1766. Although Parliament soon repealed this tax, it seemed

intent in subsequent years on adding fuel to this fire with the Townshend Acts of 1769,

the Tea Act of 1773, and the so-called Intolerable or Coercive Acts of 1774. Another

source of sparks for South Carolina was the more intensely rebellious fire burning in

Boston, whose “radical” example “inflamed” South Carolina protest thinking and instilled

fear among the colonial leaders of the supposedly more conservative southern colonies.

(On Colonial South Carolina’s perspective on Massachusetts protest and rebellion

against the Townshend Acts, Tea Act, and Intolerable or Coercive Acts, see Reel 7

document 95 [February 22, 1775] and note after it.)

Protest is by definition negative and in practice, largely vocal. Rebellion raises protest

to greater levels of anger, encouraging a shift of tactics from arguing to taking action,

often destructively. A step beyond both angry protest and mob violence is to begin

thinking organizationally and toward building alternative futures, rather than

simply tearing down what is. In this regard, South Carolina’s “rebels” learned lessons

from colonies to the north, especially Massachusetts but also Virginia. In South

Carolina, ad-hoc committees of correspondence, committees of safety, etc.

emerged in the decade after 1765 at both province and local levels. By late 1774, these

had evolved toward becoming alternative governmental structures—a Provincial

Congress with legislative functions that first met on June 1, 1775 and a Council of

Safety with executive functions that first met on November 30, 1775. [On Committees

of Correspondence and Safety and development of the Provincial Congress and

Council of Safety, see especially Reel 7 document 90 and note after it, and documents

103 to 117.

Thus, organizing against, without a vision of “what next,” morphed into organizing for

separation and for creation of new, alternative governmental institutions. This was no

longer either protest or rebellion. It was verging into revolution.

On September 15, 1775, the protest/rebellion pressures of South Carolina “rebels”

brought about the collapse of the colonial government in Charleston. This might

have been a decisive revolutionary moment. Yet the colonial government collapsed into

something of a vacuum, partly because South Carolina’s alternative, provisional

governmental institutions were not sufficiently strong and experienced to rise up and

take over and partly because military hostilities had already begun in earnest at Boston,

so the potential cost of “just taking over” was difficult and scary to calculate.

Yet, the fall of the colonial government did create a greater incentive to establish

effective alternative government in South Carolina. The power vacuum caused by loss

of the colonial government was a potential threat to anyone’s prosperity or law and

order. And, the vacuum offered an opportunity for a new government to be established

without competition. So the chance was there for a new State of South Carolina

government, and it was grasped. In March 1776 a first constitution for the State of

South Carolina was adopted and put onto effect. Like other early state constitutions, it

contained flaws, some of which were quickly recognized and amended. So this was

also a watershed time, as the promise of the long process of protest to rebellion to

revolution began to pay off in a positive manner with a new form of government. This

was not a perfect government but at least it was based on the premise of self-

governance (for white males a least) that had been so important from the very

beginning of the protest movement. (Little information on the development of the State

of South Carolina government is contained in the British South Carolina Colonial

Papers. The exception is the interaction between South Carolina State Governor John

Mathews and British military commander General Alexander Leslie over the status of

slavery during the British evacuation of Charleston in late 1782, on which, see the

section in the Introduction below on “The State of South Carolina: Alternative

Government on the Threshold, 1782.”

While separate states were engaged at their level in creating alternative governments,

the time had come for government building at the united, “continental” level. The

watershed date was July 4, 1776, as the Continental Congress took the decisive,

symbolic, revolutionary step of convening representatives of all the new states to

declare their independence as sovereign entities, united under a single

“continental governmental structure.” Determining the constitutional details of that

structure took several additional years to think through and agree upon.

Transition between Death of a Colony and Birth of a State

(from September 1775 to December 1782)

Most of the CO5 South Carolina Colonial Papers reveal the historical record of a British

royal colony during its lifetime, from about 1720 to September 1775. However, this

colony did not “die” all at once. A sub-story in these papers tells of the slow death of the

colony during a transition period of over seven years, from September 1775 to

December 1782.

When does a colony actually “die?” In South Carolina’s case, what combination of

pressures on it and its own dysfunction caused its decline until it tipped over the edge of

never return? Can particular tipping points or “watershed moments” be identified that

perhaps particularly contributed to the colony’s demise? The sections below offer

thoughts on these questions, based on the South Carolina Colonial Papers.

Governor Campbell’s Response to Collapse of the South Carolina

Colonial Government

On September 15, 1775, the accumulated pressures of South Carolina’s “rebel”

movement of protest and rebellion verging into revolution, merged with the accumulated

dysfunction of the colonial government to tip that government over the edge. Its

governor fled for his personal safety to a British warship anchored in Charleston harbor.

The government ceased to function, and several other leaders of the government sailed

home to England. The governor did not leave but instead took up residence on the ship

in the harbor and began what he appears to have thought was another phase of his

governorship. The British government apparently shared that view.

With hindsight, it seems apparent that, actually, the royal colony of South Carolina died

on that day in September. As things worked out, the colony was never successfully re-

established. Yet equally apparent is that those living through it, on the British side at

least, felt at the time that colonial South Carolina was not yet dead and could potentially

be revived.

On that date in September, Governor William Campbell certainly was an “emperor

without clothes,” a governor without a government. Yet he still held a Commission to

be Governor, and he knew that his job was to do what he could to re-establish and lead

that colonial government. (For glimpses into Campbell’s post-colonial “governor”

activities, between December 1775 and January 1777, see Reel 7 documents 158 to

171). Initially, Campbell sought refuge, with his wife and private secretary Alexander

Innes, on the HMS Tamar. From there, although now dependent on the official

hierarchy of the British Navy, he began lobbying useful naval officers to obtain transport

on naval vessels to places he wanted to get to in order to perform what he conceived to

be his ongoing responsibilities as governor. One of his duties was to remain at his post

in South Carolina. Since that was dangerous at the moment, he opted in December

1775 for transport to Savannah.

In early January 1776, the Tamar sailed to Cape Fear for repairs. Campbell was

allowed to transfer to the armed ship Cherokee, which sailed for the mouth of the

Savannah River, joining other British warships there, preparing for a possible southern

attack by British forces. Campbell wished both to remain near possible action in South

Carolina and to seek ways to consult with and influence top British military officials

toward mounting a southern campaign. He soon found ways to do both.

Attempting to Re-establish Colonial Government:

try): Military Attack on Charleston, June 28, 1776

By June 1776, Campbell was aboard the HMS Bristol, flagship of a British fleet under

command of Admiral Peter Parker, with troops under General Henry Clinton’s

command. This force attempted an attack on Charleston’s defenses on June 28,

1776. The outcome was indecisive, which, for the British, meant defeat, since they

were not prepared to sustain the attack.

Instead, the forces withdrew, and the Bristol sailed to New York, with Campbell aboard,

giving him the opportunity to meet with the British military’s top officials. Unmentioned

in the correspondence is the fact that Campbell, on the deck of the Bristol during the

attack on Charleston, had received a significant wound from a flying wood splinter. His

stay in New York was therefore extended, as he both recovered from his wound and

sought to lobby top military officials. In January 1777, Secretary of State Germain had

given him permission to return to England for a leave of absence.

try): Encouraging Loyalist Insurgency in the Interior, 1775 to 1777

Meanwhile, as South Carolina remained in limbo, with no colonial government in

operation but no official action to disband it, there was a war on. Although the military

war had begun far to the north at Boston, South Carolina was likely to become a war

zone, and Governor Campbell had been hoping that would be sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, the southern colonies were already finding that peace and stability

were hard to come by as various groups of armed combatants were marching around

and confronting one another with lethal weapons. These early confrontations were

mostly between irregular troops or bands of loyalists or rebels, mostly against each

other and mostly in interior and frontier areas.

In late 1775 and 1776, Campbell was enthused about the possibilities for a loyalist

insurgency that would swing the southern colonies toward Britain by taking control

away from the planter-class leaders of the “rebel” movement. He had corresponded

with Thomas Brown, a capable and charismatic Scotsman who had settled near

Augusta to get rich as a planter (see Reel 7 document 149, dated October 18, 1775,

and notes after it). After being tarred-and-feathered by rebel irregulars for refusing to

sign the “associator” pledge of allegiance, Brown had become a radicalized frontier

loyalist. East Florida’s Governor Patrick Tonyn recruited him to lead a band of militia

called the Florida Rangers. Brown trained these frontier troops to fight alongside

regular British troops. In 1777-1778 the Rangers helped defend East Florida from rebel

incursions from Georgia. In 1779, they contributed favorably to British victories to

capture Savannah and (twice) Augusta. Brown and his Rangers had less influence on

South Carolina, at least partly because Campbell returned to England early in 1777,

leaving no one to “lobby” for a South Carolina royalist movement, until the military

returned.

Once back in England, Campbell does not seem to have played any significant role as

governor, although he still retained the title, Commission, and presumably the

responsibility. The question remained unanswered as to what Campbell’s further

gubernatorial role might be. In September 1778, he died at age 48 from complications

with his unhealed war wound from the 1776 failed invasion of Charleston. Significantly,

the King did not appoint a successor governor after Campbell died, further leaving

South Carolina in governmental limbo.

try): British Military Siege and Capture of Charleston, May 12, 1780

Two years after Governor Campbell’s death and close to four years since the South

Carolina government had collapsed, the British military strategy again turned

southward, and in May 1780, that strategy returned Charleston to British military control.

This success did not mean, however, that South Carolina colony had been re-

established, although it did raise hopes in that direction. Still, military success and

British occupation at Charleston signaled that South Carolina could not yet be written off

as no longer British in some important sense.

If South Carolina was a frequent battleground, its capital, Charleston, was meant to be

the opposite. General Henry Clinton’s southern strategy began, under his personal

command, with a classic military operation to capture Charleston. Early in 1780, his

army arrived from New York and deployed a standard siege around the city. General

Benjamin Lincoln and his defending Continental Army held out as long as possible but

were forced to surrender on May 12, 1780. (See especially General Clinton’s lengthy

report on the final days of the siege and negotiations for capitulation with General

Lincoln, in Reel 8 documents 69 to 132.)

try): General Clinton’s Offer of Parole/Amnesty/Pardon to Prisoners of War

Who Declare Allegiance to the King, 1780

This should have been a watershed day as Britain shifted back toward a policy of re-

establishing the South Carolina colony. Clinton took the first optimistic step by declaring

that any and all among the 6,000 prisoners of war he had just captured would be

paroled (more accurately granted amnesty or even a pardon) if they would declare

allegiance to the King and settle in South Carolina. These former Continental Army

soldiers and associated persons were thus expected to become part of a new loyalist

population that would form the foundation for a new civil colonial government at

Charleston. Clinton’s thinking was akin to Governor Campbell’s in 1775-1776 and just

as unconfirmed by reality. Others disagreed with the Clinton/Campbell approach.

Staunch loyalist but practical realist Georgia Governor James Wright strongly opposed

Clinton’s approach, and the Secretary of State in London vetoed it. (See Reel 8,

documents 146 to 148, dated in June 1780. See also the background note at the

beginning of Reel 14.)

try): British Military Occupation of Charleston, including a Board of Police

and Declarations of Allegiance, May 12, 1780 to December 14, 1782

As a result, Britain again became a ruling force in South Carolina, for the first time since

September 1775—not with a civilian colonial government but with a military

occupation in Charleston alone. This “government” had some longevity, from May

1780 until the end of December 1782. Yet it did not succeed in re-establishing civil

government. The closest it came was to create a civilian arm of the military occupation

command, an institution named the Board of Police. Its officials were appointed by the

commander at Charleston. As a government entity, it had only limited authority, under

military law. It had no legislative functions, operated a civilian judicial system, and may

have administered a few urban services not otherwise available since the colonial

government had never incorporated Charleston with its own municipal government.

(The official correspondence provides only scattered bits of information about the Board

of Police. See Reel 8 documents 175 and 180 to 182, dated in August 1782,

concerning petitions and the quality of services being provided through the Board.)

Archived Board of Police documents found in Reel 13 (Volumes 513 to 526) reveal

something about the functioning of the Board of Police, in particular its judicial function.

Most useful are the summaries of Proceedings of the Board of Police, which contain

detailed information about individual court cases and lists of potential jurors. One of the

Proceedings Volumes (520) contains separate proceedings for a Council, which seems

to have had a limited “governing” function similar to that of the prior colonial Council of

South Carolina.

One of the Council’s responsibilities seems to have been to approve petitions of

prisoners of war to declare allegiance to the King. This was responsive to efforts

encouraged by Governor Campbell and General Clinton toward re-establishing civil

colonial government in South Carolina. Judging from the large numbers of, filled-out

declaration of allegiance forms archived in the microfilmed documents, the

declaration process was at least somewhat successful. However, it never matured into

a critical mass to support a re-instated civilian government. (See declarations of

allegiance archived in Reel 14, Volumes 527 to 534, with Volumes 527 to 529 and 532

to 534 containing about 1,309 filled-in, signed, and attested “Declarations” [three per

printed-form page, in approximate chronological order from June 1780 to May 1782],

and with Volumes 530 and 531 containing a separate archive about 600 slightly

different “Certificates of Declaration” forms [similarly printed, filled in, signed, etc. but

with seemingly random dates scattered from June 1780 to May 1782]. The significance

of the separate forms and different dating is not clear. See note at beginning of Reel 14

Volume 527 for more information on Charleston’s archives of declarations and

certificates of declaration of allegiance.)

try): Bull’s Last Stand Leading the Board of Police, 1781 to 1782

If occupied Charleston was not a full colonial success, it was not for lack of trying by

Lieutenant Governor William Bull II. After the fall of the colonial government in

September 1775, he had remained in South Carolina, primarily to attend to personal

affairs as the “rebel” government was confiscating much of his property. Although

nominally still Lieutenant Governor, he had no government to govern. Most of South

Carolina’s top colonial government officials returned to Britain during this period. In May

1777, Bull also had left South Carolina, returning to Britain.

When General Henry Clinton defeated and occupied Charleston in May 1780, Bull was

offered one last chance to lead a British colony through a time of transition. The British

government in London encouraged Bull and other leaders of the former colonial

government to return to Charleston, with the expectation of re-establishing British

colonial rule in South Carolina. Bull, still with his Lieutenant Governor title, returned in

February 1781. Governor Campbell would probably have returned as well had he not

died over two years before.

As already noted, Bull returned to a Charleston without a civilian government and with a

British occupation based on military command and martial law. The one exception was

the Board of Police, and this is where Bull became involved. He served as the Board’s

Intendant General (top leader), replacing his friend James Simpson, former Attorney

General of the former South Carolina colonial government, who moved to New York,

where he served as General Clinton’s personal secretary. Others of Bull’s former

governmental colleagues who were Board of Police members included Egerton Leigh,

Edward Savage, and Thomas Knox Gordon. In some small sense, the Board of Police,

meeting as the Charleston Council, was a shadow of the South Carolina’s colonial

government. But only a shadow.

For William Bull II, being Intendant General held a significant level of responsibility. Yet

it was not at the level of governing a British colony, as he had done for so many years.

Clearly, he was working in Charleston now for a cause, not for career advancement. In

his new position he exercised mostly operational leadership rather than executive or

governing authority. The latter was reserved for the military leadership.

try): Cornwallis’ “Offensive” Military Operation in Southern Colonies, 1781

Although General Clinton’s conditional amnesty effort to jump-start a loyalist citizenry as

the basis for a new colonial civil government had not succeeded, his thinking didn’t

change. Having secured Charleston militarily, he ordered General Cornwallis into the

field for an offensive operation whose purpose was to roust out the supposed hordes of

loyalists scattered across rural South Carolina and use them to extend military control

throughout its territory, in preparation for re-establishing the colony’s former colonial

government—and then for replicating the process in the other southern colonies and

beyond.

Unfortunately, Cornwallis, while initially enthusiastic, soon discovered, to his great

regret, that the assumption of strong loyalist support in the hinterland was unrealistic.

(See Reel 8 documents 133 to 171 and 184, 185.)

By mid-1781, the status of British rule in South Carolina was mixed at best.

Charleston’s martial law with attempts at providing some urban services had not

spawned a stable, viable enclave of British colonial rule. Nor had the military’s attempt

to re-establish a British colony in the interior of South Carolina, built on expected

foundations of strong loyalist support.

The Rug Pulled Out: End of Attempts to Re-establish Colonial Government

after Cornwallis Surrender and Parliament withdrawal from Commitment to the

War, October 1781 to February 1782

Before any more attempts could be made to re-establish colonial South Carolina, and

before Charleston’s quasi-civilian Board of Police could mature or evolve into something

closer to real civil government, General Cornwallis surrendered his army at Yorktown,

Virginia in October 1781, and Parliament responded in February 1782 by pulling the rug

out from under the entire British war effort, including British occupation of Charleston

and any hope to re-establish a South Carolina colony.

After Cornwallis learned that loyalist fervor was not going to be his vanguard for a

triumphal march through the southern colonies, preparatory to pushing on to conquer

the northern colonies as well for British colonialism, his army’s march turned into a

furtive quest for supplies. Through a combination of unfortunate decisions by General

Cornwallis, fortuitous decision making by General Washington, and the timely but

temporary availability of French naval assistance, Cornwallis was trapped between the

French fleet (which denied him the supplies he needed and an escape route by sea)

and the Continental Army (which denied him escape by land).

The surrender at Yorktown shook the foundations on which the British Parliament’s pro-

war coalition was built. In February 1782, Lord North’s government collapsed. The new

Parliamentary majority disavowed the war effort and, among other specifics,

commanded the military to evacuate occupied Charleston forthwith. This changed the

military’s mission from managing an occupied city to preparing for and implementing the

huge task of withdrawing from that city, with not only the military personnel but also all

civilian families who wanted to leave, along with their property. The deadline date for

evacuation was set for December 14, 1782.

From Colonial to Post-Colonial Thinking: Preparing for Evacuation and

Looking Beyond, 1781 to 1782 and Beyond

Suddenly public discourse shifted, among loyalists at least, from the challenges of re-

establishing civil government and colonial life in a reconstituted South Carolina colony

to—issues of protecting slavery, specifically, insistence that the buying, working, and

selling of slave property should remain solely in the hands of planter/owners, with no

external restrictions. As recognized below, additional issues were also felt to be

important, especially economic issues of trade, credit, debt financing, and more, but the

future of slavery was the major gut issue of immediate concern, arousing the most

passionate defense, and allowing the least degree of compromise.

When the British evacuation was announced, the South Carolina planter class was split

three ways politically—rebels, loyalists wishing to remain, and loyalists wishing to leave

with the evacuation—and they split bitterly over one slavery issue. Those wishing to

remain in South Carolina insisted adamantly that no slave from within the colony/state

should be allowed to leave. But those planning to leave insisted as adamantly on their

right to take their slaves with them. The British military command supported the leaving

owners who wanted to take their slaves with them. But they also further complicated

the situation by insisting that slaves who had assisted the British cause should be given

their freedom.

Changing Values: Loyalty vs. Prosperity

A broader look at the documents microfilmed at the end of the archived Secretary of

State incoming correspondence (Reel 8 documents 172 to 205, except for documents

184 and 185) suggests more than a knee-jerk reaction to an immediately perceived

crisis, as with the issue of slavery. Beyond that level of thinking, which was real and

attention-grabbing but not all that was going on, was a larger, more complex process in

which changing times were altering the mix of relevant public concerns. (See note at

end of Reel 8 with Table 16, which illustrates changes in issues considered important in

documents 172 to 205.)

In an oversimplified nutshell, issues of loyalty and obedience to a “foreign” king,

parliament, sovereign, and empire, etc. were giving way to issues of accomplishing

successful self-rule at home, ensuring that politics and government would serve the

interests of “the people” rather than those of the sovereign, the government, the

colony, or the empire, and that the public issues of primary interest were those that

fostered private prosperity and individual freedom. The documents here only hint

at the change in the direction in thinking. They do not tell the story, which, in any case,

was just then beginning to emerge.

In Reel 8, the incoming Secretary of State correspondence for South Carolina (as

microfilmed) ends abruptly in mid-October 1782 (as final preparations were being made

to evacuate Charleston in December). A gap exists in this correspondence between

document 171 and before, with dates of January 31, 1781 and earlier, and document

172 and after, with dates of August 31, 1781 and later. Correspondence prior to the

gap ended to focus on matters of war power, British sovereignty, and colonial

authority. After the gap, a distinctly different focus seems to have emerged, based

more on post-war hopes for and concerns about economic prosperity.

Some of the documents with later dates are petitions and memorials from merchants in

England and in South Carolina, seeking in the post-war period either to retain existing

trading partners or to develop new ones. All are interested in free-trade policies.

Others memorialized for reduced regulation of debt and credit opportunities, and

others yet in favor of allowing “neutral bottoms” (English, American, and neutral

vessels) to carry trade products among markets.

Two letters with the earlier focus on war, sovereignty, and colonialism were misfiled

before microfilming, causing confusion in the changes otherwise clear before and after

the gap. Documents 184 and 185, dated August 20 and 21, 1980, are up-beat war

letters written by General Cornwallis to Secretary of State Germain. In microfilmed

order, they appear among other correspondence dated in August 1781, whose subject

matter is quite different.

The slavery issue was also, of course, an economic issue. But it was much more in

addition—a social, a cultural, and above all else, a race issue. More immediately also,

there was the issue of relations between South Carolinians who had been “rebels” and

those who had been “loyalists” but had chosen to remain in South Carolina as the war

was ending. Rebel-Loyalist hostilities remained raw wounds because the two sides

had been vilifying each other for so long, and because both sides had confiscated

property (especially plantation land and slaves) from the other.

The tangle of confiscations, claims, counter claims, and debts made resolution

problematic and hostilities further frayed. (See especially the ledger dated January 5,

1781 of “Demands Brought Against Sequestered Estates,” in Reel 14, Volume 535.)

Sequestered estates were confiscated plantations by another name. In South

Carolina, British military officials used this term for plantations identified by a

Commissioner of Sequestered Estates, that were owned by prominent “rebel” plantation

owners, against whom lists of loyalists had made claims for loans due or damages

payable. The official policy was that the sequestered plantations would be operated by

available slaves to produce food for the British military forces in the southern colonies.

While that may have been accomplished to some extent, the hostility factor suggests

that a good deal of private vengeance and greed were involved.

Besides this cluster of economic concerns were political concerns that now had to

refocus from hostility and war to toward peace, popular public governance, and

American sovereignty. This included improving the functioning of South Carolina

State government. These papers, being British and colonial, do not dwell much on such

issues of the future, except to hint at their relevance, as in the 1782 correspondence

about the State’s role in the issue of the mobility of slaves during the evacuation. By

that time, the 1776 State Constitution had already been substantially amended in 1778

to fix initial glitches.

State of South Carolina: Alternative Government on the Threshold,

1782

Meanwhile, the State of South Carolina government, such as it was, had been trying

to catch up with what people were thinking it should be. During the British occupation of

Charleston, which had been the colonial capital and was expected to be the State

capital, the State government had been convening at the small town of Jacksonboro,

about 35 miles west of Charleston. Seeking to represent planter interests, Governor

John Mathews decided to enter the fray on the current, pre-evacuation slavery issues.

He sought first to cut a deal with British military commander General Leslie on the

(legal) movement of slaves, while, second, he was also engaging in certain behind-the-

scene (illegal) intrigues that included “rescuing” (actually kidnapping) slaves who were

about to be transported away. Mathew’s maneuvering backfired, revealing both the

ineptitude of the nascent State government and the imperious nature of the military

power exercised by General Leslie. (See Reel 8 documents 176 to 179 and 189 to 204,

dated in August and October 1782.) Meanwhile, planning continued for an on-time

evacuation of Charleston.

Evacuation of Charleston and Demise of Colonial South Carolina,

December 14, 1782

So, December 14, 1782 was a watershed day, but in different ways for different people

(see also “winners and losers” below).

 The cause of South Carolina colonialism finally failed on this day. The last

vestige of British authority sailed away, leaving behind those who had chosen to

remain as citizens of the State of South Carolina and the United States of

America.

 The cause of creating independent states in America received a considerable

boost, as the British impediment to development of a new State of South

Carolina was eliminated, although the State’s initial government had not yet

proved its competency.

 Although much mending of relationships and settlement of property ownership

claims remained to be resolved, members of South Carolina’s planter class

remained reconfirmed in their one nonnegotiable demand from society and

government, that they would be left alone to do as they wished with their African

slaves.

 And, for South Carolina’s slave population, this day was a deep but predictable

disappointment. At this time, neither the planters nor the slaves were likely to

have anticipated that, 83 years later, the American government would be

requiring emancipation of all slaves.

Winners and Losers: Demographic and Geographic Impacts of Britain’s

Evacuation of Charleston, December 1782

The evacuation was both an ending and a beginning. Those who remained looked

forward to something new and different in South Carolina, whether that might appear

positive or negative. The white civilian families who left in the evacuation were seeking,

if they could find it, the status quo ante—a return to the stability of British rule that

included support for slavery and slave labor. Of course the slaves who left with their

masters must have had different preferences, but they were not asked. Table 4

provides secondary clues about the demographics of those who left and where they

went. In summary, a total of 5,327 “Blacks” left Charleston with the British. Of these, all

but 153 were bound for places dominated by plantation agriculture using slave labor.

Unsubstantiated estimates suggest that South Carolinians may have used force to keep

about another 25,000 slaves from leaving with the British.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 4

RETURN OF PEOPLE FROM SOUTH CARO LINA, CHARLESTOWN, 13th DECEMBr.,

1782.

Whites............................

From Whence Embarked To What Place Men Women Chil'd'n Blacks Total

Charleston Jamaica 600 300 378 2,613 3,891

Charleston East Florida 630 306 337 1,653 2,926

Charleston " " 166 57 119 558 900

England 137 74 63 50 324

Halifax 163 133 121 53 470

New York 100 40 50 50 240

St. Lucia 20 350 370

TOTAL 1,816 910 1,068 5,327 9,121

Source: Mass. Historical Society Miscellaneous Papers, 1769-1793. Vol. V, p. 139

______________________________________________________________________

Colonial Government Structure

In the big picture, the colony of South Carolina was but a small bit in the intercontinental

empire the British were busy conquering, organizing, and colonizing. Still, as colonies

went, those along the Atlantic coast of North America were better organized, more

highly developed, and more prosperous than some others. And each colony had a

direct connection with British power at the top, primarily through the Board of Trade and

the Secretary of State.

British Empire Structure (relevant to Colonial South Carolina)

The King: Sovereign ruler, sharing power with Parliament

Parliament: Representative, elected House of Commons;

Appointed House of Lords

King’s Privy Council: Key advisors to King; appointed

Privy Council Committee for Plantations: Responsible for advising on

colonial matters pertaining to trade and plantations

Board of Trade and Plantations (among many Ministries): The economic

development arm of the British colonial system. Like a chamber of commerce, a

lobbying organizaton. But also a governmental agency, which wielded considerable

clout in colonial economic development plus governmental operations and foreign

policy until the mid-1760s, when the Secretary of State assumed most of these

responsibilities and powers. As the American protest/rebellious/revolutionay

movement heated up, the Board of Trade was relegated to secondary status in

relation to the Secretary of State.

Secretary of State office (among many Ministries): Until the late 1760s,

Secretaries of State for the Southern Department shared power with the Board of

Trade to promote economic development and to help provide protection needed to

foster colonial expansion, especially in relatations with the Nations of Indians that

lived on the interior frontiers, or even along the coasts. After 1768, Secretaries of

State for the Colonies wielded more direct power in guiding and regulating colonial

governmental authority, relations with foreign powers and Indian Nations, and more.

South Carolina Royal Colony Structure

Colonial Governor: Appointed by the King with Royal Commission; guided by

initial General Instructions and possibly Additional Instructions from King

Lieutenant Governor: Appointed by the King; usually a member of the Council;

answerable to the Governor

Chief Justice: Appointed by the King, usually a member of the Council; head of

the colonial judicial system; answerable to the Governor but in practice

professionally independent within the judicial system

Justices: Appointed by the King; judges in the colonial judicial system;

answerable to Chief Justice but in practice professionally independent in most

cases

Attorney General: Appointed by the King; usually a member of the Council;

head of the prosecution and incarceration parts of the colonial judicial system;

answerable to the Governor but in practice professionally independent in his

realm, but guided by the Chief Justice

[also other individual appointed officials of lesser rank]

[Recommendations from the Governor and/or Council: were frequently recognized

and honored by the Board of Trade, Secretary of State, and Privy Council officials

who directly influenced royal appointment making.]

Royal Council/Upper House of Assembly: Advisors to Governor; appointed by

the King (usually recommended by the Governor); also sat as upper legislative

house of the colony’s Assembly

Commons House/Lower House of Assembly: Elected legislative body

British Military Structure for Occupation of Charleston

Background: When the colonial government of South Carolina collapsed under

pressure from an American colonist “rebellion” on September 15, 1775, the only

remaining British authority in the colony was military, exercised where and when

military force could enforce it. In May 1780, British military power successfully

captured Charlest (but not the rest of South Carolina), and imposed military

occupation on the city.

Military Command: Headed by the military commander at Charleston; appointed as

part of the British Army military structure; operated under martial law;answerable to

the British Commander for the Southern Department, who was answerable to the

Commander in Chief for British Forces in North America.

Board of Police: Quasi-civilian govenmental structure created by and answerable

to the military commander at Charleston, who appointed the Board members and

other officials; meant to help fill the government services gap because Charleston

had no city government under colonial law; operated certain functions, under military

control but not martial law, especially a civilian judicial system; and, through the

Charleston Council, approved petitions for declarations of allegiance to the King.

Top officials of the British Government (relevant to South Carolina)

and of South Carolina Colonial Government

The King

George II ruled 1727 to 1760

George III ruled 1760 to 1820

Lords of Trade

They collectively operated the Board of Trade and Plantations; appointed by the King.

In practice, they made a practice of signing their outgoing correspondence individually,

apparently depending on who happened to be in the office when a particular letter was

being finalized (and perhaps edited). Reel 3 Volume 381 documents 1 to 151 contain

drafts of outgoing letters from the Board of Trade. Each was signed by several Lords of

Trade.

The list below compiles the names of those whose signatures appear on drafts and the

span of time during which each Lord was actively signing correspondence. The

microfilmed correspondence is dated from 1720 to 1738 and from 1764 to 1774, with a

large gap between the two sets. Since these drafts were written into letter books, it is

likely that an entire letter book or letter books have been lost.

Dates of first and last signature do not necessarily reflect dates of service for a member

of the Board of Trade. Each may have started serving earlier than the first signature

date and may have continued serving after the last signature date. This list illustrates

the hands-on involvement of individual Lords of Trade during two lengthy periods in the

Century.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 5: Lords of Trade, According to Dates of First and Last Recorded

Signature on Microfilmed Draft Letters from the Board of Trade and Plantations,

for dates from 1720 to 1774

Lord of Trade Date of first recorded signature Date of last recorded signature

Charles Cooke August 16, 1720 August 30, 1720

Paul Docminique August 16, 1720 August 10, 1738

Martin Bladen August 16, 1720 November 28, 1738

Earl of Westmorland August 16, 1720 February 28, 1735

(The Earl of Westmorland was 1

Lord of Trade from 1719 until 1735)

John Chetwynd August 30, 1720 July 22, 1724

Thomas Pelham December 20, 1722 February 17, 1738

Sir J. Hobart June 19, 1723 [one date only]

Richard Plumer July 26, 1723 November 28, 1738

W. Cary November 17, 1727 February 20, 1730

T. Frankland November 17, 1727 April 15, 1730

Orlando Bridgeman November 17, 1727 May 5, 1737

Edward Ashe February 20, 1730 June 6, 1738

Archer Croft May 23, 1730 November 28, 1738

James Brudenell June 10, 1730 November 28, 1738

Earl FitzWalter June 26, 1735 June 14, 1737

R. S. Herbert September 1, 1737 July 6, 1738

Sir John Monson September 1, 1737 August 10, 1738

(John Monson, 1

Baron Monson, was 1

Lord of Trade from June 1737

until his death in 1748)

[Note: Major gap in microfilmed drafts of outgoing Board of Trade correspondence

from after November 28, 1738 until before June 25, 1764.]

Earl of Hillsborough December 24, 1764 February 15, 1765

September 15, 1768 December 28, 1771

(Wills Hill, 1

Earl of Hillsborough, was 1

Lord of Trade from 1763 to 1768;

as Secretary of State for the Colonies, he remained the leader in fact of the

Board of Trade until 1772)

Soame Jenyns December 24, 1764 February 21 1774

(Soame Jenyns was 1

Lord of Trade after Hillsborough became Secretary

of State for the Colonies in 1768 until 1779)

Edward Bacon December 24, 1764 [one date only]

Bamber Gascoyne December 24, 1764

November 2, 1772 October 25, 1774

Jeremiah Dyson December 24, 1764 July 13, 1767

Lord Orwell February 15, 1765 [one date only]

Lord Dartmouth December 24, 1765 July 11, 1766

November 1, 1772 October 25, 1774

John Roberts December 24, 1765 June 21, 1771

George Rice January 24, 1766 July 25, 1766

William Fitzherbert January 24, 1766 December 28, 1771

Viscount Palmerston January 24, 1766 July 4, 1766

Viscount Clare January 6, 1767 July 22, 1767

(Robert Nugent, 1

Earl Nugent)

Thomas Robinson July 22, 1767 November 22, 1769

Edward Eliot July 6, 1769 June 21, 1771

Earl of Lisburne July 6, 1769 November 22, 1769

William Northey November 21, 1770 November 24, 1770

George Greville November 21, 1770 October 25, 1774

Robert Spencer December 7, 1770 October 25, 1774

Thomas Whately February 13, 1771 April 24, 1774

Lord Garlies November 2, 1772 [one date only]

(Earl of Galloway)

Whitshed Keene February 21, 1774 June 20, 1774

_____________________________________________________________________

Secretaries of State

The British government included multiple Secretaries of State. Generally, only one of

these had direct responsibilities in relation to the American colonies. This Secretary of

State shared responsibilities for colonial development with the Board of Trade. The

Secretary of State’s “state” responsibilities included relations with foreign nations in

colonial competition with Britain (especially Spain and France during this period) plus,

most importantly, relations with the Indian Nations adjacent to settled areas of the

British colonies. As policy priorities changed, Secretaries of State changed title, were

reorganized, and gained or lost power in relation to the Board of Trade.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 6a: Secretaries of State for the Southern Department (1727 to 1768)

Responsible for southern North American colonies plus Carribean and West Indian

colonies until 1768.

John Carteret, 3

Lord Carteret March 1721 to March 1724

Thomas Pelham-Holles,

Duke of Newcastle April 1724 to January 1746

John Carteret, 2

Earl of Granville February to April 1746

Thomas Pelham-Holles,

Duke of Newcastle April 1746 to February 1748

John Russell, 4

Duke of Bedford February 1748 to June 1751

Robert Darcy, 4

Earl of Holdernesse June 1751 to March 1754

Thomas Robinson March to October 1754

Henry Fox Nov. 1754 to Nov. 1756

William Pitt (Elder) December 1756 to April 1757

Robert Darcy, 4

Earl of Holdernesse April to June 1757

William Pitt (Elder) June 1757 to October 1761

Charles Wyndham, 2nd Earl of Egremont October 1761 to August 1763

George Montague-Dunk, 2

Earl of Halifax September 1763 to July 1765

Henry Seymour Conway July 1765 to May 1766

Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond May to July 1766

William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne July 1766 to October 1768

Table 6b: Secretaries of State for the Colonies (1768 to 1782)

In 1768, Secretaries of State gained power at expense of Board of Trade as priority

issues shifted from economic development to colonial regulation and governance;

jurisdiction changed to include all North American colonies, not just the southern ones.

Wills Hill, 1

Earl of Hillsborough February 1768 to August 1772

William Legge, 2

Earl of Dartmouth August 1772 to November 1775

George Germain, 1

Viscount Sackville November 1775 to March 1782

Germain was the last of the Secretaries of State for the Colonies. When Lord North’s

“war government” fell in early 1782, Germain’s term as Secretary of State ended. As

Britain sought to move on from a failed war in America, the Secretary of State office

again reorganized and changed terminology. What had been the colonial office now

became the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (or Home

Secretary). Political instability also returned temporarily.

Table 6c: Secretaries of State for the Home Department (1782 to 1789)

In 1782 Secretary of State policies shifted again as Britain withdrew from its failed

attempt to subdue American colonial rebellion by military force. “Foreign” policies were

de-emphasized, while “home” policies were emphasized. At the same time, the Board

of Trade was abolished.

William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne March to July 1782

(he became prime minister in July 1782)

Thomas Townshend, 1

Viscount Sydney July 1782 to April 1783 and

December 1783 to 1789

______________________________________________________________________

Colonial Governors and Charleston Occupation Leaders

During a transition period between 1719 and the mid-1720s, South Carolina changed

from being a proprietary colony (since 1663) to a Royal Colony. A transition governor

helped make the change. Thereafter, royal governors ruled colonial South Carolina

until 1775. During Britain’s war to stamp out the American rebellion, Charleston was

ruled briefly (from May 1780 to December 1782) under British military occupation by

other kinds of leaders.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 7a: Transition Governor of South Carolina

Governor during transition between proprietary and royal colonies; appointed by a

convention responsible for negotiating and managing the transition.

James Moore 1719-1721

Table 7b: Royal Governors of South Carolina (1721 to 1775)

Appointed by the King; received a royal Commission symbolic of the sovereign power

each exercised as the King’s ruling representative to the colony; when first appointed,

received extensive written General Instructions, which served as the governor’s official

guide to ruling as the King wished; some governors received Additional Instructions

when particular added guidance was deemed necessary.

Francis Nicholson May 1721 to May 1725

Arthur Middleton May 1725 to December 1730 (Acting)

Robert Johnson December 1730 to May 1735

Thomas Broughton May 1735 to November 1737 (Acting)

William Bull Sr. November 1737 to December 1743 (Acting)

Samuel Horsey (appointed 1738 but never served)

James Glen December 1743 to June 1756

William Henry Lyttelton June 1756 to April 1760

Thomas Pownall (appointed in 1760 but never served)

William Bull II April 1760 to December 1761 (Acting)

(Lieutenant Governor 1759 to 1775)

Thomas Boone December 1761 to May 1764

William Bull II May 1764 to June 1766 (Acting)

Charles Greville Montagu June 1766 to May 1768

William Bull II May 1768 to October 1768 (Acting)

Charles Greville Montagu October 1768 to July 1769

William Bull II July 1769 to September 1771 (Acting)

Charles Greville Montagu September 1771 to March 1773

William Bull II March 1773 to June 1775 (Acting)

William Campbell June 1775 to September 1775

Table 7c: Leaders of British Military Occupation and Rule in Charleston, for

over two years, with a Civilian Component

After lack of colonial government in South Carolina since September 1775, British

military siege and capture of Charleston in May 1780, followed by military occupation

rule for over two years in Charleston only, not the rest of South Carolina; still no civil

government, except for military creation of quasi-civil governmenal Board of Police to

operate civil judicial system and certain urban services; military commander in full

charge but delegated limited authority to Intendant of Board of Police to manage

authorized services.

British Military Commander

Brigadier General Alexander Leslie ? 1780 to December 1782

Intendant General of Board of Police

Former Attorney General James Simpson Late 1780 to mid-1781

Lieutenant Governor William Bull II Mid-1781 to December 1782

______________________________________________________________________

Colonial Leadership: Longevity and Effectiveness in Office

This volunteer researcher has had the privilege to create DLAR Finding Aids for the

CO5 Colonial Papers of four contiguous (but very different) southern colonies. These

include West Florida, East Florida, Georgia, and now South Carolina. With this

perspective in mind, here are a few (un-researched) comparative impressions about

how longevity in colonial leadership might influence the effectiveness of colonial rule,

based on South Carolina’s remarkable record of instability and lack of longevity (except

for Governor Glen and Lieutenant Governor Bull).

The premise is that the history of a British colony is influenced considerably by the

capabilities of and approach taken to governing by its colonial governors. One measure

of his capabilities is a governor’s longevity in office. At the least, this is a measure of

the degree of stability in governing and managing economic development within the

colony. Comparing colonies can be instructive in understanding the trajectory of their

colonial experiences. Certainly other factors are at play as well, but these thoughts

focus on longevity and effectiveness.

To oversimplify shamelessly, British West Florida’s governors were generally weak and

ineffective, even when present. One result was the ease with which Spain subdued

West Florida militarily in early 1781. By contrast, East Florida benefited from having

relatively few governors who remained in office for longer periods and were capable

administratively and skilled politically. By contrast with West Florida, East Florida

maintained its colonial integrity until 1785, as the governor organized and implemented

a British evacuation on a British schedule and largely on British terms, despite the fact

that the 1783 Treaty of Paris had returned imperial control of both Floridas to Spain.

Colonial Georgia differed considerably from East Florida politically, although they both

had strong, capable governors. The latter remained staunchly loyalist throughout the

revolutionary period and contributed militarily on the British side of the Southern

Campaign in the later years of the war. Georgia, on the other hand, was split politically

but with enough intensity on the anti-British side to sustain a successful rebellion and

revolution. However, the colony’s sole major governor, true-blue loyalist James

Wright, led the colony steadfastly from 1760 to 1782, except during a three-year period

of exile from 1776 to 1779. By contrast, South Carolina’s governorship changed hands

11 times between 1756 and 1775. Five out of the 11 leaders were a single person, the

perennial Lieutenant Governor William Bull II, who stepped up to govern without the

title each time a governor left or took a leave of absence (see Table 8 below).

Despite the appearance of loyalist longevity and stability suggested by Bull’s total of

almost 17 years as Lieutenant Governor (1759 to 1775), and his cumulative total of over

9 years as acting governor (spread between 1760 and 1775), Commons House of the

Assembly exhibited more consistent and effective institutional longevity on the rebel

side between 1758 and 1775.

As a result of this and other differences, South Carolina’s colonial government crumbled

under pressure in 1775 (except for later military rule in Charleston, during which Bull

made a sixth appearance), while Georgia’s colonial government held out until 1782

(except for three years of exile). (See more on Bull’s life and public-service contribution

to colonial South Carolina in the note after Reel 8 document 180.)

Two generations of the William Bull family combined to provide long-term public service

in South Carolina. This unique stretch brought the colonial government not just

longevity but also a fairly consistent level of organization competence. William Bull

Sr.’s contribution in a previous generation sounds remarkably like his son’s. He served

as Lieutenant Governor for just over 17 years (from 1738 to 1755), and for six of these

years, he served as acting governor (from 1737 to 1743).

______________________________________________________________________

Table 8: Longevity of South Carolina Governors and Acting Governors

(The Intendant General of the Board of Police is included for completeness, although it

has little bearing on effectiveness.)

Francis Nicholson Served 5/1721 to 5/1725 (replaced) 4 yr. 1 mo.

(did not resign until 1729)

Arthur Middleton Served 5/1725 to 12/1730 (acting) 5 yr. 8 mo.

Robert Johnson Served 12/1730 to 5/1735 (died) 4 yr. 6 mo.

Thomas Broughton Served 5/1735 to 11/1737 (acting; died) 2 yr. 7 mo.

William Bull Sr. 11/1737 to 12/1743 (acting) 6 yr. 2 mo.

Samuel Horsey (appointed 1738 but never served)

James Glen Served 12/1743 to 6/1756 (recalled) 12 yr. 6 mo.

William Henry Lyttelton Served 6/1756 to 4/1760 (promoted) 3 yr. 11 mo.

Thomas Pownall (appointed 1760 but never served)

William Bull II Served 4/1760 to 12/1760 (acting) 1 yr. 9 mo.

Thomas Boone Served 12/1761 to 5/1764 (recalled) 2 yr. 6 mo.

William Bull II Served 5/1764 to 6/1766 (acting) 2 yr. 1 mo.

Charles Greville Montagu Served 6/1766 to 5/1768 (5 mo. leave) 12 mo.

William Bull II Served 5/1768 to 10/1768 (acting) 5 mo.

Charles Greville Montagu Served 10/1768 to 7/1769 (27 mo. leave) 10 mo.

William Bull II Served 7/1769 to 9/1771 (acting) 2 yr. 3 mo.

Charles Greville Montagu Served 9/1771 to 3/1773 (resigned) 1 yr. 7 mo.

(total time active as Governor 3 yr. 5 mo.)

(total time with Governor title 6 yr. 10 mo.)

William Bull II Served 3/1773 to 6/1775 (acting) 2 yr. 5 mo.

William Campbell Served 6/1775 to 9/1775 (fled Charleston) 4 mo.

(end of colonial government)

Lieutenant Governor

William Bull II Served early 1759 to 9/1775 almost 17 yr.

(total time acting as governor 9 yr. 1 mo.)

Intendant General of the Charleston Board of Police

James Simpson Served 6/1780 to 2/1781 8 mo.

William Bull II Served 2/1781 to 12/1782 1 yr. 10 mo.

______________________________________________________________________

Organizing Correspondence: Focus on Archiving

The core materials found in the South Carolina Colonial Papers are correspondence. In

a sense, the British Empire ran on written communications. In the 18

Century,

governments functioned at the speed of the preparation, delivery, and organized

archiving of written correspondence.

Preparation depended on the availability of paper, ink, quill pens, scriveners, and

(hopefully) legible handwriting. Employed scriveners—clerks and secretaries—could

make a difference in legibility. Yet the colonial governors of South Carolina tended to

write their own letters.

Delivery of government correspondence was probably as reliable and rapid as was

available during an era when mail was delivered by land mostly on horseback and by

sea in sailing ships. An intercontinental imperial/colonial governmental system could

operate only as quickly as a paper letter could be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean

and then a response could be prepared and shipped back. Major uncertainties existed

in cross-Atlantic mail delivery, the most significant of which were stormy weather and

hostile humans, whether enemy naval ships, privateers, or pirates. These could either

delay or doom a ship’s passage to or from England. To reduce the probability of delay

or doom, multiple copies of letters, dispatches, etc., were sent on separate ships.

Letters found in the microfilmed documents might be identified as an original, a

duplicate, a triplicate, etc. Or a letter might be identified as a copy, meaning usually

that it was being sent to a different recipient than the person to whom the letter was

addressed.

Archiving of governmental correspondence was necessary to keep government going.

In the 18

Century, before the advent of computers or even typewriters and copiers, all

archiving was manual and paper-intensive. For both current operations and subsequent

follow-up, reference, and changes, all the accumulated paper that mattered had to be

organized, stored, and perhaps indexed so that particular letters could be retrieved as

needed.

These observations about organizing correspondence focus on archiving.

Archival Organizing:

1. Chronological Bundling

The first level of archival organizing, practiced for the CO5 South Carolina Colonial

Papers and for most archiving of historical materials, was to bundle the documents

physically into Volumes of manageably sized bunches of documents, arranged in

chronological order.

This archival organizing is, of course, especially useful for researchers as well, and its

lack can be a major headache. A major good reason for a Finding Aid is to assist

scholars in picking through the seeming chaos of a manuscript collection to understand

and use the archivists’ organization (or to deal with the lack thereof), so that they can

focus on the materials they need for a particular research project.

The South Carolina Colonial Papers are an interesting example of reasonably well

organized archived papers of one British royal colony, which existed from about 1720 to

1775, and, some might argue, longer. As outlined above, three major British

bureaucracies interacted to govern the colony of South Carolina: The King and Privy

Council, the Board of Trade and Plantations, and the office of the Secretary of State.

To oversimplify considerably, the King and Privy Council controlled policy, made

decisions, and handed down orders, while the Board and Secretary offices implemented

policies, orders. Thus, most of the paperwork was done at the Board and Secretary

office level, although certain paperwork to and from the King and Privy Council also was

archived by the Board and Secretary offices.

In practice, the archiving of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State offices was done

separately, although personnel and operations were intertwined. They also were done

differently, although overlaps and borrowing of methods are evident. The processes of

both also evolved over time, especially encouraged by the reorganizational thinking,

during the last half of the 1760s, of two individuals, the Earl of Shelburne and the Earl of

Hillsborough. Each spent time as a leader among the Lords of Trade before being

appointed a Secretary of State. Hillsborough followed Shelburne, with Shelburne

innovating, Hillsborough institutionalizing, and subsequent Secretaries of State

continuing to use the methods they had established.

The innovations that Shelburne and Hillsborough introduced and institutionalized went

beyond chronological organizing to include a second, third, and fourth, different way of

numbering documents for archival purposes:

2. Numbering of Documents by Archivists

 Since 1720 the Board of Trade had used a system for numbering individual

official-correspondence documents within each Volume. The Volume was

assigned a letter (starting with A. for the first Volume chronologically). Then,

each document within that Volume was assigned a consecutive number in the

order in which the letters were placed in the Volume. The Board of Trade used

this system for official-correspondence documents with dates from 1720 to 1775

(Volume 358 [A.] to volume 381 [P.])

Beginning in 1767, Secretary of State Shelburne borrowed this system from the

Board of Trade and applied it to establish the same document numbering system

for Secretary of State papers, beginning with Volume 391 [A.]. The practice was

continued in Volumes 392 [B.], 393 [C.], and 394 [D.] (1767 to 1772) but was

abandoned seemingly abruptly in the middle of Volume 394 after document D.18.

(July 10, 1771).

3. Numbering of Letters by Authors

 Beginning in 1766, Secretaries of State, beginning with Shelburne and running

through Lord Germain (and beyond?), began a practice of numbering their

letters to colonial governors and to request that the governors similarly number

their letters to the Secretary of State. For Secretaries and Governors who

retained office for a long time, the numbers of consecutively numbered,

chronologically ordered letters could become quite long. The “record” in South

Carolina was compiled by Lieutenant Governor William Bull II, who through a

long career in public service with no change in title, recurringly led South

Carolina as an acting governor when the colony had no governor or when a

governor was away on leave. Through one particularly long stretch of governing

the colony, he wrote 90 numbered letters.

For the Secretaries and Governors and their archivists, this numbering process

must have been quite useful. From a researcher’s perspective, it can become

confusing. For instance, On May 4, 1771, Hillsborough (in London) wrote his

letter No. 46 to acting governor Bull, while on May 7, 1771, Bull (in Charleston)

wrote his letter No. 46 to Hillsborough. Bull wrote more frequently than

Hillsborough, so Bull’s series of letters had caught up with and then overtook

Hillsborough’s. Confusion also comes when a Secretary or a Governor leaves

office or goes on leave. In some cases, a new incumbent started a new series

with No. 1; in others, he continued a previous series of his own or started with the

following number after his predecessor’s last letter.

For a summary analysis of the use of numbered letters by Secretaries of State,

South Carolina colonial governors and South Carolina colonial acting governor,

see Table 9 below.

4. Maintaining and Numbering Extracts, Abstracts, Summaries, and Transcripts

of Actual Documents

 Starting in 1766, the archivists and scriveners in the Secretary of State office

began a third project, which may have seemed logical as the sheer number of

official-correspondence documents expanded. Besides archiving the actual

documents of correspondence and other kinds of documents in Volumes, the

scriveners began to keep letter books with abstracts of the Secretary of State’s

official incoming and outgoing correspondence. For microfilm locations of actual

letters and abstract letters in the South Carolina Colonial Papers, see Table 10

below.

Abstracts are different from extracts, but the two are easily confused. A few

definitions may help:

 Extracts are found frequently, especially as enclosures to letter,

throughout these microfilmed documents. Extracting suggests that a

certain portion of document text has been selected and quoted without the

remaining text. The person doing the extracting usually has a purpose for

selecting and quoting specific text. Although extracts may be accurate

copies of original text, a historian using them must be aware of the

purpose for which certain text was selected and other text was not.

 Abstracts, rather than selectively quoting, often summarize the content of

a full document. A summary includes paraphrases and other explanatory

language rather than quotes. Those writing summaries exercise

discretion or motivation in the wording they choose. Depending on the

nature of the contents and the closeness of paraphrases to the original

text, summaries usually cannot be “trusted” by historians to be accurate

without also consulting the original document. A particular version of

summarizing is called abstracting. In this particular sense, an abstract is

a document that is more formally summarized in detail, usually organized

into differing content subjects in separate sections often identified by a

sequence of letters. Reels 10, 11, and 12 in the South Carolina Colonial

Papers letter books are full of summaries and abstracts.

 Transcripts take abstracting a step further, transcribing a full copy or

transcription of an entire document, word for word, rather than simply

summarizing it. Depending on the unbiased and careful accuracy of

transcribers, historians may selectively rely on transcripts as accurate,

especially when original documents are unavailable. Especially in Reels

11 and 12, especially beginning in 1768, many abstracted documents are

full transcripts of original documents.

Archival Confusion: Too Many Numbering Systems

As the Secretary of State office soon learned, using both individual letter numbers

and general numbering of documents in abstract letter books caused confusion.

Initially, each separate document, when written into an abstract letter book, was

assigned a number, in the order in which each document was entered. So, if a letter

No. 3, for instance, was written as the sixth letter in the book, it was assigned two

different numbers. To avoid this difficulty, at first, the number assigned to an official

letter was the same as its archival abstract number. But This caused a new problem for

those trying to keep track of the flow of correspondence. It created the appearance of

missing letters, since the numbered letters were scattered chronologically among other

documents, not together in consecutive order. To resolve this issue, later abstract

books assigned no numbers to documents (especially circular letters) that were not

official correspondence personally from a secretary of state to a governor. Then, the

official letters in a Volume could be assigned consecutive numbers.

The Board of Trade archivists also created abstract documents in different way. Rather

than abstracted correspondence, four Volumes in Reels 10 to 12 contain abstracts of

documents pertaining to “Commissions, Instructions, Etc.” (referring to the

Commission the King issued to each new royal governor and to the formal lists of

General Instructions the King delivered to each one, plus subsequent Additional

Instructions sent to sitting governors, as needed. Other kinds of documents are also

included, especially various kinds of written communication between the King and/or his

Privy Council and the Board of Trade.

Many of the abstract documents, especially in the Secretary of State letter books, are

also found as actual documents in the microfilmed collection. However, some, including

a few numbered letters, are found only as transcripts. Thus, the transcribing process

has helped in a small way to ensure almost full series of numbered letters in these

microfilmed papers.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 9: Analysis of Numbered Letters: (with contextual notes)

● between Board of Trade and South Carolina Governors/Acting Governor, and

● between Secretaries of State and South Carolina Governors/Acting Governor

BOARD OF TRADE to Governor MONTAGU

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

Note: The Board of Trade did not number its outgoing letters.

MONTAGU to BOARD OF TRADE

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

Note: Governor Montagu did not number his letters to the Board of Trade. Between

August 6, 1766 and November 10, 1767 he sent seven microfilmed letters to the Board

of Trade (Reel 2 documents scattered between 64 and 88)

Lieutenant Governor and acting governor BULL to BOARD OF TRADE

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 1 May 30, 1768 to Reel 2 document 91

No. 5 September 6, 1768 X Reel 2 document 95

Note: After his letter No. 5, Bull discontinued numbering his letters to the Board of

Trade.

SECRETARY OF STATE SHELBURNE to MONTAGU:

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 2 October 25, 1766 to Reel 5 document 167

No. 9 October 8, 1767 X Reel 5 document 184

Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7 are circular letters in Volume 407 abstracts of correspondence, so no

letters to individuals received these letter numbers. Letters No. 5 and No. 8 are not

found in the actual microfilmed documents. They are found only as full transcripts in the

abstracts of correspondence in Reel 12, Volume 407, documents 7 and 10 respectively.

Thus, only five of nine were actually written, and all of them are found here as actual

documents or abstract transcripts.

MONTAGU to SHELBURNE

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 2 March 5, 1767 to Reel 5 document 176

No. 12 March 25, 1768 X Reel 6 document 9

Early Montagu to Shelburne letters were unnumbered. Unnumbered, microfilmed

letters are dated between June 29 and December 8, 1766 (scattered in Reel 5 between

documents 149 and 171). Numbered letters #1, #3, #4, and #7 are not microfilmed and

are not otherwise accounted for.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLSBOROUGH to MONTAGU

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 3 February 20, 1768 to Reel 6 document 7

No. 28 July 15, 1769 X Reel 6 document 47

Among letter numbers 3 to 28, only 13 actual letters were written, numbered, and sent

(Nos. 3, 8, 10, 16 to 23, 26, and 28). They also are all microfilmed here. The remaining

letter numbers were assigned to circular letters. Montagu was on a first leave from May

23 to October 30, 1768. Lieutenant Governor William Bull II served briefly as acting

governor—not long enough to generate a new series of numbered letters between

Hillsborough and Bull. Hillsborough wrote letter No. 28 just before Montagu left for his

second health-related leave of absence on July 30 1769.

HILLSBOROUGH to BULL

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 29 November 4, 1769 to Reel 6 document 54

No. 53 July 1, 1772 X Reel 6 document 191

Apparently Montague did not experience the health improvement he had sought by

spending several months in northern colonies in 1768. Therefore, less than a year later,

Montagu embarked on a much longer leave of absence. Spent in England, this second

leave lasted from July 30, 1769 to September 15, 1771. After a four-month break,

between letters No. 28 and No. 29, Hillsborough resumed the same number series, now

corresponding with acting governor Bull. This series lasted until letter No. 53, dated in

July 1772, as Hillsborough was leaving office as a Secretary of State. Among his letters

No. 29 to No. 53, all are found as actual letters in these microfilmed documents except

for the following: No. 32 is not found in the actual microfilmed document but is found as

a full transcript in the abstracts of correspondence in Reel 12, Volume 408, document

36. No. 38 was a circular letter number in Volume 408 and therefore was not used for a

numbered letter to Bull.

MONTAGU to HILLSBOROUGH (1)

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 1 5-13-68 to Reel 6 document 12

No 12 6-30-1769 X Reel 6 document 49

All 12 numbered letters are microfilmed here; Montague wrote no letter No. 4 and two

letters No. 5. The first No. 5 letter is probably actually No. 4, written on September 9,

1768 in New York, where Montagu was on his first health-related leave of absence.

Letter No. 3 was written on May 13, 1768, just before he left. No. 5 was written on

November 21, 1768, soon after he had returned. The last letter in this series, No. 12, is

dated soon before Montagu left for his second leave of absence, from July 30, 1769 to

September 11, 1771, this time in England.

BULL to HILLSBOROUGH

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 13 August 12, 1769 to Reel 6 document 51

No. 53 August 19, 1771 X Reel 6 document 168

As acting governor during Montagu’s second leave of absence, from July 30, 1769 to

September 11, 1771, Bull continued Montagu’s numbered letter series with

Hillsborough, rather than starting a new series. Letter No. 53 is dated soon before

Montagu’s return.

MONTAGU to HILLSBOROUGH (2)

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X unnumbered;

actually No. 1 Sept 26, 1771 to Reel 6 document 169

No. 4 April 27, 1772 X Reel 6 document 186

Upon arrival on September 11, 1771, back in Charleston after his second leave of

absence, Montagu decided to start a new series of numbered letters to Hillsborough.

All four numbered letters are found as actual documents in these microfilmed

documents. Six additional unnumbered letters from Montagu to Hillsborough (between

documents 192 and 202 in Reel 6, dated from June 25, 1772 to October 20, 1772)

cover the period from Montagu’s return to the end of Hillsborough time as Secretary of

State.

SECRETARY OF STATE DARTMOUTH to MONTAGU

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 1 September 27, 1772 to Reel 6 document 198

No. 5 January 6, 1773 X Reel 7 document 1

All five of Dartmouth’s microfilmed numbered letters to Montagu are microfilmed here.

He does not seem to have written additional numbered or unnumbered letters to

Montagu after the end of January 1773.

MONTAGU to DARTMOUTH

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

Montagu wrote no numbered letters to Dartmouth that have survived to be microfilmed.

He did send three unnumbered letters to Dartmouth (Reel 6, document 206, dated

November 4, 1772; Reel 7 document 5, dated January 4, 1773; and Reel 7 document 6,

dated January 21, 1773). During this same period, Dartmouth’s numbered letters to

Montagu tended to be negative in their evaluation of Montagu’s governing decisions.

Montagu’s responses indicated his displeasure with the criticism. This verbal clash led

to action: On March 6, 1773, Montague boarded a naval ship and sailed for England.

As governor, he thus had left his post without permission. Apparently he simply

became fed up with the rebellious situation in South Carolina and was unable to find a

way to deal with it that he thought would be effective and that also was acceptable to

the political leadership in London. On April 10, 1773, he wrote another unnumbered

letter to Dartmouth (Reel 7 document 8) from Falmouth Harbor, England, announcing

his arrival in Europe and his intention to go immediately to London to meet with

Dartmouth, which he did, and then he resigned as governor.

DARTMOUTH to BULL

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 6 June 10, 1773 to Reel 7 document 1

No. 17 December 10, 1774 X Reel 7 document 82

With Montagu no longer governor, William Bull II once again found himself acting as

governor until the King could appoint and send to Charleston a replacement governor.

Dartmouth’s last numbered letter to Montagu was No. 5. Rather than starting his

numbering over again, he numbered his first letter to Bull No. 6. All numbered letters in

this sequence are found in the microfilmed documents.

BULL to DARTMOUTH

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 54 March 30, 1773 Reel 2 document 199

No. 90 May 15, 1775 X Reel 7 document 105

Governor Campbell was expeditiously appointed by the King to succeed Montagu in

March 1773. However, he took a very long time to settle his affairs and find suitable

transport to carry him and his belongings to Charleston. He finally arrived there on June

18, 1775. By that time, the rebellious situation in South Carolina had escalated beyond

reversal.

DARTMOUTH to Governor CAMPBELL

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 18 July 5, 1775 to Reel 7 document 107

No. 19 November 7, 1775 X Reel 7 document 134

Governor Campbell finally arrived in Charleston on June 18, 1775, despite having been

appointed Governor in March 1773. He was not governor for very long. He attempted

futilely for a few months to exercise the King’s authority. However, as the days went

past, his government crumbled around him. By September 15, 1775, the South

Carolina Colonial Government had collapsed and Campbell, fearing for his personal

safety, had fled to the relative safety of a British warship in Charleston harbor.

Dartmouth had time to write only two numbered letters to the new governor whose

government had in the meantime collapsed. He chose to continue the sequence of

letter numbers that had begun with Governor Montagu in 1772 and had been continued

through Bull’s lengthy acting governorship.

CAMPBELL to DARTMOUTH

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 1 July 2, 1775 Reel 7 document 108

No. 11 January 23, 1776 X Reel 7 document 160

As a new Governor, Campbell began a new letter numbering series shortly after his

arrival in Charleston on June 18, 1775. Letters No. 1 to No. 11 are all found as actual

documents and were microfilmed. By mid-September, Campbell had lost his

government and was living aboard naval ships, first in Charleston harbor and then, in

early 1776, at the mouth of the Savannah River. Meanwhile, Germain had replaced

Dartmouth as Secretary of State for the Colonies on November 10, 1775.

SECRETARY OF STATE GERMAIN to CAMPBELL

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 1 December 23, 1775 to Reel 7 document 151

No. 3 January 14, 1777 X Reel 7 document 171

Germain’s infrequent correspondence followed Dartmouth’s with Governor Campbell,

although Germain started his own new letter-number series. All three of Germain’s

numbered letters to Governor Campbell are found in the microfilmed documents. They

were spaced about every six months, the first (December 23, 1775) with promising

news about a southern campaign to recapture Charleston, the second (June 14, 1776)

in anticipation of news about the attempt to recapture Charleston (which failed on June

28, 1776), and the third (January 14, 1777), making clear to Campbell that no new

southern campaign would be planned for some time.

CAMPBELL to GERMAIN

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 12 July 8, 1776 to Reel 7 document 160

No. 14 November 29, 1776 X Reel 7 document 168

Campbell’s numbered correspondence to Germain was more frequent than that to

Dartmouth but was discontinued by the end of November in 1776, after only three

letters, all of which are actual documents. He misnumbered No. 12 as No. 13 but

corrected the error in his actual No. 13. By June 1776, Campbell was present, on the

fleet’s flagship, for the British military’s failed attempt to recapture Charleston, during

which he suffered a significant wound from a flying wood splinter. The flagship took him

to New York, where he lobbied top military officials for a southern campaign but was

told not to expect anything soon. With this gloomy forecast in mind, Campbell returned

to England, where he lived for two years before dying in 1778 from complications

resulting from his unhealed wound. No subsequent Governor of South Carolina was

appointed, either at Campbell’s death or at the recapture of Charleston in May 1780.

After over two years of military occupation in Charleston, the British evacuated in

December 1782, acknowledging their failure to crush the American rebellion by force.

GERMAIN to BULL

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 1 April 4, 1781 to Reel 12 abstract transcript,

Volume 408 document 102

No. 4 February 6, 1782 X Reel 12 abstract transcript

Volume 408 document 106

No actual-document correspondence between Germain and Bull is found during this

period among the microfilmed documents. However, full transcripts of four numbered

letters from Germain to Bull (No. 1 to No. 4) are found in Reel 12 Volume 408

documents 102, 104 to 106. In addition two unnumbered letters, also transcripts, are

found in documents 100 and 101, dated January 8 and March 29, 1781 respectively.

The reason for the Secretary of State’s new interest in communicating with the

remaining ranking member of the South Carolina colonial government, which had

crumbled but not officially died in September 1775, was the changing fortunes of war.

In May 1780, General Henry Clinton’s siege army had successfully forced the surrender

of General Benjamin Lincoln’s defending “rebel” army at Charleston. This victory set off

the imaginations of British and loyalist sympathizers alike that something like the old

South Carolina royal colony could be recreated. Lieutenant Governor William Bull II

was expected to be a leader in reestablishing a proper British civil government. So, Bull

returned to Charleston, still recognized with his old title of Lieutenant Governor. He

soon earned a new title as Intendant General in the quasi-civil government for the city of

Charleston called the Board of Police, which was established by the real British

governing power on the ground, the British military. As Germain was sending his letter

No. 4 the British government in which he served, under Prime Minister Lord North, was

being voted out in Parliament, signaling the end of the British commitment to destroy the

rebellion in America by force. He abrupt policy change was implemented in South

Carolina by a deliberate evacuation of Charleston, completed in December 1782. Thus

ended British hopes for re-establishing colonial rule in South Carolina. William Bull and

many other South Carolina loyalists left with the British troops, seeking a better life as

British subjects in places such as the West Indian colonies or Nova Scotia, or in

England or Scotland.

BULL to GERMAIN

Earliest Letter No. Date on letter Latest found in Document

X No. 1 February 16, 1781 Reel 12, abstract transcript

Volume 410 document 72

No. 5 July 2, 1781 X Reel 12, abstract transcript

Volume 410 document 77

Bull’s return visit to Charleston was relatively short, but he seems to have kept busy

with judicial and other city government affairs through the Board of Police. Two

unnumbered letters follow the five numbered letters, dated November 11 and December

28, 1781 (documents 78 and 79 respectively in Volume 410 in Reel 12). As

Charleston’s future was weighed in the balance in early 1782. Bull’s correspondence

ceased as 1781 ended, and Germain’s shortly into 1782. The history of the British

Royal Colony of South Carolina and of its leaders soon became a story of the past. The

official, numbered letters of South Carolina’s colonial government—and a large quantity

of other documents—remain for us researchers to read and seek to understand.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 10: Locations of Actual Documents and Abstracts of Documents, for

Incoming and Outgoing Correspondence Separately

Board of Trade correspondence incoming actual

(February 3, 1756 to November 10, 1775)

Reel 1 (Volumes 376, 377) Reel 2 (Volumes 378, 379, 380)

Board of Trade correspondence outgoing drafts actual

(August 16, 1720 to October 25, 1774)

Reel 3 (Volume 381)

Secretary of State correspondence incoming actual

(July 24, 1699 to November 26, 1777)

Reel 3 (Volume 382) Reel 4 (Volume 385, 386)

Reel 5 (Volume 389, 390 Reel 6 (Volume 391, 392, 393, 394)

Reel 7 (Volume 395, 396)

Secretary of State correspondence; mostly General incoming actual

Henry Clinton military reports and other post-colonial

correspondence, not all pertaining to South Carolina

(March 2, 1779 to March 1, 1784)

Reel 8 (Volume 397)

Board of Trade Land Grants abstract

(February 9, 1674 to May 18, 1773)

Reel 9 (Volume 398 Reel 10 (Volume 399)

Board of Trade Commissions, Instructions, Etc. incoming & abstract

August 15,1720 to July 19, 1739 and outgoing

November 11, 1760 to June 1, 1775 mixed

Reel 10 (Volume 400, 401) Reel 11 (Volume 404)

Reel 12 (Volume 405)

Board of Trade correspondence incoming abstract

(July 13, 1721 to December 6, 1756)

Reel 12 (Volume 406)

Secretary of State correspondence outgoing abstract

(August 8, 1766 to February 6, 1782

Reel 12 (Volume 407, 408)

Secretary of State correspondence incoming abstract

(December 8 1766 to December 28, 1781)

Reel 12 (Volume 409, 410)

Treasurer of South Carolina’s Account actual

(1758 to 1763)

Reel 13 (Volume 512)

Charleston Board of Police: actual

Evidence on depreciation of paper currency November 5, 1780;

Judicial orders, dockets, lists of causes, rules, and

receipts for papers April 1781 to November 25, 1782;

Proceedings of the Board of Police June 13, 1780 to October 29, 1782

Reel 13 (Volume 513 to 526)

Declarations of Allegiance to the King actual

(mid-June 1780 to late July 1781)

Reel 14 (Volume 527 to 534)

Demands Brought Against Sequestered Estates actual

(January 5, 1781)

Reel 14 (Volume 535)

______________________________________________________________________

Archival Anomalies: Time Gaps, Irregular Ordering, and Unexpected

Contents

The South Carolina Colonial Papers contain several archival anomalies that deserve

mention.

Time Gaps in manuscript collections are an expected occurrence. The cause of any

particular gap is more difficult to discern. Acts of nature? Accidents of people? A few

major gaps in the South Carolina Colonial Papers are summarized below. Also, one

reel among the 14 in this microfilmed collection is uncharacteristically unorganized in

the order of documents microfilmed. Finally, one of the 14 reels contains documents

not directly related to colonial South Carolina, probably because of anomalous archival

filing. These examples of archival anomalies are summarized in Table 11.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 11: Archival Anomalies in the Microfilmed South Carolina Colonial Papers

Time Gap

Reel 3 Volume 381 Board of Trade outgoing draft correspondence

Content of existing Volume: August 16, 1720 to October 25, 1774 Documents 1 to 151

Gap in the middle of the Volume, with neither warning nor explanation.

Gap after: Document 116 November 28, 1738

Gap before: Document 117 June 25, 1764

Possibly one or more letter books are missing.

No other Volumes of microfilmed manuscripts in this collection contain Board of Trade

outgoing draft correspondence during the gap period.

(For more on this gap, see note at beginning of Volume 381.)

Time Gap and Irregular Ordering

Reel 4 Volume 385 Secretary of State incoming correspondence

Content of existing Volume: August 26, 1719 to March 30, 1753 Documents 1 to 64

Most documents are dated in a core period between 1743 and 1753. The few outlier

documents are attachments to correspondence dated within the core period.

The microfilmed order of documents is confused, as follows:

From November 1751: in approximate reverse chronological order To 1743

then

From 1753: in approximate reverse chronological order To 1750

followed by:

Reel 4 Volume 386 Secretary of State incoming correspondence

Content of existing Volume: ? 1721 to August 19, 1775 Documents 65 to 139

Most documents are dated in a core period between 1753 and 1760; a few earlier

outliers are attachments to correspondence dated within the core period. Fewer

documents are found between 1760 and 1775.

The microfilmed order of documents is confused and fragmented, with several

significant gaps, as follows:

Document numbers (in order) Years of correspondence (out of order)

65 to 71 1760 to 1761

72, 73, 83 1772 to 1775

74 to 82 scattered dates, including [no date],

from 1721 to 1736, about 1760, with no date

84 to 139 1753 to 1760 with gaps as follows:

between 102 and 103 gap from December 1756 to December 1757

between 104 and 105 gap from December 1757 to May 1759

(For more on the gap from 1756 to 1759 in Reel 4 and on the anomaly of the reel’s

archival confusion and fragmentation, see notes at beginning of Volumes 385 and 386.)

Time Gap

Reel 5 Volumes 389, 390 Secretary of State incoming correspondence

Content of Volume 389: January 30, 1747 to December 31, 1751 Documents 1 to 110

Content of Volume 390: November 3, 1762 to October 8, 1767 Documents 111 to 187

Gap between Volumes: From December 31, 1751 To November 3, 1762

Reason for gap is not evident. No gap exists in Volume numbering, and no indication is

found that documents are missing. (Note at beginning of Volume 390 indicates

potential locations of documents elsewhere in these microfilmed documents which

might help fill the gap. For actual documents, these locations are in Reels 1 and 4.

However very few documents actually might fit into the gap because date periods do not

match well. The same is true for a few abstract documents in Reels 10 to 12.)

Time Gap, Irregular Ordering, and Unexpected Contents

Reel 8 Volume 397 Secretary of State incoming correspondence

Content of Volume 397: May 1, 1779 to March 1, 1784 Documents 1 to 205

Volume is indexed as final Volume in a series of Secretary of State incoming

correspondence. Similar to prior Volumes in this series, the previous Volume (396, in

Reel 7) contains correspondence and related documents chronologically ordered

between December 24, 1773 and November 26, 1777. It concludes after the fall of the

South Carolina colonial government in September 1775. Its final documents pertain to

Governor William Campbell’s efforts, made after his government had collapsed, to find

ways to re-establish it, a quest that proved fruitless, after which Campbell sailed home

to England in 1777, without further plans. Reel 7, therefore, ends at a real ending.

Yet Reel 8 follows. It indeed contains Secretary of State incoming correspondence, but

it does not follow the pattern of the previous Volumes, and it begins after a significant

time gap. The time gap is from November 26, 1777 to May 1, 1779. But Reel 8 is

not organized chronologically, so the gap is deceiving, because this Volume

contains a series of separate batches of papers archived with no breaks or headings.

Some of these batches pertain directly to South Carolina but some do not. Three of the

batches are reports with supporting documents compiled by General Henry Clinton and

sent to Secretary of State Germain from Charleston on May 13, 1780, immediately

following completion of his victory over Charleston the day before. The subjects of the

three reports are Spanish success in conquering West Florida; negotiations for a

general exchange of prisoners of war in New York, and description of General Benjamin

Lincoln’s final negotiations to capitulate and surrender at Charleston. Although two of

these did not pertain directly to South Carolina, each was filed by the archivists under

“South Carolina,” perhaps because Clinton sent them all from Charleston. In addition,

the West Florida and Charleston capitulation reports with their multiple supporting

documents were sent to and received by Germain twice, and each set was microfilmed

twice.

In addition to Clinton’s reports, this Volume contains other batches of documents. They

include some miscellaneous incoming correspondence but most is military

correspondence to Germain concerning progress of General Cornwallis’ “offensive”

campaign in 1781 from South Carolina northward that ended at Yorktown, Virginia, and

about the British Army’s 1781 to 1782 occupation of Charleston, followed by

preparations for its evacuation. Table 12 contains a descriptive list of the batches of

content in Volume 397. (See Table 15, located at the beginning of Reel 8, for an

expanded and differently focused version of this table.)

______________________________________________________________________

Table 12: Contents of Reel 8 Volume 397: A Collection of Batches of Papers

● Documents 1 to 7 January 3, 1781 to March 1, 1784

Miscellaneous, time-scattered, post-colonial government documents

pertaining to individual situations, grievance, and claims

● Documents 8 to 56 March 2, 1779 to March 24, 1780

Conquest of British West Florida Colony by Spain: Letter from Clinton to

Germain dated May 13, 1780 at Charleston, with numerous support documents,

describing in detail Spain’s conquest of Mobile (Pensacola was not conquered

until May 1781). Content not directly related to South Carolina, but sent by

Clinton from Charleston to Germain. Letter with support documents were

microfilmed and apparently sent twice.

● Documents 57 to 68 September 30, 1779 to March 30, 1780

General exchange of prisoners of war: Letter from Clinton to Germain dated

May 13, 1780 with support documents, containing details of the negotiations,

which were not successful; content not directly related to South Carolina, but

sent by Clinton from Charleston to Germain.

● Documents 69 to 132 May 1 to May 14, 1780

Last stage of siege and negotiation of capitulation by General Benjamin

Lincoln at Charleston: Letter from Clinton to Germain dated May 13, 1780, with

support documents, describing the process in detail; content directly related

South Carolina. Letter with support documents were microfilmed and apparently

sent twice.

● Documents 133 to 163 May 14, 1780 to June 5, 1780

Clinton’s plans to gain massive loyalist support and for Cornwallis to take

offensive in South Carolina and other southern colonies to re-institute

British civil government; correspondence and support documents; content

directly related to South Carolina

● Documents 164 to 171, 184, 185 July 28, 1780 to January 31, 1781

Correspondence about progress of Cornwallis’ offensive war; erosion of

optimism about loyalist support despite particular military victories

● Documents 172-205 (except 184, 185) August 31, 1781 to mid-October 1782

Correspondence about British military occupation of Charleston and about

preparations to evacuate Charleston, focusing on post-colonial economic

issues, especially slavery

Note that an extended version of Table 12 is found in Table 15, found at the beginning

of Reel 8, Volume 397.

______________________________________________________________________

Secondary References

This Finding Aid is not a fully researched, footnoted, and referenced scholarly work.

Rather, it is a guide to where research by others can begin. Nevertheless, searches for

contextual information to use for notes in this Finding Ad led from time to time to useful

secondary references, which in some cases have been added as documentation to the

appropriate notes in the Finding Aid. Although most of these sources focus on quite

specific subjects, some that may be of more general interest are listed here.

Barger, B. D., “Charles Town Loyalism in 1775: The Secret Reports of Alexander

Innes,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 83, No. 3 (July 1962), pp.

125-136.

Barnwell, Joseph W., “The Evacuation of Charleston by the British in 1782,” The South

Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, Vol. 11, No. 1 (January 1910)

pp. 1-26/

Cashin, Edward J., Guardians of the Valley: Chickasaws in Colonial South Carolina

and Georgia. University of South Carolina Press, 2009.

Cashin, Edward J., The King’s Ranger: Thomas Brown and the American Revolution

on the Southern Frontier. Fordham University Press, 1999. Previously published

by University of Georgia Press, 1989.

Farley, M. Foster, “The South Carolina Negro in the American Revolution, 1775-1783,”

The South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 79, No. 2 (April 1978) pp. 75-86.

Greene, Jack P., Quest for Power: The Lower Houses of Assembly in the Southern

Royal Colonies, 1689 to 1776. University of North Carolina Press, 1963.

Lewis, J. D., The Provincial & State Government in SC During the American Revolution,

an on-line paper at carolana.com/SC/Revolution/sc_revolution_provincial-

government.html.

Mercantini, Jonathan, “The Great Carolina Hurricane of 1752,” The South Carolina

Historical Magazine, Vol. 103, No. 4 (October 2002), pages 351-365.

Mercantini, Jonathan, Who Shall Rule at Home?: The Evolution of South Carolina

Political Culture, 1748-1776. University of South Carolina Press, 2007.

Oliphant, John, Peace and War on the Anglo-Cherokee Frontier, 1756-1763. Louisiana

State University Press, 2001.

David Swain, Volunteer Researcher

David Library of the American Revolution

December 2019

Organizational Caveat: Work to create this Finding Aid was conducted in 2018 and

2019 when the David Library of the American Revolution (DLAR) was located at

Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania and was operating as a separate entity. This work

was completed just as the David Library was entering a partnership with the American

Philosophical Society (APS) in Philadelphia and becoming the APS’s David Center.

References throughout this Finding Aid to the DLAR collection and its microfilmed CO5

Colonial Papers of South Carolina remain accurate, as the DLAR’s collection will remain

identifiable and will be available at the American Philosophical Society’s David Center.

Reel 1 (Volumes 376, 377)

Volume 376—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), begin

February 3, 1756 to July 20, 1760 Documents 1 to 84 [Frames 1 to 214]

Note: DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Board of Trade incoming correspondence for

colonial South Carolina begin with Volume 376 of the Colonial Office Papers for South

Carolina. This Volume contains documents dated beginning in 1756. English

settlement began in the Carolinas in the 1650s, and a single proprietary colony of

“Carolina” was established before 1700. In 1712, South and North Carolina were

separated politically, and by 1729, each had become a royal colony. During a transition

period, especially from 1719 to 1724, institutions of royal colonial government were

established provisionally and began functioning. The archived South Carolina Board of

Trade incoming correspondence papers include Volumes 358 to 375, which are not

among the Volumes microfilmed in the DLAR’s collection. These contain incoming

correspondence with dates from 1720 to 1757.

Note: Board of Trade correspondence in these microfilmed South Carolina Colonial

Papers is found as originals, copies, duplicates, and triplicates and as actual manuscript

documents or as abstracts, extracts, summaries, or transcripts of actual documents.

See note after Reel 1 document 1 for more on copies, duplicates, triplicates, etc. See a

section in the Introduction for more on for more on abstracts, extracts, summaries, and

transcripts. Although archivists of these documents frequently sought to separate

incoming and outgoing correspondence, the distinction sometimes confused rather than

helped organize correspondence. An example is orders from the King, which were

incoming from the King to the Board of Trade but outgoing from them to the colonies.

As a result, some such orders are found in either or both incoming and outgoing

correspondence.

Note: Most Board of Trade incoming correspondence pertaining to colonial South

Carolina is found in Reels 1 and 2, with dates between February 3, 1756 and November

10, 1775, and no major gaps. About 30 documents of outgoing correspondence are

scattered among the incoming documents, with dates mostly between 1756 and 1761

and between 1767 and 1772. Many of these are orders of the King, either to approve or

disapprove South Carolina colonial acts or to appoint South Carolina colonial officials.

To understand the more complex situation of Board of Trade outgoing correspondence

in the South Carolina Colonial Papers, see note at the beginning of Reel 3 Volume 381.

Note: Archivists (probably in the Board of Trade Office) wrote descriptive notes for

many of the manuscript documents. These are generally microfilmed with the

documents. On these notes, archivists provided their own numbers by manuscript

Bundle or Volume. Where found, this Finding Aid reports these numbers as “BT

numbers.” Volume 376 begins with L.1. and ends with L.84., with no microfilmed

document in the Volume not having a BT number and with no breaks in the consecutive

numbering.

Note: In this Volume, none of the letters of official correspondence is numbered by the

writer. Gaps in correspondence are thus more difficult to identify since they can be

sequenced only by date.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. September 15, 1757 [no Frame Number]

Duplicate letter from [South Carolina Royal Governor] [William Henry] Lyttelton at

Charleston to the Lords of the [British] Board of Trade [and Plantations], reporting

that Colonel [Archibald] “Montgomery’s Highland Battalion” [generally known as

Montgomerie’s Highlanders, the 77

Regiment of Foot] had arrived at Charleston

having “lost but Seven Men in their passage & landed in good health,” expressing

appreciation for the newly arrived security to benefit all the surrounding colonies;

reporting that Governor [John] Reynolds [of Georgia] had informed him that “a

considerable number of Persons without any Lawfull Authority” had settled

“Southward of the River Alatamaha [Altamaha]”, who had expressed concern

about their protection from Indians; conveying a report from Lieutenant [Charles]

Taylor, British commander at Frederica, about movements of Creek Indians who

were planning to attack a Spanish fort near St. Augustine, “which fort is

garrison’d by Negros whom they hope to bring away in Order that they may

dispose of them to the English as Slaves”; but expressing doubt that “as they are

as perfidious as Savage, there can be no reliance upon their designs”,

suggesting that something should be done to curtail both unauthorized

settlements and uncontrolled Indians to avoid conflict with Spain, as well as a

possible unwanted alliance between Spain and the Indians; inquiring as to

whether the strip of land south of the Altamaha River was considered “as a part

of this Province, or of Georgia, or is an undetermined Frontier”; reporting on the

military status of the colony [no BT number assigned, but it would be L.1.] [with

enclosures, documents 2 to 6] [first page of letter microfilmed twice]

[Note: Letters from colonial governors were often sent multiple times on

separate ships, in hopes that one of the letters would get through or get through

faster to England. Thus, an “original” letter would be sent plus perhaps several

“duplicate” letters. A “copy” was usually the copy of a letter sent possibly at a

later time and usually to another recipient. Use of these terminology conventions

was usually but not always observed. Thus, a document identified as a

“duplicate” might in fact be a “copy” or vice versa.]

[Note: The British Board of Trade and Plantations somewhat resembled a

chamber of commerce in an age of royal mercantilism. It was governed by a

group of Lords appointed by the Crown and thus was a part of government. Yet

its purpose was to encourage settlement and economic development that would

benefit the mother country’s economy as well as the royal government. Until

America became a political and military problem for England in the mid-1760s,

British colonial governors looked to the Board of Trade for direction and financial

support. Later, Secretaries of State for the Colonies would eclipse the Board of

Trade’s colonial powers. See note after Reel 3 document 1.]

[Note: The British Royal Colony of South Carolina began as the British

proprietary colony of Carolina in 1663 (see lists of governors in the

Introduction, Table 7a, b, c.) Its original northern boundary remains today its

line between North Carolina and Virginia. The southern boundary was initially

the 31

Parallel, an approximation of today’s Georgia-Florida boundary. But in

1665 Britain extended its claim southward to the 29

Parallel, provocatively

including St. Augustine and the central, occupied area of Spanish Florida.

Proprietors Anthony Ashley Cooper and John Locke developed the initial Grand

Model for the Province of Carolina, including the Fundamental Constitutions of

Carolina. Until 1712, Charleston was capital of the entire province. In this year,

separate proprietary governments were established for North and South

Carolina. This lasted until only 1719, when the Crown established a process to

purchase the proprietors’ interests. When this was accomplished in 1729, the

King established separate Royal Colonies of North Carolina and South Carolina.

A total of 15 different men served as Royal Governor of South Carolina between

1730 and 1775, interspersed with 7 periods during which an acting governor

stood in when no governor had been appointed or a governor was absent.

William Henry Lyttelton, 1

Baron Lyttelton (1724-1808) was Governor of

South Carolina from 1756 to 1760. He succeeded Governor James Glen (1701-

1777) who served from 1743 to 1756 but had been recalled, with help from some

political enemies, after what the British interpreted as the ignominious defeat by

the French and their Indian allies of Major General Edward Braddock’s British

army near Fort Duquesne in July 1755 (see notes after document 125, 126 for a

more nuanced interpretation of Glen’s recall and replacement as governor). As

governor, Lyttelton had to deal with hostile war relations, during the colonial

French and Indian War (1754 to 1763) and European Seven Years War (1756 to

1763), with enemy powers France and Spain as well as with their various

Indian-nation allies. He also had to maintain relations with his fellow colonies.

On the west this meant Virginia, with whom he competed for western frontier

lands and with whom he sought to cooperate in relations with the Indian nations

living on the same frontier. On the south it meant Georgia, with whom he

needed to cooperate in relations against Spanish Florida (until 1763) and with

whom he competed for potential new territory in the political no-man’s-land

between Georgia’s southern border and Spanish Florida’s northern border.

Lyttelton himself left most of these issues unresolved in spring 1760, when he

was appointed governor of Jamaica.

He departed from Charleston on April 5, 1760, leaving the affairs of South

Carolina colony in the hands of Lieutenant Governor William Bull II (1710-1791)

Between 1760 and 1775, while officially remaining Lieutenant Governor

throughout the period, Bull was called on five separate times to serve as acting

governor of South Carolina. In this first instance, Bull stood in as governor from

April 5, 1760 until December 22, 1761, when South Carolina’s next governor,

Thomas Boone, arrived in Charleston. For more on William Bull II, see note

after document 39. For more on Thomas Boone, see note after document 108.]

[Note: Relations with Spain:

Fort Frederica, located on St. Simons Island, the Georgia sea island just south

of the Altamaha River, was in the 1740s and 1750s Britain’s military and

settlement outpost closest to the territory of Spanish Florida. During the

European War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739 to 1748), after a failed military attempt

commanded by James Oglethorpe to capture St. Augustine, Spanish forces

invaded the unclaimed territory between the St. Johns River and the Altamaha

River, seeking to wrest Fort Frederica from British control. This time, Oglethorpe

was successful in defending the fort in the 1742 Battle of Bloody Marsh. He later

led another unsuccessful British effort against St. Augustine. By 1758, the Seven

Years War (1756-1763; the 1754-1763 French and Indian War in North America)

had begun and again, Spain sided against Britain, although it formally joined the

conflict in only 1762 and 1763.

The fort garrisoned by Negroes mentioned in this letter was Fort Mose, located

in the salt marshes northwest of St. Augustine. Spanish authorities welcomed

and settled runaway slaves from English plantations to the north. Although not

re-enslaved by the Spanish, former slaves were segregated. Fort Mose was

established with dual purposes—as a separate place for African settlers to live

and as one in a chain of outer defensive positions around St. Augustine, to be

defended by its African inhabitants.]

[Note: Relations with Georgia:

The Royal Colony of Georgia had three governors: John Reynolds, from 1752

until 1758 (less than a year after the date of this letter), was an unfortunate

failure at administration. However, it took six years to replace him. Henry Ellis,

from 1758 until 1760, was a better administrator, but his health soon failed. He

requested to be replaced and left Georgia for England in November 1760, to be

replaced by Georgia’s third and last governor, James Wright, from 1760 until

1782.]

Lyttelton had to maintain positive relations with Georgia, not only because it was

his colony’s buffer with Spanish Florida but because of the unsettled British

colonial lands along the coast between the Altamaha River and the St. Johns

River. Each colony sought to guard against the other’s sneaking in some

settlers, while at the same time taking advantage, if possible, of opportunities to

strengthen its own claim to the land.

Starting in the 1750s and heating up after 1763, when Spanish Florida became

British East Florida, South Carolina accelerated its efforts to gain control over the

non-contiguous territory south of the Altamaha River and north of the St. Marys

River (the newly recognized northern boundary of British East Florida). In the

late 1750s, the issue between South Carolina and Georgia was an “illegal”

settlement in this strip named New Hanover. Georgia responded with protests to

the South Carolina government and legal appeals to the British government,

which eventually sided with Georgia, affirming its southern border at the St.

Marys River. For more on this land dispute with Georgia, see note after

document 161.]

[Note: Relations with Indians:

The Creek Indians mentioned in this letter were one of four major tribes of Native

Americans who called the southeastern region of North America home. The

other three were the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Cherokee. In South Carolina,

the two major tribes were Creek and Cherokee. Other smaller tribes included the

Catawba, Yamasee, and Apalachee Indians.

British relations with the nearby Indian tribes had never been truly peaceful and

friendly. Before South Carolina’s royal colony had been established in 1729, the

Carolina colony had fought a war against the Yamasee Indians in 1715 to 1717.

Between 1743 and 1756, South Carolina Governor Glen had earned a reputation

as a relatively skillful negotiator of friendship with the Indians (see document 126

and the note after it on Treaty of Saluda Old Town in 1755). Lyttelton had a

different approach to Indian relations, which was less friendly, less flexible, and

which, in practice, proved to be less successful.

Indian relations were influenced by how the British colonies defined their

western boundaries: South Carolina (originally Carolina) and Virginia

originally claimed lands stretching to the Pacific Ocean, soon limited by the

reality of geography and international relations to the Mississippi River. Even

after North Carolina split away from South Carolina in 1712, it continued to claim

a far western frontier. By the 1750s it was South Carolina (claiming what later

became Tennessee, and Virginia (with various broad claims for what became

Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and southwestern Pennsylvania), who saw the need

to cooperate against the perceived joint threat of Cherokee violence on their

joint frontiers.

In the late 1750s, during the time of this South Carolina correspondence, frontier

violence was considered a serious problem by the governors of both South

Carolina and Virginia, as was the threat of war. The French and Indian War/

Seven Years War included both “normal” European hostilities plus a complex

web of relations with the various Indian nations. Like France, Britain strained to

maintain friendships and alliances with certain nations and, if possible, to convert

hostile nations to their side. So, for South Carolina and Virginia, trying to

maintain what had been friendly relations with the Cherokee Nation was essential

to allow peaceful settler expansion into the frontier and also to defend each

colony from potential military attack by French forces and their Indian allies.

Unfortunately, in the late 1750s British relations with the Cherokee were

deteriorating dangerously.

In this context, Lyttelton welcomed the arrival of Montgomerie’s Highlanders in

Charleston in 1757 as needed assistance to defend all the southern colonies.

This was, however, short-term protection. By sometime in early- or mid-1758,

the Highlanders had been shipped off to Philadelphia (see document 21). When

Montgomerie was ordered back to Charleston in 1760 with 1,200 Royal Scots

along with his own Highlanders, the situation had worsened after two years of

increasing Cherokee violence on the far western South Carolina and Virginia

frontier, answered with increasingly hostile British/South Caroline/Virginia

responses. By early 1759, “domestic” hostilities had escalated into declared war

between South Carolina and the Cherokee Nation, later named the Anglo-

Cherokee War of 1759 to 1761 (for more on this war, see note after Reel 4

document 123). Going on the attack, Governor Lyttelton himself ineptly led his

colony’s militia in a military campaign against the Indians. After tricking the head

Cherokee chiefs with an offer to talk, he seized them as hostages, to be released

only after the Cherokee Nation agreed to his harsh treaty terms. These efforts

not having subdued the Indians, Lyttelton requested military assistance from

Major General Jeffrey Amherst, who was then leading the British campaign

against French Quebec. In 1760, Amherst responded by sending Colonel

Montgomerie back to Charleston with his expanded army of 1,200 troops, and

Lyttelton sent them into the interior to subdue the Cherokee by force. Although

Montgomerie applied force, killing Indians and burning their villages, the

Cherokee did not surrender, instead successfully besieging and capturing British

Fort Loudoun. To this affront to the British military, Amherst responded by

removing the less than effective Montgomerie and replacing him with Colonel

James Grant (who had been second in command under Montgomerie and an

expanded army of 2,600 troops. In 1761, Grant proved a more effective killer of

Indians and devastator of their crops and villages, crushing the remaining

Cherokee resistance. This did not make the Cherokee friendly to the British, but

at least they were too devastated to ally with France.]

[Note: Jeffrey Amherst, 1

Baron Amherst (1717-1797) served a long and

distinguished professional career in the British Army from 1735 to 1795, finally

retiring as a field marshal. In 1760, he was a major general and commander-in-

chief of British forces in North America. In addition, he had replaced Governor

Loudoun as royal governor of Virginia in 1759, a position he retained until 1768.

Simultaneously, he was governor of Quebec from 1760 to 1763.]

[Note: James Grant, Laird of Ballindolloch (1720-1806) had a long career as

both a military officer and colonial governor. In 1757, he was a major in

Montgomerie’s Highlanders when they were sent to South Carolina. Still with the

Highlanders, he marched with General Forbes’ army to capture Fort Duquesne in

1758. Then, in 1760, as a colonel, he was second in command under

Montgomerie in the 1760 campaign against the Cherokee and in 1761 led the

British army that crushed Cherokee resistance and ended the Anglo-Cherokee

War. Between 1763 and 1775, he left military service, serving as the first royal

governor of Britain’s new colony of East Florida from 1763 until 1771. In 1775,

back in the army as a General, he led British troops at the Battle of Long Island,

in New Jersey, and in the Philadelphia campaign in 1777.

In 1778, he was reassigned to the Caribbean, where his troops contested with

the French for control over colonial islands, and where he served briefly as

governor of St. Lucia and even more briefly as lieutenant governor of Cuba. He

did not return to North America.]

2. October 7, 1756 [5; actually the 8

frame]

Copy of letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to “William Gray, Robert Lucas, Robert

Baillie & other the Inhabitants of a Settlement between the Rivers Alatamaha &

St. Juans [St. Johns]”, offering them grants of land in the portion of South

Carolina north of the Savannah River if they willingly leave their unauthorized

settlement south of the Altamaha River and apply to settle on legal South

Carolina land [BT number L.2.] [enclosed with Lyttelton’s September 15, 1757

letter to the Board of Trade, document 1]

3. August 16, 1757 [7]

Copy of letter from Mark Carr at Sunbury [Georgia] to Lyttelton, replying on

behalf of the settlers of what they called New Hanover, to his letter; stating that

they had sought to escape from both Georgia and South Carolina because of

mistreatment; expressing the feeling that their cause was legitimate and that no

good reason existed to label them lawless [BT number L.3.] [enclosed with

Lyttelton’s September 15, 1757 letter to the Board of Trade, document 1]

[Note: Sunbury is now a ghost town but was once a fortified town and the

second seaport of colonial Georgia after Savannah, located on the Medway River

(now called Blackbeard’s Creek), north of Sapelo Island, between the Savannah

and the Altamaha Rivers.]

4. February 3, 1756 [9]

Copy of agreement of rules among settlers, calling themselves loyal British

Subjects, at New Hanover, described as a “part of Florida”, agreeing to follow

them “till otherwise directed by Authority”; containing 12 numbered items;

“Signed by above Forty of the Inhabitants” followed by

May 30, 1757

Copy of address resulting from a meeting of inhabitants of New Hanover to

Lyttelton, stating that the inhabitants had had difficulty deciding how to respond

to Lyttelton’s offer of land elsewhere if they would move from New Hanover;

stating that one of the difficulties was the insulting way they had previously been

treated by [former] Governor Glen and the Council [of South Carolina]; reporting

their resulting resolutions as follows: That they would not remove from New

Hanover or leave their plantations and possessions, partly because Governor

Lyttelton had not specifically ordered them to do so, and partly because Spain

had already ordered them to leave, and they did not want to abandon the area to

Spanish—or Indian—control; stating that they intended to claim the St. Marys

River [not the farther north Altamaha River or farther south St. Johns River] as

the southern border of English territory; signed by 42 named individuals [each

part of BT number L.4.] [both enclosed with Lyttelton’s September 15, 1757

letter to the Board of Trade, document 1]

5. May 4, 1757 [13]

Return of South Carolina militia to Lyttelton, including reports of numbers of

officers and sergeants, private men, alarm men, and total men for 10 units of

men designated as troops, regiments, or companies; reporting a total of 6,594

men [perhaps an approximation of the force Lyttelton led in battle against the

Cherokee in 1759] [BT number L.5.] [enclosed with Lyttelton’s September 15,

1757 letter to the Board of Trade, document 1]

6. January 7, 1757 [no Frame Number]

Copy of General Account of Ordnance Stores, with detailed categories and

descriptions, for both Charleston and “several forts remote from Charles Town”

[edges of the microfilmed document are too dark to be legible] [BT number L.6.]

[enclosed with Lyttelton’s September 15, 1757 letter to the Board of Trade,

document 1]

7. November 3, 1757 [15]

Letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, reporting that he opened a

new General Assembly, which had approved construction of additional barracks

for another 1,000 troops; reporting on other defense improvements, including

building a fort at Port Royal [about half way between Savannah and Charleston]

and improving Fort Prince George at Keowee; reporting on Indian affairs,

including talks with the Chickasaw Nation and other news [BT number L.7.]

[Note: Fort Prince George (named when the fort was built in 1753 for the prince

who in 1760 became King George III) was located in Cherokee territory

alongside a major trading post and the Cherokee town of Keowee, on the

Keowee River, a tributary of the Savannah River, in what is now northwest South

Carolina. While the fort endured occasional Indian attacks, the British saw it after

1760 as a staging place for attacks on the Cherokee Indians. Completion of

Keowee Dam in 1971 submerged the entire area under a reservoir lake.]

[Note: Cherokee Towns: The Cherokee Nation’s homeland stretched from the

Appalachian foothills in today’s northwestern South Carolina over the mountains

to the Tennessee River valley in today’s eastern Tennessee. The Cherokee

lived in relatively permanent large and small settlements throughout their

territory. Different tribal families “ruled” different areas of settlements with some

coordinated rule among the areas. The British recognized three geographically

separated areas of settlement, which the called the Lower Towns, the Middle

Towns, and the Overhill Towns. The Lower Towns were located in today’s

South Carolina, northwest of today’s Greenville and south of Franklin, North

Carolina. The most important Cherokee town among the Lower Towns was

Keowee. The British, recognizing the importance of this town, built Fort Prince

George nearby (see note above). The Middle Towns were in the mountain

valleys northwest of the Lower Towns, centered near today’s Franklin, North

Carolina, near the height of land between streams flowing eastward toward

South Carolina and the headwaters of the Little Tennessee River, a larger river

flowing out of the mountains into the Tennessee River southwest of today’s

Knoxville, Tennessee.

The southernmost of these Middle Towns, called Echoee, became important

during the Anglo-Cherokee War, in 1760 (see note on Indian relations after

document 1 and documents 83 to 85) and again in 1761 (see document 118).

The Overhill Towns were located along the Tennessee and Little Tennessee

Rivers, in today’s eastern Tennessee. The “capital” town of the entire Cherokee

Nation, called Chota, was located here, and it was near Chota that the British

(through a combined effort of the Virginia and South Carolina colonies) built

another frontier fort, which they named Fort Loudoun (see notes after documents

1, 24, and 83, and scattered documents between 31 and 98). In 1760, this fort

was successfully besieged by Cherokee Indians during the Anglo-Cherokee War,

forcing the surrender of its garrison (see scattered documents from 53 through

117 on the siege and its aftermath).]

8. November 30, 1757 [17]

Letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, concerning the northern

boundary of South Carolina with North Carolina, which would be resurveyed from

the northwestern source of the Cape Fear River; also needed was surveying a

western border; pointing out that Georgia remained “in a Weak & Infant state”

regarding defense, and that therefore, South Carolina was “in reality the South

frontier of His Majesty’s North American Dominions”; commenting on the great

expense of defense preparations; raising questions about the Pee Dee River

boundary between North and South Carolina; raising other questions about

previous boundary decisions that remained unclear; arguing that the boundaries

should be inclusive of particular territories of particular Indian nations; also

arguing for increasing South Carolina’s area suitable for white settlement, so that

the imbalance in other areas between the many Negroes and few whites could

be balanced [BT number L.8.] [with enclosure, document 9]

[Note: Drawing a boundary line between North and South Carolina up the

Cape Fear River from the Atlantic Ocean would have been considerably more

generous to South Carolina than a boundary line up the Pee Dee River. In 1712,

when North and South Carolina were separated into two colonies, an

approximated boundary was drawn on a map as angled straight lines running

more or less half way between the two rivers. The true boundary remained

uncertain until surveyed in 1771. This remains the eastern portion of the

boundary between the two states today.

Starting in 1762, concerted efforts began to establish, maintain, and update

boundaries between South and North Carolina that would accommodate wishes

in both colonies for settlement expansion, while minimizing frontier conflicts with

Indians. Royal Agent for South Carolina Charles Garth submitted a petition on

the subject to the Board of Trade sometime in 1762 (document 128). See other

1762 and 1763 documents later in Reel 1. In 1764, work started on surveying a

“temporary” boundary (document 189). Surveying was reported to be completed

in December 1764 (Reel 2 document 19). See follow-up documents dated in

1766 and 1768 in Reel 2. By 1770, South Carolina was pushing for an extension

of the boundary line around Catawba Indian territory. In Reel 2 document 160,

Garth was again petitioning the Board of Trade on the matter.]

9. [no date] [22]

Note by Lyttelton with names he recommended to Board of Trade to become

members of the South Carolina Council, including John Guerard, Chief Justice

Peter Leigh, and Christopher Gadsden [BT number L.9.] [enclosed with

Lyttelton’s November 30, 1757 letter to Board of Trade, document 8]

10. [no date] [23]

Memorial of James Wright, agent for the of South Carolina, to Board of Trade,

seeking to obtain delayed royal approval for an act setting fees for public officials,

which was initially passed by the South Carolina Assembly in 1743 [BT number

L.10.]

[Note: James Wright (1716-1785) had come from England to South Carolina in

1730, where he became a prominent attorney and plantation owner. His law

practice led him into public office by 1747, when he became Attorney General for

South Carolina. By 1757, he was working for South Carolina in London as

South Carolina’s Agent to the Crown. Crown Agents for British colonies

served primarily as financial go-betweens, advocating for funding requested by

colonial governments, processing requests for funds, and allocating funds

approved.

In May 1760, Wright was appointed to be Lieutenant Governor of neighboring

Georgia. This was actually a planned transitional position, as Georgia’s

Governor Ellis had already received approval to relinquish his governorship due

to poor health. Wright arrived in Savannah in October 1760. In December, Ellis

departed for England, and Wright became Governor of Georgia, a position he

held until July 1782. In this position, he continued to interact with the governors

of South Carolina, and, as time went on and the American revolutionary

movement emerged, he became quite critical of what he observed to be South

Carolina’s increasing tilt toward the rebel cause.]

11. April 1, 1758 [25]

Copy of King’s order approving John Guerard to serve on the South Carolina

Council, replacing James Kinlock, who had died [BT number L.11.] [another

copy of this order is in document 76]

[Note: John Guerard’s father, John Guerard, was brought up in a noble French

Huguenot family. He came to South Carolina via London in the late 1600s,

becoming a planter and politician. John Jr’s son Benjamin Guerard sided with

the rebels in the Revolution and was elected Governor of South Carolina in

1783.]

12. June 25, 1758 [27]

Letter from Samuel Martin at Treasury Chambers to Board of Trade, transmitting

James Wright’s memorial as Agent for South Carolina [document 10] for Board of

Trade consideration [BT number L.12.]

13. December 6, 1757 [29]

Copy of order of the King, affirming Lyttelton’s suspension of William Wragg from

the South Carolina Council [BT number L.13.]

[Note: William Wragg (1714-1777) was an attorney, politician, and plantation

owner, who served in public offices off and on from the 1750s, not always with

approbation. See documents 31, 36, Reel 2 document 186, Reel 6 document 41,

and Reel 7 documents 114,140 plus note after document 140. Years later, when

the Revolution broke out, Wragg remained a loyalist ,but paid a heavy price, by

being banished from Charleston. Two years later, at age 63, he died at sea in

1777.]

14. December 6, 1757 [31]

Copy of order of the King, concurring, in recognition of all South Carolina had

done to improve its defenses, with the Board of Trade’s recommendation that a

“Skilful Engineer” be sent to South Carolina to provide needed expertise in the

construction of fortifications for the colony [BT number L.14.]

15. January 27, 1758 [33]

Copy of order of the King, confirming a South Carolina act “incorporating the

Winyah Indigo Society” [BT number L.15.] [see Reel 2 documents 77, 195 for

further legal consideration of the Society’s incorporation in 1766 and 1772]

[Note: The Winyah Indigo Society, originally organized in the 1740s as an

agricultural and social club for indigo planters, it met monthly in the Old Oak

Tavern in Georgetown, South Carolina. By 1757 it had become established

enough to sponsor a school, which perhaps led to the colonial South Carolina act

which the King confirmed in 1758. Sometime before the Civil War, the Society

built its own hall, which survived the war, still stands today, and has recently

been renovated as the Georgetown County Public Library. See Reel 2

documents 77 (1766) and 195 (1772), and Reel 3 document 144 (1771) for more

on the Winyah Indigo Society and the extended efforts to incorporate it.]

16. [no date] [35]

Memorial of South Carolina Agent Wright to Board of Trade, concerning payment

for goods to be used as presents for Indian nations on South Carolina’s borders;

followed by

December 6, 1758

Account of goods proposed to be bought as presents for Indians nations on

South Carolina’s borders, totaling £1,240.4.8 [BT number L.16.]

17. December 22, 1757 [39]

Quadruplicate letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, sending for

review two adopted South Carolina bills designed to enforce the parliamentary

act [Mutiny Act] requiring colonies to house and provision troops, which in South

Carolina was interpreted to require that troops should not be billeted in private

homes but should be quartered in public spaces such as barracks [BT number

L.17.]

[Note: A Mutiny Act was a British law designed to control British soldiers’ and

sailors’ behavior when living among civilians. A Mutiny Act was in force for just

one year and had to be renewed annual. The issue that upset South Carolinians

was that families could be required to house and provision British soldiers and

officers in their homes, which appeared to them to be both a financial imposition

and an invasion of privacy. A less onerous South Carolina solution was to use

public monies to house and provision troops in public barracks and similar

structures.]

18. August 7, 1758 [41]

Duplicate letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, concerning a

planned joint military expedition with the colony of Virginia in western Virginia, to

be organized from Winchester, which would include as many Cherokee Indians

as possible; [Edmund] Atkin, the “King’s Agent for Indian Affairs” was to seek to

engage the Indians in this expedition; reporting that the Assembly had reserved

up to £20,000 from the money allocated to raise a regiment in South Carolina to

be used for “encouraging & fitting out the Indians to join His Majestys Forces &

for defraying all Charges that might be incident thereto”; with additional details;

concerning the money to be used to pay for the South Carolina militia to be

involved in this expedition; suggesting that a separate Indian agent be assigned

to each tribe, with communications among them through the royal governor, who

could also be given monopoly control over the Indian trade with their respective

tribes and be placed in control of distributing presents, and who would have

access to military force, if necessary, to quell any disturbances; suggesting that

this plan, by placing an agent living with each tribe, would earn respect from the

Indians and make it easier to obtain intelligence concerning the situation in the

tribe as well as with the French; reporting on the importation of Negroes into

South Carolina as follows: from June 1, 1756 to June 1, 1757, 1,661; from June

1, 1757 to June 1, 1758, 3,571; reporting on plans for military facilities [BT

number L.18.] [with enclosures, documents 19, 20]

[Note: For the colonial system in North America to work—and to expand—the

British government realized it needed the capability to communicate with and

seek to manage relations with the various Indian Nations on the western frontiers

of each colony. Rather than leave this process to individual colonies, the British

divided the territory of its colonies into a Northern Department and a Southern

Department, and appointed a single person, who had some understanding of and

experience with the Indian tribes and their cultures, to serve as Superintendent

of Indian Affairs for each department. The first two individuals to serve in this

capacity were Sir William Johnson for the Northern Department and Edmond

Atkin for the Southern Department. Atkin was appointed in 1756. After Britain

was victorious in the Seven Years War/French and Indian War in 1763, the

colonies gained jurisdiction over large new areas of frontier lands, formerly

claimed by the French, but actually occupied and controlled by the Indian

nations.

Expansion of British America’s frontier territories boosted the importance of the

Superintendents of Indian Affairs and led to Atkin’s being replaced by a new,

highly qualified Superintendent for the Southern Department, John Stuart. From

1761 until his death in 1779, Stuart played a significant role in managing Indian

affairs in each of the southern colonies, from Virginia to the newly acquired

colonies of East Florida and West Florida. See note after document 57.]

19. June 3, 1758 [51]

Copy of Talk by Little Carpenter at Fort Prince George to his “brother” the

Governor of South Carolina, acknowledging receipt as presents of arms to fight

the enemies of South Carolina and the Cherokee Nation; confirming the alliance

between South Carolina and the Cherokee Nation to go jointly to Virginia to fight

these enemies [BT number L.19.] [enclosed with Lyttelton’s August 7, 1758

letter to Board of Trade, document 18]

[Note: A Talk was a structured meeting of Indian chiefs and warriors with

colonial government officials, or a formal communication in writing to or from a

group of chiefs and/or warriors. Often, each side would make alternating, formal,

declaratory position statements that, as the process unfolded, allowed each side

to respond to the other, leading to negotiated agreements, which, after a Talk,

might be written up (by the colonial officials, in English) as a Treaty. Talks were

based on a presumed relationship of sovereign leaders discussing, debating, and

ultimately deciding important issues. By the conventions of many Talks, each

side referred to the other as “friends” or “brothers.” The concept of some form of

legal equality came from the European concept of sovereignty. Since Indians

were not subjects, much less citizens, in order to negotiate with their tribal

entities, which the British called Nations, some concept of sovereignty had to be

granted to them. Yet in practice, sovereignty for Indian tribes/nations was

inherently unequal. In many Talks by British officials, Indian leaders were

referred to as “children” and, fairly commonly in communications among

Europeans, but not in Talks, as “savages” or worse.]

[Note: Attakullakulla (spellings differ) (c. 1708-1777) or Little Carpenter, as

the British called him, was a leading chief in the Cherokee Nation between the

late 1750s and about 1775. In the 1750s and early 1760s, he sought to maintain

Cherokee friendship with the British against the French. He negotiated treaties

on behalf of the Cherokee Nation with Britain in 1755 (Treaty of Saluda Old

Town) and 1761 (in Charleston), at the end of the disastrous (for the Indians)

Anglo Cherokee War of 1758 to 1761. This war began, despite Little Carpenter’s

best efforts, when some Cherokee warriors engaged in violence against British

settlers on the frontier. In late 1759, when Little Carpenter and other Cherokee

chiefs sought to negotiate peace with South Carolina in Charleston, Lyttelton

took them hostage, and forced them to sign a harsh treaty intended to subdue

the Indian violence. Later, when Indian violence escalated rather than

dissipated, most of the hostage chiefs were massacred by British soldiers and

Britain declared war on the Cherokee. Little Carpenter escaped the massacre,

and soon after saved the life of Britain’s Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the

Southern Department, John Stuart.

But, as is evident from the 1761 treaty terms dictated by South Carolina’s

Lieutenant Governor William Bull II, Little Carpenter’s loyalty to Britain forced him

to accept on behalf of the Cherokee a humiliating defeat of such severity that the

Cherokee Nation never fully recovered.]

20. July 2, 1758 [53]

Extract of letter from George Turner [identity not found] at Fort Prince George to

Lyttelton, concerning conveyance by wagon of goods from Charleston as

presents for the Cherokee Indians; concerning difficulties of keeping the Indians

moving, despite the encouragement of Little Carpenter, as they relied on the

omens revealed by “conjurers”; expressing frustration at the delays and waste of

public money and at the conduct of Little Carpenter, who caused additional

difficulties and delays [BT number L.20.] [enclosed with Lyttelton’s August 7,

1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 18]

[Note: Numerous documents throughout these microfilmed colonial papers of

South Carolina are identified as “extracts,” especially when they are enclosures

sent with a letter. Extracting suggests that a certain portion of the text in a

document has been selected and quoted without the remaining text. See note at

the beginning of Reel 9 Volume 398 for more on the differences between

extracts, abstracts, summaries, and transcripts.]

21. October 2, 1758 [55]

Duplicate letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, conveying Virginia

Lieutenant Governor [Francis] Fauquier’s report of violent incidents between

Cherokee Indians and Virginia settlers in Halifax and Bedford Counties, Virginia

[in today’s south-central Virginia]; fearing that French settlers in the interior were

encouraging the Cherokee against British settlers; reporting on other movements

of Indians to Fort Prince George, and of [Brigadier] General [John] Forbes, and of

Montgomerie’s Highlanders, who had left South Carolina for Philadelphia [where

they became a part of the army Forbes commanded, which successfully subdued

Fort Duquesne in late 1758 (see note below)]; expressing concern that the effort

to entice Cherokee Indians to go on an expedition to frontier Virginia would be

“render’d fruitless”; hoping that some of the £50,000 recently passed by

Parliament to help the colonies construct and repair fortifications would soon be

allotted to South Carolina [BT number L.21.] [with enclosures, documents 22 to

24]

[Note: Francis Fauquier (1703-1768) came to America when appointed

Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1758. Until his death, he served actually as

acting governor in the absence of appointed governors the Earl of Loudoun

(1756 to 1759) and Jeffrey Amherst (1759 to 1768).

[Note: Career military officer Brigadier General John Forbes (1707-1759)

came to America in 1757 as adjutant general to Virginia Governor Loudoun. In

late 1757 he was selected to lead the British/American colonial military campaign

to capture Fort Duquesne. Embarking from Philadelphia, the expedition spent

most of 1758 cutting an overland route through wilderness forests to the fort.

After inclusive British attempts to capture the fort (led by then Major James

Grant), the British successfully negotiated with the Indians allied with the French

to change sides, after which Fort Duquesne was no longer defensible by the

French alone. In October 1758, they evacuated and burned the fort, leaving to

the British the smoldering ruins. Forbes was ill during much of the long march

and died in March 1759.]

[Note: John Campbell, 4

Earl of Loudoun (1705-1782) came to America in

1756 as commander-in-chief of British forces and Governor General of Virginia.

Early in the French and Indian War, his not very successful military efforts were

focused mostly on Canada. An expedition to capture Louisburg in 1757 was

abandoned when Loudoun judged the French defenders too strong to attack.

Then, also in 1757, while he and his army were occupied elsewhere, the French

captured and burned Fort William Henry, on Lake George in New York.

Sometime in 1758, he was recalled and replaced as commander-in-chief by

Major General Jeffrey Amherst, who also became (absentee) governor of Virginia

from 1759 until 1768. Under both absentee governors, Fauquier remained in

charge in Alexandria as Virginia’s acting governor.]

22. August 7, 1758 [59]

Copy of Talk by Tiftoe, the Wolf, and other headmen of the lower towns of the

Creek Nation, at Fort Prince George, to the Governor of South Carolina,

expressing hope that peace can be re-established between their Nation and

South Carolina; asking that the Indians be fitted out for fighting with the British;

followed by

July 28, 1758

Copy of Talk by the Emperor Old Hop and headmen of the upper Cherokee

Nation, at Chota, to the Governor of South Carolina, expressing shame and

sorrow that certain Cherokee Indians had engaged in violence against white

people; wishing to re-establish the path of peace with the British; asking that this

Talk be sent on to the Governor of Virginia; signed by Old Hop, Standing Turkey,

Little Carpenter, and Woolin Awah [identity not found] [BT number L.22.]

[enclosed with Lyttelton’s October 2, 1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 21]

[Note: Although Tiftoe appears to have been a Creek Indian, he seems to have

come from the Cherokee town of Keowee and apparently negotiated with the

British in conjunction with the Cherokee.]

[Note: Kanagatoga (c. 1690-1761), called Old Hop by the British because he

limped, was the “emperor” or lead chief of the Cherokee Nation. He had

accomplished the consolidation of the four Cherokee settlement areas in 1743-

1744. Little Carpenter and Standing Turkey, both nephews of Old Hop, were

other leading chiefs. While Little Carpenter led a faction of Cherokee who

persistently sought peaceful accommodation and friendship with the British,

Standing Turkey led a faction of more warlike Cherokee who favored the French

over the British. Relations between Britain (which on the ground meant the

colonies of Virginia and South Carolina) and the Cherokee Nation had

deteriorated considerably by the late 1750s.

Cherokee violence against British settlers provoked the governors of the two

colonies. Governor Lyttelton of South Carolina declared war on the Cherokee

Nation in 1758 (the Anglo-Cherokee War).. The Cherokee “Emperor” Old Hop,

having lost control over the destiny of his tribe, died in 1761, shortly before the

war ended with bloody Cherokee defeat.]

[Note: The Cherokee town of Chota was at this time the de facto capital of the

Cherokee Nation. It was located on the Little Tennessee River, a few miles

upstream from its confluence with the Tennessee River, in eastern Tennessee

south of present-day Knoxville.]

23. September 26, 1758 [61]

Copy of Talk by Lyttelton at Charleston to “Friends & Brothers”, headmen and

warriors of the middle and lower settlements of the Cherokee Nation, stating the

desire to return to peace with the Indians but, “mark what I say to you”, if the

Indians failed to return to peaceful friendship, trade with the British would end

and the British army would wage war on the Indians [BT number L.23.]

[enclosed with Lyttelton’s October 2, 1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 21]

[Note: This is a good example of a Talk by a British official that abandoned the

concept of equal sovereignty to lecture and threaten the Cherokee—just when

the “talker,” Governor Lyttelton, was on the verge of declaring war against the

Cherokee Nation.]

24. July 29, 1758 [63]

Copy of Talk by Little Carpenter at Fort Loudoun to the Governor of South

Carolina, expressing desire that “the Cloud will soon be over, and that everything

will go on as usual”, stating that “we shall always stick by you & your People”

[BT number L.24.] [enclosed with Lyttelton’s October 2, 1758 letter to Board of

Trade, document 21]

[Note: This Fort Loudoun (there were several named for Governor Loudoun of

Virginia), was built by the British in 1756 and 1757, intentionally located across

the Little Tennessee River from the important “capital” Cherokee town of Chota,

near the confluence of the Little Tennessee and the Tennessee River, south of

present-day Knoxville. Initially the intent was cordial friendship, which Little

Carpenter is still seeking to preserve, but relations were turning hostile, resulting

in the Anglo-Cherokee War of 1758 to 1761. The Cherokee were enraged when

South Carolina Governor Lyttelton led a militia force into Cherokee territory in

1759, capturing and holding hostage several Cherokee chiefs at Fort Prince

George, who soon after were massacred. In 1760, Cherokee warriors loyal to

Standing Turkey’s more warlike view of relations with the British, retaliated by

besieged Fort Loudoun for seven months until its South Carolina militia garrison

commander Captain Paul Demere was forced to surrender. The British army’s

own retaliation that followed, led by Colonel James Grant (who soon after

became royal governor of British colonial East Florida from 1763 to 1771) was

brutal, destructive, and devastating to the Cherokee, who in 1761 were crushed

into submission.]

25. December 1, 1758 [65]

Letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, conveying correspondence

about the situation with the Cherokee Indians involving both Virginia and South

Carolina [BT number L.25.] [with enclosure, document 26]

26. November 8, 1758 [67]

Extract of conference between Lyttelton and deputies of the Cherokee Nation,

led by Tiftoe; concerning settlement of differences between the Cherokee and

South Carolina; followed by

November 14, 1758

Extract of conference, continued, between Lyttelton and deputies of the

Cherokee Nation, led by Tiftoe, concerning settlement of differences between the

Cherokee and South Carolina, including text of Lyttelton’s September 26, 1757

Talk to the Cherokee [also document 23]; followed by

November 16, 1758

Extract of conference, concluded, between Lyttelton and deputies of the

Cherokee Nation, led by Tiftoe, concerning settlement of differences between the

Cherokee and South Carolina [all parts of BT number L.26.] [all enclosed with

Lyttelton’s December 1, 1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 25]

27. December 2, 1758 [71]

Letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, transmitting the

proceedings of the South Carolina Assembly from October 6, 1757 to May 19,

1758 [not microfilmed here], with additional information about plans for building

new barracks; reporting that the Assembly had approved funding for the

quartering of soldiers, especially officers, at a much lower level than the full cost,

adhering to the policy that they could not be quartered in private homes, a

situation neither he nor the Commissary had been able to resolve, especially

since the Commissary depended on the Assembly for his salary; commenting on

the conflicting pressures of trying to abide by orders from Britain, while being

sensitive to the rights and privileges of the people, but of being impeded by the

separate powers of the Assembly [BT number L.27.] [with enclosures,

documents 28, 29]

28. February 28, 1758 [75]

Copy of letter from Lieutenant Colonel Henry Bouquet, [commander at the time of

British troops at Charleston], to Lyttelton, describing how the Assembly, by

resolution, had voted one shilling a day for quartering subaltern officers but

nothing for field officers, captains, and staff officers, and that the housekeepers

for the officers were given no allowance from the province; pointing out that the

law requires the province to provide funding for full quarters costs equally for all

officers; requesting that Lyttelton take the necessary steps to ensure that South

Carolina abides by the law [BT number L.28.] [enclosed with Lyttelton’s

December 2, 1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 27]

[Note: Henry Bouquet (1719-1765) was a native of Switzerland who enlisted as

an officer in the British army. Prior to 1763, his military career was

unremarkable. However, in that year, he caused a stir by advocating to, and in

conjunction with, General Amherst a scheme for what today would be called

biological warfare. The idea was to infect blankets with small pox and then

distribute them to Indians who were threatening the security of Fort Pitt. Two

years later, when Bouquet was assigned to duty at Pensacola, the capital of the

new British colony of West Florida, he died suddenly of a disease thought now to

be yellow fever. Whether this was a case of divine justice has not been

substantiated. The issue on which he was commenting in this letter is an early

example of the kinds of political and economic rights issues that increasingly

arose in the 13 British colonies and eventually drove them toward revolution and

independence from Britain.]

29. February 18, 1758 [77]

Triplicate letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, concerning

Lyttelton’s efforts to encourage Indians on the frontier to oppose the French and

cooperate with the British; describing with satisfaction a report from Fort Loudoun

via Little Carpenter that of a group of Indians had killed several French settlers,

taken two French men and one woman prisoner, and observed a French fort

thought to be located near the confluence of the Hogohegee and Ohio Rivers;

describing efforts to set and reduce prices charged by Indian traders; describing

efforts to reach the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians [BT number L.29.]

[enclosed with Lyttelton’s December 2, 1758 letter to Board of Trade, document

27]

[Note: The geography mentioned in this letter is not clear. What the Cherokee

Indians called the Hogohegee River, and Europeans later renamed the Holston

River after a British explorer, is one of several tributaries of the Tennessee River,

originating in far southwestern Virginia. The rivers today called the Holston and

the French Broad merge east of Knoxville, in eastern Tennessee, to create the

Tennessee River, which eventually flows into the Ohio River in what is now far

northwestern Tennessee. Therefore, the Hogohegee River only technically has a

confluence with the Ohio River. The possible French fort reported to have been

observed might have been located at the confluence of the Holston

(Hogohegee) and the French Broad where the Tennessee River begins (rather

than at a confluence with the Ohio), putting it fairly close to Fort Loudoun, which

sat near the confluence of the Little Tennessee and Tennessee Rivers, not far

southwest of Knoxville. See also notes on geography after documents 98 and

101.]

30. February 21, 1759 [79]

Letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, reporting that Little

Carpenter and nine other Cherokee deserted the British military effort shortly

before Brigadier General Forbes and his troops successfully reduced Fort

Duquesne, that they had been captured, unarmed, and sent to Williamsburg [BT

number L.30.]

31. April 14, 1758 [81]

Letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, thanking them for their

positive responses to his efforts to improve the fortifications of South Carolina;

reporting that he had responded to the King’s orders concerning settlements

along the coast south of the Altamaha River, had jointly ordered, with the

Governor of Georgia, that the settlers move from these settlements, and that

inspection by militia at Fort Frederica indicated that the particular settlement in

question [New Hanover] had indeed been abandoned; reporting other news of

moves to reinforce Fort Loudoun; reporting additional violence by Indians, some

of it intertribal violence among Indians; reporting with concern about private

conversations supposedly going on between Indian leaders and the French, who

were trying to sway Indian friendship away from Britain; stating that Little

Carpenter had returned to Keowee from Virginia and had sent Lyttelton a friendly

Talk; reporting other Indian news; reporting that Atkin, who had been in Augusta,

was moving on to visit with the Creek Nation; reporting that the Assembly had

passed the annual tax act including a total of £115,470.6.9½, of which

£18,109.12.5 was surplus from the previous year, with additional details;

reporting that the Assembly had disallowed two expenditure items in the

contingency services account, and, questioning the Assembly’s legal authority to

question such expenditures, with details; when Lyttelton attempted to make the

payments, the Assembly refused to honor the payments; recommending George

Austin and Egerton Leigh to serve on the South Carolina Council, replacing

William Wragg (who had been suspended) and Charles Pinckney (who had died)

[for more on Austin and Leigh, see note after document 36] [BT number L.31.]

[with enclosures, documents 32 to 35]

[Note: This Charles Pinckney (?-1758) was a South Carolina planter, attorney,

and politician, serving as the colony’s Attorney General (1733), Speaker of the

House (1736, 1738, and 1740), Chief Justice (1752-1753), and Agent for the

colony (1753-1758). The Pinckney family was prolific and wealthy as plantation

and slave owners, merchants, and slave traders. It also produced a number of

notable political leaders for the colony and later the State of South Carolina, as

well as the United States. Several of Charles’ direct relations played significant

roles. One of Charles’ sons, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (1746-1825) fought

in the Revolutionary War and later signed the U.S. Constitution. Another son,

Thomas Pinckney (1750-1828) served in the U.S. House of Representatives, as

Governor of South Carolina, and as Minister to Britain and then Envoy to Spain.

In the latter position, he negotiated the 1795 Treaty of San Lorenzo (or Pinckney

Treaty) which codified U.S.-Spanish boundaries. Colonel Charles Pinckney

(1731 or 1732-1782), a cousin of Charles Cotesworth and Thomas Pinckney,

became a loyalist during the Revolutionary War but died in South Carolina before

the war officially ended. His son, Governor Charles Pinckney (1757-1824)

sided with the Americans, fought in the Revolutionary War, served in the

Continental Congress and later the U.S. House of Representatives, signed the

U.S. Constitution with his cousin Charles Cotesworth, and was governor of the

State of South Carolina from 1806 to 1808.]

32. December 8, 1758 [87]

Address from Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina to Lyttelton,

questioning some of the amounts in the account for contingency expenses, while

approving an estimate for the current year of £1,800 [BT number L.32.]

[enclosed with Lyttelton’s April 14, 1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 31]

[Note: The structure of the colonial government of South Carolina consisted

of 1) a Commons House of Assembly—a lower legislative body of members,

elected by white, property-owning, taxpaying males, to represent the various

parishes but not necessarily resident of the parish each represented; 2) a small

Upper House of Assembly that also served as Royal Council to the Governor—

appointed by the King and playing both a legislative and executive function; and

3) a Governor and a Lieutenant Governor—each appointed by the King, who

wielded royal executive power over the entire government, including

(theoretically at least) veto power over both legislative houses.

In practice, Commons House, whose members came largely from the élite

planter/merchant class, apparently sought to use the public legislative body “of

the people” to further the members’ own, private, economic benefits and to gain

protection for themselves and their property against slave disturbances and

Indian violence. To accomplish these goals, they sought greater control, in

relation to the Governor, over several aspects of colonial government rule,

including especially colonial finances and the election process of Commons

House itself.

This 1758 address from Commons House represents an early skirmish on the

issue over financial control. This issue became more intense in 1760 and 1761

(besides this address, see documents 33, 48 to 50, 73, 126, dated between 1758

and 1761).

Between 1760 and 1764 the second conflict emerged over control of the

Common House electoral process (see documents 102, 164 to 166, 183 to 185,

dated between 1760 and 1764). Both of these issues seem at this time to have

been conceived of as primarily internal, provincial matters. The motives of

Commons House members were to increase their power vis à vis the Governor

and Council, largely for the private benefit of the members themselves.

After 1765, the contest between Commons House and Governor began to be

redefined as part of the larger conflict to protect the declared rights of (often élite)

British subjects in America against alleged abuse by royal authority. By the early

1770s, the result in Charleston had become a functional stalemate in South

Carolina government. This was resolved only after South Carolinians overthrew

their colonial government in favor of first a provisional “rebel” government and

then an independent state government, as a part of the American Revolution.

See also note after Reel 2 document 15.]

33. [no date] [89]

Copy of address from Lyttelton to South Carolina Assembly, responding to

Commons House’s address to him of December 8, 1758 [document 32],

expressing surprise that the Assembly would question his order to pay

£119.10.0., using Contingency Services money, to James Laurens & Co. for

stores for use of the garrison at Frederica; with justifications for his order; hoping

that the Assembly would agree with his justifications; stating that he would accept

the same amount for contingencies as last year, although he had hoped they

would agree with him on the need for more money [BT number L.33.] [enclosed

with Lyttelton’s April 14, 1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 31]

34. [no date] [91]

“Minutes of my Proceedings” by H. Hyrne, under a Commission and Instructions

from Lyttelton dated January 5 and 6, 1759, to go to Savannah and from there,

with a commissioner from Georgia (James Edward Powell), to the settlement of

New Hanover to order the inhabitants to leave, since their settlement had not

received royal approval; containing detailed daily entries: having left Charleston

on January 17 and met with the inhabitants on February 3, all agreed that they

should move, but some expressed intention to move to Spanish territory; a paper

[with text included], was prepared, indicating that such a choice would not be

looked upon favorably by the British, which all present signed; having arrived

back at Charleston, after delays, on March 14, 1759; followed by

Copy of Lyttelton’s order for the settlers to move “published at New-Hanover, &

on Cumberland Island” [the settlers at New Hanover had previously been settlers

on Cumberland Island [BT number L.34.] [enclosed with Lyttelton’s April 14,

1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 31]

[Note: A Hyrne family had been in South Carolina since 1700. Further

information on H. Hyrne has not been found.]

[Note: The location of the New Hanover settlement is not clear but might have

been on St. Simons Island, a sea island south of the Altamaha River near

present-day Brunswick. Cumberland Island is two sea islands south of St.

Simons, not far north of the St. Marys River.]

35. March 6, 1759 [95]

Copy of letter from [Captain] Thomas Goldsmith [commanding officer at

Charleston] to Lyttelton, reporting having traveled on February 5, 1759 to New

Hanover and then to Cumberland Island and finding that each had been

abandoned by settlers [BT number L.35.] [enclosed with Lyttelton’s April 14,

1758 letter to Board of Trade, document 31]

36. June 26, 1759 [96]

Order from the Privy Council, concerning the King’s confirmation of appointments

of George Austin and Egerton Leigh to serve on the South Carolina Council,

replacing William Wragg who had vacated his seat and Charles Pinckney, who

had died, respectively [BT number L.36.]

[Note: William Wragg, a member of the South Carolina Council, had been

suspended. Evidently, he was replaced by George Austin. Charles Pinckney

was Agent for the colony of South Carolina from 1753 until his death in 1758 as

well as a member of the Council. Pinckney had previously served as Chief

Justice in 1752 and 1753. His successor as Chief Justice was Peter Leigh, from

1753 until he died in 1759. Peter’s son Egerton Leigh now succeeded Charles

Pinckney on the Council. A few years later, in 1765, the King appointed Egerton

Leigh Attorney General for South Carolina, a position he held until 1774, when he

fled the impending Revolution, returning to England. For more on Charles

Pinckney and his family, see note after document 31. Regarding Peter Leigh,

see also note after document 1]

46. January 11, 1753 [174]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Holdernesse, concerning death of

James Grame, Chief Justice of South Carolina, and recommendation of Peter

Leigh to replace him [for more on the succession of Chief Justices in South

Carolina, see Reel 1, notes after documents 36 and 40; Leigh served as Chief

Justice from 1753 until he died in 1759] [with enclosure, document 47]

[Note: Grame died in 1752 and was replaced for the short term by Charles

Pinckney, who served until Peter Leigh replaced him in 1753. Leigh then served

until his death in 1759.]

47. January 11, 1753 [176]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to the King, concerning death of James

Grame, Chief Justice of South Carolina, and recommendation of Peter Leigh to

replace him [enclosed with Board of Trade’s January 11, 1753 letter to

Hillsborough, document 46]

252

48. March 30, 1753 [177]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Holdernesse, conveying a letter from

Glen to Board of Trade with enclosed petition from South Carolina Governor,

Council, and Assembly to the King, seeking support to reconstruct fortifications

around Charleston lost during a hurricane, along with plans for Charleston

fortifications and other documents [with enclosures, documents 49 to 55]

49. October 7, 1752 [179]

Petition from Governor, Council, and Assembly of South Carolina to the King,

describing the recent hurricane, “which has done inexpressible Damage to the

Inhabitants, ruined the Forts and Fortifications of Charles Town, and of Fort

Johnson at the Entrance of that Harbour”; seeking relief through funding for

rebuilding the fortifications [enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 30, 1753 letter

to Holdernesse, document 48]

50. December 16, 1752 [180]

Extract of letter from Glen to Board of Trade, conveying his understanding that

the South Carolina Assembly, after realizing how expensive rebuilding

Charleston’s fortifications would be, agreed to petition the King for the needed

funding; a realization and agreement in which the Council concurred; conveying

several documents in support of these realizations; with details; noting that the

Assembly had been silent on funding for “the Store houses on the outside of the

Curtain line”; Glen’s interpreting this silence to reflect private traders’ wishes for

the public store houses not to be rebuilt so that privately owned store houses

would need to be used for public stores, to the private benefit of their owners

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 30, 1753 letter to Holdernesse, document

48]

51. November 24, 1752 [187]

Copy of report by William de Brahm to Glen concerning plans and costs for the

defense and fortification of Charleston [enclosed with Board of Trade’s March

30, 1753 letter to Holdernesse, document 48]

[Note: John William Gerrard de Brahm (1718-c. 1799) was a talented German

mapmaker and civil/military engineer. After serving as a “Captain Engineer” in

the German military, he came to America in about 1750. Before moving to

Georgia, he apparently lived and worked during the early 1750s in Charleston. In

1754, he was appointed Surveyor General of Georgia. By 1764, he had been

appointed to the equivalent position in newly British East Florida, but his

increasingly negative views about European imperialism caused him to be

relieved of his position by Governor James Grant of East Florida in 1770. After

spending the Revolutionary War years in Europe, he returned in 1791 to live his

later years in Philadelphia.]

253

52. September 25, 1752 [193]

Copy of “Report of the Situation of Fort Johnson since the late violent Hurricane”

by Captain and Commander of Fort Johnson, John Lloyd, to [Glen] [enclosed

with Board of Trade’s March 30, 1753 letter to Holdernesse, document 48]

[Note: Fort Johnson was named after Sir Nathaniel Johnson, who served as

proprietary governor of South Carolina from 1703 to 1709. It was located on the

Ashley River near Charleston.]

53. September 27, 1752 [195]

Copy of report from William Boone to Glen on “the State and Condition of

Broughton’s Battery since the late violent Hurricane” [Broughton’s Battery was

located at the far southern tip of the Charleston peninsula] [enclosed with Board

of Trade’s March 30, 1753 letter to Holdernesse, document 48]

54. September 22, 1752 [197]

Copy of “The Report of George Hunter Master Gunner of Craven’s Bastion”

[about hurricane damage to the bastion, which was located on the east side of

the lower Charleston peninsula near present-day Bay Street] [enclosed with

Board of Trade’s March 30, 1753 letter to Holdernesse, document 48]

55. December 18, 1750 [199]

Copy of testimonial [written in French] to the competency of de Brahm’s work as

a surveyor/fortifications designer; signed by Frederic Henry Marechal Comte de

Seckendorff [enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 30, 1753 letter to

Holdernesse, document 48]

[Note: This member of the large, powerful, and wealthy Franconian/German

Seckendorff family, evidently Friedrich Heinrich von Seckendorff (1673-1763),

was a professional soldier and field marshal in the armies of imperial Habsburg

Austria and of Bavaria. De Brahm must have worked with him when each was

involved in military design and construction in Germany during the 1740s or

before. For more on de Brahm, see the note after document 51.]

56. March 19, 1752 [202]

Report from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Holdernesse, concerning its

consideration of petition from Captain Charles McNair of South Carolina, which

seeks reimbursement for McNair’s personal expenses while he was working at

“gaining over a considerable Body of Choctaw Indians to the British Interest”;

reporting that his services had been verified and that, from his total losses of

£4,000, £1,000 could be considered reimbursable for losses incurred as a result

of his services, and not a reward for his services

57. February 6, 1753 [205]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Holdernesse, enclosing warrant

appointing Peter Leigh to be Chief Justice of South Carolina

254

58. [no date] [209]

“List of Ships and Vessels in the Port, and Harbour of Charles Town in South

Carolina in the Hurricane on Fryday the 15 Sep

1752”, including vessel’s name,

master’s name, and circumstances of the vessel following the hurricane, for 22

vessels; signed by Glen [enclosed with Board of Trade’s December 13, 1752

letter to Holdernesse, document 61]

[Note: The great hurricane of 1752 was the most intense and destructive

hurricane to hit South Carolina during the colonial period. It plowed head-on

from the sea into Charleston, causing extreme damage and loss of life from both

wind and tidal surge. According to historian Jonathan Mercantini, South

Carolina’s contentious efforts to clean up and rebuild after this natural disaster

demonstrate the constitutional hostility already engrained in the colony’s

government and politics (which would only intensify in the 1760s, especially

during the Stamp Act controversy, leading toward revolution in the 1770s).

(Reference: Jonathan Mercantini, The Great Carolina Hurricane of 1752, The

South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 103, No. 4 (October 2002), pages 351-

365)]

59. April 22, 1751 [211]

Letter from Board of Trade to Bedford, conveying letter from Glen, dated October

2, 1750, concerning Indian affairs in South Carolina plus other matters, especially

the McNair petition [with enclosure, document 60]

60. October 2, 1750 [213]

Extract of letter from Glen to Board of Trade, stating the difficulty of obtaining and

then maintaining the loyalty of Indian Nations, a situation made worse by the

activities of French to weaken Indian loyalty toward Britain; commenting on

Captain McNair petition, which he generally supported, contrary to the opinion of

the Assembly, as interpreted by Glen, that McNair provided no public service and

deserved no reimbursement for losses [similar letter with same date to Bedford

in Reel 5 document 97 [enclosed with Board of Trade’s April 22, 1751 letter to

Bedford, document 59]

61. December 13, 1752 [221]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Holdernesse, conveying Glen’s letter

dated September 19, 1752, with accounts of the “most dreadful Hurricane which

happen’d there” on September 15 [with enclosures, documents 58, 62]

62. September 19, 1752 [223]

Copy of letter from Glen at South Carolina to Board of Trade, describing in detail

the hurricane and its severe damage to people and property [enclosed with

Board of Trade’s December 13, 1752 letter to Holdernesse, document 61]

255

63. March 14, 1750 [226]

“Bill of Lading for 160 [?] Barrols on board the Live Oak, Captain James

Rodgers” [the cargo might have been publicly financed presents for Indians; see

documents 1-4, 6, 11, 36, and 45; the timing seems unlikely for this cargo to

have been lost in the hurricane of 1752, despite its juxtaposition in the

microfilmed documents]

64. March 14, 1750 [227]

“Captain W

. White’s Bill of Lading for Sundrys on board the Charming Nancy”

[the cargo might have been publicly financed presents for Indians; see

documents 1-4, 6, 11, 36, and 45; the timing seems unlikely for this cargo to

have been lost in the hurricane of 1752, despite its juxtaposition in the

microfilmed documents]

Volume 386—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

? 1721 to August 19, 1775 Documents 65 to 139 [Frames 1 to 209]

Note: See notes before Volume 382 (Reel 3) and Volume 385 (Reel 4) for information

on the coverage and organization of the DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of

State incoming correspondence for colonial South Carolina prior to 1753. See also the

overall summary of the microfilmed Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to

1784, in Table 13. Within Reel 4 Volume 386 (correspondence from 1753 to 1775 with

enclosures back to about 1721 and mostly before 1760) continues the poorly organized

pattern of Volume 385 (correspondence from 1743 to 1753 with enclosures back to

1719). As in Volume 385, the “sets” of correspondence in Volume 386 are organized

very roughly in reverse chronological order. The entire Reel (Volumes 385 and 386)

appears to be a miscellaneous collection of documents, with unexplained gaps and

erratic chronological order. (See also “Archival Anomalies” in the Introduction and a

version of this table in Table 11.)

______________________________________________________________________

Table 14: Understanding the fractured chronology of Volume 386

Document numbers (in order) Years of correspondence (out of order)

65 to 71 1760 to 1761

72, 73, 83 1772 to 1775

74 to 82 [no date] with dates otherwise identified as

between 1721 and 1736 plus one from about

1740, one from about 1760, and one

(document 77) with no identified date

84 to 139 1753 to 1760 with gaps as follows:

between 102 and 103 gap from December 1756 to December 1757

between 104 and 105 gap from December 1757 to May 1759

______________________________________________________________________

256

Note: Some of the “sets” of documents loosely follow the dates of governors and acting

governors of South Carolina. See the list of these governors and acting governors, with

their dates of service in the Introduction. What appears to be the main body of

Secretary of State incoming correspondence microfilmed by the DLAR is found in Reels

5 through 7. The documents microfilmed in these reels consist of a consistently

organized, chronologically ordered set of documents with fairly continuous dates from

1748 to 1777, except for a sizeable and unexplained gap from 1751 to 1762 (see note

at the beginning of Volume 390 in the middle of Reel 5). The existence of this set of

microfilmed documents leaves unanswered why the documents in Reel 4 were

apparently archived as well as microfilmed separately and so differently.

The Board of Trade consistently assigned archival numbers by Volume to official

correspondence from 1720 through 1775. The Secretary of State office did not begin

this practice until 1767, used it for several years, and then abruptly discontinued it in

July 1771. No archival numbers were assigned to any document in Volume 386.

Secretaries of State, beginning with the Earl of Shelburne in 1766, numbered their

letters to colonial governors and acting governors. In return, governors and acting

governors were expected to number their own letters to the secretary of state. None of

the letters in Volume 386, dated between 1721 and 1775, but mostly between 1753 and

1760, was numbered by the writer.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

65. February 11, 1761 [1]

Letter from the Board of Trade and Plantations at Whitehall to Secretary of State

William Pitt (Elder), informing Pitt that William Bull II, Lieutenant Governor of

South Carolina, had reported that the French “have built a Fort on the Tennessee

or Cherokee River, nearly in the midway between Fort Loudoun and Fort

Assumption on the Ohio” [for more on the geography of these rivers and forts,

see note after Reel 1 document 101] [with enclosure, document 66]

[Note: For more on the Board of Trade and Plantations, see note after Reel 1

document 1. William Pitt (Elder) served as Secretary of State for the Southern

Department from 1756 until October 1761. For more on William Bull II see

notes after Reel 1 documents 1, 39. In February 1761, Bull was acting governor

of South Carolina (in all but title). Five times during the years Bull served as

Lieutenant Governor (from 1759 to 1775), he became acting governor either

while a governor was on leave or during a hiatus between governors.

257

Governor William Henry Lyttelton had left Charleston on April 4, 1760, ending his

service as governor. His replacement, Governor Thomas Boone, did not arrive in

Charleston until December 22, 1761.] [transcript of this letter is in Board of Trade

Commissions, Instructions, Etc., Reel 11 document 4]

66. December 17, 1760 [4]

Extract of letter from Bull to Board of Trade, forwarding information received from

friendly Cherokee Indians that the French had built a fort on the Tennessee or

the Cherokee River, about half way between Fort Loudoun [actually on what is

now called the Little Tennessee River] and Fort Assumption on the Ohio River

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 11, 1761 letter to Pitt, document 65]

[original of this letter from Bull to Board of Trade is in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 1 document 101]

67. February 17, 1761 [6]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, recommending that Joseph

Stephenson be commissioned naval officer of South Carolina [transcript of this

letter is in Board of Trade Commissions, Instructions, Etc., Reel 11 document 5]

68. March 11, 1761 [9]

Letter from Board of Trade to Pitt, recommending that Dougal Campbell be

continued as Clerk of the Common Pleas in South Carolina [transcript of this

letter is in Board of Trade Commissions, Instructions, Etc., Reel 11 document 8]

69. December 11, 1761 [13]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to the Earl of Egremont, reporting receipt

of a letter from Bull dated September 23, 1760, reporting that a “preliminary

Articles for a General pacification with the Cherokee Indians” had been agreed

on that day [Egremont served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department

from October 9, 1761 to August 21, 1763; for more on the Earl of Egremont, see

note after Reel 1 document 174] [with enclosures, documents 70, 71] [transcript

of this letter is in Board of Trade Commissions, Instructions, Etc., Reel 11

document 29]

70. September 23, 1761 [15]

Extract of letter from Bull to Board of Trade, reporting in detail on the agreement

with the Cherokee Indians and of the circumstances leading to it [enclosed with

Board of Trade’s December 11, 1761 letter to Egremont, document 69]

[duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document

119]

258

71. September 23, 1761 [19]

Copy of “The Terms of Peace to be granted to the Cherokee Indians”, signed by

Bull for South Carolina and the mark of Attakullakulla for the Cherokee Nation [at

least one page of the microfilmed terms of peace is missing; the third page ends

in the middle of the 6

Article; and the fourth page begins at the beginning of the

Article; the complete document consists of 12 Articles [for more on Indian

chief Attakullakulla, whom the English called Little Carpenter, see note after Reel

1 document 19] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s December 11, 1761 letter to

Egremont, document 69] [complete, formal copy of Terms of Peace in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 120]

72. August 19, 1775 [23]

Letter from George Roupell, Deputy Postmaster General for the Southern

Department of North America at the General Post Office of Charleston to

Anthony Todd at the General Post Office of London, reporting that

“[revolutionary] Persecution continues to go on against the Friends and Officers

of Government without intermission”; stating that many of these friends and

officers, including himself, “dayly expect, and have prepared” to seek protection

on British warships or to leave Charleston completely; quoting an oath now being

required, which, he stated, “They all refused to take”; begging that the

postmaster general in England be apprised of the difficult situation postmasters

like himself were in; indicating that moving the mail in Charleston may soon

become impossible [second page of Frame 24 microfilmed twice]

73. [no date] [25]

“A List of Commercial & Revenue Bills passed [evidently by the “rebel”

government in South Carolina] in September [and later in] 1776/77”, including 22

acts, most identified by subject and by date, between November 1776 and June

1777

[Note: Documents 74 to 80 (except for document 77) are memorials and petitions with

no date. Dates for six of them have been found in a listing of source documents about

South Carolina history that are archived in what are called “Papers in the State Paper

Office, London.” Reference: These documents are listed in Volume 1 (1857), pages

250ff, of the Collection of the South Carolina Historical Society, published in 1857. The

dates are either actual document dates or dates with which particular documents are

associated. In these six entries, the dates found in this source (between 1721 and

1736) are shown in brackets immediately following “[no date]”.

74. [no date] [1721] [27]

Memorial from John Hammerton to [Secretary of State] Lord Viscount

Townshend, “praying to Succeed Mr. Rhett as Comptroller of the Customs of

South Carolina”

259

[Note: Viscount Charles Townshend served as Secretary of State for the

Northern Department from 1721 until 1730. Early during this time, the Northern

Department included South Carolina (the Southern Department consisted mostly

of the West Indian colonies). By 1724, Townshend’s political ally Thomas

Pelham-Holles, 1

Duke of Newcastle had become Secretary of State for the

Southern Department (now including South Carolina), a position he held until

1748. See note after Reel 3 document 10 for more on Newcastle.]

75. [no date] [1736] [29]

Memorial letter from James Abercrombie to [Secretary of State?], concerning

possible resignation of the current Attorney General of South Carolina, possibly

in favor of a friend [presumably Abercrombie]

[Note: James Abercrombie moved to South Carolina in 1730. He held several

public positions, including commissioner for redrawing the North Carolina/South

Carolina boundary line in 1735-1736. He was royal agent for South Carolina

from 1742 to 1757. In 1760, he elected to return permanently to England. In

Parliament in 1766, he opposed repeal of the Stamp Act.]

76. [no date] [1736] [31]

Memorial of Charles Burley to Secretary of State Newcastle, wishing to return to

South Carolina, where he previously had lived, and seeking to be appointed

Clerk of Common Pleas; maintaining that if he filled this position, he would help

resolve the current dispute between the South Carolina Governor and Chief

Justice]

77. [no date] [32]

Memorial of Joseph Boone offering himself to be governor of South Carolina,

signed by 12 individuals [clues not available to determine date]

78. [no date] [1728] [34]

Memorial of Lyder Muller “an Orphan and Minor” to the King, seeking permission

to remain living in his house in South Carolina, although the law allows another

adult to purchase it

79. [no date] [1728] [35]

Petition of Joseph Fox, late master in chancery [an official in chancery court] in

South Carolina, to Newcastle, seeking relief from having lost his position to

Theophilus Gregory, leaving him destitute by being appointed to another similar

position

80. [no date] [1736] [37]

Petition of Thomas Lowndes to Newcastle, concerning a grant of land in South

Carolina he believed was to be held by him until his death but which he had lost;

seeking relief to regain his grant of land

260

81. [no date] [written probably in early 1740] [38]

Draft of outgoing letter from [Newcastle?] at Whitehall to General Oglethorpe of

Georgia, reminding him of the Instruction he had received the previous October

[1739] from Newcastle “to make an attempt upon the Spanish Settlement at Fort

Augustine” in conjunction with the Governor and Council of South Carolina; now

instructing him to join forces with a larger expedition then approaching Jamaica,

commanded by Lord Cathcart

[Note: Only seven years after the official founding of the Colony of Georgia, this

new colony’s General and Proprietor/Governor James Oglethorpe had followed

his October 1739 Instructions, piecing together a motley armed force of

Georgians, South Carolinians, and Chickasaw Indians. When they arrived in

northern Florida in early 1740, they subdued several small peripheral forts,

including Fort Picolata on the St. Johns River and Fort Mose near St. Augustine.

They then laid siege to St. Augustine. The campaign ultimately failed, and the

remains of Oglethorpe’s army retreated northward.

For the Georgians and South Carolinians, a localized reason to support this war

was protection of slavery. The Spanish in St. Augustine supported a policy, as

an irritant to their English enemy to the north, of welcoming runaway slaves,

freeing them from slavery, and settling them in Florida. Although the Spanish

imposed segregation and second-class citizenship on the African American

settlers, they offered them a separate home at Fort Mose, which doubled as a

peripheral defensive fortification for the Spanish in St. Augustine.

Charles Cathcart, 8

Lord Cathcart, was a career military leader, as were

several generations in his family. Late in his career, he was placed in charge of

an ambitious campaign to confront Spanish power in North America and the

West Indies. This was part of Britain’s grand strategy to dominate its European

rivals. This small piece of the grand strategy was called the War of Jenkins’ Ear

(1739 to 1748). In January 1740, while Cathcart’s fleet and army were still in the

West Indies, Cathcart died, and, with him, plans for Oglethorpe’s force to join

with Cathcart’s in a grand invasion of Spanish Florida.]

82. [no date] [written probably about 1760] [40]

Petition of James Sutherland, Captain and Commander at Fort Johnson, near

Charleston, stating that he had served this fort for many years but that his salary

had never kept up with the demands for operating this important fort, and that he

therefore was requesting redress from the King to pay the excess costs he had

paid personally, leaving him in financial difficulty

[Note: Fort Johnson was built in the 1730s as part of Charleston’s city

defenses. By the time this letter was written, probably around 1760, the fort had

deteriorated over time, plus being decimated by the great hurricane of 1752. In

the early 1760s, it was expanded and improved.]

261

83. January 2, 1772 [42]

“Substance of a Letter from Mr. Atkinson dated Charleston…to Mr. Henry Kendall

in London”; mentioning “that a Spanish Frigate with Troops” had arrived at

Charleston “under pretence of being in Distress”, seeking provisions, although

saying they had come only as far as from Havana; suspecting that they were

really there to observe Charleston’s “opulence”

84. June 19, 1754 [44]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Secretary of State Sir Thomas

Robinson, recommending that Dougal Campbell succeed George Wedderburn,

who had died, as Clerk of the Crown and Common Pleas in South Carolina

[Note: Dougal Campbell served in this clerk position probably until his death in

December 1770 (see Reel 2 document 164). In 1766, he became embroiled,

probably more as a pawn than a partisan, in the politics of enforcement of the

Stamp Act (see about 20 documents, scattered in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2, between documents 28 and 65). His death in 1770

suggests suicide by a man whose mind had been deranged, perhaps by the

stresses of the bit part he played in the Stamp Act controversy.]

[Note: Thomas Robinson, 1

Baron Grantham, served as Secretary of State

for the Southern Department from March to October 1754.]

85. June 20, 1754 [48]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Robinson, concerning a report from

Charles Pinckney “that the French intend to build a Fort in the Upper Cherokee

Country” and, therefore, the importance of building British forts in the same area;

pointing out that Governor Glen had warned of the same thing in 1747, that the

British government had instructed him to buy land from the Cherokees for a fort,

which he had done but was having difficulty in 1750 building a fort there, and no

construction had begun on the fort since then [with enclosures, documents 86 to

88]

86. June 1, 1754 [52]

Representation of Charles Pinckney to Board of trade, conveying his information

from South Carolina about French plans to build a fort in Upper Cherokee

country; stating his belief that this was a dangerous situation that deserved

serious attention by the British government [enclosed with Board of Trade’s June

20, 1754 letter to Robinson, document 85]

87. July 28, 1753 [56]

Copy of letter from South Carolina Governor James Glen to Charles Pinckney,

thanking him for agreeing to convey information that could help the cause of

South Carolina, during his stay in England [Glen served as Governor of South

Carolina from 1743 to 1756; for more on him, see note after Reel 1 document 1]

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s June 20, 1754 letter to Robinson, document 85]

262

88. April 9, 1754 [58]

“Paragraph of a letter from Mr. William Pinckney” to [?] concerning information

received from the Upper Cherokee that the French intended to build a fort in

Upper Cherokee territory [enclosed with Board of Trade’s June 20, 1754 letter to

Robinson, document 85]

89. June 25, 1754 [60]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Robinson, informing him that the

Board had prepared a warrant appointing Dougal Campbell to be Clerk of the

Common Pleas

90. April 22, 1755 [63]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Robinson, recommending Joseph

Stephenson to be naval officer for South Carolina, following the death of Apsley

Bret

91. May 18, 1753 [65]

Proclamation of Glen, calling on all South Carolina civil and military officers to

allow a native of “Barbary” [northwest African Mediterranean coast], who had

been enslaved by the Portuguese and imprisoned in South Carolina to be

allowed to live peaceably in South Carolina

92. May 18, 1753 [67]

Copy of Proclamation of Glen [document 91] [more readable copy]

93. March 9, 1757 [69]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to William Pitt (Elder), having received

letters from South Carolina Governor William Henry Lyttelton dated December 25

and December 31, 1756, in which he reported information that South Carolina

was about to be invaded and took steps against this possibility; also conveying

news of Indian relations [William Pitt (Elder) served as Secretary of State for the

Southern Department from December 1756 to October 1761 except from April to

June 1757] [Lyttelton served as Governor of South Carolina from 1756 to 1760;

for more on him, see note after Reel 1 document 1] [second page of Frame 69

microfilmed twice] [with enclosures, documents 94 to 102]

94. December 25, 1756 [71]

Copy of letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, concerning a

possible Spanish invasion of South Carolina and actions he took to protect the

colony; concerning also Indian relations in the upper Cherokee country

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 9, 1757 letter to Pitt, document 93]

263

95. November 24, 1756 [76]

Deposition of William Wilkins at Fort Frederica [located on Saint Simons Island,

now in Georgia; for more on this fort and its history, see note after Reel 1

document 1] concerning the threat of war with the Creek Indians; signed by

Lyttelton [enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 9, 1757 letter to Pitt, document

93]

96. November 24, 1756 [78]

Deposition of Joseph Blyth, concerning the threat of war with the Creek Indians

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 9, 1757 letter to Pitt, document 93]

97. November 20, 1756 [81]

Copy of letter from William Gray, to the commanding officer at Fort Frederica,

reporting on visiting a town “up Setilly River”, where Creek Indians told him about

movements of Spanish armed men, who were seeking to entice the Indians to

support the Spanish over the British [enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 9,

1757 letter to Pitt, document 93]

[Note: The Satilla River is one of Georgia’s many tidal rivers, emptying into the

Atlantic between Sea Islands Cumberland and Jekyll. It winds slowly and

circuitously across the coastal plain from rural central Georgia southeastward.

For the Creek Indians, All of Georgia’s coastal plain and more were once home

territory for the Creek Indians.]

98. December 15, 1756 [83]

Copy of “narrative” by William Birch, written in Charleston, reporting on a scare in

Jamaica over a possible French fleet arriving on the island of Santo Domingo

[Hispaniola]; but learning later from a British prisoner released by the French that

the large and well armed and supplied fleet “was certainly intended to make a

Desert on Georgia and South Carolina the ensuing Spring” [enclosed with Board

of Trade’s March 9, 1757 letter to Pitt, document 93]

99. November 25, 1756 [85]

Copy of letter No. 1 from Captain Raymond Demere at English Camp [location

not clear but somewhere in Cherokee territory] to Lyttelton, reporting that the

“Old Warrior of Tomathy” [Tomatlay was an Over Hill Cherokee village], an Indian

who “is a true friend to us”, had given intelligence to Demere, saying that the

Creek Indians and Cherokees at Tellico [a major “Over Hill” Cherokee village,

along with Settico (or Citico)] [on the western slopes of the Appalachian

Mountains in today’s eastern Tennessee], who previously had been enemies,

had met with the French on a friendly basis at the Alabama Fort [perhaps French

Fort Toulouse on the Coosa River at the site of today’s Wetumpka, Alabama,

also known as Fort des Alibamons] and elsewhere; stating that it appeared that

the Creeks were lost from friendship with the English [enclosed with Board of

Trade’s March 9, 1757 letter to Pitt, document 93] [see note about scrivener and

archivist (or perhaps author) document numbering after Reel 1 document 141]

264

[Note: Captain Raymond Demere (1702-1766) was a British military man with

a long history of service in Cherokee country. He had been responsible for

reconstructing Fort Prince George (originally built in 1753) and for constructing

Fort Loudoun in 1756-1757. For more on these two forts, each built near a major

Cherokee town (Keowee in the lower towns and Chota in the “over hill” towns),

and on the build-up to the 1758-1761 Cherokee War, see notes after Reel 1

documents 1, 7, 24). When this fort was completed, Raymond’s brother,

Captain Paul Demere ( ? -1760), also a military man, assumed command of it,

serving there until 1760, when he was killed in the Cherokee “massacre” of that

date. The Demere brothers, originally Démére, came from a French Huguenot

family about which little is known.]

100. December 2, 1756 [89]

Copy of letter No. 2 from Demere at English Camp to [Lyttelton?], reporting

having received the following intelligence from a Tellico runner just come from

the Alabama Fort, that four Tellico people were on their way to New Orleans to

travel to France; reporting also that Indians from throughout the Cherokee Nation

were being called to meet at the Cold Springs [location not clear; a Cool Springs

exists today at Franklin, TN, to the west of traditional Cherokee territory] to

receive presents from the French [enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 9, 1757

letter to Pitt, document 93]

101. December 31, 1756 [91]

Copy of letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, informing them

about his follow-up response to the perceived threats reported by Demere,

including sending some troops from Augusta northward to Fort Prince George

[near the “lower towns” of Cherokee territory on the eastern slopes of the

Appalachian Mountains in South Carolina] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s

March 9, 1757 letter to Pitt, document 93]

102. December 13, 1756 [95]

Copy of letter from Demere at English Camp to [Lyttelton], reporting on

intelligence received from the Indian named “Judges Friend”, stating that he did

not believe that the Creeks would end their friendship with the English but that

the situation remained uncertain [enclosed with Board of Trade’s March 9, 1757

letter to Pitt, document 93]

[Note: Osteneco (or perhaps Ocanostata), a great Cherokee warrior from the

over-hill Tellico village, was known to the English as Judd’s Friend or Judge’s

Friend (early in life, he apparently saved a man named Judd, maybe a judge,

from being killed by the Cherokee). Initially a more belligerent rival of Little

Carpenter, he was enticed into the English orbit by being selected to travel to

England in 1762. Later in life, he was known as the Indian Thomas Jefferson

knew best.]

265

103. December 8, 1757 [97]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, conveying a memorial to the

Board from Childermas Crofts [member of a wealthy planter family with a

plantation just north of Charleston], clerk of the General Assembly of South

Carolina, seeking relief for his health by allowing him to return to England; the

Board recommending approval of a leave of absence for this purpose

104. December 22, 1757 [99]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, conveying a memorial to the

Board, from James Wright, Attorney General of South Carolina, having found it

necessary to return to England for health reasons, seeking approval for an

extended leave of absence for recovery; the Board recommending approval

[Note: James Wright had served as South Carolina’s Attorney General since

1747. In 1757, he parlayed his return to England for health reasons into

appointment as the Crown Agent for South Carolina, living in London. He held

this position until, in 1760, he was appointed Governor of Georgia, a position he

held (not quite continuously) until 1782.]

105. May 22, 1759 [105]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, recommending that Richard

Cumberland be appointed to the offices of Provost Marshal, Clerk of the Crown,

and Clerk of the Peace in South Carolina, in the place of Hugh Watson, who had

died

106. February 6, 1760 [108]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, conveying letters from Lyttelton in

which he described actions he initiated personally to lead more than 1,000 troops

into battle against the Cherokee Indians in response to Indian incursions into

British territory and “outrages” against the British [with enclosures, documents

107 to 128]

[Note: These actions are the first phase of the so-called Anglo-Cherokee War

of 1758 to 1761 (for more on this war, see note after document 123). In this

phase, Lyttelton personally led an armed force of militia he had ordered recruited.

Although Cherokee leaders Old Hop and Little Carpenter sought to dissuade

Lyttelton, they could not control their own younger warriors, who, like Lyttelton,

were intent upon war. The Cherokee “emperor” or highest level chief was named

Kanagatoga but the British called him Old Hop because of his venerable age

and limp. The senior chief named Attakullakulla was called Little Carpenter by

the British. These two tribal leaders tried unsuccessfully to maintain friendly

relations between the Cherokee and British and to avert war. For more on

Attakullakulla, see note after Reel 1 document 19. For more on Kanagatoga, see

note after Reel 1 document 22.]

266

107. September 1, 1759 [110]

Extract of letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, describing

Cherokee Indian outrages against South Carolina inhabitants, efforts of friendly

Cherokee chief Little Carpenter to reduce the violence, strengthening and re-

provisioning Fort Loudoun, and other measures [enclosed with Board of Trade’s

February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

108. May 22, 1759 [115]

Copy of Talk by Lyttelton at Charleston to Cherokee Emperor Old Hop and Chief

Little Carpenter, seeking to preserve “a firm Peace and Friendship with the

Cherokee Nation” but stating having received reports of a gang of Cherokee

Indians having killed 19 English subjects; requesting that the Cherokee provide

legal satisfaction by apprehending and punishing the perpetrators [second sheet

of Frame 115 microfilmed twice] [another copy of this Talk in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 41] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s

February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

109. June 27, 1759 [118]

Copy of Talk by Old Hop and Little Carpenter at Fort Loudoun to Lyttelton, also

wishing for peace and friendship and asking for forgiveness from the governors

of both South Carolina and Virginia [another copy of this Talk in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 42] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s

February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

110. July 10, 1759 [121]

Copy of letter from Captain Paul Demere, commander at Fort Loudoun, to

Lyttelton, reporting that, as instructed, he had called Old Hop and Little Carpenter

in to the fort and read to them and a large group of Indians Lyttelton’s Talk, after

which Old Hop and Little Carpenter had responded that they felt apprehending

and punishing the gang members “wou’d but make bad worse” because the

leader of the gang was a relation of the “Great Warrior” but that they would take

steps to ensure that such violence against English subjects did not happen again

in the future; after which Little Carpenter presented his Talk of continuing

friendship; Old Hop and Little Carpenter also promised that the Cherokee

warriors would actively support the British against the French [another copy of

this letter in Board of trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 43]

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

111. July 22, 1759 [125]

Extract of letter from Paul Demere at Fort Loudoun to Lyttelton, stating that Little

Carpenter had reported being pressed by his young warriors, especially at

Settico and Tellico, to allow them to go to war against the French [another copy

of this extract in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 44]

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

267

112. August 3, 1759 [127]

Extract of letter from Lieutenant [Richard] Coytmore [commander] at Fort Prince

George, to Lyttelton, reporting that the Cherokees who had gone to talk with the

Creeks had returned with four Creek Indians, and that a large meeting was called

at Keowee, which an informer had attended in secret; stating that the Creek

purpose was to draw the Cherokee with them into a war against the English;

reporting that the Cherokee were skeptical, but that the initial agreement would

have to be the killing of all “white people” on their territories [another copy of this

extract in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 45]

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

113. May 1, 1758 [actually 1759] [133]

Copy of letter from journal of trader to the Chickasaw John Bucknell, at the

Chickasaw Nation, to Jerome Courtonne, also an Indian trader, containing

entries from a journal documenting multiple occurrences of violence between the

Chickasaw and the Choctaw Indians, indicating that the Chickasaw were being

friendly to the British cause, against the French, with incidents dated May 12,

June 5, June 16, July 28, August 2, September 6, September 14, November 20,

December 2, and December 12, 1758 and January 8, January 16, March 8, April

3, 1759 [first sheet of Frame 135 microfilmed twice] [enclosed with Board of

Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106] [another copy of letter is

in Reel 1 document 46, also misdated 1758]

[Note: John Buckell and Jerome Courtonne were both Indian traders,

especially with the Chickasaw Nation. Both may have been in touch with

Lyttelton, providing information to colonial officials. John was known by several

similar last names, perhaps starting with Bucknell, going through maybe

Bucknells and then Buckells, before morphed to Buckles. A transcript of a

journal written by Courtonne was produced by the Genealogical Society of Utah

in 1952. Called Indian Book, 1754-1757, it includes, besides some letters and

other documents, a diary of a trip Courtonne took from Augusta to and with the

Chickasaw people, between July 1755 and April 1756. Courtonne died in 1761.]

114. October 16, 1759 [141]

Duplicate letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade, describing the

actions he took, culminating in his command of a military force against the

Cherokee [the first phase of the Anglo-Cherokee War] [original letter in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 53] [enclosed with Board of

Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

115. September 26, 1759 [145]

Letter from Coytmore at Fort Prince George to Lyttelton, describing Indian acts in

response to their policy to kill all white people, which Coytmore describes as, in

certain places, “absolute open War” [copy of this letter in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 56] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s

February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

268

116. September 13, 1759 [146 second sheet]

Letter from Paul Demere at Fort Loudoun to Lyttelton, describing the unrest of

Indians at Fort Loudoun, especially after the Fort stopped providing ammunition

to the Indians [copy of this letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence,

Reel 1 document 55] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to

Pitt, document 106]

117. September 12, 1759 [148]

Copy of letter from Maurice Anderson [apparently an informer] at Fort Loudoun to

Richard Coytmore [at Fort Prince George], describing the unrest of Indians at

Settico, which, along with Tellico, were the only towns that had “broke out”

[another copy of this letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1

document 54] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt,

document 106]

118. September 26, 1759 [150]

Letter from Captain John Stuart at Fort Prince George to Lyttelton, having

learned about the violent actions of Cherokee Indians and their control over

communications and transportation in the areas of Fort Prince George, Fort

Loudoun, and elsewhere [copy of this letter in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 1 document 57] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s February

6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

[Note: John Stuart was a long-time negotiator between Indian and British

interests, cooperation, and hostilities. Although personally sympathetic toward

the Indian Nations, he officially served the purposes of the King, in the position of

Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southern Department, from 1761 to 1779,

when he died. In 1759, although Edmund Atkin was then Superintendent of

Indian Affairs, Stuart was already actively involved. For more on Stuart, see

notes after Reel 1 documents 18, 57.]

119. [no date] [152]

Copy of address of Lyttelton to South Carolina Assembly, concerning the bad

situation with the Cherokee Indians and the need for military action against them;

expressing confidence that the Crown would generously support the effort

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

120. October 6, 1759 [154]

Copy of order by Commons House to Lyttelton, stating its readiness to consider

funding for military action the Cherokee Indians, as soon as Lyttelton submits

estimated costs to them [another copy of this order in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 1 document 60] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s February

6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

269

121. [no date] [156]

Copy of Lyttelton’s response to Assembly’s order [document 120] concerning

funding for military action against the Cherokee Indians, estimating that the

militia force needed would not exceed somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 men

[another copy in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 62]

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

122. October 11, 1759 [158]

Copy of address from South Carolina Commons House to Lyttelton, declaring

that, although the dangerous situation with the Cherokee Indians requires a

strong response, Commons House unanimously believes that declaring war on

the Cherokee Nation “at this Time, will be attended with the greatest Evils &

Calamities, & be productive of the most dangerous & even fatal Consequences,

as well to the Inhabitants of this, as of the neighbouring Province, [and thus] do

most seriously advise & earnestly desire that your Excellency will not cause War

to be declared against that Nation, until all hopes shall be lost of obtaining a

reasonable & adequate satisfaction from them” [another copy of this address in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 61] [enclosed with

Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

123. [no date] [160]

Copy of Lyttelton’s response to Commons House’s address [document 122],

stating that he had declared war on the Cherokee Indians and explaining his

reasons, but delaying his decision until Commons House had approved the

funding for the expedition, which he expected from them very soon [enclosed

with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

[Note: The Anglo-Cherokee War of 1759 to 1761 was fought in three phases,

the first phase in late 1759, with Governor Lyttelton in personal command of a

militia military force he himself recruited. Lyttelton’s army marched from

Charleston north to Cherokee territory where, in December, it was able to defeat

the Indians and to incarcerate a group of chiefs come to negotiate, who were

held as hostages for the capture and punishment of warriors identified as guilty of

murdering certain South Carolina settlers (the proximate cause of the war).

Declaring victory, and to negotiate the terms of British “satisfaction” for the

murders of the settlers, Lyttelton imposed a treaty on the Cherokee in late

December (in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, see Reel 1 documents

53 to 70; in Secretary of State incoming correspondence, see Reel 4 documents

106 to 130). Lyttelton soon learned that his treaty had not resolved anything and

that his policy of insisting on British “satisfaction” for the murders had backfired.

Violence intensified, leading the British, in March 1760, to massacre the hostage

chiefs at Fort Loudoun.

270

During the second phase, in summer 1760, Lyttelton convinced the British

military commander in North America, Jeffrey Amherst, to send regular British

troops to put down the Indians (for more on Amherst, see note on Relations with

Indians after Reel 1 document 1). Amherst sent Highlander Commander Colonel

Archibald Montgomerie with a small military force of British Army regulars into

Cherokee territory with instructions to kill Indians and destroy their property (for

more on Montgomerie, see note on Relations with Indians after Reel 1 document

1). In June, Montgomerie made a half-hearted attempt at each but unexpectedly

and irreversibly retreated, even in the face of criticism, all the way to Charleston,

after which his little army embarked on ships and left South Carolina.

Montgomerie’s ineffectiveness encouraged hostile Cherokee warriors to take the

initiative. They successfully enforced a siege against Fort Loudoun, which was

forced by imminent starvation to surrender in August (in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, see scattered documents in Reel 1 between documents 82 and

97; in Secretary of State incoming correspondence, see Reel 4 documents 131

to 134).

The third phase inevitably ensued in 1761, as the British sought revenge. In

December 1760, Amherst assigned a larger British-regular army, to be

commanded by Montgomerie’s second in command, Colonel James Grant (for

more on Grant, see note on Relations with Indians after Reel 1 document 1).

Grant’s assignment to finish the job at which Montgomerie had so feebly failed.

Grant viciously applied violence against Indian people and property to the point

that the Cherokee Nation was decimated and demoralized (in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, see scattered documents in Reel 1 documents 101 to

120); in Secretary of State incoming correspondence, see documents 65 to 71

(except document 67). The Anglo-Cherokee War was over, but British relations

with the Indian Nations were worse than ever.]

124. [no date] [162]

Copy of address from Lyttelton to General Assembly, stating that insufficient

funding had been approved for the expedition against the Cherokee, time was

pressing, as the militia recruits were assembling, and therefore Lyttelton had

decided he must go ahead on his own with what had been approved; therefore,

adjourning the General Assembly until March 26, 1761 [enclosed with Board of

Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

125. October 23, 1759 [164]

Letter from Lyttelton at Charleston to Board of Trade submitting copies of

minutes of conferences with Over Hill Town Cherokee Indian leaders; result

being that the British decided the Indian assurances of accommodating British

needs and wishes were “insecure” and deciding, therefore, that British policy

would be to seek full satisfaction from the Cherokee for the “many murders and

outrages they have committed against His Majesty’s Good subjects of this

province”;

271

also requiring that any treaty would be verifiably binding on all Cherokee before it

was approved, because the Lower Town Cherokee appeared still to be hostile,

while the Lower Town Cherokee were seeking to accommodate British needs;

also requiring that full funding for additional militia duty if necessary after signing

a would be approved in advance by the Assembly [duplicate letter in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 64] [enclosed with Board of

Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

126. October 18, 19, 22, 1759 [169]

Extracts of minutes from South Carolina Council meetings:

October 18, 1759

South Carolina Council meeting, during which great leaders from Chota [main

village of Over Hill Towns of Cherokee Indians] met with the Council to engage in

a collective Talk with Lyttelton about British relations with the Cherokee Indians

and recent violence against South Carolina settlers [last sheet of these minutes

microfilmed twice]; followed by

October 19, 1759

South Carolina Council meeting, with the Chota Cherokee leaders present,

during which Lyttelton engaged in a discussion/Talk with Over Hill Town

Cherokee leaders; followed by

[all enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

October 22, 1759 [172]

South Carolina Council meeting, with the Chota Cherokee leaders and one

Lower Towns Cherokee leader present to hear Lyttelton’s Talk to the Cherokee,

describing his understanding of relations between the Cherokee and British,

including Cherokee actions hostile to Britain, suggesting that the time had come

when the British must demand satisfaction for Indian violence against South

Carolina settlers

[copy of all three extracts of minutes in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 1 document 65] [all enclosed with Board of Trade’s

February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

127. Various dates in late 1759 [174]

“Extracts from Letters receiv’d from the Speaker of the House of Assembly in

South Carolina”, traveling with Lyttelton’s military force; to [South Carolina Agent

James Wright ], including

October 27, 1759

Stating that the Governor’s military force had left for Cherokee territory, with

hopes for a peaceful conclusion, not war, against the Cherokee, followed by

November 10, 1759

Still expressing hope for a peaceful resolution; followed by

December 1, 1759

Stating that the military force had reached 96 [for more on the frontier fort Ninety-

Six or 96, see note after Reel 1 document 66], still hoping for an amicable

resolution; followed by

272

December 5, 1759

Stating that the military force was marching from 96 to Fort Prince George

“where the Indians are to meet him”; followed by

December 14, 1759

Stating that no further news had been received

[copy of each extract in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1

document 66]

[all enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 6, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 106]

128. February 21, 1760 [176]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, concerning receipt of Lyttelton’s

letter dated December 29, 1759 announcing that he had “happily put an End to

the War with the Cherokee Indians”; stating that his force had captured 21

warriors, who were being held as hostages for delivery by the Cherokee to the

British of 21 other warriors who were guilty of murdering British settlers, to be

dealt with as the British saw fit; enclosing the resulting treaty [with enclosures,

documents 129, 130]

129. December 29, 1759 [178]

Copy of letter from Lyttelton at Fort Prince George to Board of Trade, explaining

the conclusion of the war with the Cherokee Indians, the plan to punish Cherokee

warriors guilty of settler murders, which he says actually number 24 [another

copy of letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 67]

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 20, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 128]

130. December 26, 1759 [180]

Copy of treaty between Lyttelton as Governor of South Carolina and

Attakullakulla (Little Carpenter) as deputy headman of the Cherokee Nation,

containing 6 articles, signed at Fort Prince George by Lyttelton for the British and

by Little Carpenter and five other Cherokee chiefs [enclosed with Board of

Trade’s February 20, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 128] [another copy of treaty in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 68]

131. September 23, 1760 [185]

Letter from Edward Sedgwick [apparently a clerk at Board of Trade] to Robert

Wood [apparently a worker in Secretary of State office], in the absence of

[Secretary for the Board of Trade John] Pownall, concerning letter from Bull to

Board of Trade dated July 20, 1760, describing the arrival of Colonel

Montgomerie with troops and their engagement against the Cherokee in June,

followed by his decision to return to Charleston; asking that Bull’s letter be placed

before Secretary of State Pitt [perhaps with enclosures, documents 132 to 134,

but not so identified] [for more on Montgomerie’s “second phase” in the Anglo-

Cherokee War of 1759 to 1761, see Board of Trade incoming correspondence,

note after Reel 1 document 1 and note after document 123]

273

132. July 20, 1760 [187]

Duplicate letter from Bull at Charleston to Board of Trade, providing information

on the arrival of Colonel Montgomerie and his subsequent brief campaign against

the Cherokee, with details; concluding that South Carolina had wanted

Montgomery to stay and complete the task and now remained in danger from the

Cherokee [original letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1

document 83] [perhaps enclosed with Edward Sedgwick’s September 23, 1760

letter to Robert Wood, document 131, but not so identified]

133. July 12, 1760 [189]

Copy of letter from Bull at Charleston to Board of Trade, reporting on receipt of

letter from Colonel [James] Grant with his own, different account of

Montgomerie’s brief campaign against the Cherokee in June 1760, with his own

evidence that the campaign could have been pressed more strongly with greater

success [another copy of letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence,

Reel 1 document 84] [perhaps enclosed with Edward Sedgewick’s September

23, 1760 letter to Robert Wood, document 131, but not so identified]

134. [no date; evidently in summer 1760] [190]

Copy of letter from Bull to Montgomerie [microfilmed letter is missing at least the

first page and therefore a date], stressing to Montgomerie the dangers of not

decimating the Cherokee who will, otherwise, ally with the French, offering them

a prime opportunity to control the North American interior and diminish Britain’s

colonies; seeking to persuade Montgomerie, agreeing with Bull’s analysis, to take

appropriate military action against the Cherokee [perhaps enclosed with Edward

Sedgewick’s September 23, 1760 letter to Robert Wood, document 131, but not

so identified]

135. “Monday the 10

past 10’ at night” [perhaps July 10, 1760] [191]

Note from a Board of Trade employee [Sedgwick?] to Wood, on Pownall’s behalf,

informing Wood that a letter had just been received from Bull with news that the

garrison of surrendered Fort Loudoun had been “massacred by the Savages,”

with all officers killed except one

136. [no date] [193]

[evidently soon after the death of King George II on October 25, 1760]

Copy of memorial on behalf of the late Samuel Horsey to the King, seeking help

in having the new King George III follow through on an earlier memorial from the

late Samuel Horsey to King George II [may be following up on Samuel Horsey’s

petition of February 15, 1734 concerning ownership of land given by South

Carolina’s proprietors; in 1738, Horsey was appointed to be governor of South

Carolina; however, he died later that year; thus, he never serving as governor,

and his memorial appears to have been held up for many years; see Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 3 document 54 and note after it, along

with documents 98, 99, 115, 116]

274

137. [no date] [perhaps in 1735] [195]

Copy of petition of Colonel Robert Johnson to the King, whose father, Nathaniel

Johnson, had been governor of South Carolina and who himself had been the

last proprietor governor from 1717 to 1719, now petitioning to be considered to fill

the vacant position of royal governor

[Note: In 1735, the British government’s first candidate to fill the vacant position

of royal governor of South Carolina was Samuel Horsey; yet in the end, he was

passed over, and Robert Johnson served as royal governor from 1735 to 1737.

When Johnson died in office, Horsey again became the lead candidate, was

appointed, but died before he could begin serving. For the Horsey family

memorial, see document 136 For more on Robert Johnson’s governorships, see

note after Reel 3 document 4 in Board of Trade incoming correspondence.

Why the Horsey memorial and Johnson petition appear microfilmed among

documents dated in 1760 in the Secretary of State incoming correspondence is

not clear. Because of their interconnections, perhaps the c. 1735 Johnson

petition was submitted in 1760 in support of the new Horsey family memorial.]

138. December 19, 1760 [197]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, conveying letter from Bull to Board

of Trade dated October 21, 1760, which explains the situation with the Cherokee

Indians “since their Breach of the Capitulation of Fort Loudoun, and of the

present State of Affairs with respect to those Indians” [with enclosure, document

139] [abstract of this letter is in Board of Trade Commissions, Instructions, Etc.,

Reel 11 document 2]

139. October 21, 1760 [200]

Copy of letter from Bull at Charleston to Board of Trade, hoping for military

assistance from Britain against the threat from France; explaining in detail what

had happened between the British and the Cherokee Indians since the massacre

by the Indians of the captive British officer from Fort Loudoun; suggesting that

Britain commit additional military power to the region, especially in efforts against

Mobile, New Orleans, and Louisiana [enclosed with Board of Trade’s December

19, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 138] [another copy is in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 98, with another copy in document

99]

Note: Volumes 387 and 388 in the CO5 Colonial Papers of South Carolina are not

included in the DLAR’s microfilmed collection. They contain Secretary of State

incoming correspondence dated between 1715 and 1746, before the period of interest

of the DLAR. Organizationally, they appear to start the Secretary of State incoming

correspondence (specifically the royal colonial correspondence) chronologically over

again, in continuous, chronological order. This leaves hanging the question of the

reason for the seemingly separate set of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

from 1699 until 1760 with a few documents up to 1775 (Reels 3 and 4 Volumes 382 to

386.)

275

Reel 5 (Volumes 389, 390)

Volume 389—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

January 30, 1747 to December 31, 1751 Documents 1 to 110 [Frames 1 to 264]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. See notes before Volume 382

(Reel 3) and Volumes 385 and 386 (Reel 4) for information on the coverage and

organization of South Carolina incoming Secretary of State correspondence from 1699

to 1775 (actually about 1760 with outlier documents to 1775) in what appears to be a

separate set of Secretary of State correspondence, originally covering the Proprietary

Colony of South Carolina, but continued well beyond into the period of the Royal

Colony. This set of correspondence is both poorly organized and replete with gaps.

See also the overall summary of the microfilmed Secretary of State correspondence,

from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13. Reel 5 appears to begin a new set of separately

microfilmed South Carolina Secretary of State incoming correspondence, which runs in

chronologically ordered, fairly complete fashion from 1715 to 1782, in Reels 5 through

8. Volumes 387 and 388 (correspondence dated from 1715 to 1746) are not

microfilmed here because the DLAR’s period of interest begins in about 1750. Volume

389 continues the new set of Secretary of State incoming correspondence, covering the

years 1747 to 1751.

Note: Unlike the Board of Trade’s incoming correspondence regarding South Carolina,

archivists in the Secretary of State’s office did not designate document numbers for its

South Carolina incoming correspondence.

Note: Unlike the Board of Trade, Secretaries of State, beginning with the Earl of

Shelburne in 1766, numbered their letters to colonial governors and acting governors.

In return, governors and acting governors were expected to number their own letters to

the secretary of state. None of the letters in Volume 389, dated between 1747 and

1751, was numbered by the writer.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

276

[no date] [no frame numbers assigned]

Title page of the archivist for documents contained in this Volume 389, “South

Carolina Letters from Governor Glen From 19 Jan

1748 To 31 Dec

1751 N

18”; followed by

Table of contents by the archivist, including 78 documents, written on 202

manuscript pages [the document on page 57 is listed out of order, on a separate

page; Volume 389 as microfilmed includes 110 documents on 264 Frames]

1. [no date] [second page of Frame 1]

“The Accompt of Mr. Herman Verelst” to receive £3,000 to purchase goods to be

given as presents to Indians in South Carolina, pursuant to a warrant dated

August 25, 1748 [document 2], with itemization of goods charged for from

September 9 to the end of 1748, with total reported expenses of £1,517.39

carried over to 1749

[Note: For more on Harman Verelst, see note after Reel 4 document 3. This

purchase and shipment of Indian presents to South Carolina and Georgia was

apparently his first but was followed by others through 1751 with additional

funding and three vessels, the Dolphin, the Charming Nancy, and the Live Oak.

See Reel 4 documents 2, 3. See also note after Reel 4 document 1.]

2. August 25, 1748 [7]

Copy of warrant by Lords Justices Dorset P., Bedford, Montagu, and Harrington,

conveyed by the Board of Trade and Plantations [for more on the Board of Trade,

see note after Reel 1 document 1] to the Secretary of State for the Southern

Department [John Russel, 4

Duke of Bedford, at this time; he served from

February 1748 to June 1751], verifying that Herman Verelst, John Hume, and

Jermyn Wright [brother of James Wright, who in 1760 became Governor of

colonial Georgia] were jointly or separately authorized to purchase goods for

Indian presents for South Carolina and Georgia, under an approved government

warrant for £3,000 annually [which was renewed at least once; see Reel 4

documents 2, 3]

[Note: Documents 1 through 26 all pertain to the accounts for Harman Verelst’s

purchase in London of large quantities of goods to be shipped to South

Carolina and Georgia to be distributed to Indians as “presents” under a

warrant (document 2) authorizing expenses of up to £3,000 for this purpose. All

of the goods accounted for here were planned to be shipped on a merchant

vessel named the Francis and John. Individual transactions differed

considerably in cost, from one invoice and receipt worth £1.0.0 to another one

worth £281.4.0. Most vendors were individuals but some were companies. Most

invoices were paid off within a few days or weeks, but one quite small invoice

went unpaid for several months. Invoice dates run from October 15 to December

30, 1748. Receipt dates run from December 7, 1748 to April 6, 1749 (all except

two are between December 24 and January 20). Whether these documents

represent all the goods purchased and shipped on the Francis and John is not

clear from the documents alone.

277

According to Document 1, which lacks a date, only about half of the warranted

amount had been spent by about the end of 1748. See documents 40 to 60 for a

second large purchase, By Jermyn Wright also shipped on the Francis and John

in December 1748, probably on the same voyage. See also note after Reel 4

document 1.]

[Note: Since documents 4 to 26 are all single-vendor invoices, most with

receipts for payment, their contents are not itemized separately in this Finding

Aid but are summarized here.]

3. January 5, 1749 [9]

“Invoice” for [actually inventory of] itemized goods bought by Verelst as presents

for the South Carolina and Georgia Indians, which were shipped on the Francis

and John [which appears to have sailed on about January 5, 1749]

[Note: The Verelst purchasing documented by the invoices and receipts

(documents 4 to 26 except for document 7) was all accomplished between

October 15, 1748 and April 6, 1749 in the modern calendar (which is used

throughout in this Finding Aid). Among these invoices and receipts, all of the

dates for early-year months were written as being in 1748, although most of

these dates were receipts for payment that must have come after the

corresponding invoice date. The answer appears to be that the accountants

were operating on the Julian calendar, without using the convention of 1748/49

to represent dates after January 1 and before March 25, the Julian calendar’s

new year’s day. Four years after the dates of these documents, England and its

empire undertook two major calendar changes. To align the British new year’s

day with January 1, the year 1752 skipped Julian days January 1 through March

24 and renumbered March 24 to be January 1. In the same year, September 3

through September 13 were skipped to correct for the 11-day deviation of the

Julian calendar from the Gregorian calendar with its more accurate use of leap

years.]

4. to 26. except 7. [Various dates between October 15, 1748 [Frames 13 to 36]

and April 6, 1749]

Individual invoices and receipts for transactions by Harman Verelst to purchase

goods up to the value of £3,000, per a warrant issued by the British Government

on August 25, 1748 [document 2] to be shipped on the British merchant vessel

Francis and John to South Carolina and Georgia and distributed as presents to

the Indians [see summary of Verelst’s purchasing activities in note after

document 2; individual entries for these documents are not included in this

Finding Aid]

7. January 4, 1749 [17]

Bill of lading for goods shipped on the Francis and John, signed at London by the

ship’s master, Henry Boyton

278

[no date] [after document 13] [no frame number assigned]

Scrivener’s note stating that five vouchers [not included in the invoices and

receipts of documents 4 to 26], listed by name and amount, had been delivered

to “Mr. Auditor Aislabie’s office”

[no date] [after document 26] [no frame number assigned]

Scrivener’s note stating that one invoice [not included in the invoices and receipts

of documents 4 to 26] had been delivered to Auditor Aislabie’s office

27. January 10, 1748 [38]

Letter from South Carolina Governor James Glen to Secretary of State [the Duke

of Newcastle], sending a description of trade in and protection of the colony of

South Carolina; because the trade was becoming lucrative, Spanish privateers

were beginning to present a danger, so steps were being taken to create a naval

response against the privateers and protect British shipping; with details; asking

that the British Navy send more naval protection [Frame 38 microfilmed twice]

[Note: James Glen served as Governor of South Carolina between December

1743 and 1756. For more on Glen, see notes after Reel 1 documents 1, 125.]

[Note: Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1

Duke of Newcastle, served as Secretary of

State for the Southern Department from April 1724 (with a brief hiatus from

February to April 1746) until he was replaced in February 1748. For more on

Newcastle, see note after Reel 3 document 10.]

[Note: Although clearly dated in 1747, documents 28 to 33 all appear actually to be

dated in February and March of 1748 in the modern calendar. See note after document

3 for more on British use of the Julian calendar until 1752.]

28. February 3, 1747 [42]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Newcastle, describing what appear to Glen

to be increased intrigues from both Spaniards and French and possible new

dangers, both on the seas and through foreign alliances with the Indians; with

details on the various Indian tribes; describing plans for more land fortifications in

South Carolina [see note after document 27 concerning the date of this

document, which was 1748 in the modern calendar]

[Note: Newcastle was replaced as Secretary of State for the Southern

Department in February 1748. Presumably because of slow communications

across the Atlantic Ocean, South Carolina did not learn that the Duke of Bedford

had assumed this position until late July. Governor Glen congratulated Bedford

on his appointment in a letter dated July 26, 1748, document 37.]

29. March 5, 1747 [48]

Petition from inhabitants of two parishes in Granville County, South Carolina to

Secretary of State Newcastle, asking that the British government send a

regiment of soldiers to protect South Carolina inhabitants; signed by 67

individuals [see note after document 27 concerning the date of this document,

which was 1748 in the modern calendar]

279

30. March 5, 1747 [50]

Petition from London merchants doing business with South Carolina,

commending to Newcastle and supporting the petition from South Carolina

inhabitants [document 29]; signed by 24 individuals [see note after document 27

concerning the date of this document, which was 1748 in the modern calendar]

31. January 30, 1747 [52]

Petition to the King from South Carolina’s Governor, Council, and Assembly,

requesting royal support for more security and protection from Britain, as adopted

by Commons House and signed by William Bull, its Speaker

[Note: William Bull, Senior (1683-1755) had served as acting governor before

Governor Glen arrived in 1743. Since then, he had remained a leader in the

South Carolina Assembly. His son, William Bull II, served as lieutenant governor

from 1759 to 1775 and several times during these years as acting governor.]

[see note after document 27 concerning the date of this document, which was

1748 in the modern calendar]

32. February 7, 1747 [53]

Copy or duplicate letter from Glen to Newcastle, enumerating dangers to South

Carolina from the French, the Spaniards, the Indians’ various nations, and also

from Negro slaves, based partly on letters from Colonel [Alexander]

Vanderdusen [or Vanderdussen, commander of South Carolina militia in 1740

and after; declaring his intent to protect South Carolina from all these threats and

enumerating the things he was doing to fulfill this intent, all within an environment

he described as complex in its interactions [see note after document 27

concerning the date of this document, which was 1748 in the modern calendar]

33. [no date] [57]

Petition from “Gentlemen and Landholders” of St. John Parish, South Carolina, to

Newcastle, seeking additional protection by British troops against threats from

French and Indians; signed by 39 individuals [scrivener’s note: “delivered by

Gen

Oglethorpe March 7, 1747/48”]

34. April 14, 1748 [58]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Newcastle, reporting further on Indian

affairs, based in part on letters by Colonel Vanderdussen, with details

35. April 14, 1748 [60]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Newcastle, with additional information

about British colonial ships being taken by foreign privateers; concerning his

difficulties responding to the privateer threat because of the Assembly’s

unwillingness to pay the expenses, while the Assembly had passed a measure

“for Stamping and Issuing £10,000 Paper Currency in lieu of Money, for defraying

the said Expense”, a provision Glen did not agree to; including his explanation of

the reasons for not approving it

280

36. June 4, 1748 [62]

Letter from Abraham Bosomworth at London to Secretary of State the Duke of

Bedford, complaining of having been told that someone else had been selected

to issue presents to the Indians, after he [Bosomworth] had been promised this

responsibility

[Note: John Russell, 4

Duke of Bedford, served as Secretary of State for the

Southern Department from February 1748 to June 1751.]

[Note: Abraham Bosomworth and his brothers Adam and Thomas all became

involved with Indian affairs in South Carolina and Georgia, from at least 1742

until the mid-1760s. Adam Bosomworth served as an agent for Indian affairs in

South Carolina. Judging from this letter, Abraham Bosomworth worked among

the Indians in a number of ways, including, according to this letter, seeking a

position distributing British government presents to the Indians after the

government decided to spend heavily on “bribing” several Indian Nations to side

with Britain against France and Spain in the late 1740s and early 1750s. Rev.

Thomas Bosomworth married a Creek Indian, who inherited Creek territory on

three of Georgia’s sea islands, which Bosomworth got legalized under English

law, and then sought to become wealthy by selling parts of it to the Georgia

government for settler development. For more on the Thomas Bosomworth

story, see the DLAR Finding Aid for the Colonial Office Papers for Georgia and a

number of documents in those papers.]

37. July 26, 1748 [64]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, congratulating Bedford as well

deserving of having been appointed Secretary of State for the Southern

Department; stating his high opinion of his own governorship of South Carolina

and his hopes of continuing

38. July 27, 1748 [66]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, reporting on the capture and sale

into slavery by “French Indians” of several British colonists, with details;

advocating for pressing the Indians to administer justice themselves to their

criminals; informing Bedford about the recent arrival among the Upper Creek

Indians of Peter Shirley, a French-Indian half breed, who was working to

persuade the Creeks to side with the French against Britain; suggesting

strategies to strengthen British power over other Indian Nations (Choctaw,

Cherokee, Catawba) especially by building a British fort among the Choctaw

people

39. July 27, 1748 [70]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, reporting the further opposition of

the Assembly to his governance, with details; reporting on the trade through

Charleston, with details

281

[Note: Documents 40 through 60 pertain to the accounts for Jermyn Wright’s

purchase in London and Halifax of large quantities of goods to be shipped to

South Carolina and Georgia to be distributed to Indians as “presents” under

a warrant (document 2) authorizing expenses of up to £3,000 for this purpose.

The warrant identified three individuals, Harman Verelst, John Hume, and

Jermyn Wright [brother of James Wright, who in 1760 became Governor of

colonial Georgia] as jointly or separately authorized to purchase goods for Indian

presents for South Carolina and Georgia, under an approved government

warrant for £3,000 annually [which was renewed at least once; see Reel 4

documents 2, 3]. All of the goods accounted for here purchased by Jermyn

Wright to be shipped on a merchant vessel named the Francis and John.

Individual transactions differed considerably in cost, from one invoice and receipt

worth £5.10.3 to another one worth £461.11.0 (a November 1, 1748 purchase in

Halifax). Most vendors were companies. Some invoices were paid off within a

few days or weeks. Receipts for others record only the delivery of the goods.

Invoice dates run from November 1 to December 23, 1748. Most were dated

between November 23 and December 5. Receipt dates run from November 18,

1748 to January 20, 1750. Harman Verelst also purchased large quantities of

goods, mostly in late fall 1748, also to be shipped on the Francis and John (see

documents 1 to 26 and note after document 2). According to Document 1, which

lacks a date, only about half of the warranted amount had been spent on the

Verelst purchases. Perhaps Wright purchases, which totaled £1,509.9.7

(document 60) used the remainder of the £3,000 warrant amount. See also note

after Reel 4 document 1.]

[Note: Since documents 40 to 60 (except for documents 41, 42, and 60) are

single-vendor invoices, some with receipts for payment, their contents are not

itemized separately in this Finding Aid but are summarized here.]

40. to 60. except for 41, 42, 60. [Various dates between [Frames 72 to 94]

November 1 and December 23, 1748]

Individual invoices and receipts for transactions by Jermyn Wright to purchase

goods up to the value of £3,000, per a warrant issued by the British Government

on August 25, 1748 [document 2] to be shipped on the British merchant vessel

Francis and John to South Carolina and Georgia and distributed as presents to

the Indians [see summary of Verelst’s similar purchasing activities in the same

time period, also to be shipped on the Francis and John, in note after document

2; individual entries for these documents are not included in this Finding Aid]

41. December [?], 1748 [74]

Itemized bill of lading of goods for Indian presents shipped by Jermyn Wright on

the Francis and John commanded by Henry Boyton

282

42. [no date] [75]

“Invoice of sundry Parcels of Goods” shipped by Jermyn Wright on the Francis

and John for Charleston to be distributed to the Indians in South Carolina and

Georgia [actually a shipping list or bill of lading]

60. December 5, 1748 [94]

Shipping list of items sent to Charleston as presents to Indians in South Carolina

and Georgia on the Francis and John, Henry Boyton, master; total value

£1,509.9.7

61. [no date] [99]

Letter from Glen to Bedford, concerning Indian affairs, with details [scrivener’s

note following document “received September 26, 1748”]

62. October 10, 1748 [103]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, concerning Indian affairs, with

details [similar letter with same date from Glen to Board of Trade in Reel 4

document 39]

63. October 10, 1748 [107]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, concerning the case of a Dutch

ship [thus an enemy ship], the Vrouw Dorothea [Wife Dorothea], which was

hauled by a British Navy ship into Jamaica and its cargo sold, partly privately,

after which it sailed homeward but was brought by a British privateer into

Charleston, where it was prosecuted a second time as an enemy ship;

requesting that, since Glen had some personal interest in the outcome of this

prosecution, the government should decide the fair distribution of benefits from

the Admiralty Court trial

64. October 10, 1748 [109]

Letter from Glen to the secretaries of Bedford, stating that “I must beg the favour

of you to direct the under clerks that they may not permit any Person not

belonging to the Office to read Glen’s correspondence dated October 10, 1748

[Frame 109 microfilmed twice]

65. October 10, 1748 [111]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, thanking him for sending

independent military companies to defend South Carolina, for approving £1,500

to be spent on buying presents for the Indian Nations, and for the newly

approved bounty on indigo; praising other qualities of South Carolina’s economy

and colonial government; claiming that his governing had been beneficial, with

possibly a few exceptions, and blaming problems in the colony on the Assembly,

which, he stated, had been misled “into a belief that they are and to have the

Sole direction of everything”; illustrating the point with examples;

283

concluding that “These things weaken the King’s Prerogative, they are hurtful to

the people themselves, and it is easie to mention other matters prejudicial to the

Mother Country”; concluding further that “Many of the above Evils may be

corrected if a Council will Strengthen a Governor’s hands and give a due

attendance” but that many lived too far away to attend consistently; requesting

that James Grame be approved to replace [John] Hammerton, who had been

absent for five years; stating his opposition to the Upper House’s declaration

before his arrival as Governor that it would not sit to do business with the

Governor, a policy he had opposed as unconstitutional when he arrived;

including other examples of friction between the Governor and the Assembly and

of laws which he considered to infringe on the Governor’s and the King’s

prerogatives

[Note: John Hammerton is a good example of a “placeman” in colonial

government. He held a series of appointed positions over 30 years but actually

lived in South Carolina for only 10 years. (Reference: Henry D. Watson,

Placemen in South Carolina: Receiver General of the Quitrents, The South

Carolina Historical Society Magazine, Vol. 74, No. 1 (January 1973), pp 18-30)]

66. March 13, 1749 [122]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, stating that Benjamin Whitaker,

Chief Justice of South Carolina, was unwell, was unimproved since a two-year

leave in Europe, and now had become unable to perform the duties of the office;

recommending that James Grame be appointed to replace him [for additional

documents on the replacement of Whitaker with Grame, see note after Reel 4

document 22]

67. June 15, 1749 [124]

Letter from Glen to Bedford, explaining that the situation with Whitaker and

Grame had changed, with Whitaker resisting resigning but instead had left

suddenly for England, vowing not to return; Glen still wishing for James Grame to

be appointed to succeed Whitaker as Chief Justice

68. [no date] [126]

“Some Remarks on the Scheme proposed by Mr. Crokett [James Crockatt, a

London merchant with a personal interest in the presents for Indians project; see

documents 101 to 105] for Altering the method of applying the money granted for

Purchasing of Presents for the Indians” from Jermyn Wright to Bedford, making

four negative points in opposition to the scheme: that money would be diverted

from gifts into other ways of maintaining the Indians, that maintaining the Indians

would be very expensive, that the current goal of the presents policy was proper,

adequate, and supported by the King, and that the Assembly was supporting the

scheme because it would give it more opportunities to control colonial

government spending; recommending that the current method of applying for and

accounting for this money should remain the same

284

69. June 1, 1749 [128]

Copy of abstract of minutes of meeting of South Carolina Commons House of

Assembly, pertaining to a petition from Charles Wright and John Hume,

representing Charleston merchants, who were “copartners” with Jermyn Wright in

the business of receiving and distributing Indian presents in South Carolina which

Jermyn Wright had purchased in England; stating that they had nothing to do

with a similar purchase of presets by Harman Verelst, whom the Commons

House had charged with having improperly profited privately from the purchases,

money thus being wasted in the purchase process, which Commons House had

voted to investigate

[Note: London merchants Harman Verelst, Jermyn Wright, and John Hume

were listed on the August 25, 1748 warrant for purchase of presents for South

Carolina and Georgia Indians. Charles Wright and Jermyn Wright were

brothers, both merchants, while their brother James Wright was at this time

Attorney General of South Carolina. In 1760, he became Governor of Georgia, a

position he held until 1782.]

70. August 12, 1749 [130]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, conveying an account of the state

of the colony he had prepared for the Board of Trade, with answers to its

questions, especially concerning Indian relations and their relations with the

French, with details

71. November 6, 1749 [132

Letter from [Virginia Governor] Thomas Lee at Williamsburg to Bedford,

concerning transactions of [former Virginia Lieutenant Governor William Gooch

as a part of a large revision of the colony’s laws

[Note: William Gooch was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia from 1727 to 1749.

Between 1737 and 1749, he served as administrative governor in Virginia, as

Virginia’s appointed governor remained in England. During his long tenure, he

initiated many administrative and legal reforms. In August 1749, he resigned as

Lieutenant Governor for reasons of poor health and returned to England, where

he died in 1751. Before leaving, he helped to manage the transition by which

Thomas Lee became Governor. In this letter, Lee evidently was seeking help to

follow up on some of Gooch’s last reforms.

Why this correspondence was filed by the Secretary of State office under South

Carolina rather than Virginia is not clear from these documents alone.]

72. December 23, 1749 [134]

Copy of letter from Glen at South Carolina to Board of Trade, informing them

about the status of the colony and answering their questions, including issues of

paper money and debt; enclosing several documents on other issues; concerning

relations with the South Carolina Assembly; concerning other issues and details;

concluding with mention of the problem St. Augustine is, as capital of Spanish

Florida, a haven for British colonial runaway slaves [enclosed with Glen’s

December 23, 1749 letter to Bedford, document 73]

285

73. December 23, 1749 [142]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, responding to his request for

information about the paper currency situation; doing so by enclosing copies of

correspondence he had recently written to Board of Trade [with enclosures,

document 72, 74-82]

74. [no date] [144]

“Account [to Board of Trade] of the number of Vessels that had Cleared

Outwards at the Naval Office on Charles Town South Carolina with their

Tonnage & Registers & Number of Men between the 1

November 1748 & the 1

Nov

1749”, reporting a total of 229 vessels, 13,525 tons, and 1,749 men;

including shipping bound for Europe (74); West Indies (91); Northern Colonies,

Georgia, and St. Augustine (62); and Africa (2) [enclosed with Glen’s December

23, 1749 letter to Bedford, document 73]

75. October 10, 1748 [146]

Copy of letter from Glen to [Governor of Louisiana] Vaudreuil [who was

corresponding with Glen about violence by Indians], documenting the history of

bad relations with Indian nations and how European nations, like France,

contributed to the bad relations by encouraging certain Indian nations to

perpetrate violence on British settlers [enclosed with Glen’s December 23, 1749

letter to Bedford, document 73] [another copy of this letter, without a date, is

found in Reel 4 document 15]

[Note: Louisiana was a colony of France, with Nouvelle Orleans as its capital,

from 1682 until 1762, after which Spain acquired it as part of the 1763 settlement

of the Seven Years War (French and Indian War). Pierre de Rigaud de

Vaudreuil-Cavagnial served as French colonial governor in Nouvelle Orleans

from 1743 to 1753.]

76. [no date] [148]

“Account of Goods exported from Charles Town of the Produce of South Carolina

from the 1

of Novem

1748 to the 1

of November 1749”, including names of

the goods, quantity of goods, export duty rates, amount of duty paid, in Carolina

currency, with total amount of duty paid £146,777.3.9, or 1,027,440.6.5 in

Carolina currency [enclosed with Glen’s December 23, 1749 letter to Bedford,

document 73]

77. [no date] [150]

Copy of instructions from Glen to Raymond Demere, who was being sent to St.

Augustine to negotiate with the Governor of Spanish Florida [Manuel de

Montaino] concerning trade relations ostensibly for mutual benefit, but which

must include an agreement by the Spanish colonial government to return

runaway slaves to their British masters, with implied and open threats if the St.

Augustine government refused to comply [enclosed with Glen’s December 23,

1749 letter to Bedford, document 73]

286

[see also copies of the letter of protest Demere wrote to the Spanish Governor

before leaving St. Augustine, in Reel 4 document 14 and Reel 5 document 82;

another copy of these instructions is in Reel 4 document 13; for more on

Raymond Demere, see note after Reel 4 document 99 plus documents 99 to

102]

78. [no date] [152]

Copy of letter from Glen to the Governor of Spanish Florida, stating that Demere

was coming to St. Augustine to negotiate about the status of runaway slaves as

well as soldiers and servants [enclosed with Glen’s December 23, 1749 letter to

Bedford, document 73]

79. [December 23, 1749] [154]

Copy of second part of letter from Glen to Board of Trade concerning current

Indian affairs; with a request to receive instructions for how to handle the

Choctaws [the first part of this letter is in document 81; evidently the entire letter

was enclosed with Glen’s December 23, 1749 letter to Bedford, but the two parts

got separated before they were microfilmed] [an extract from this letter, dated

December 23, 1749, is found in Reel 4 document 17] [enclosed with Glen’s

December 23, 1749 letter to Bedford, document 73]

80. April 23, 1748 [158]

Copy of letter from Glen at South Carolina to Board of Trade, providing an

update on the situation with the Indian Nations adjacent to South Carolina

territory; reporting making efforts to bring the Indians to talk at Charleston

[enclosed with Glen’s December 23, 1749 letter to Bedford, document 73]

81. [December 23, 1749] [160]

Copy of first part of letter from [Glen] to [Board of Trade], referring to the

“miscarriage of the presents to the Chactaws in July”; seeking to avoid blame for

this mishap, with details [the second part of this letter is in document 79;

evidently the entire letter was enclosed with Glen’s December 23, 1749 letter to

Bedford, but the two parts got separated before they were microfilmed] [an

extract from this letter, dated December 23, 1749, is found in Reel 4 document

17] [evidently enclosed with Glen’s December 23, 1749 letter to Bedford,

document 73]

82. [no date] [162]

Copy of [probably extract from] letter from Captain Raymond Demere to [the

Spanish governor of Florida], concerning the problem of Spanish Florida’s having

encouraged South Carolina slaves to escape southward [identified by scrivener

as “Copy of the Protest” [enclosed with Glen’s December 23, 1749 letter to

Bedford, document 73] [another copy of this protest letter is found in Reel 4

document 14]

287

83. March 10, 1750 [164]

Notification by John Carruthers, at London, attorney for Benjamin Whitaker, Chief

Justice of South Carolina, stating that since Whitaker’s approved leave of

absence for health reasons was expiring, and since Whitaker’s health had not

improved, Whitaker was resigning his commission as Chief Justice

84. December 14, 1749 [166, second side]

Copy of itemized account of expenses for public services from the magazine at

Fort Frederica, Georgia between June 25, 1747 and February 24, 1748, with a

total value of £5,142.17.8¼; copy dated December 5, 1749; including certification

that these expenses result from provisions made by Georgia’s Trustees, at the

establishment of this British colony, to repay debts; signed by six individuals

[when a regiment stationed at Fort Frederica was discharged, the remaining

provisions and other goods were sold to pay for the incurred debts]

[Note: Documents 84 to 87 appear to relate to Georgia rather than South

Carolina. However, they appear to relate to the British joint operation to provide

presents to villages of several Indian Nations living adjacent to the frontier

territory of both colonies and in particular to the settlement of debts for expenses

to protect settlers on the frontier.]

85. March 8, 1749 [169, second side]

Copy of itemized account of expenses for public services from the magazine at

Fort Frederica, Georgia between February 25, 1748 and May 29, 1749, with a

total value of £4,886.19.5¼; copy dated March 8, 1749

86. February 9, 1750 [171, second side]

List of debts outstanding and due from the Fort Frederica magazine between

February 26, 1748 to May 29, 1749, including 26 debts reported by name of the

person owed, identity of the person explaining the debt, and the amount of the

debt, with a total debt value of £189.19.12; signed by four individuals and

attested to by three individuals

87. March 8, 1750 [172]

Record of meeting of the Council established by the Trustees of the colony of

Georgia, whose president was William Stephens, concerning payment for frontier

expenses between June 25, 1747 and September 25, 1748 totaling

£2,154.15.8½, including report on the authority for this payment; stating that the

full cost for frontier expenses was larger than the reported amount; stating that

the Council had sought to ascertain an accurate accounting of full expenses,

including accounts of the Fort Frederica magazine money used to pay debts

[documents 84 to 86]; concluding that some debts in the accounts had not been

paid; concluding that missing information needed to be obtained by talking to

certain people from Fort Frederica and South Carolina; copy dated April 5, 1750

“In the Council Room”

288

[Note: William Stephens (1671-1753) came to Georgia in 1736 as a surveyor.

Having become friends with James Oglethorpe, the Georgia Trustees (in

England) named him Secretary of Georgia to keep them informed on progress in

the colony. By 1742 he was named President of the Georgia colony, during the

time when Oglethorpe was preoccupied with military hostilities with the Spanish

in Florida. Stephens held the position of President until he resigned in 1750,

evidently after March 8. He retired to a plantation on the Savannah River, where

he died in 1753.]

88. [no date] [177]

Account of distribution of presents to Indians contiguous to Georgia and South

Carolina between August 17 and December 21, 1749 by agents William

Stephens [for Georgia, who seems to have held multiple titles] and Abraham

Bosomworth [for South Carolina], including separate itemized lists of presents to

particular villages, most of them apparently of the Lower Creek Nation

89. [no date] [188]

Account of distribution of presents to Indians contiguous to Georgia and South

Carolina between May 27, 1749 and February 24, 1750 by commissary John

Dart and agent Abraham Bosomworth, including separate itemized lists of

presents to particular villages of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Creek

Indian Nations, many of the presents delivered via Charleston

90. September 18, 1750 [193]

Letter from Abraham Bosomworth at London to R. N. Aldworth, concerning a

memorial he had submitted to the Secretary of State seeking a stipend for

services he was providing to the government as an agent in South Carolina,

services he describes

[Note: Richard Neville Aldworth (1717-1793) was a political ally of the Duke of

Bedford. In 1748 Bedford named him to be an Undersecretary of State for the

Southern Department, under Bedford’s direction. Aldworth served in this position

until Bedford was replaced as Secretary of State in July 1751.]

91. [no date] [195]

Memorial of Abraham Bosomworth to Secretary of State Bedford, describing his

services delivering presents to Indian villages, claiming great “Expenses and

Trouble”, and seeking reimbursement and a stipend going forward

92. May 23, 1750 [197]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina certifying that Abraham Bosomworth was

officially appointed agent for the province for distribution of presents to the

Indians

93. [no date] [199]

Instructions from Glen to Abraham Bosomworth for his assignment as agent for

the distribution of presents to the Indians

289

94. May 21, 1750 [201]

Letter from George Saxby at Charleston to Abraham Bosomworth announcing

his intent to go to London, seeking a “salary” of £250, which he hopes can be

paid out of quit rents

95. June 9, 1748 [203]

Copy of letter from Bedford at Whitehall to Glen, stating his desire that Glen

should appoint Bosomworth to be agent for the distribution of presents to the

Indians

96. July 15, 1750 [205]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, taking credit for successfully

negotiating peace between the Creek and Choctaw Indians, in which presents for

the Indians played a major role; expressing ongoing concern for protection of

settlers through forts in Indian territories and a regiment of troops, with details,

including recommended pay for the various ranks of soldiers in the regiment,

totaling £1,860 per year, but stating that Bedford should not worry about paying

out money for the regiment because it can be supported with some of the money

in the Indian presents account [extracts of similar letter with same date to Board

of Trade in Reel 4 document 6]

97. October 2, 1750 [213]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, stating having learned of the

approval of James Grame as Chief Justice of South Carolina; hoping that French

influences around South Carolina had been rooted out, but still wary because of

unrest among the Indians and lack of needed intelligence to understand their

activities, with details of how he was seeking to deal with Indian relations [extract

of similar letter with same date to Board of Trade in Reel 4 document 60]

98. November 10, 1750 [221]

Letter from Abraham Bosomworth to Bedford, troubling him again with his

memorial to cover his expenses as agent for South Carolina

99. [no date] [223]

Memorial of Abraham Bosomworth to Bedford, asking for ongoing support for his

work of delivering presents to the Indians

100. November 19, 1750 [225]

Letter from Harman Verelst at Queen Square, Westminster, to Aldworth, seeking

his help in obtaining approval for payment of expenses related to the purchase

and distribution of presents to the Indians

101. December 11, 1750 [227]

Letter from James Crockatt at College Hill [London] to Bedford, concerning his

distress over money owed him totaling £1,338.7.7 [with enclosures, documents

102, 103]

290

102. [no date] [229]

Petition from Crockatt, London merchant, seeking payment of money owed from

the government for military salaries paid privately by Crockatt, due to be paid

back by Thomas Marriott, but never paid [enclosed with Crockatt’s December

11, 1750 letter to Bedford, document 101]

103. [no date] [230]

Account of money owed by Thomas Marriott to Crockatt [enclosed with

Crockatt’s December 11, 1750 letter to Bedford, document 101]

104. December 14, 1750 [231]

Letter from Harman Verelst and Jermyn Wright to Aldworth, informing him that

they were “adrift” from doing anything productive for the Indian presents project

because it would be contrary to the current warrant from the Treasury; hoping for

some assistance from the Secretary of State but having heard nothing

105. December 17, 1750 [233]

Letter from Crockatt at College Hill to Aldworth, complaining that Verelst and

Wright had not seen fit to deal with him [Crockatt]; claiming that these difficulties

were delaying the filling and sailing of two vessels with Indian presents for South

Carolina and Georgia

106. [no date] [235]

Copy to Bedford of Account from Glen to Board of Trade of the boundaries of

South Carolina and of encroachment by “subjects of foreign Princes” within these

boundaries [cover page only; account itself is in document 107]

107. February [?], 1751 [236]

Copy of letter from Glen to Board of Trade, concerning Board’s request for

information about the boundaries of South Carolina and any encroachments on

those boundaries; stating that he felt the request was impossible to document but

that he was responding anyway, stating that the account “will not be so perfect as

I could wish”; recounting history of the beginnings of settlement by French,

Spanish, and English in North America, including early contention between the

French and Spanish for what became Spanish Florida in the 1560s and French

fur trading and “quasi” settlement; describing England’s later arrival in the mid-

1600s, occupying lands that may previously have been French or Spanish but

had been abandoned by them; English settlement including, what became the

royal colony of South Carolina by the early 1700s; claiming that the British had

established friendly relations with the surrounding Indian Nations, although the

French did not do so; suggesting that indeed places such as Mobile, Alabama,

Tombee Bay [Mobile Bay, the confluence of the Tombigbee and Alabama

Rivers] in the Choctaw Nation, and New Orleans, occupied by the French,

properly belong within the British boundaries;

291

similarly, St. Marks and Pensacola in Florida, occupied by the Spanish, properly

belong within British boundaries; suggesting that if all these places were under

British control, keeping the friendship of the Indian Nations would be much

easier; describing other places where French or Spanish settlement had been

contrary to established treaties, going back to the 1600s and even late 1500s

108. [no date] [257]

Copy of statement to Glen of services provided by Abraham Bosomworth to

“General Oglethorpe’s late Regiment of Foot”, including being employed in 1743

at the magazine at Frederica and in helping entice the Indians to do violence

against Indians friendly to the French; in 1747, he was involved in actions against

Indians friendly to the French and other similar activities in both South Carolina

and Georgia; now seeking compensation for his services

109. June 23, 1751 [259]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to Bedford, concerning Spanish privateering

against British shipping, especially in North Carolina, with details [difficult to read

because of writing with heavy ink on two sides] [Glen could not have known on

June 23 in Charleston that five days earlier, Bedford had been replaced in

London as Secretary of State for the Southern Department.]

110. December 31, 1751 [263]

Letter from Glen at South Carolina to the Earl of Holdernesse, welcoming the

new Secretary of State for the Southern Department

[Note: John Darcy, 4

Earl of Holdernesse, replaced the Duke of Bedford as

Secretary of State for the Southern Department on June 18, 1751. He remained

in office until March 23, 1754, and returned to serve in the same position briefly

in 1757.]

Note: A significant gap exists in microfilmed correspondence between Volume

389 and Volume 390 dates from December 31, 1751 to November 3, 1762.

During this eleven-year period, the colony of South Carolina experienced much and

went through numerous changes. For instance, several changes of governor occurred:

James Glen December 1743 to June 1756

William Henry Lyttelton June 1756 to April 1760

Thomas Pownall (appointed in 1760 but never served)

William Bull II April 1760 to December 1761 (acting)

Thomas Boone December 1761 to May 1764

292

Several changes also occurred in Secretary of State for the Southern Department:

John Russell, 4

Duke of Bedford February 1748 to June 1751

Robert Darcy, 4

Earl of Holdernesse June 1751 to March 1754

Thomas Robinson March to October 1754

Henry Fox November 1754 to November 1756

William Pitt (Elder) December 1756 to April 1757

Robert Darcy, 4

Earl of Holdernesse April to June 1757

William Pitt (Elder) June 1757 to October 1761

Charles Wyndham, 2nd Earl of Egremont October 1761 to August 1763

Reel 4 contains some Secretary of State incoming correspondence from the gap years

in Reel 5. Reel 4 is a rather unorganized collection of Secretary of State incoming

correspondence, which itself contains gaps, suggesting that a complete set of incoming

Secretary correspondence cannot be pieced together:

Gap documents found in Reel 4 Volume 385 are as follows:

 documents dated in 1751 (1 to 3, 45, 59)

 documents dated in 1753, 1752 (46 to 54, 57, 61)

Gap documents found in Reel 4 Volume 386 are as follows:

 documents dated in 1760, 1761 (65 to 71)

 documents dated from 1753 to 1760 (84 to 139)

(with gaps from Dec. 1756 to Dec. 1757

and from Dec. 1757 to May 1759)

Reel 1 contains a more even (but not necessarily full) array of correspondence incoming

to the Board of Trade through the entire gap period in Reel 5’s Secretary of State

incoming correspondence. Reel 1’s 194 documents in Volumes 376 and 377 are dated

between 1756 and 1764. So, from a Board of Trade perspective, the portion of the gap

between 1756 and 1762 may to some extent be filled. Volumes 372 through 375 of the

Board of Trade incoming correspondence cover the years from 1748 to 1757, and thus

the remainder of the Secretary of State gap. However, these Volumes are not included

in the DLAR’s collection of microfilmed documents from CO5, the British Colonial Office

Papers of South Carolina.

Reels 10, 11, and 12 contain abstracts pertaining to Commissions, Instructions, Etc. for

South Carolina governors and government with dates from 1720 to 1775. However the

DLAR microfilm collection does not include Volumes 402 and 403, with documents

dated from 1739 to 1760. So it does not help much to fill the 1751 to 1762 gap in the

Secretary of State incoming correspondence, except in 1761.

Reel 12 contains abstracts of mostly official correspondence from the Board of Trade

and to and from the Secretary of State. Volume 406 contains outgoing Board of Trade

abstracts from 1721 to 1756. Volumes 407, 408 contain Secretary of State outgoing

abstracted correspondence from 1766 to 1782, and Volumes 409, 410 incoming

abstracted correspondence from 1766 to 1781.

293

These also do not help much to fill the 1751 to 1762 gap in Secretary of State incoming

correspondence. Even if the dates were more helpful, these “abstracts” would not be of

much help in filling the gap, because, until the mid-1760s, they consisted of summaries

rather than transcripts.

Volume 390—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence, (incoming), continue

November 3, 1762 to October 8, 1767 Documents 111 to 187 [Frames 1 to 231]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. For coverage and content in

Reels 3 (Volume 382) and Reel 4 (Volumes 385 and 386) (a set of Secretary of State

incoming correspondence from 1699 to 1760, with outlier documents to 1775, not well

organized and with many gaps), see notes after each of the above Volumes. For the

beginning of a new set of Secretary of State incoming correspondence beginning with

Volume 389 in Reel 5, see note at the beginning of Volume 389. This new set is better

organized chronologically and fairly free of gaps, with a notable exception. This set of

correspondence begins in 1715 (although the DLAR’s microfilmed collection does not

include Volumes 387 and 388 with correspondence from 1715 to 1746). Volume 389

(the earliest microfilmed documents in this new set) contains correspondence from

January 1747 to December 1751. See also the overall summary of the microfilmed

Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13. Volume 390

follows with correspondence dated from 1762 to 1767, with a lengthy gap between the

two Volumes. Possibly one or more archived Volumes were lost for some reason,

creating this gap. (See note on this significant gap at the end of Volume 389.)

Note: During the years of Volume 390’s official correspondence, top colonial officials,

especially secretaries of state and colonial governors, began to establish practices of

numbering their official letters to each other. For an overall analysis of letter numbering

in the South Carolina Colonial Papers, see the section on this subject in the

Introduction. Until about 1766, official correspondence between colonial governors in

America and the Board of Trade and Secretary of State in London had not been

organized by letter number (or carefully distinguished among original letters, copies,

and duplicates). Secretary of State for the Southern Department the Earl of Shelburne

apparently initiated the concept of numbered letters. Near the end of Reel 5 and early

in Reel 6 (Volumes 390 and 391), numbered letters first appear in the microfilmed

Secretary of State incoming correspondence.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

294

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

111. November 11, 1762 [1]

Letter from Governor of South Carolina Thomas Boone at Charleston to

Secretary of State for the Southern Department the Earl of Egremont, reporting

just having concluded a treaty with the Cherokee Indian Nation [with enclosure,

document 112]

[Note: Charles Wyndham, 2

Earl of Egremont (1710-1763), served as

Secretary of State for the Southern Department from October 9, 1761 to August

21, 1763.]

112. November 3, 1762 [3]

Talk by Boone and Judd’s Friend, headman of the Cherokee Nation, at

Charleston, sharing friendship and talking about Judd’s Friend’s trip to England,

during which the headman’s interpreter had unfortunately died; agreeing that a

great friendship now exists between the Cherokee and British; Boone reporting

on only one instance of Indian violence against British people [enclosed with

Boone’s November 11, 1762 letter to Egremont, document 111]

[Note: Judd’s Friend (or Judge’s Friend) was the English name given to a

leading Cherokee warrior whose real name was written by the British as

Osteneco or Oconostata. See note after Reel 4 document 102.]

[Note: During the latter period of the gap in documents, between 1759 and

1761, South Carolina was heavily involved in a brutal war known as the Anglo-

Cherokee War. Despite the Secretary of State gap, documentation of the war is

found in the Board of Trade incoming correspondence in Reel 1. The war was

fought in three phases, each concluding with a treaty:

Phase 1: In late fall 1759, Governor William Henry Lyttelton of South Carolina

personally led an “army” of militia against the Cherokee, doing considerable

damage to the Cherokee and ending with a treaty imposed by the British signed

on December 26, 1759. Lyttelton, declaring victory, departed for England in April

1760, leaving Lieutenant Governor William Bull II in charge of South Carolina.

(see Reel 1 documents 40 through 71; copies of the treaty are in Reel 1

document 68 and Reel 4 document 130)

Phase 2: The Cherokee resented the imposed treaty; the British complained that

the Cherokee had broken the treaty, and the British Army sent in a regular army

regiment under Colonel Archibald Montgomerie which attempted, in summer and

fall 1760, to do the job right, but in fact did only an incomplete job before abruptly

leaving South Carolina. Another treaty of sorts was signed in October 1760.

(see Reel 1 documents 82 to 98)

Phase 3: This time South Carolinians knew they had failed in their goal to

reduce the Cherokees to submission. In January 1761, Colonel James Grant

arrived with a larger force of regular army troops and a higher level of

determination to be brutal. He carried out his intentions, crushing the Cherokee

militarily and economically.

295

By September, the desperate Cherokee sued for peace and accepted a

humiliating and subduing treaty, which remained in force until 1776. (see Reel 1

documents 104 to 120; document 120 is a copy of the harsh preliminary treaty

Grant imposed on the Cherokee, ending the war)

On December 22, 1761, after the fighting was over, newly arrived Governor

Thomas Boone began the task of re-establishing peacetime relations with the

Cherokee. Osteneco/Judd’s Friend was a Cherokee leader, who, along with

Attakullakulla/Little Carpenter, were willing to work in peaceful friendship with the

British.]

113. November 27, 1762 [6]

Letter from Peter Blake to Egremont, describing his traveling with the Cherokee

Indians who went to visit England and back

114. March 8, 1763 [8]

Letter from Boone at Charleston to Egremont, concerning the end of hostilities in

Europe and signing of a preliminary treaty [signed in February 1763, signaling

the end of the Seven Years War (in Europe) and French and Indian War (in

America)]

115. April 21, 1763 [10]

Letter from Boone at Charleston to Egremont, concerning a Frenchman, prisoner

of the British, who sought to stir up disturbances against the British in Charleston

116. June 1, 1763 [12]

Letter from Boone at Charleston to Egremont, stating his readiness to follow the

King’s order for the Governors of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia plus the

Superintendent of Indian Affairs should convene a meeting of headmen of the

Catawba, Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, and Choctaw Indian tribes; stating his

intent to call the meeting at Augusta or another “neutral” location

117. September 17, 1763 [14]

Letter from Boone at Charleston to Egremont, concerning receipt of a royal

proclamation [about signing of the peace treaty ending the Seven Years’ War?]

to be announced and observed in all the colonies

[Note: Boone was not yet aware that Egremont had been replaced on

September 9, 1763 by George Montagu-Dunk, 2

Earl of Halifax (1716-1771).

Dunk Halifax, as he signed his name, had served as First Lord of the Board of

Trade between 1748 and 1761; he served as Secretary of State for the Southern

Department until July 10, 1765.]

296

118. November 23, 1763 [16]

Letter from Boone at Charleston to the Secretary of State concerning a new act

of Parliament intended to raise revenue through customs duties and trade

restrictions on coastal trading, to be enforced by laws in each colony; Boone

raising points concerning what approach might work best, with details [with

enclosure, document 119]

119. [no date] [20]

Copy of title and preamble of “An [South Carolina] Act to regulate the Coasting

Trade”, authorizing the Governor to appoint officers to enforce the law and to

prevent fraud; meant to be consistent with Parliament’s act [enclosed with

Boone’s November 23, 1763 letter to the Secretary of State, document 118]

120. November 24, 1763 [22]

Letter from Boone at Charleston to the Secretary of State, stating that the South

Carolina law Boone proposed and got passed would not allow direct trading with

the Cherokee, although the Cherokee had specifically requested such trading;

stating that he does not want to revoke or revise the act, which is working well to

keep the peace with the Cherokee [with enclosure, document 121] [extract of

this letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 176]

121. [no date] [24]

“A Rough Sketch of a Plan for the management of Indians in General & the

Conducing of the necessary Commerce with them Upon the principles of Justice

towards them and security for the Colonials”, beginning with the premise that

“neither the Indian traders nor Indians can be at all depended on” and his

observations of both as evidence; proposing a law, either by Parliament or the

same in each colony, to regulate and control trade with the Indians through public

policy and interaction with the Indians; including other specific recommendations

for controlling trade and protecting settlers with garrisons in the frontier;

recommending that both conferences [talks] with Indians and presents to them

be abolished, because they were shams that did not change behaviors

[enclosed with Boone’s November 24, 1763 letter to Secretary of State,

document 120] [copy of this sketch in Board of Trade incoming correspondence,

Reel 1 document 175]

122. December 7, 1763 [29]

Letter from Boone at Charleston to Secretary of State, conveying journals of the

“Congress” with the Indians at Augusta; meanwhile, reporting new hostilities in

the area of western Florida

297

123. February 11, 1764 [32]

Copy of letter from Dunk Halifax, [new Secretary of State for the Southern

Department] at St. James’s [a residential neighborhood in central Westminster] to

Boone, informing him that the journals of the Augusta Conference and Boone’s

plan to manage the Indians had been received, were being shared with the

Board of Trade, and would be considered, as policy on Indian commerce was

being developed by the British government; granting permission for two

Cherokee Indians, Attakullakulla and Oconostata to visit England [see note after

document 117 for more on the new Secretary of State, who, unknown to Boone

in Charleston, had been in office since September 9, 1763 and continued in

office until July 10, 1765]

[Note: Dunk Halifax, or formally, George Montagu-Dunk, 2

Earl of Halifax

(1716-1771), replaced the Earl of Egremont as Secretary of State for the

Southern Department on September 9, 1763, serving until July 10, 1765.]

[Note: Interestingly, Halifax chose to use the Indian version of these

warrior/chiefs’ names (transliterated into the Latin alphabet in various ways).

More often, the colonial British invented and used English names for them and to

their faces—Attakullakulla was known as Little Carpenter (see note after Reel 1

document 19). Oconostata was Judd’s Friend (see note after Reel 5 document

112.]

[Note: Some unexplained anomalies appear between this document 123 dated

in February 1764 and documents 112 and 113 dated in November 1762. The

1762 documents describe a visit by these two Cherokee Indians soon after the

end of the Anglo-Cherokee War (see note after document 112), which seems to

have been part of a strategy by Secretary of State Egremont and South Carolina

Governor Boone to mend the tattered relationship between the Cherokee and

British Nations. Document 123 describes an effort to organize another visit to

London with the same two Cherokees, which new secretary of State for the

Southern Department Halifax had just approved and Boone would have

implemented except that in June he was recalled and replaced as Governor.]

124. June 9, 1764 [34]

Copy of [outgoing] letter from Halifax at St. James’s to Boone, ordering Boone

home to England “as soon as conveniently may be, to give an Account of the

State of Your Government” and stating that “upon your departure from South

Carolina, the Administration will devolve upon William Bull”, the Lieutenant

Governor; requiring that Boone leave with Bull his Commission, royal

Instructions, and other papers pertaining to the governorship

125. June 9, 1764 [36]

Copy of [outgoing] letter from Halifax at St. James’s to William Bull II, Lieutenant

Governor of South Carolina, informing him that he would be governing South

Carolina in Boone’s absence with full powers of a governor [without the title];

directing Bull to make plans and seek funding from the South Carolina Assembly

to repair and supply the forts in the colony with garrisons of British soldiers

298

[Note: During Boone’s term as South Carolina Governor, William Bull II had

served loyally in his position as Lieutenant Governor, a position he held

continuously from 1759 to 1775. While never leaving this position, he five times

served as acting governor between terms of Governors. From April 4, 1760 to

December 22, 1761, he had acted as Governor between Governors Lyttelton and

Boone. Now, from May 11, 1764 to June 17, 1766, he once again acted as

Governor between Governors Boone and Charles Greville Montagu (the period

during which the constitutional crisis over the Stamp Act developed and began

playing itself out). For more on Bull, see notes after documents 1, 39, 71.]

126. July 5, 1764 [38]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Halifax, pressing the need for assistance from

the British government for protection of settlers in South Carolina and stating the

difficulties of trying to obtain [Commander of British Forces in North America

General [Thomas] Gage’s attention and support for such assistance; stating,

nevertheless, that the currently stationed rangers and militia were providing as

good protection as their numbers allowed [Gage served was commander in chief

in North America from 1763 to 1775]

127. July 26, 1764 [40]

Letter from Captain Gavin Cochrane of the “Royal Americans” [Regiment and

Commander of British forces in South Carolina] to Halifax, reminding Halifax of

Cochrane’s having previously submitted to him a treatise on the Indians of North

America; expressing his anxiety at not having heard from Halifax that he had

received and was using the treatise; stating his conviction that the contents of

this treatise were true and valuable

128. September 13, 1764 [42]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Halifax, responding to Halifax’ letter appointing

Bull to administer South Carolina’s government, stating that he would

immediately meet with the South Carolina Assembly about supporting efforts to

repair and supply the forts; reporting that already he had gained Assembly

support to repair Fort Prince George [on the South Carolina frontier near the

Lower Towns of the Cherokee Nation] but not for Fort Moore (on the frontier 20

miles northeast of Augusta, Georgia), which had also been requested, with the

Assembly claiming it was unnecessary; reporting that the Assembly had claimed

it was not responsible for the costs of transporting supplies to the forts; stating he

would continue to cooperate with Captain Cochrane on defense matters

129. November 14, 1764 [44]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Halifax, forwarding as requested “a List of all

Instruments made use of in Public transactions, Law proceedings, Grants,

conveyances, Securities of Law or Money within this Province” including

explanations, since, they being “peculiar to this Province cannot be generally

understood so well as those which are of common Use in England”;

299

noting that “several Articles which are Subject to the Stamp Duty in England are

omitted here as not being included in your Lordships Description” of what to

include [scrivener’s note “copy sent to the Treasury”] [with enclosure, document

130]

130. November 14, 1764 [46]

“List of all Instruments made use of in Public Transactions, Law Proceedings

Grants, Conveyances, & Securities of Land & Money in the Province of South

Carolina”. Organized alphabetically under 64 categories, many with more specific

designations of particular instruments; signed by Bull [enclosed with Bull’s

November 14, 1764 letter to Halifax, document 129]

131. November 28, 1764 [48]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Halifax, reporting at Halifax’ request that a

thorough investigation revealed “few Suspicions, & fewer Instances of Persons

having carried on [fraudulent trade] here”; with details of the kinds of fraud to a

void customs duties that used to occur, but maintaining that little of that still

occurred; stating his confidence in the honesty of the customs officers in South

Carolina

132. December 1, 1764 [52]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Halifax, concerning a complaint from the

Spanish Ambassador in London about violence against Spanish interests by

English “Pirates or Privateers in the West Indies”; reporting that his inquiry was

not able to identify any possible British pirates in this area

133. March 28, 1765 [54]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Halifax, reporting the loss of the Grenville

Packet on shoals in the Florida Straits between Pensacola and Havana [similar

letter with same date to Board of Trade in Reel 2 document 22]

134. June 20, 1765 [56]

Draft of [outgoing] Letter from Halifax to Board of Trade, forwarding letters from

General Gage and Lieutenant Governor Bull concerning a charge of £1,000 in

Carolina Currency from Samuel Wyley for surveying a tract of land for the

Catawba Indians, as ordered by the four colonial governors who attended the

recent Congress at Augusta; requesting that the Board of Trade consider

whether South Carolina should be responsible for paying this expense [identified

by a scrivener or archivist as a Letter of Reference and assigned a No. 7; no

other such numbering is found in these microfilmed documents, and no

explanation has been found of its meaning.] [see note about scrivener and

archivist (or perhaps author) document numbering after Reel 1 document 141]

300

135. March 1, 1765 [58]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Halifax, reporting that the South Carolina

Assembly had deferred decisions on financing for bridges until the King’s

directions on this had been clarified; new post office regulations were also

causing complaints

136. August 10, 1765 [60]

Letter [outgoing] from [Secretary of State] H. S. Conway at St. James’s to Bull,

urging Bull “to a continuance of Your Conduct in keeping things quiet in your

Province, and attending to those objects which have been recommended to You”

[Note: Henry Seymour Conway replaced Dunk Halifax as Secretary of State for

the Southern Department on July 12, 1765. He was a commoner member of

Parliament, who served in this office for less than a year, until May 23, 1766.]

137. September 8, 1765 [62]

Letter from Bull to Halifax, stating that he would implement the policy received,

that British troops stationed in each colony would be commanded from that

colony; reporting that Fort Prince George had been fully repaired to like new, that

Fort Charlotte was now being constructed of stone, and that troops and cannon

were being moved there from Fort Moore; reporting having found no illicit trade

being practiced in South Carolina [Bull didn’t learn that Halifax had been

replaced by Conway as Secretary of State for the Southern Department until

sometime before December 17, 1765] [see differing letter with same date by Bull

to Board of Trade in Reel 2 document 9]

138. December 17, 1765 [64]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Conway, pledging to work with the new

Secretary of State and reporting on what Bull assumed Conway already knew

about, “the general opposition with hath been shown in America against the

operation of the Stamp Act all the Ports are shut up as no Vessel can be cleared

without a Stampd Paper”, indicating that South Carolina was attempting to

observe the law, but indicating also that if the ports were closed for long, British

troops in the colonies of East and West Florida, Bermuda, and New Providence

[Bahamas] would be subjected to “the danger of Famine”; reporting that Bull had

ordered allowing certain vessels at Charleston shipping supplies to British naval

vessels to be cleared as long as it was certified “that no stamp papers are

distributed here” [different letter with same date from Bull to Board of Trade in

Reel 2 document 13]

139. February 6, 1766 [66]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Conway, reporting having approved clearance of

another vessel at Charleston carrying provisions to the new British colony at

Pensacola [British West Florida] and was considering a request from St.

Augustine [British East Florida] for similar clearance;

301

[the two British colonies of East and West Florida had been created from the

colony of Spanish Florida after Britain won and Spain (and France) lost the

Seven Years War, the French and Indian War in North America, in 1763];

reporting arrival at Charleston of Colonel Peter Randolph, Surveyor General of

Customs in Virginia, who had been encouraging customs officers to clear vessels

even if a port’s customs officers had refused to issue Stamp Papers; reporting

that this policy was being followed also in all the colonies northeast of Virginia;

stating that because of all the pressure on him not to enforce the Stamp Act, “I

have been induced to grant a Certificate to such Captains of Ships as request it,

that the Distributor of Stamps for this Province having signified to me by letter

that He determined to adhere to his Public Declaration not to issue any, /until the

sense of the Parliament is known on the American Petition/ & that accordingly He

will not issue any, No Stamp Papers are now to be had in the Province”; stating

that he intended to collect [lesser] fees on the Certificates to raise some revenue

for the King; stating his opinion that public opinion would not allow full

enforcement of the Stamp Act

140. May 8, 1766 [68]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Conway, responding to the Treasury’s

admonition to the colonies [protesting the Stamp Act] to take all possible steps to

enforce the King’s trade policies, which Bull agreed to try to do

141. May 9, 1766 [70]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Conway, reporting joy in South Carolina

following receipt of word that the Stamp Act had been repealed; reporting having

announced and implemented the new policies, despite being daily in expectation

of the arrival of a new governor for South Carolina, Charles Montagu [who

actually arrived on June 17, 1766]

[Note: Shortly after the date of this letter, Conway was replaced, as Secretary of

State for the Southern Department on May 23, 1766, by Charles Lennox, 3

Duke of Richmond. He didn’t last long, though, being replaced on July 30, 1766

by the Earl of Shelburne.]

142. July 17, 1766 [72

Letter from Grey Cooper at Treasury Chambers to Richard Stonehower

[evidently employee in Secretary of State office] sending to Richmond a copy of a

report from the Board of Trade concerning a memorial from former South

Carolina Governor Glen relating to requested reimbursement for expenses

incurred by him personally as a part of the Congress with the Cherokee Indians

in 1755 [with enclosures, documents 143 to 148] [for more on Glen’s efforts to

be reimbursed for personal expenses related to his diplomacy with the Cherokee

Indians, see Board of Trade correspondence, Reel 1 documents 124 to 126]

[Note: Richmond served only briefly as Secretary of State for the Southern

Department, from May 23 until July 29, 1766.]

302

[Note: In May and June 1755, Governor Glen had traveled to a place selected

for conferences (or Congress) between the British and Cherokee Nation. The

site, then called Saluda Old Town, was calculated to be more or less half way

between Charleston and the Lower Cherokee Indian town of Keowee and was

thought to be about 200 miles from Charleston. The conferences (Talks) took

place in June, and the resulting treaty, signed on July 2, 1755, was called the

Treaty of Saluda Old Town (or Treaty of Saluda). Glen apparently paid

personally for many expenses, including travel costs, accommodations costs for

500 or more Indians, and the cost of presents for the Indians.]

143. May 27, 1762 [74]

Copy of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Commissioners of the

Treasury, concerning Glen’s request for reimbursement for £584 in expenses

incurred personally by him during the Cherokee Indian Congress, explaining the

details of the situation and Glen’s repeated attempts to obtain reimbursement;

how the amount requested was subsequently increased to £1,084 but was not

approved and that now he was willing to settle for £584; the Board of Trade now

concurring with the position of the South Carolina Assembly that the Crown

should reimburse Glen for the £584 in expenses [enclosed with Cooper’s July

17, 1766 letter to Stonehower, document 142] [transcript of this letter is in Board

of Trade Commissions, Instructions, Etc., Reel 11 document 30]

144. April 14, 1756 [78]

Extract of letter from Glen to Board of Trade, stating that he had sought to obtain

South Carolina Assembly approval to reimburse him for his expenses at the

Congress with Cherokee Indians; explaining the nature of these expenses in

detail; seeking British government assistance in paying for these expenses [with

enclosures, probably documents 145 to 148] [enclosed with Cooper’s July 17,

1766 letter to Stonehower, document 142] [also found in Board of Trade

abstracts of incoming documents, Reel 10 Volume 406 Frame 49]

145. May 20, 1755 [83]

Copy of Address of Commons House of the South Carolina Assembly to the

King, which was a tribute to the leadership of Governor Glen [enclosed with

Glen’s April 14, 1756 letter to Board of Trade [document 144] [enclosed also

with Cooper’s July 17, 1766 letter to Stonehower, document 142]

146. [no date] [84]

Copy of statement by headmen of the Cherokee Nation, describing a series of

conferences they had had with Governor Glen “in the woods about 200 miles

from Charles Town” [at a place called Saluda]; quoting a talk by designated

Cherokee spokesman, Cherlalk Herlalk [? identity not found], and describing

other ceremonies during the conferences, during which the Cherokee gave

certain lands to the South Carolina Governor; denouncing friendship with the

French and pledging to support the British and to help fight their wars;

303

Glen having responded with a speech of his own [probably enclosed with Glen’s

April 14, 1756 letter to Board of Trade, document 144] [enclosed with Cooper’s

July 17, 1766 letter to Stonehower, document 142]

147. March 20, 1756 [88]

[Extract of minutes of Commons House of South Carolina Assembly], containing

message from Glen to Common House, written at Council Chambers on March

19, 1756, reminding them that before traveling to meet with the Cherokee Indians

in 1755, he had told the House that he would incur certain expenses, which the

Council and Assembly both supported; the message having been read, the

matter, with additional documents, was referred to a committee of Commons

House [probably enclosed with Glen’s April 14, 1756 letter to Board of Trade,

document 144] [enclosed with Cooper’s July 17, 1766 letter to Stonehower,

document 142]

148. March 22, 1757 [more logically 1756 but clearly dated 1757]` [90]

[Extract of minutes of Commons House of South Carolina Assembly], containing

report from committee which had considered Glen’s message of March 19, 1756

and in particular his purchase from John McQueen of presents for the Cherokee;

being of the opinion that previous obligations to pay for presents totaling over

£2,000 should be honored, and, then, if funding remains, Commons House can

do what it wishes with it [probably enclosed with Glen’s / letter to Board of Trade,

document 144] [enclosed with Cooper’s July 17, 1766 letter to Stonehower,

document 142]

149. June 29, 1766 [92]

Copy of letter from [newly arrived Governor] Montagu at Charleston to Board of

Trade, concerning the issue of paying for the unpaid salary of South Carolina

Governor Boone [with enclosure, document 150] [on Montagu’s arrival, see note

after document 141] [Identified as “No. 16. in the Board of Trade’s, of the 3

Sept

1766.”] [original letter in Board of Trade correspondence, Reel 2 document

43; on the issue of Boone’s salary, see also Reel 2 documents 7, 8, 44 and Reel

3 documents 122 to 124] [see note about scrivener and archivist (or perhaps

author) document numbering after Reel 1 document 141]

[Note: William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne (1737-1805) replaced short timer

the Duke of Richmond as Secretary of State for the Southern Department on July

30, 1766, just a month after this letter and just six weeks after Governor Charles

Greville Montagu had arrived in Charleston to begin serving his time as South

Carolina’s colonial Governor. During his time as Secretary of State, which lasted

until October 20, 1768, Shelburne instituted both organizational and policy-

oriented reforms. Administratively, he began a routine of numbering official

outgoing correspondence and asked each colonial governor to number the

official letters they sent to him. The numbers 16 and 17 assigned to documents

149 and 150 might be part of an early effort in the Board of Trade to number

letters.

304

Before becoming Secretary of State, Shelburne had been First Lord of the Board

of Trade since 1763. He also exerted considerable influence over British colonial

policy during his time as Secretary of State, leading toward an organizational

overhaul in 1768 in how British government dealt with colonial policy.]

150. [no date] [94]

“Copy of the Report of the Committee of the Lower House of Assembly in the

Province of South Carolina on the late Governor Boone’s Salary”, concluding that

the Assembly had acted “justly & wisely in withholding the Annual Allowance of

Mr. Boone”, whom they blamed for acting “arbitrarily and illegally” as Governor;

yet recommending that that salary be paid up until the day Boone left South

Carolina [May 11, 1764]; adding that Commons House would “doubtless insert a

proper sum” for the current Governor and for contingencies in this year’s

Estimate for South Carolina [enclosed with Montagu’s June 29, 1766 letter to

Board of Trade, document 149] [Identified as “No .17. in the Lords of Trade’s, of

the 3

Sept

1766” [see note after document 149] [extract from this report is in

Board of Trade correspondence, Reel 2 document 44; on the issue of Boone’s

salary, see also Reel 2 documents 7, 8, 43 and Reel 3 documents 122 to 124]

151. [no date] [96]

Copy of “Observations by Charles Skinner Esq

, Chief Justice of South Carolina”,

a document with three numbered sections, concerning the newly appointed Chief

Justice of South Carolina’s request for information about the position’s powers to

appoint other officers of the court, a matter that had been referred to John

Pownall, Secretary to the Board of Trade, who had responded that all court

officials except for the Provost Marshal were appointed by the Chief Justice; now,

a new issue had arisen between Clerk of the South Carolina Court Dougal

Campbell and the Chief Justice; the former claiming some independence but the

latter denying it; expressing the belief that the Chief Justice needed a larger

salary in order to defend himself and his position legally; stating also that more

magistrates were needed, along with more funding to support them [identified as

document No. 44]

[Note: DLAR documents 151 to 159 (except for documents 156, 157) have been

assigned numbers by a scrivener or archivist, beginning with “No. 44” for

document 151 through “No. 50” for document 159. Five of these documents are

also found in the Board of Trade correspondence, documents 65 to 69. The

Board of Trade correspondence was numbered, but differently. Only certain

official documents were numbered, and the numbering sequence began with a

letter followed by a number—a separate letter for each Volume followed by a

number in sequential order for each document (or set of documents) within the

Volume. In Reel 2 Volume 378, documents were assigned the letter N. Within

Reel 2, DLAR’s document 45 is the Board of Trade’s document N.40., a letter

dated August 6, 1766 from South Carolina Governor Montagu to the Board of

Trade. DLAR documents 46 to 63 are attachments to Montagu’s letter, all

“packaged” as parts of Board of Trade’s document(s) N.41.

305

In the Secretary of State incoming correspondence, DLAR’s Reel 5 document

151 had been assigned “No. 44,” which is “number 44,” not the letter “N” followed

by the number “44.” Thus, besides the tantalizingly near-equivalency of

numbers, the numbers assigned to Reel 5 documents 151 to 155, 158, 159 are

not Board of Trade numbers, and therefore the reason for their sudden

appearance, followed by their subsequent disappearance, remains unclear.]

[Note: In April and May 1766, Chief Justice Charles Skinner opposed a group

of “assistant justices” in a major colonial power struggle, in which Skinner

sought to maintain the integrity and authority of the position of Chief Justice to

tightly control the colony’s court system, while the assistant justices argued for a

degree of local control and independence for the lower level judges in the

system. This power struggle was intimately intertwined with a parallel power

struggle between the Governor, South Carolina Council, the Chief Justice, and

other top colonial officials against the Commons House of the South Carolina

Assembly. Both of these were in turn intertwined with the dispute in South

Carolina over adherence to and enforcement of the Stamp Act imposed by the

British Parliament. Many documents in the microfilmed Board of Trade

correspondence illuminate these struggles and dispute in some detail, especially

in Reel 2 documents 26 to 32, 45, 46, 48 to 69. Copies and similar documents

are found in the Secretary of State incoming correspondence. See especially

documents 151 to 162.

Skinner, who served as Chief Justice from 1762 until 1771, was evidently a

strongly minded individual and a dominating jurist. He wrote several strongly

worded documents seeking to establish a legal basis for his concepts of control

over the colonial court system and to provide a political defense for his actions to

exercise that control. See especially Reel 2 documents 31, 46, 51, and 65.

Some of these documents appear also in the Secretary of State incoming

correspondence. See especially documents 151, 153, and 162. Skinner’s

struggle continued into 1767. See Reel 2 documents 81, 84, 85 and Reel 5

documents 177 to 179 and 182 to 184. See also note about scrivener and

archivist (or perhaps author) document numbering after Reel 1 document 141.]

152. September 19, 1766 [99]

Copy of letter from Montagu at Charleston to Board of Trade, conveying three

acts approved by the Assembly; concerning the Chief Justice’s request

concerning “his proceedings and the Assistant Judges” [identified as document

No. 45; see note after document 151] [copy in Board of Trade correspondence,

Reel 2 document 64]

306

153. [no date] [101]

Copy of “Some further observations of the Chief Justice upon Matters that

occurred in this Province since the 7

of August last”, when he delivered [to Lord

Halifax in England] a Book containing a narrative of Things, relative to the courts

of Law [in South Carolina]”, concerning the dispute over the position of Clerk of

the Court and the Assistant Judges and [Deputy] Provost Marshal Roger

Pinckney and the operation of court process in South Carolina, with daily details

in August after the 7

of the month [identified as document No. 46; see note

after document 151]

Note: The year of these observations would appear to be 1767. In neither year

was Halifax Secretary of State for the Southern Department, so Skinner’s

purpose in sending his book on South Carolina’s courts to Halifax is not clear

from the microfilmed documents alone.]

154. September 15, 1766 [110]

Copy of sworn statement of James O’Brien, one of the attorneys of South

Carolina’s Court of Pleas who also was “one of the Domesticks” of Chief Justice

Skinner concerning the matter between [Deputy] Provost Marshal Pinckney and

Skinner, Pinckney having stated that he would not execute any papers with

stamps required by the Stamp Act on them [identified as document No. 47; see

note after document 151] [another copy in Board of Trade correspondence, Reel

2 document 66]

155. September 15, 1766 [112]

Copy of statement by W[illiam] Oldham concerning the increasing opposition in

South Carolina’s legal system against Skinner’s defense and enforcement of the

Stamp Act, while Oldham remained a supporter of Skinner and enforcement of

the Stamp Act; also mention of Benjamin Barons, whom Skinner had once

trusted but now opposed [identified as document No. 48; see note after

document 151] [copy in Board of Trade correspondence, Reel 2 document 67;

see also note about Benjamin Barons after document 67]

156. September 13, 1766 [115]

Copy of account by Skinner concerning “Fees charged upon a writ of Enquiry

Execut

” in the case of Ward & Leger v. John Campbell, with judge and clerk

fees plus extra fees with a net total of £49.9.2, from which the fee for Chief

Justice and Clerk had been removed [copy in Board of Trade correspondence,

Reel 2 part of document 68]

157. [no date] [116]

Copy of account by Skinner concerning “Bill on Writ Inquiry Enquiry Executed” in

the case of Robertson & Baillie v. Tacitus Gaillard, with judge and clerk fees plus

other fees with a net total of £52.6.8, on which a tax was paid; identified as

occurring during the Court’s “August Term 1760” [copy in Board of Trade

correspondence, Reel 2 part of document 68]

307

158. [no date] [117]

Copy of “A List or Table of all Fees allowed to or taken by the Clerk” from a

requisition of William Bull dated at Council Chamber on December 11, 1764,

including 23 itemized services and fee for each, with notes on the legal authority

for each fee (mostly acts of 1698, 1736, and 1743) [identified as document No.

49; see note after document 151] [copy in Board of Trade correspondence, Reel

2 part of document 68]

159. August 30, 1766 [120]

Copy of letter from South Carolina Deputy Provost Marshal Roger Pinckney at

Charleston to Board of Trade, seeking to refute Chief Justice Skinner’s

accusations against him at length and in detail; dated at the close of the letter

September 2, 1766 [see document 160 for original letter] [identified as

document No. 50; see note after document 151] [another copy in Board of Trade

correspondence, Reel 2 document 69; the original is in document 160]

160. August 30, 1766 [130]

Letter from Roger Pinckney at Charleston to Board of Trade, the original of which

document 159 is a copy

161. October 5, 1767 [140]

Affidavit of James Donavan, keeper of the public jail at Charleston, concerning a

wagoner who had been incarcerated in the Charleston jail, having been

committed there by Chief Justice Skinner

162. [no date] [142]

Statement by Skinner defending himself against the allegations in Donavan’s

affidavit, presented in 28 numbered points [second side of Frame 143

microfilmed twice]

163. August 12, 1766 [146]

Cover page of memorial of John Hume, Storekeeper of Ordnance at Charleston,

as conveyed by Montagu to the Secretary of State by South Carolina Governor

Montagu [cover page only, with enclosures, documents 164, 165]

[Note: When this memorial was sent, The Earl of Shelburne had just become

Secretary of State for the Southern Department, and South Carolinians were

justifiably confused as to who filled this position. H. S. Conway had left office in

late May 1766, had been replaced briefly by the Duke of Richmond from May

until July. He himself had then been replaced by Shelburne on July 30, 1766.

Not until sometime in fall 1766 did word of Shelburne’s appointment reach

Charleston.]

164. January 18, 1765 [148]

Extract of Journals of South Carolina Commons House, concerning a petition

from John Hume, Storekeeper of Ordnance, that was read that day and assigned

to a committee; followed by

308

March 13, 1765

Extract of Journals of Commons House, containing committee report on John

Hume’s petition, which recommended a “gratuity” of £500 but no salary

compensation; Commons House approved this recommendation [both enclosed

with Montagu’s August 12, 1766 conveyance of John Hume’s memorial,

document 163]

165. [no date] [150]

Memorial of John Hume, Storekeeper of Ordnance for South Carolina, to

Secretary of State Henry Seymour Conway, seeking relief from lack of payments

for services performed in South Carolina since 1760 [enclosed with Montagu’s

August 12, 1766 conveyance of John Hume’s memorial, document 163]

[Conway served as Secretary of State from July 1765 until May 1766]

166. November 23, 1766 [153]

Petition from South Carolina Commons House to the King, concerning its plans

to issue large sums of paper currency, which they state they need to stimulate

trade; requesting that the King secure the Parliament’s repeal of a law forbidding

the issue of paper currency in the colonies and that the King accept a South

Carolina law allowing the issuance by the colony of £50,000 worth of paper

currency

167. October 25, 1766 [156]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 2 from Secretary of State Shelburne to South Carolina

Governor Montagu, conveying the King’s approval of the patriotic support of

South Carolina inhabitants for the King and Great Britain, of the conduct of

Lieutenant Governor Bull while he was serving as acting governor, and for South

Carolina’s support for Court Clerk Dougal Campbell by remitting the fine imposed

on him by Commons House when he upheld enforcement of the Stamp Act; and

for exercising a strong policy against Indian violence; suggesting that the

governor send separate letters to the Secretary of State on different issues and

that he numbered each letter [transcribed copy in abstracts of Secretary of State

outgoing correspondence in Reel 12 Volume 407 document 4)

[Note: See note after document 149 for more on the Earl of Shelburne’s

initiatives and influence as Secretary of State for the Southern Department from

1766 until 1768, including his system of numbering both incoming and outgoing

“official” Secretary of State correspondence. Shelburne might have written to

Governor Montagu letters No. 1 through at least No. 9. However, only letters No.

2, No. 6, and No. 9 are found in Reel 5. The abstract letter book for this period of

Secretary of State outgoing correspondence in Reel 12 Volume 407 contains

complete transcripts of letters No. 2, No. 5, No. 6, No. 8, and No. 9. Letters No.

5 and No. 8 are therefore microfilmed only as transcripts in Reel 12 Volume 407

documents 7 and 10 respectively.

309

Since letter numbers were determined at this time by where they appeared in the

sequence of numbered documents in abstract letter books, it is possible that

letters No. 1, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 7 were never written—or that they were

written but are missing from both the archived actual letters and the abstract

transcripts. A likely explanation is that the abstract letters in Reel 12 Volume 407

include items numbered No. 1, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 7, but these are not letters

to individuals but “circular” letters outgoing from the Secretary of State to a

number of colonial governors. Having used these letter numbers for circular

letters, they were not available for Shelburne to use in letters to Montagu. Later

on, circular letters were no longer numbered, simplifying the numbering system.]

168. November 16, 1766 [159]

Memorandum or perhaps part of memorial from Charles Garth, crown agent for

South Carolina, seemingly directed to [Egerton] Leigh, Attorney General of South

Carolina, listing the titles of 13 leading officials [of colonial South Carolina], and

stating [seemingly unrelated] that naval officer Robert Lazar (?) had been

approved for 12 months leave of absence; [perhaps a part of the memorial in

document 169 [Frame 159 microfilmed twice]

169. November 16, 1766 [161]

Memorial [perhaps a draft, incomplete, beginning in the middle of a sentence]

from Charles Garth to [?] concerning the authority of the Chief Justice to levy

fines on other officials [probably reference to Court Clerk Dougal Campbell; with

notation at end of document by the writer identifying this as “New Bond Sheet”

[perhaps the list of officials in document 168]

170. [no date] [162]

Memorial [perhaps a draft, incomplete, ending indistinctly perhaps in the middle

of a sentence] from Garth to Shelburne, concerning the case of the Assistant

Judges against the Chief Justice in South Carolina [perhaps a part of documents

169 and/or 170] [second page of Frame 162 microfilmed twice]

171. December 8, 1766 [163]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Shelburne, enclosing, as

requested by the Board of Trade, a list of exports from Charleston since 1747

[document 173] reporting that hemp was being grown successfully in South

Carolina; enclosing also a return of militia and regular soldiers in South Carolina

[document 172] [similar letter to Board of Trade in Reel 2 document 71]

172. [no date] [165]

Return of militia and regular troops in South Carolina in 1766, including numbers

of regular troops stationed at Fort Prince George (30), Fort Charlotte (19), Fort

Augusta (45), and Charleston (23), plus 10,000 militia, without geographic

distribution, for a total of 10,000 effective troops [enclosed with Montagu’s

December 8, 1766 letter to Shelburne, document 171] [same return sent to

Board of Trade on same date, Reel 2 document 73]

310

173. [no date] [166]

Table of exports from Charleston “for 20 years past”, including the value of

annual exports from 1748 to 1766, by category, for rice, naval stores, deer skins,

indigo, slaves, lumber, corn & peas, tanned leather, beef & pork, silk and silk

products, tallow, cotton, hemp, with 20-year totals for each category, except for

hemp production, reported first in 1765 [enclosed with Montagu’s December 8,

1766 letter to Shelburne, document 171] [same table sent to Board of Trade on

same date, Reel 2 document 72]

174. February 19, 1767 [167]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 6 from Shelburne at Whitehall to Montagu, noting the

positive report on South Carolina exports, with the added comment that “but with

proper Industry it must become one of the most flourishing of all His Majesty’s

American Colonies”; commenting on the importance of avoiding “Disturbances or

Incursions of the numerous Indian Nations which surround them” and expressing

royal displeasure with the new West Florida’s “venturing to commence Hostilities

against the Creeks without any authority so to do”, which had led the King to

recall the West Florida Governor [George Johnstone], leaving Lieutenant

Governor [Montfort] Browne in charge at Pensacola [transcribed copy of this

letter in abstracts of Secretary of State outgoing correspondence in Reel 12

Volume 407; Shelburne’s letters No. 5 and 8, which are microfilmed only among

the abstracts (but with full transcript contents) in Reel 12 Volume 407 documents

7 and 10 respectively]

175. [no date] [170]

Letter from Montagu to Shelburne, stating that he had complied with royal

Instructions by making a public proclamation outlining the Indians’ complaints

against British settlers and stating the government’s intent to enforce strictly the

provisions of the Proclamation of 1763; enclosing a list of entries and clearances

of vessels at Charleston harbor [not microfilmed here] [similar letter to Board of

Trade dated January 16, 1767 in Reel 2 document 76] [for more on the

Proclamation of 1763, see note after Reel 1 document 161]

176. March 5, 1767 [172]

Letter No. 2 from Montagu at Charleston to Secretary of State for the Southern

Department the Earl of Shelburne, stating that he was trying to reduce Indian

disturbances by severely limiting the number of active Indian traders

[Note: This is the first of Montagu’s letters to Shelburne that was numbered, in

the fashion Shelburne desired for his own outgoing letters and for those he

received from colonial governors. Montagu had been sending letters to

Shelburne since June 1766 (document 149) but none was numbered before this

letter No. 2.

311

177. May 12, 1767 [174]

Copy of letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Board of Trade,

stating that the South Carolina Assembly had addressed him with charges,

supported in a report [document 178], against Chief Justice Skinner and a

request that the Governor remove him from office; stating that he had informed

Skinner of the charges and asked him to write a defense against the charges;

having received on May 3 Skinner’s written defense, in the form of a memorial

[document 179], stating that he met with the South Carolina Council on the

matter, and that the result was a unanimous opinion that Skinner “was

unacquainted with Law, and entirely unfit for the Office of Chief Justice; and that

they therefore advis’d me to suspend him”, which he did on May 11; enclosing

the Assembly’s report [document 178] and Skinner’s memorial [document 179]

[original letter to Board of Trade in Reel 2 document 81]

178. [no date] [176]

Copy of report of committee “appointed to enquire into the State of the Courts of

Justice”, stating that almost all involved in the South Carolina courts believed that

Skinner was “a Person wholly unacquainted with, and ignorant of the Common

Law, such Acts of Parliament as are of force here, and the Acts of Assembly of

this Province, and that”…the Chief Justice’s “conduct in that Station manifests

such Ignorance, and shows him to be entirely unfit for a Place of so much

Consequence”; stating that other officials besides the Chief Justice also

contributed to the inadequacies of the court system; providing case examples of

the Chief Justice’s having applied the law wrongly, including the texts of several

pieces of correspondence written by Skinner; concluding with resolutions

identifying the problem of Skinner’s incompetent conduct and recommending that

the Governor remove Skinner from office and replace him with someone “fit and

proper” to administer justice knowledgeably [enclosed with Montagu’s letter of

May 12, 1767 to Board of Trade, document 176] [another copy of report in Board

of Trade correspondence, Reel 2 document 84]

179. May 2, 1767 [189]

Copy of memorial to Montagu from Charles Skinner, Chief Justice of South

Carolina, containing Skinner’s defense against charges of lack of legal

knowledge and of incompetent administration of the law; using defenses that

sought both to demonstrate his own greater legal knowledge and abilities than

allowed in the Assembly’s complaint and to suggest the Assembly’s lesser

abilities and knowledge than it claimed for itself, with details; responding to and

seeking to refute each of the case examples in the committee’s report, with more

details; summing up his case against the charges, Skinner’s defense concluded

that “Thus, Sir, afflicted as I am to observe such a Torrent of unprovoked

Malevolence, of inveterate Hatred, Malice and Revenge and of the most virulent

setting in upon me”, he stated that he had done his best to respond properly on

short notice [enclosed with Montagu’s letter of May 12, 1767 to Board of Trade,

document 176] [another copy of memorial in Board of Trade correspondence,

Reel 2 document 85]

312

Note: The last microfilmed manuscript page with a printed Frame Number is Frame

215. for the remaining documents in Volume 390, this Finding Aid includes, on the right

margin of each entry, what the sequential Frame Number would be, in parenthesis ( ),

had it been printed.

180. April 14, 1767 [(218)]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Shelburne, stating that he

and the Council had developed a set of regulations [document 181] designed to

control the Indian traders strictly [similar letter with same date from Montagu to

Board of Trade is in Reel 2 document 79]

181. November 16, 1766 [(Frame 219)]

“Regulations for the better carrying on the Trade with the Indian Tribes in the

Southern District”, with 18 numbered, itemized regulations [copy of regulations in

Board of Trade correspondence, Reel 2 document 80]

182. July 11, 1767 [(Frame 221)]

Memorial of Garth to Shelburne, concerning the positions of Provost Marshal and

of Sheriffs in South Carolina, arguing the case that centralized control by the

Provost Marshal reduced local governance, which the colony valued, and that the

Sheriffs, also established with the Crown’s blessing were a better location for the

overlapping functions of Provost Marshal and Sheriffs, closer to the people [copy

of memorial in Board of Trade correspondence, Reel 2 document 83]

183. July 22, 1767 [(Frame 223)]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Shelburne, advising positive

consideration for the petition from South Carolina Agent Garth, stating that the

colony had developed sufficiently economically to warrant subdivision into

counties, each with an appointed sheriff [draft letter also in Board of Trade draft

outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 130]

184. October 8, 1767 [(Frame 224)]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 9 from Shelburne at Whitehall to Montagu, expressing

strong displeasure with Montagu’s decision to suspend Chief Justice Skinner;

believing Skinner’s statement that he had been denied proper process to defend

himself; stating that Montagu should quickly remedy the situation with

appropriate legislative action by the Assembly; informing Montagu that the

colony’s plan, via Garth’s memorial to establish county sheriffs in place of a

single provost marshal had been approved; expecting that South Carolina would

be appropriately appreciative of the Royal largesse extended by this approval

[what would be Frame 224 microfilmed twice]

185. August 14, 1767 [(Frame 228)]

Letter No. 5 from Montagu at South Carolina to Shelburne stating that the

Assembly had approved financing for stationing troops in South Carolina

313

186. October 5, 1767 [(Frame 229)]

Letter No. 6 from Montagu at Charleston to Shelburne, reporting that Samuel

Moore, Collector of Customs, was being obstructed in collecting the usual fees,

while Mr. [George] Roupell, a searcher who had seized a schooner, was

subjected to a suit for £5,000 damages for what was termed by the merchants an

illegal seizure; including other similar details [by 1772 Roupell, who had earlier

been a customs collector at Boston, was being supported by the Assembly to be

appointed Commissioner of Revenue at Charleston but was opposed by the

Governor and Council on the grounds that his commission from Boston was not

valid in Charleston; see Reel 2 documents 182, 183, 185] [on numbered letters,

see note after document 185] [no letter No. 7 from Montagu to Shelburne is

found in these microfilmed documents]

187. October 8, 1767 [(Frame 231)]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Shelburne reporting having

received reports of rioting in South Carolina, but had few details

314

Reel 6 (Volumes 391, 392, 393, 394)

Volume 391—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

November 10, 1767 to December 10, 1768 Documents 1 to 37 [Frames 1 to 80]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. See notes before Volumes

382, 385, 386, 389, and 390 for information and content of the preceding microfilmed

Volumes of this correspondence. See also the overall summary of the microfilmed

Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13. Volume 391

continues the fairly regular pattern of correspondence from Volume 390 with documents

dated from November 1767 to December 1768. The correspondence reflects the

change in the Secretary of State office as a new position was created, filled initially by

the Earl of Hillsborough, of Secretary of State for the Colonies. This more powerful

position put the Secretary of State more in charge of Britain’s colonial policy, compared

with the Board of Trade. Meanwhile, South Carolina’s Governor Charles Greville

Montague spent five months of 1768 on leave in Philadelphia and New York because of

poor health. During his absence, the South Carolina Assembly was becoming

increasingly rebellious, from the colonial government’s perspective, so that when he

returned at the end of October, he found his ability to govern as he wished severely

compromised, a situation he took badly.

Note: Archivists in the Secretary of State’s office had not previously designated

consecutive document numbers in each Volume for official incoming correspondence.

However, that office began this practice, based on the Board of Trade’s prior practice,

assigning official numbers to most of the documents microfilmed in Volumes 391 to 394

(late 1767 to mid-1771). The Board of Trade had numbered official documents for

some time, assigning a single letter of the alphabet to each Volume and consecutive

numbers for each separate official document within the Volume. For example, the BT

(Board of Trade) numbers for documents in Reel 1 Volume 377 (South Carolina

incoming Board of Trade correspondence) run from M.1. through M.109. In Volume

391, SS (Secretary of State) numbers run from A.1. to A.37. Documents in the

subsequent three Volumes were numbered as follows: Volume 392 B.1. to B.13.;

Volume 393 C.1. to C.20.; Volume 394 D.1. to D.18. The document numbering ended

abruptly at D.18. and was not resumed for subsequent Volumes of Secretary of State

documents. As in the Board of Trade, only what were considered “official” incoming

letters and related documents received SS document numbers.

Note: By 1766, numbering of letters in series, to or from the Secretary of State or the

Board of Trade), had begun, especially for official letters between secretaries of state

and colonial governors/acting governors. See the section on this subject in the

Introduction. After some early experimentation, the Board of Trade did not continue a

process of letter numbering. It did continue to number official documents within

Volumes as described in the previous note.

315

In Volume 391, the secretary of state and South Carolina governor had just begun to

use numbered letters and also were beginning to number official documents by Volume.

The two systems appear not to have been linked in their numbering.

Meanwhile, a third numbering system had been used for some time in both the Board of

Trade and the Secretary of State office to archive important official documents by

writing summaries or transcripts of them into “abstract” letter books. These letter books,

with abstracted documents dated from 1720 to 1782, are microfilmed in Reel 10

(Volumes 400, 401); Reel 11 (Volume 404), and Reel 12 (Volumes 405 to 410). See

the Introduction for a section on actual documents and abstract documents and of

locations in these microfilmed documents of each, for incoming or outgoing

correspondence or both. Most of these summarized or transcribed documents are

found as actual documents elsewhere among the microfilmed documents. A few,

however, are found only as transcripts in the abstract letter books, as documented in

each Volume. An early problem emerged in the late 1760s when letter numbering

began. The letter books numbered each document consecutively in the order entered.

Thus, if a numbered letter was entered, it was likely to have two numbers, causing

confusion. Initially, these letters were given their entry numbers, but that left the

impression that some official letters were missing. The solution that eventually emerged

was to number, in the letter books, only the official numbered letters, using the letter

number assigned by the author. This Finding Aid includes notes that seek to explain

these numbering complications within the Volume where they occur. For more on letter

numbering see especially the section on the subject in the Introduction and the notes

at the beginning of Volume 379 (Board of Trade), and of Volume 390 (Secretary of

State). See also the note after document 7 below on how abstract documents of

outgoing correspondence help find and sort out numbered letters from and to

Secretaries of State.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. December 4, 1767 [1]

Bill from William Reynolds to Charles Montagu for a debt of £210.10 “for the

Demurage of the Ship Lonthill [?] lying at Portsmouth waiting on his Lordship”;

addressed to “Mess

Bishop & Ridgell Vine Street Piccadilly” [may be SS

number A.1. although not so identified]

316

[Note: Charles Greville Montagu was Royal Governor of South Carolina.

Sometime, perhaps as early as late 1767, he had requested a leave of absence

to regain his health. Demurrage was a fee paid if a vessel was delayed beyond a

date previously agreed to for the vessel to be loaded and underway. This bill

indicates that Montague owed such a fee for a ship he had delayed, which was

located at Portsmouth, England. Only by improbable association could it be

inferred that this ship’s delay was related to Montagu’s plans for a leave of

absence. First, the vessel was on the wrong side of the Atlantic. Second, when

Montagu finally did depart for his leave of absence, he sailed up the coast to

Philadelphia for a shorter R&R trip, not to England. An alternative explanation for

this demurrage fee and Montagu’s request that it be paid for out of public funds

(document 2) is not found in these microfilmed documents.]

2. [no date] [3]

Memorial of Montagu to Lord Shelburne, seeking relief to pay for the

government-caused delay which had cost Montagu £210.10 for demurrage of the

ship [SS number A.2.]

3. December 14, 1767 [5]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Lord Shelburne, sending a

record of all the land grants issued in South Carolina “since May”; reporting that

hostilities with the Indians had diminished and both troop and police security had

increased on the frontier [SS number A.3.]

4. December 14, 1767 [7]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Lord Shelburne,

acknowledging receipt of a new seal for South Carolina and that he would return

the old one [SS number A.4.]

5. November 10, 1767 [9]

Letter No. 8 from Montagu at South Carolina to Shelburne, reporting having sent

to Shelburne proceedings of the South Carolina Assembly plus copies of the

laws they had adopted; reporting some settler violence in the interior, due partly

to the lack of courts in this area, being addressed by people’s petitions for better

government services and protection; expecting that the threat of riots would

quickly diminish [SS number A.5.]

6. November 14, 1767 [11]

Letter No. 9 from Montagu at Charleston to Shelburne, concerning conviction of

two men for murder in the back country, but with circumstances warranting

mercy, so a request was being made to the Crown for clemency [SS number

A.6.] [no letters No. 10 or No. 11 from Montagu to Shelburne are found in the

microfilmed documents. A probable No. 12 is found in document 9 below]

317

7. February 20, 1768 [13]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 3 from the Earl of Hillsborough at Whitehall to

Montagu, expressing approval for the Assembly’s having voting funds to pay for

quartering troops in South Carolina; reporting having referred Montagu’s matters

concerning the behavior of customs officials and quit rents to the Treasury;

expressing the King’s great satisfaction that violence on the frontier had been

contained and that settling matters through courts rather than violence was a

great improvement; reporting that the King had granted full pardons to the two

accused murderers [see document 6]

[Note: Wills Hill, 1

Earl of Hillsborough (1768 to 1772) had a long career in

British politics and government: First Lord of the Board of Trade from 1763-

1765; Secretary of State for the Colonies and First Lord of the Board of Trade

from 1768-1772; Secretary of State for the Southern Department from 1779-

1782.] He assumed his expanded duties as the first Secretary of State for the

Colonies on February 27, 1768 and held this influential position until August 27,

1772. See note after Reel 2 document 90 for more on why Hillsborough’s

Secretary of State duties under the new title were expanded at this time.]

[Note: Secretary of state outgoing numbered letters to colonial governors

were susceptible to confusion, leaving uncertainty for researchers about

whether or not full sets of numbered letters were or were not available for study.

Secretary of State Hillsborough wrote numbered letters, at different times, to

both Governor Montagu and acting governor Bull. A number of these letters

appear, on the surface, to be missing in the microfilmed actual documents. Only

two are actually missing but both of these are found as transcripts in Reel 12

Volume 408, an abstract letter book of outgoing Secretary of State

correspondence, dated between February 20, 1768 and February 6, 1782. In

general, the only transcript documents with separate Finding Aid entries from the

abstract letter books are those that do not appear among the microfilmed actual

documents, as follows in Hillsborough’s numbered letters:

 Numbered letters to Montagu: Letter No. 20 is missing from the actual

documents but is found as a transcript in Reel 12 Volume 408 document 21.

The unnumbered letter in document 10 below is the same, with the same

date, as the No. 8 letter abstracted in Reel 12 Volume 408 document 8. No. 4

to No. 7, No. 9, No. 11 to No. 15, No. 17, No. 24, No. 25, and No. 27 are

numbers assigned to circular letters (when they were entered into the

abstracts letter book. They differed from other official correspondence by

periodically delivering generalized information to multiple colonial governors.

Once assigned, a number on a circular letters could not also be assigned to a

letter written by a Secretary to a particular governor

 Numbered letters to Bull: Letter No. 32 is missing from the actual

documents but is found as a transcription in the abstracts of Reel 12 Volume

408 document 36. No. 38 is a circular letter, so that number was skipped in

the numbered letters to Bull.

318

Secretary of State Dartmouth wrote numbered letters to Montagu, to Bull, and

to Governor William Campbell. All of his 5 numbered letters to Montagu (dated

between September 27, 1772 and January 6, 1773) are found in the microfilmed

actual letters. All of his 12 numbered letters to Bull (dated between June 10,

1773 and December 10, 1774) are also found in the microfilmed actual letters.

Campbell’s short term as governor came and went as Dartmouth was also

leaving office. The timing was such that Dartmouth wrote only two numbered

letters to Campbell before Germain replaced him. He numbered these as an

add-on to the series he had started writing to Montagu in 1772. Both are found

as actual documents among those microfilmed.

Secretary of State Germain wrote numbered letters to Bull, and to William

Campbell, the last royal governor of South Carolina. All of his three numbered

letters to Campbell (dated between December 23, 1775 and January 14, 1777)

are found in the microfilmed actual letters. None of Germain’s numbered letters

to Bull (dated between April 4, 1781 and February 6, 1782) are found in the

microfilmed actual letters but several (plus two unnumbered letters dated

January 8 and March 29, 1781) are found in the transcribed abstracts in Reel 12

Volume 408 documents 98 to 100 and 102 to 104.

All of these letters were written after the fall of South Carolina’s colonial

government on September 15, 1775. Those written between mid-1776 and early

1777 to Campbell presumed that he remained Governor of South Carolina.

Those written in 1781 to Bull presumed him still to be Lieutenant Governor of a

colonial government which the Secretary of State still hoped, after the successful

recapture of Charleston in May 1780, Bull might find the means to re-establish.]

8. March 9, 1768 [15]

Letter from Thomas Bradshaw at Treasury Chambers to Richard Phelps at the

Treasury, commenting on the South Carolina matters Hillsborough had referred

to the Treasury [SS number A.7.]

9. March 25, 1768 [17]

Letter No. 12 from Montagu at Charleston to Secretary of State [Shelburne or

Hillsborough], reporting the death of Chief Justice Charles Skinner, which had

prevented Montagu from following the King’s orders to reinstate Skinner because

he had not received this royal order until too late to act on it; stating his opinion

that justice had been done because Skinner had no more defense of his conduct

except what was in the memorial he had written to Montagu [SS number A.8.]

[Note: On this date, Hillsborough was Secretary of State for the Colonies (as of

February) and Shelburne was Secretary of State for the Southern Department

(until October). Whether or not Montagu was yet aware of the creation of

Hillsborough’s new position and the resulting shift in power to him is not clear

from this letter. Two hints suggest he was not. That Montagu numbered this

letter No. 12 suggests that he was directing it to Shelburne. Furthermore, on

May 13, 1768, Montagu wrote a letter No. 1 to Hillsborough (document 12).]

319

10. May 5, 1768 [19]

Draft [outgoing] letter [unnumbered, however, transcript in Reel 12 Volume 408

document 9 assigns it No. 8; see note after document 7] from Hillsborough at

Whitehall to Montagu, responding to Montagu’s request for leave of absence “for

a short time for the Recovery of your Health”, which the King had approved;

giving instructions for turning the South Carolina government over to Lieutenant

Governor William Bull II, including Montagu’s royal Instructions and other official

papers]

[Note: Montagu left Charleston on May 23, 1768 (see note after document 16),

traveling to Philadelphia, where he spent time on medical leave. He did not

return until October 30, 1768. During the interim, Lieutenant Governor William

Bull II acted as Governor, without the title. Since becoming Lieutenant Governor

in 1759, this was the third of five times during which Bull assumed administrative

control over South Carolina’s colonial government for an extended period while a

governor was on leave or the colony was between governors.]

11. May 12, 1768 [21]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 10 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

instructing that the Chief Justice position be filled quickly with a “fit and able

Person” [see note after document 7 for more on seemingly missing numbered

draft letters from Hillsborough, including No. 11 to No. 15]

12. May 13, 1768 [23]

Letter No. 1 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting having

received Hillsborough’s letter No. 1; suggesting that communications would be

simplified if a packet were to be sent directly between London and Charleston

rather than via numerous other ports; also conveying journals of the South

Carolina Council and bills for costs of the judiciary [SS number A.9.] [although

Hillsborough became Secretary of State for the Colonies in February 1768, it

took until mid-May for the letter numbering by both Hillsborough and Montagu to

be restarted with No. 1]

13. May 13, 1768 [25]

Letter No. 2 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting having

received Hillsborough’s letter No. 2; responding to Hillsborough’s request that he

send copies of all South Carolina Laws, stating that if a complete set could have

been assembled, he would have sent it, but that obtaining a full set would be

difficult [SS number A.10.]

14. May 13, 1768 [27]

Letter No. 3 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing Hillsborough

that Montagu’s doctors had advised him he needed very soon to take a leave of

absence to regain his health in a northern colony; stating, since his Instructions

allowed such leave, he intended to travel before the end of May to New York for

this purpose [SS number A.11.]

320

[no letter No. 4 is found in this Montagu to Hillsborough series; however, two

consecutive letters No. 5 follow this letter, the first (document 24) dated

September 9, 1768 in New York, the second (document 35) dated November 21,

1768 in Charleston; it seems likely that Montagu lost track of his letter numbers

while on leave and subsequently got back on track after he returned to

Charleston; he was on leave from May 23 to October 30, 1768]

15. July 12, 1768 [29]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 16 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu, reporting

having recommended a direct packet between London and Charleston, which he

stated would be established; expressing sorrow at Montagu’s ill health but relief

that operation of the government would devolve to the able and faithful

Lieutenant Governor Bull [see note after document 7 for more on seemingly

missing numbered draft letters from Hillsborough, including No. 17]

16. May 30, 1768 [31]

Letter No. 1 from Lieutenant Governor Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, stating

that Montagu had embarked this day on the British naval ship Fowey for

Philadelphia, expecting to return in the fall after regaining his health; promising

that he would attend well to the needs of the government during this period [SS

number A.12.]

[Note: The usual date reported for Montagu’s departure date is May 23. This

letter suggests it was a week later, for a reason that is not clear from these

documents alone.]

17. July 18, 1768 [33]

Letter No. 2 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, conveying copies of 17 laws

passed by the Assembly of South Carolina and assented to by Montagu,

including act establishing courts and jails and appointing Sheriffs (in lieu of a

provost marshal) and other officers; arguing for the need for this law; arguing as

well the need to redraw the temporary boundary between North and South

Carolina, a line established in 1764, running from the sea to the Catawba River,

because new settlements of South Carolinians had grown up beyond the end of

the line; suggesting extending the line to take in territory recently organized, by

one of the new laws, into a part of Berkley County to be called St. Matthew

Parish; this act would include representation of this area in the General Assembly

of South Carolina [SS number A.13.] [copy in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 90]

18. July 19, 1768 [37]

Letter No. 3 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing Hillsborough that

no complete copy of South Carolina laws existed, so it could not be copied and

delivered to Hillsborough as he had requested; suggesting that Hillsborough

might be better served by receipt of an analysis of the laws rather than the

voluminous original manuscripts, which could be produced [SS number A.14.]

321

19. July 20, 1768 [39]

Letter No. 4 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting having sent to

Hillsborough journals of the last Assembly term; stating his intent to dissolve the

Assembly (prorogued at the time) and call elections for a new Assembly; also

transmitting copies of all land grants approved during the previous half-year [SS

number A.15.]

20. July 20, 1768 [41]

Letter No. 5 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting having forwarded,

as requested by Hillsborough, a packet of correspondence intended for Governor

James Wright of Georgia; reporting receipt of other correspondence from

Hillsborough [SS number A.16.]

21. September 15, 1768 [43]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 18 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, responding to

Bull’s letters No. 1 through No. 5; supporting the idea of redrawing the boundary

line between North and South Carolina [Hillsborough’s draft letter No 16 (July

12, 1768) was sent to Governor Montagu and his letter No. 20 (November 15,

1768) was again sent to Montagu. In between, Hillsborough communicated in

letters and No. 18 and No. 19 without changing the sequence of numbers, with

Lieutenant Governor William Bull II as acting governor during Montagu’s leave of

absence for reasons of poor health; Hillsborough wrote no letter No. 17 because

the number was used for a circular letter in the abstract letter book [see Reel 12

Volume 407 and note after document 7 above]

22. August 15, 1768 [45]

Letter No. 6 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting the loss of the

Packet Maria Theresa, near the Florida Straits while sailing from Pensacola; also

reporting arrival of rescued mail at Charleston, the content of which is itemized

[SS number A.17.]

23. August 16, 1768 [47]

Letter No. 7 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting that he had

received a letter from General [Thomas] Gage [commander of British forces in

North America], announcing Gage’s decision “to abandon the Forts garrisoned by

His Majesty’s Troops [in South Carolina] and to embark them for New York”;

stating the opinion that this decision might be dangerous for South Carolina’s

relations with the Indians, so that he had immediately taken precautions to

secure provincial arms and property at Fort Prince George in Cherokee territory

and to speak with the Cherokee leaders about how to handle this situation [SS

number A.18.]

322

24. September 9, 1768 [49]

Letter No. 5 [probably really No. 4] from Montagu at New York to Hillsborough,

stating his intent “next week” of returning to South Carolina; thanking

Hillsborough for having approved a potential future “short” leave of absence for

Montagu, also for health reasons, this time to England, but promising not to use it

“unless I find it absolutely necessary” [SS number A.19.] [no letter is identified

as No. 4 in this series; this letter may in fact be No. 4, misnumbered while

Montagu was on leave of absence in New York; the real letter No. 5 is in

document 35, dated November 21, 1768]]

25. October 12, 1768 [51]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 19 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, informing Bull

that the King had rejected the bill passed by the Assembly in the last session that

established a court system with county sheriffs and no provost marshal;

enclosing the King’s order and the Board of Trade’s report, with justifications for

the rejection; stating that he had conveyed Bull’s comments about this act to the

Board of Trade; instructing Bull not to approve a similar bill unless it omits

reference to judges’ commissions and provides for royal appointment of sheriffs;

with explanation of the reasoning behind these two prohibitions [Hillsborough’s

draft letter No. 20 to Governor Montagu is not found in this reel. However, a

transcript of it is found in the abstracts of Secretary of State outgoing

correspondence in Reel 12 Volume 408 document 21]

26. September 8, 1768 [54]

Letter No. 8 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting having fulfilled the

request to seek information on manufacturing in South Carolina since 1734, with

the result of discovering no such manufacturing in South Carolina; stating that

South Carolina’s laws refer to only the raising of silk, hemp and indigo as

examples of “manufacturing”, with additional details about these; stating that

South Carolina’s economic efforts had been “confined to Staple Commodities for

exportation to Great-Britain” [with enclosures, documents 27, 28] [part of SS

number A.20.] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel

2 document 100, with Appendix, document 101; similar letter dated September 6,

1768, letter No. 5 to Board of Trade, is in Reel 2 document 95 with Appendix,

document 96]

27. September 8, 1768 [58]

Appendix containing the titles of actions by the South Carolina Assembly since

1734 in support of an agricultural economy; listing 10 acts or votes, with dates as

follows: 1736, 1738, 1743, 1744, 1755, 1756 (2), 1762, and 1768 (2) [part of SS

number A.20.] [appendix is dated after the letter in which it was enclosed]

[enclosed with Bull’s September 2, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 26]

323

28. September 2, 1768 [60]

Printed edition of The South Carolina and American General Gazette, including

timely news and comment [perhaps part of SS number A.20.] [enclosed with

Bull’s September 2, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 26]

29. September 10, 1768 [61]

Letter No. 9 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting having dissolved

the Assembly and called new elections in October; reporting the arrival in the

southern colonies of the Circular Boston Letter; anticipating a more difficult time,

even than before now, in being able to work productively with the South Carolina

Assembly; including explanations of these difficulties; commenting on the other

ongoing unstable situation in South Carolina—relations with the Indians; followed

by a thoughtful consideration of the entire complex situation [with enclosure,

document 30] [no SS document number assigned; this would be SS number

A.21.] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 102]

30. September 6, 1768 [65]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette and Country Journal, including

timely news and comment, especially news from Boston and the “Circular Letter”

that Bull reported was now stirring up the southern colonies [enclosed with Bull’s

September 10, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 29]

31. October 16, 1768 [66]

Letter No. 10 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting that no customs

officer at Charleston had been subjected to “opposition, interruption or insult”

“since what happened in June 1767” [in opposition to the Stamp Act]; expressing

willingness to hope that South Carolina would continue to maintain a state of

compliance with the customs laws and other acts of Parliament; describing the

situation now in Charleston, as being Boston-style opposition to the customs

laws that was being pressed on South Carolinians by outsiders from the northern

colonies [SS number A.22.]

32. October 18, 1768 [68]

Letter No. 11 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, describing the nature of the

Boston approach to opposition against the customs laws and limits on American

trade, and how the northern activists were seeking to impose it on South Carolina

merchants [SS number A.22., the same SS number as document 31]

33. October 23, 1768 [70]

Letter No. 12 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, stating his intention to

prorogue [temporarily discontinue] the newly elected Assembly; hoping to get its

members to function normally and productively, which had not yet occurred;

realizing the danger of the situation now in Charleston [SS number A.23.]

324

[Note: It was into this situation that Governor Montagu returned to Charleston

from New York on October 30, 1768, following his health-related leave of

absence.]

34. December 10, 1768 [72]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 21 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

informing him of Hillsborough’s assessment that Bulls reports on the Circular

Letter and attempts by Boston merchants to convince Charleston merchants to

join the northern colonies’ stronger opposition to the customs laws and other

limits on American trading had been met mostly with “silent neglect”; yet

expressing awareness of the potential danger; asking Montagu to suggest three

individuals to be appointed to the South Carolina Council

35. November 21, 1768 [74]

Copy of letter No. 5 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting that

the Assembly had met on November 15, but their journal and address to him

revealed resolutions not acceptable to the colonial government, so Montagu had

dissolved the Assembly [SS number A.24.] [Although also numbered No. 5,

Montagu’s previous numbered letter to Hillsborough (document 24 sent from

New York on September 9, 1768 while Montagu was on leave), was probably

actually No. 4]

36. November 21, 1768 [76]

Copy of letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, [the

content being the same as the letter misnumbered No. 5 but actually No. 6,

document 35] [assigned SS number A.25., which was subsequently crossed out

with a scrivener’s or archivist’s note that “This is a copy of the preceding Letter”

with enclosure, document 37]

37. November 19, 1768 [78]

Copy of resolutions adopted by the Commons House on that date after

consideration of two letters, one from Thomas Cushing, Speaker of the “late”

Massachusetts Bay Assembly and the other from Peyton Randolph, Speaker of

the House of Burgesses in Virginia; having unanimously adopted several

resolutions supporting the content of the letters, and establishing a Committee of

Correspondence to communicate instructions to South Carolina’s Royal Agent to

work with these other colonies to accomplish repeal of several Parliamentary

laws that lay duties on American colonies and to prevent insertion in the Mutiny

Act of the clause requiring colonial billeting of British soldiers in America [SS

number A.25.]

325

Volume 392—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence, (incoming), continue

November 8, 1768 to December 9, 1769 Documents 38 to 65 [Frames 1 to 59]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. See notes before Volumes

382, 385, 386, 389, 390, and 391 for information and content of the preceding

microfilmed Volumes of this correspondence. See also the overall summary of the

microfilmed Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13.

Volume 392 continues the fairly regular pattern of correspondence from Volume 391,

with documents dated from November 1768 to December 1769. During this period,

Governor Charles Greville Montagu left South Carolina on a second leave of absence

because of bad health. This time, he traveled to England, only nine months after he

had returned from a previous such leave to Philadelphia and New York, which had

lasted five months.

Note: In Volume 392, archivists in the Secretary of State’s office continued the practice,

started in Volume 391, having been borrowed from the Board of Trade, of numbering

official incoming documents with numbers consisting of a letter for each Volume and

consecutive numbers for the documents. Volume 392 begins with SS number B.1. and

runs to SS number B.13.

Note: In Volume 392 the secretary of state and South Carolina governor continued

corresponding mostly with numbered letters. For more on letter numbering, see

especially the section on the subject in the Introduction and the notes at the beginning

of Volume 379 (Board of Trade) and of Volume 390 (Secretary of State).

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

38. January 4, 1769 [1]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 22 from Secretary of State for the Colonies the Earl of

Hillsborough at Whitehall to Governor of South Carolina Charles Greville

Montagu, stating that the King was concerned that Montagu had thought it

necessary to dissolve the Assembly, especially since Montagu had not sent to

London the resolutions that made him feel dissolution was necessary

326

[Note: The Earl of Hillsborough had assumed the new position of Secretary of

State for the Colonies on February 27, 1768, and served in this position until

August 27, 1772. Governor Montagu served as Governor of South Carolina from

June 1766 to March 6, 1773, except during two leaves of absence, from May to

October 1768 and from July 1769 to September 1771.]

39. November 8, 1768 [3]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, stating that he

had returned to Charleston from his leave of absence on October 30, to find that

Lieutenant Governor Bull had prorogued the Assembly until November 15; with

nothing further to report, yet [SS number B.1.]

40. January 17, 1769 [5]

Letter No. 7 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, enclosing Proceedings

of the South Carolina Assembly during its past session, as well as journals of the

Council from December 31, 1767 to January 1, 1769, and a list of land grants

from May 15 to October 22, 1768; stating he would not call a new Assembly until

receiving instructions from London [SS number B.2.]

41. March 23, 1769 [7]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 23 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

conveying the King’s command that Montagu call an election and convene an

Assembly “whenever the publick Affairs of the Colony shall appear to you to

require it”; announcing that William Wragg had been approved to serve as Chief

Justice of South Carolina, succeeding Charles Skinner, who had died [no letters

No. 24 and No. 25 from Hillsborough to Montagu are found because they are

listed in Reel 12 Volume 408 as circular letters, so their numbers were not used

for personalized letters]

42. March 1, 1769 [9]

Letter No. 8 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting on several

vacancies and absences of South Carolina Council members, including Charles

Skinner’s death, [Henry] Laurens “having declin’d acting”, [?] Moore living in

England, [probably John, 4

Baronet] Colleton living on his plantation and not

coming to Charleston, and Attorney General [Egerton] Leigh not attending

because of the load of his other work; suggesting two names to fill the vacancies,

Rowland Rugeley and Bernard Elliott [SS number B.3.] [extract of this letter in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 99]

43. June 7, 1769 [11]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 26 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu, reporting

having referred to the Board of Trade Montagu’s suggestions of Rugeley and

Elliot to be appointed to the South Carolina Council [no letter No. 27 from

Hillsborough to Montagu is found because it is listed in Reel 12 Volume 408 as a

circular letter, so its number was not used for a personalized letter]

327

44. April 19, 1769 [13]

Letter No. 9 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, complaining that

Governor [William] Tryon of North Carolina had determined to draw the unsettled

boundary between South and North Carolina in a fashion that “would be a great

injury to this Province”; requesting that the King authorize a proper survey to

settle the matter [with enclosure, document 45] [SS number B.4.] [document

46, dated May 25, 1769, was also numbered No. 9, but is actually No. 10]

45. April 10, 1769 [15]

Report of a committee of the Council appointed by Montagu to review the

situation with the North Carolina/South Carolina boundary; responding to and

refuting each of Governor Tryon’s objections to the previously negotiated

boundary of 1764; arguing for South Carolina ownership of Catawba land that

would, under Tryon’s proposal, become part of North Carolina; making other

arguments for boundary choices more to South Carolina’s benefit;

recommending a continuation of the boundary to the north and west of the end of

the currently recognized land, so as to wrap around the Catawba territory, rather

than continuing straight west, as proposed by Tryon; enclosing in the report

extract of letter from Lieutenant Governor Bull dated March 15, 1765 concerning

the boundary line in relation to Cherokee territory and the location of Fort Prince

George [enclosed with Montagu’s April 19, 1769 letter to Hillsborough, document

44]

[Archivist’s note: “Folio 21 is a map and is unsuitable for photographing”]

46. May 25, 1769 [22]

Letter No. 9 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting that, because

of the importance of the position for the economy, having assigned James

Simpson to be Judge of the Admiralty, subject to royal appointment [SS number

B.5.] [document 44 dated April 19, 1769 is actually No. 9, and this is actually No.

10]

47. July 15, 1769 [24]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 28 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu, notifying

Montagu that warrants had been approved for Wragg and Rugeley to fill the two

vacant seats on the South Carolina Council; reporting that the boundary issue

between North and South Carolina would receive prompt attention by the

government; stating that the King was rethinking the boundaries of areas for

Judges of the Admiralty; recommending for Montagu’s consideration Daniel

Hammerer, a German immigrant who, on his own, had been successfully

operating education opportunities for Cherokee youth but who could not continue

without public financial support

328

48. June 30, 1769 [26]

Letter No. 11 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting that he had

called an election, that an Assembly had thereafter been convened, but that “I

have no expectation of their providing for his Majesty’s Troops”; reporting on

having held an Admiralty trial for the murder of a captain [SS number B.6.]

49. June 30, 1769 [28]

Letter No. 12 from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting that his

health had worsened again and that his doctor had told him he needed to go to

England to recover his health; stating that he was seeking an opportunity in early

summer to take a leave of absence for this purpose; leaving Lieutenant Governor

William Bull II [again] in charge of South Carolina’s colonial government [with

enclosure, document 50] [SS number B.7.]

50. June 28, 1769 [30]

Printed statement by “inhabitants” of South Carolina, recognizing the “abject and

wretched Condition to which the British Colonies are reduced, by several Acts of

Parliament” which impinge on colonial rights to free trade and deny freedom from

taxation by Parliament, listing four resolutions of noncompliance with the

offending laws and of a boycott of British manufactured goods

51. August 12, 1769 [31]

Letter No. 13 from Lieutenant Governor Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, noting

that on July 30, 1769, Montagu had left for England on his second leave of

absence to improve his health; stating that he had suspended a £15 fine on each

of “four poor Germans” who had been convicted of trying to “rescue” several

“persons that were in custody of the Law”; reporting that the four had already

served a three-month imprisonment and had petitioned Bull for some

consideration about paying the fine because they could not afford to pay it [with

enclosures, documents 52, 53] [SS number B.8.] [similar letter with same date

to Lords of Treasury in document 70]

[Note: The logic of letter numbering is unclear here but inconsequentially so.

Montagu’s last numbered letter to Hillsborough before he left Charleston on

extended leave of absence on July 30, 1769, (document 49) was No 12. Bull’s

first letter to Hillsborough after assuming acting control (again) over South

Carolina government was dated August 12, 1769 (document 51) and was

numbered No. 13. It might be that Bull decided to continue Montagu’s letter

numbering from where the Governor had left off. However, given Bull’s previous

practice, it may be that he decided to continue his own numbering sequence of

correspondence with Hillsborough. When Montagu returned from his first leave

of absence on October 30, 1768, Bull had to decide where to restart his letter

numbering. He chose to start with No. 13. By coincidence, his last numbered

letter to Shelburne in March 1768 had been No. 12, as had been his last

numbered letter to Hillsborough in June 1769.

329

52. [no date] [33]

Copy of petition to Bull of John Falmer, Bartholomew Gartman, Christopher

Smith, and Thomas Trapp, seeking relief from paying a fine of £15 each

[enclosed with Bull’s August 12, 1769 letter to Hillsborough, document 51]

53. August 9, 1769 [35]

Official declaration of Bull’s suspension of the fines against Falmer, Gartman,

Smith, and Trapp [enclosed with Bull’s August 12, 1769 letter to Hillsborough,

document 51]

54. November 4, 1769 [36]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 29 from Hillsborough to Bull, commending Bull for an

“act of humanity” in suspending the fines of the four “poor Germans”; stating his

opinion that the King would probably remit the fines completely

55. November 4, 1769 [38]

Draft [outgoing] letter from Hillsborough to Lords of the Treasury, explaining the

situation of Bull’s suspension of four fines of £15 each; stating that unless the

Lords of the Treasury object, the King would probably remit the fines

56. August 28, 1769 [40]

Duplicate letter No. 14 from Bull to Hillsborough, stating that the South Carolina

Assembly had adopted resolutions of rights claimed by Americans similar to

those claimed in Virginia; stating that 10 bills had been passed by the Assembly

and approved after Montagu’s departure by Bull; reporting having thereafter

prorogued the Assembly [SS number B.9.] [original letter in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 103]

[Note: These Virginia resolutions, known since as the Virginia Resolves, were

adopted by the Virginia House of Burgesses in May 1769, asserted the absolute

right of the colony of Virginia only to lay taxes upon its citizens.]

57. August 17, 1769 [42]

Extract of minutes of Commons House of the South Carolina Assembly,

concerning resolutions received from Peyton Randolph, late speaker of the

Virginia House of Burgesses; followed by

August 19, 1769

Extract of Commons House minutes, including quotation of resolutions discussed

and approved by Commons House similar to those adopted in Virginia [both

enclosed with Bull’s August 28, 1769 letter to Hillsborough, document 56]

58. August 29, 1769 [44]

Duplicate letter No. 15 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, forwarding to

Hillsborough the action of Commons House against approving funding for

barracks housing for British troops stationed in South Carolina [with enclosure,

document 59] [SS number B.10.]

330

[original letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

105] [for Bull’s letter No. 16 to Hillsborough, dated September 7, 1769, see

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 107]

59. August 23, 1769 [46]

Extract of minutes of Commons House meeting, Commons House having

declined the request of the Governor to approve funding for barracks house to

house British troops stationed in South Carolina; including reasons for having not

concurred with the request [enclosed with Bull’s letter of August 29, 1769 to

Hillsborough, document 58]

60. September 25, 1769 [48]

Letter No. 17 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting on the signing by

South Carolina’s Commons House of a resolution for the nonimportation of

English goods; reporting on news received of the arrival of Spanish troops on the

Mississippi River [as part of Spanish takeover of New Orleans from the French,

as negotiated in the 1763 Treaty at the end of the Seven Years War/French and

Indian War] [with enclosure, document 61] [SS number B.11.]

61. September 18 to 25, 1769 [50]

Printed edition of The South Carolina and American General Gazette, with news

and commentary on current issues especially in the colonial government

[enclosed with Bull’s letter of September 25, 1769 to Hillsborough, document 60]

62. October 4, 1769 [52]

Letter No. 18 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, supporting Hillsborough’s

sentiments in favor of educating the Indians to civilize them; anticipating calling

the Assembly back into session, partly to deal with Indian affairs; stating that

resurveying the South Carolina-North Carolina boundary was almost complete;

describing the difficulties of a British transport ship with 150 troops of the 21

Regiment under Colonel Maxwell’s command that had suffered from severe

weather and had returned to Charleston after about three weeks, and that Bull’s

government had taken the troops in when they arrived [SS number B.12.]

63. November 29, 1769 [54]

Letter from Thomas Bradshaw at Treasury Chambers to John Pownall,

conveying the concurrence of the Lords of Treasury that the small fines

suspended by Bull should be permanently remitted [SS number B.13.] [see also

document 69]

[Note: At this time, John Pownall held two important and related positions—

secretary to the Commissioners of the Board of Trade (since 1758) and

Undersecretary of State (since 1768). In which capacity he received this letter

from the Treasury is not clear, but it may make little difference, because upon

receipt, he presumably would have shared its contents with both the Board of

Trade and the Secretary of State.]

331

64. November 30, 1769 [56]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 30 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, conveying the

King’s approval to remit the fines that Bull had suspended; expressing support for

Bull’s attempts to work productively with the Assembly

65. December 9, 1769 [58]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 31 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, stating that

the King had concurred with South Carolina’s most recent law establishing courts

for the colony [no letter No. 32 from Hillsborough to Bull is found here; a

transcript of this letter is found in the abstracts of Secretary of State outgoing

correspondence in Reel 12 Volume 408 documents 36]

Volume 393—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence, (incoming), continue

May 6, 1769 to December 24, 1770 Documents 66 to 129 [Frames 1 to 131]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. See notes before Volumes

382, 385, 386, and 389 to 392 for information and content of the preceding microfilmed

Volumes of this correspondence. See also the overall summary of the microfilmed

Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13. Volume 393

continues the fairly regular pattern of correspondence from Volume 392 with documents

dated between May 1769 and December 1770. During this period, colonial leadership

was fairly stable. Lord Hillsborough remained as Secretary of State for the Colonies;

William Bull II remained Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina and was acting as

governor during the extended leave for health reasons of South Carolina Governor

Charles Greville Montagu.

Note: Archivists in the Secretary of State’s office continued the practice in Volume 393

of numbering official incoming documents. This Volume begins with SS document C.1.

and ends with SS document C.27. In Volume 393 the secretary of state and South

Carolina governor continued corresponding mostly with numbered letters. For more on

letter numbering, see especially the section on the subject in the Introduction and the

notes at the beginning of Volume 379 (Board of Trade) and of Volume 390 (Secretary of

State).

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

332

66. December 5, 1769 [1]

Letter [unnumbered] from Lieutenant Governor [acting as Governor] William Bull

II at Charleston to Secretary of State [for the Colonies the Earl of] Hillsborough,

sending to Hillsborough a Gazette article that was part of a large debate on

matters of colonial rights, especially in relation to the current nonimportation

agreements [with enclosure, document 67] [SS number C.1.]

[Note: Nonimportation agreements were collective agreements among

merchants and other economic leaders, in particular cities or colonies, not to

import or export English goods, as a means of protesting British revenue policies

on the colonies, beginning with the Stamp Act of 1765. As in other such

“unconstitutional” activities (from the British perspective), Boston’s merchants led

the way in August 1769 with a well organized boycott of English trade. By later in

1769, the debate about nonimportation, if not direct action by merchants, had

reached South Carolina.]

67. November 16, 1769 [3]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, with current news and

commentary especially on colonial government and the nonimportation issue

[enclosed with Bull’s December 5, 1760 letter to Hillsborough, document 66]

68. December 6, 1769 [5]

Letter No. 19 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting on issues of the

economy, finance, and money, and of Indian affairs, plus more [SS number C.2.]

[duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

129]

69. January 17, 1770 [7]

Letter from Bradshaw at Treasury to [Undersecretary of State] John Pownall,

conveying to the Secretary of State the King’s approval of remitting the small

fines suspended by Bull [with enclosure, document 70] [SS number C.3.] [see

also document 63 and note after it concerning Pownall’s position(s)]

70. August 12, 1769 [9]

Copy of letter from Bull at Charleston to Lords of Treasury concerning his

suspension of four fines [enclosed with Bradshaw’s letter of January 17, 1770 to

Pownall, document 69]

71. December 12, 1769 [11]

Duplicate letter No. 20 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, describing with

consternation the Assembly’s “secret” passage of a plan to withdraw £10,500 of

South Carolina public money, from any source, to be taken to England by

Assembly leaders, to be used to further the cause of colonial rights, including

passage of a bill of colonial rights, with comments about the larger implications of

this act [SS number C.4.]

333

[similar letter from Bull to Board of Trade in its incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 123; original of this letter No. 20 from Bull to Hillsborough in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 130]

72. December 16, 1769 [14]

Duplicate letter No. 21 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing

Hillsborough that Common House consideration of finances for the colony was

so bogged down in the debate on colonial rights that no tax bill could be

expected before May [SS number C.5.] [original letter in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 131]

73. January 8, 1770 [16]

Letter No. 22 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, expressing appreciation for

the approbation Hillsborough had communicated to Bull for his actions as acting

governor [SS number C.6.] [duplicate letter is in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 132]

74. February 17, 1770 [18]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 33 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, including

further approbation, plus sympathy for what must be frustrating to Bull in trying to

deal with the Assembly, with news of shifting top leadership in the British

government

75. January 12, 1770 [20]

Letter No. 23 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting good news in the

economy of the colony, especially with the shipment of a sizable export of raw

silk [SS number C.7.] [This is one of three letters to Hillsborough to which Bull

assigned No. 23. See document 76, and Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 133 and note after. This letter is the real No.

23]

76. March 6, 1770 [22

Letter No. 23 [“mistake”; thus in effect unnumbered] from Bull at Charleston to

Hillsborough, thanking Hillsborough for his work in London on behalf of the four

poor Germans; suggesting that some of Governor Montagu’s efforts

“unfortunately miscarried”; stating his (Bull’s) confidence in his governing ability

and support from the “firmness” of the Council; conceding that he had had little

luck dealing with the “Clouds of discontent & jealousy which spread a gloom over

this Country”; stating that he was still trying to develop the economy positively

and advance education opportunities [with enclosure, document 77] [SS

number C.8.] [This is one of three letters to Hillsborough to which Bull assigned

No. 23. See note after Reel 2 document 133. Document 75 is the actual No. 23.

This document and Reel 2 document 133 were identified as letter No. 23 and

dated March 6, 1770, but archivists noted that this number was assigned “by

mistake”, so these two documents are, in effect, unnumbered. They also share

the same date and contents, which differ from those in document 75.]

334

77. [no date] [24]

Report of a committee created to investigate how to support “free” [public]

schools and a college in South Carolina [enclosed with Bull’s March 6, 1770

letter to Hillsborough, document 76]

78. March 7, 1770 [26]

Letter No. 24 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, concerning the King’s

acceptance of South Carolina’s rewritten courts act [SS number C.9.] [duplicate

letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 134]

79. April 14, 1770 [28]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 34 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, concurring

with Bull’s wish that associate judges for South Carolina could be “Persons of

Ability and Reputation in the Profession of the Law of England” but recognizing

the “Difficulties and Disappointments” Bull had experienced in this regard;

wishing to put the “extraordinary Proceeding of the Commons House of

Assembly on the 8

day of Dec

” before the King, but waiting for additional

evidence; forwarding an Additional Instruction [with enclosure, document 80]

80. April 14, 1770 [30]

Copy of “additional instructions” concerning the actions of Commons House on

December 8, especially adoption of a scheme for a large sum of money to be

withdrawn from public funds held in South Carolina to be used for purposes not

approved in the annual estimate of colonial government expenses [enclosed

with Hillsborough’s April 14, 1770 draft letter to Bull, document 79]

81. March 22, 1770 [34]

Letter No. 25 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, concerning the trial of

Matthew Turner taking place in Charleston regarding the murder of Captain

Harris in the Bay of Honduras and stating that, under the King’s law, using the

gubernatorial authority of Governor Montagu, he had suspended Turner’s death

sentence [SS number C.10.] [unnumbered copy in document 92; duplicate letter

in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 135]

82. May 6, 1769 [36]

Copy of proclamation of Governor Montagu of South Carolina [executed by Bull],

under legal authority from the King, stating that the sentence of convicted

murderer Matthew Turner for the murder of Captain Harris should be suspended

[see copy or similar proclamation dated May 5, 1769, document 91)

83. April 6, 1770 [37]

Letter [unnumbered] from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, sending on mail

from other colonies that had been delayed coming through Charleston [SS

number C.11.]

335

84. April 15, 1770 [39]

Letter No. 26 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, concerning Commons

House’s actions on December 8, 1769 outside of the bounds of the colony’s

annual estimate, and Bull’s subsequent action to prorogue the Assembly;

followed by a postscript dated April 16, 1770 about enclosure [document 85] of

the recent Gazette with relevant information [SS number C.12.] [duplicate letter

in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 137]

85. April 5, 1770 [41]

Printed edition of Supplement to The South-Carolina Gazette, containing news

and commentary on the South Carolina governments

86. June 12, 1770 [43]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 35 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, concerning

difficulties, in the case of Matthew Turner in implementation of existing law

allowing Admiralty Courts to convict for murder on the high seas with sentences

of execution; expressing sorrow for the improper actions of the South Carolina

Assembly on December 8, 1769; advising Bull to enforce the King’s orders

concerning the laws of financial controls

87. June 12, 1770 [45]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 36 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, reporting

nothing new since his last letter except to report having received Bull’s letter No.

88. April 29, 1770 [47]

Letter No 27 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, telling Hillsborough of his

plans to take a tour around many of the settlements of South Carolina [letter

looking incomplete, ending in the middle of a page without the usual “obedient

servant” language and signature at the end; nevertheless, it was received in

London [occasioning a scrivener’s note stating that the letter was from Bull “but

his name omitted to be subscribed”] [SS number C.13.]

89. June 14, 1770 [49]

Letter from Hillsborough to the Advocate Attorney & Solicitor General, conveying

to them Bull’s letter about the Admiralty Court murder trial of Matthew Turner

[document 81] for their legal consideration

90. [?] 1770 [received September 21, 1770] [51]

Response to Hillsborough from the Advocate Attorney and Solicitor General,

stating that difficulties exist in the current law that make it difficult to enforce it as

desired; signed by James Marriott, William de Grey, and E. Thurslow [see their

report to Hillsborough, document 93]

336

91. May 5, 1770 [53]

Copy, under Governor Montagu’s authority and King’s order [executed by Bull],

of proclamation that Turner be reprieved and the sentence suspended [copy or

similar proclamation dated May 6, 1769, document 82)

92. March 22, 1770 [55]

Copy of letter [unnumbered] from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, stating that,

under the King’s law, using the gubernatorial authority of Governor Montagu, he

had suspended Turner’s death sentence for murder [see numbered original

letter, document 81 and duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 135]

93. [no date] [57]

Report of the Advocate Attorney and Solicitor General in answer to legal

questions about whether laws from the past can still be used to allow trials by

colonies in cases of murders committed on the high seas, including several

references: A November 5, 1761 letter in which the Governor of New York

explained a situation in which crew a privateer allegedly caused the deaths of

several crew of a British ship; stating that the legal authority that New York

colony had used had expired, leaving no legal jurisdiction for courts to try

murders on the high seas; also, a March 4, 1762 Board of Trade document

[signed as secretary of the Board of Trade by John Pownall and by three Lords of

Trade] whose opinion was that all older laws were still enforceable, including

legal trial jurisdiction over murders committed on the high seas; the Report

clearly siding with the Board of Trade’s position taken in 1762

94. June 5, 1770 [59]

Letter No. 28 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, seeking approval for

suspensions of sentences for two additional murderers, William Juste and

Christopher Davis, plus suspension of a fine of Robert Bussard, including details

of the circumstances in each case [SS number C.14.] [with enclosures,

documents 95 to 97]

95. April 28, 1770 [61]

Copy of official document from Lieutenant Governor William Bull suspending

execution of death sentence for Christopher Davis [enclosed with Bull’s June 5,

1770 letter to Hillsborough, document 94]

96. April 28, 1770 [62]

Copy of official document from Bull suspending execution of death sentence for

William Juste [enclosed with Bull’s June 5, 1770 letter to Hillsborough, document

94]

97. May 3, 1770 [63]

Copy of official document from Bull suspending a fine for Robert Bussard

[enclosed with Bull’s June 5, 1770 letter to Hillsborough, document 94]

337

98. June 7, 1770 [64]

Letter No. 29 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, stating the urgency of

settling the North Carolina-South Carolina boundary line; supporting his sense of

urgency with information from his recent tour of new settlement areas; also

recognizing the need to train the militia better for duty on the frontier; also

expressing pride over economic development in the colony; with a PS concerning

proroguing the General Assembly and hoping that it would be willing to do

colonial business successfully [SS number C.15.] [duplicate letter in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 138]

99. July 31, 1770 [68]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 37 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, informing Bull

that the King had pardoned [two murderers] William Juste and Christopher Davis,

thanking him for the description of his tour of the settlements and for his

concerns for the boundary, militia, and settlements [no letter No. 38 from

Hillsborough to Bull is found because in Reel 12 Volume 408, this number is

assigned to a circular letter and not used for a personalized letter]

100. June 13, 1770 [70]

Letter No. 30 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, submitting

recommendations for assistant judges in South Carolina, including Robert

Pringle, Rawlins Lowndes, George Gabriel Powell, and John Murray [SS number

C.16.] [duplicate of this letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel

2 document 139]

101. August 15, 1770 [72]

Letter from Grey Cooper at Treasury Chambers to Undersecretary of State John

Pownall, stating that the Lords of Treasury had no objection to remitting the fine

of Robert Bussard [SS number C.17.]

102. July 16, 1770 [74]

Letter No. 31 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, stating that he intends to

convene the General Assembly in August to do business; informing Hillsborough

of the death of South Carolina’s Treasurer, [Jacob] Motte, and appointment of

Henry Peronneau to replace him; stating that he interpreted the December 8,

1769 action of Commons House to assume control over certain colonial funds

not to be valid legislation; wishing that the southern colonies would not so often

“cast our Eyes to the North Star of Boston, in our Political navigation, altho’ the

Commercial interests of this Province differ very widely form that.” [SS number

C.18] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 140]

338

103. June 7, 1770 [76]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 39 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, seeking

further information that Bull’s nominees for associate judges were “free from

fractious connections & unconstitutional Prejudices” hoping to hear soon of

productive results from the convening of the Assembly; sending a copy of the

King’s pardon of Matthew Turner

104. August 16, 1770 [78]

Letter No. 32 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, describing the case of

Daniel Price, convicted of killing a “negroe” “in a sudden heat of passion, who

had been sentenced to a fine of £350 and imprisonment until the fine was paid,

but he could afford to pay only part of the sum, and who had petitioned that if he

had killed a white man, he would have been treated better, and that he deserved

to be released from prison under presumption that between money and time

spent in prison, he had fully paid the penalty; Bull being willing to suspend the

remaining fine and seeking Royal concurrence in resolving this situation [with

enclosure, document 105] [SS number C.19.] [duplicate of this letter in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 141]

105. June 15, 1770 [80]

Copy of Bull’s warrant concerning the Daniel Price case, stating his willingness to

suspend the remaining fine, as long as the King concurred [enclosed with Bull’s

August 16, 1770 letter to Hillsborough, document 104]

106. August 17, 1770 [81]

Letter No. 33 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, relating the appearance of

a Spanish ship in South Carolina waters, with a request from the Spanish

Governor of Yucatan to purchase survival supplies at regular commercial prices

to be delivered to the inhabitants of Yucatan, who were stricken with famine;

relating Bull’s attempt to discern the best policy in this case, taking into account

both legal considerations between Spain and Britain, as well as humanitarian

considerations, plus Britain’s customs duty laws; having decided to allow the

supplies to be purchased and exported, while ensuring that the appropriate

customs duties were paid; hoping for the King’s approbation of this

“extraordinary” solution to an “extraordinary” situation [SS number C.20.]

[duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

143]

107. August 23, 1770 [83]

Letter No. 34 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, describing the Assembly’s

convening, of returning to consideration of the resolutions from Virginia, and, in

the tax bill, enforcing its financial plan adopted the previous December 8, despite

the King’s Additional Instruction declaring this legislation to be unconstitutional;

hoping that his dealing with these issues would be approved by the King [with

enclosures, documents 108, 109] [identified as a second SS number C.20.;

sequentially actually SS number C.21.]

339

[for text of the Additional Instruction, see document 80] [duplicate letter in Board

of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 144]

108. August 22, 1770 [85]

Copy of Commons House communication to Bull concerning the King’s

Additional Instruction regarding the December 8 financial enactments of the

Assembly, which Commons House questions out of fear that the King had been

misinformed by colonial officials to oppose the Assembly’s just enactments [for

more on this Additional Instruction, see note after Reel 2 document 145]

[enclosed with Bull’s August 23, 1770 letter to Hillsborough, document 107]

[another copy in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

145]

109. August 23, 1770 [87]

Copy of Bull’s response to Commons House’ August 22 communication to Bull

[document 108], stating that he knew of no representations from South Carolina

government that could be construed to have misinformed the King about

Commons House’s enactments; insisting that he regularly followed all the rules of

lawmaking in the British colonial system [enclosed with Bull’s August 23, 1770

letter to Hillsborough, document 107] [another copy in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 146]

110. October 19, 1770 [89]

Draft [outgoing] of Letter No. 40 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull,

expressing the King’s approval of suspending the portion of Daniel Price’s fine

that he could not pay; without agreeing to Common House’s position, also

acknowledging the efficacy of Bull’s actions in relation to the Spanish ship

seeking to purchase supplies; reminding Bull that he cannot disobey a direct

order of the King through the Secretary of State, but surmising that the King

would graciously consider individual situations

111. October 25, 1770 [91]

Letter from John Robinson at Treasury Chambers to Undersecretary of State

John Pownall, stating the Lords of Treasury concurrence with Bull’s suspension

of Daniel Price’s unpaid balance on a fine for killing a Negro [with enclosure,

document 112] [SS number C.22.]

112. August 10, 1770 [93]

Copy of letter from Bull at Charleston to the Lords of Treasury, explaining the

Daniel Price case and his actions to suspend the unpaid remainder of the fine

[enclosed with John Robinson’s October 25, 1770 letter to John Pownall]

340

113. September 8, 1770 [95]

Letter No. 35 from Bull to Hillsborough, explaining the Commons House’s logic in

assuming certain direct financial powers on December 8, 1769, and the colonial

government’s understanding and practice of royal policies, including financial

policies and powers, with details and historical context [with enclosures,

documents 114-118] [identified as a second SS number C.22; sequentially

actually SS number C.23.] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 147]

114. August 30, 1770 [100]

Copy of communication of Commons House to Bull, requesting information of

any Additional Instructions the South Carolina colonial government might have

received instructing the governor to withhold information from the Assembly or to

communicate in privacy rather than through official correspondence channels

[enclosed with Bull’s September 8, 1770 letter to Hillsborough, document 113]

[another copy in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

148]

115. August 31, 1770 [102]

Copy of Bull’s response to Commons House, providing information on what

correspondence he had had with the Secretary of State [enclosed with Bull’s

September 8, 1770 letter to Hillsborough, document 113] [another copy in Board

of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 150]

116. September 5, 1770 [104]

Copy of communication of Commons House to Bull, delivering the report of the

Commons House committee which had reviewed Bull’s August 15, 1770 letter

and the attached the King’s Additional Instruction dated in April 1770 [enclosed

with the Bull’s September 8, 1770 letter to Hillsborough, document 113]

117. [no date] [106]

Copy of report by a committee of Commons House to review and comment on

the King’s Additional Instruction to the South Carolina colonial governor

concerning the Commons House’s enactment of a law assigning certain financial

powers to Commons House rather than to the Governor; listing resolutions taken

by the committee for Commons House reaction and response to the “charges” in

the Additional Instruction; maintaining that Commons House did have

independent authority and jurisdiction over certain financial powers, that having

the treasurer advance money under certain circumstances was included in those

powers, that the Common House’s order for a line of credit from the Treasurer

was therefore proper, that the action by Commons House did not issue money

from the treasury already designated for other purposes;

341

concluding therefore that the Additional Instruction’s requirements and

restrictions on Common House legitimate powers were falsely based on

misinformation, stating also that the provisions in the Common House’s actions

of December 8, 1769 were necessary to protect the public monies, concluding

that whoever designed the Additional Instruction, based as it was on “false,

partial and insidious representation…are guilty of high Misdemeanors and are

Enemies to his Majesty’s Province” [enclosed with Bull’s September 8, 1770

letter to Hillsborough, document 113] [for text of the Additional Instruction see

document 80] [another copy of report in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 149]

118. [no date] [109]

Extract from proceedings of the South Carolina Assembly, listing past instances

in which the Assembly borrowed public monies, some instances with approval of

the Governor and Council and some through direct transactions with the

Treasurer; including items with dates from 1752 to 1760, 1764, 1765, and lastly,

December 8, 1769 [enclosed with Bull’s September 8, 1770 letter to

Hillsborough, document 113] [another extract is in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 151]

119. November 15, 1770 [111]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 41 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, agreeing with

Bull that the recent resolutions of the Assembly concerning the April 1770

Additional Instruction were “ill-founded”; reminding Bull to “strictly adhere to the

Directions you have received in respect to the Exercise of your Negative in the

passing of Money Bills”

120. November 15, 1770 [113]

Draft [outgoing] letter [unnumbered] from Hillsborough to Montagu [in England],

informing him that the King expected him to “immediately repair to your

Government” [see follow-up correspondence in documents 121, 122, and 136,

dated November 17, November 21, and December 8, 1770, respectively, in

which Montagu replied to Hillsborough that he would leave “as soon as possible”

but that his health was still poor; to which Hillsborough responded, stressing that

it was “of importance to go as soon as [he] can embark”; to which Montagu

responded that he would embark as soon as he could find a British warship

“ready to carry him.” Montagu clearly was in no rush to leave, despite

Hillsborough’s unmistakably strong directives to leave quickly. Montagu finally

left England on July 29, 1771 on board a suitable (for him) warship and arrived in

Charleston on September 15, 1771.]

342

121. November 17, 1770 [115]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Bath, England, to Hillsborough,

acknowledging receipt of Hillsborough’s November 15 1770 letter expressing the

King’s desire that the Governor return to South Carolina, responding that he

would comply “as soon as possible”; stating that his health was “greatly better”

but was “still far from being established” [SS number C.24.]

122. November 21, 1770 [117]

Draft [outgoing] letter [unnumbered] from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

responding to Montagu’s November 17, 1770 letter that “His Majesty thinks that,

in the present Situation of Affairs in the Province of S. Carolina, it is of

Importance that His Governor should be upon the Spot”; requesting that Montagu

inform him, as information for the King, of “how soon you will be ready to embark”

123. October 20, 1770 [119]

Letter No. 36 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, enclosing a Gazette

[document 124] with information about proceedings of the Assembly concerning

control over money; otherwise informing Hillsborough about the Assembly’s effort

to enforce their [nonimportation] resolutions and about other activities of

American committees; stating the current weakness of the Council for lack of

members, and related matters [SS number C.25.]

124. September 23 to October 3, 1770 [121]

Printed issue of The South-Carolina and American General Gazette, including,

along with other news and opinion, information about actions of the South

Carolina Assembly [enclosed with Bull’s October 20, 1770 letter to Hillsborough,

document 123]

125. December 11, 1770 [123]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 42 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, expressing

regret that “discontents” were still being agitated by Associators in South

Carolina; informing Bull that South Carolina’s Agent [Charles Garth], representing

the wishes of his constituents [meaning especially merchants] had petitioned the

King for revocation of the Additional Instruction of April 1770; telling Bull the King

had approved of Bull’s consistent support of royal policy; informing Bull of the

King’s direction that should Montagu return quite soon to rule in South Carolina;

informing Bull the King had disallowed two acts of the Assembly in South

Carolina

126. September 13, 1770 [125]

Letter [unnumbered] from Bull in Charleston to Hillsborough; enclosing a Gazette

[document 127] with news of the Assembly’s actions relative to the dispute over

money control between it and the Council [and governor] [SS number C.26.]

343

127. September 3 to 10, 1770 [127]

Printed issue of The South-Carolina and American General Gazette, including,

along with other news and opinion, news of the Assembly’s actions concerning

the dispute between the Council and Assembly over money control [enclosed

with Bull’s September 13 letter to Hillsborough, document 126]

128. December 24, 1770 [129]

Letter [unnumbered] from three Lords of the Admiralty, at the Admiralty Office, to

Hillsborough, conveying a petition [document 129] received by them from

merchants of South Carolina and Georgia concerning their fears that their

colonies might be taken over by Spain if a war breaks out between the Spaniards

and the British [SS number C.27.]

129. December 18, 1770 [131]

Petition of merchants in South Carolina and Georgia in London, concerning the

threat of war between Britain and Spain and the resulting danger that these two

colonies could be taken over by Spain, and that such an eventuality would bring

negative results for the importation to Britain of valuable goods as well as the

property and livelihoods of British subjects in these colonies; requesting that

Britain organize a convoy to convey ships from the colonies to Britain safely, no

later than March 21, 1771; signed by 14 individuals

Volume 394—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence, (incoming), continue

January 21, 1761 to December 14, 1772 Documents 130 to 208 [Frames 1 to 182]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. See notes before Volumes

382, 385, 386, and 389 to 393 for information and content of the preceding microfilmed

Volumes of this correspondence. See also the overall summary of the microfilmed

Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13. Volume 394

continues the fairly regular pattern of correspondence from Volume 393 with documents

dated between November 1771 and December 14, 1772 (with two letter enclosures

dating from 1761). During much of this period, leadership was fairly stable. Lord

Hillsborough remained as Secretary of State for the Colonies; William Bull II remained

Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina and was acting as governor during the extended

leave for health reasons of South Carolina Governor Charles Greville Montagu.

However, in September 1771, Montagu had returned to duty in Charleston, and in

August 1772, Hillsborough had left office to be replaced by Lord Dartmouth.

Note: Archivists in the Secretary of State’s office continued the practice in Volume 393

of numbering official incoming documents. This Volume begins with SS number D.1.

and ends abruptly, with no explanation, with D.18, in the middle of the Volume. No

documents are identified with SS numbers after July 1771.

344

In Volume 394, Hillsborough and Bull continued the practice of numbering their letters to

each other. Bull’s numbered letters to Hillsborough are all microfilmed, from No. 37 to

No. 53 (the last numbered letter he sent before Montagu’s return in September 1771).

Hillsborough’s draft outgoing correspondence to Bull and then to Governor Montagu

continued to be included among the incoming correspondence, with numbers in this

Volume from No. 43 (January 2, 1771) to No. 53 (July 1, 1771). When Montagu

continued his official correspondence with Hillsborough in September 1771 after his

extended leave of absence in England, and later, as he corresponded with Lord

Dartmouth in 1772, he numbered his letters only irregularly.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

130. January 2, 1771 [1]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 43 from Secretary of State for the Colonies the Earl of

Hillsborough at Whitehall to South Carolina Lieutenant Governor William Bull II

[acting as governor in the absence on extended health-related leave of Governor

Charles Greville Montagu], acknowledging receipt of a Gazette dated September

10 with news of the conflict between the South Carolina Assembly and its

Council; commending the Council for its actions in response to the Assembly

[Note: For more on Wills Hill, 1

Earl of Hillsborough, see note after Reel 2

document 137. He had a long career in British politics and government: First

Lord of the Board of Trade from 1763-1765; Secretary of State for the Colonies

and First Lord of the Board of Trade from 1768-1772; Secretary of State for the

Southern Department from 1779-1782.

William Bull II (1710-1791) served as Lieutenant Governor between 1759 and

1775. While officially remaining Lieutenant Governor throughout the period, Bull

was called on five separate times to serve as acting governor of South Carolina.

Between July 1769 to September 1771, Bull acted as the South Carolina

Governor Montagu was on an extended, health-related leave of absence in

England.

Sir Charles Greville Montagu (1741-1784) served as South Carolina’s colonial

governor from 1766 until 1773 (with Lieutenant Governor William Bull II assuming

the governor’s duties as needed when Montagu was variously indisposed, in

1768 and again in 1769 to 1771).]

345

131. November 25, 1770 [3]

Letter No. 37 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing him that Gilbert

Campbell had suffered the penalty of 350 lashes for killing a Negro in a fit of

passion; reporting that, on recommendation of mercy by the judges, he had

suspended imposition of the accompanying fine until the King’s pleasure is

known; with explanation for a recommendation of mercy [SS number D.1.]

132. November 30, 1770 [5]

Letter [unnumbered] from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, conveying to him a

report on “the present state of Religion, Polity, Agriculture, & Commerce” in

South Carolina; the report, with details, is contained in the body of the letter [30

manuscript pages] [SS number D.2.]

133. December 5, 1770 [21]

Letter No. 38, marked “Private”, from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough,

responding to his request for more information about the individuals Bull had

recommended as associate judges, including Robert Pringle, Rawlins Lowndes,

George Gabriel Powell, and John Murray [see related letters in documents 79,

100, and 103] [SS number D.3.]

134. January 24, 1771 [26]

Letter from John Robinson at Treasury Chambers to Undersecretary of State

John Pownall, concerning Bull’s suspension of Gilbert Campbell’s fine of £350,

stating that the Lords of Treasury approve of the fine being remitted [SS number

D.4.]

135. November 25, 1770 [28]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to the Lords of Treasury, informing them about the

penalty of 350 lashes and a £350 fine against Gilbert Campbell, convicted of

killing a Negro in a fit of passion; the lashes had been administered, but Bull had

requested mercy concerning the fine, suspending it, subject to the pleasure of

the King; seeking approbation for his action

136. December 8, 1770 [30]

Letter from Montagu at Bath, England, to Hillsborough, stating that he was

following Hillsborough’s suggestion to apply for a “King’s Ship” that would carry

Montagu back to South Carolina, so, he would be ready to return to his

governorship as soon he finds a ship ready to carry him [SS number D.5.]

137. February 11, 1771 [32]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 44 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, informing Bull

that the King had remitted the fine on Gilbert Campbell; reporting that the King

had also approved appointment of Thomas Knox Gordon to be Chief Justice of

South Carolina and of Edward Savage to be associate judge; hoping to appoint

additional associate judges soon;

346

reporting that Gordon had also been appointed to the South Carolina Council,

along with “your relation Mr. William Grayton”; stating that receipt of the report on

Religion, Polity, Agriculture, and Commerce in South Carolina was pleasing to

the King

138. December 13, 1770 [34]

Letter No. 39 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, describing some of the

“Theatrical Tears” shed in the Assembly over issues of lost rights; predicting that

eventually, after people cool off, most would be ashamed of their behavior in

protesting against the British colonial system [SS number D.6.] [duplicate letter

in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 163]

139. December 15, 1770 [36]

Duplicate Letter No. 40 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing him of

the presumed death of court clerk Dougal Campbell, who had gone to Lake

George in New York to recover his health, went out by himself, apparently got

lost, and, despite a search, was not found; no action had yet been taken to fill his

position because of the uncertainty of his death; now recommending James

Johnston to be appointed court clerk [SS number D.7.] [duplicate in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 164]

140. January 17, 1771 [38]

Letter No. 41 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, concerning relations with

the Spaniards, especially in the case of a British ship commanded by a Captain

Robinson, in the context of recent fears of British war with Spain [SS number

D.8.]

141. January 22, 1771 [40]

Letter No. 42 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, reporting opening the

Assembly session with a speech [document 142] on January 16, 1771; reporting

on the unsettled situation with Spanish ships and privateers in the West Indies

[SS number D.9.]

142. January 16, 1771 [42]

Copy of Bull’s speech to the opening of the Council and Assembly session,

invoking the generous protection of the British Crown, which the Assembly and

colony must earn by loyalty, obedience, and financial support; asking that both

the Assembly and Council do their respective duties in the governance of South

Carolina [enclosed with Bull’s January 22, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document

141]

143. April 1, 1771 [44]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 45 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, expressing

his warm satisfaction with how Bull had governed in Governor Montagu’s

absence; stating that Montagu would be returning soon to Charleston;

347

congratulating Bull on his success in “the return of so considerable a part of the

Inhabitants of South Carolina to a just sense of their duty, and a due submission

to legal authority, during your Administration, which is a peculiar honour to it”;

announcing more judicial appointments for South Carolina, including Charles

Matthew Coslett and John Murray; a remaining vacancy to be filled soon;

concerning the petition from Agent Garth, stating that it was under consideration

and that certain suggestions had already been made against withdrawing the

Additional Instruction

144. March 4, 1771 [46]

Letter No. 43 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, explaining why he had

signed a bill for exchanging £106,500; stating that it was not a concession but

consistent with earlier South Carolina laws of 1731 and 1748; including historical

details; expressing anticipation and hope of positive results from the return of

Governor Montagu [SS number D.10.] [with enclosures, documents 145 to 154]

[duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

165; similar letter with same date to Board of Trade in Reel 2 document 161]

[Note: The 10 enclosures that follow this letter are a historian’s delight: a

microcosmic summary in a completely preserved conversation/debate in January

and February 1771 between South Carolina’s acting royal governor and the

lower, Commons House of its Assembly. The acting governor sought to uphold

the non-negotiable demands of all British subjects and their governments to obey

royal policy. The Commons House sought to uphold the non-negotiable

imperatives of British subjects’ inherent rights and privileges, exercised through

their locally controlled governments. Since both sides insisted on a non-

negotiable premise, the result was less a conversation or debate than two sides

of an argument passing each other by, failing to engage one another. With

hindsight, we know that these were ingredients for imminent revolution. At the

time, each side claimed to base its premise on the solid rock of British

institutions, traditions, and beliefs—especially loyalty to the Crown.]

145. January 25, 1771 [49]

Copy of address by Commons House to Bull, responding to his January 16, 1771

address to them by Bull, expressing loyalty and appreciation for the Crown’s

protection during the recent “dangers” [hostilities with the Spaniards]; stating that

the Assembly had done its job to support defense and similar expenses; stating

that the Additional Instruction concerning financial decisions by Commons House

had been an unnecessary deterrent to the colony’s response to its protection

needs; suggesting that the King’s high-placed ministers may be more subject to

error than the colonial Assembly [enclosed with Bull’s March 4, 1771 letter to

Hillsborough, document 144]

348

146. January 25, 1771 [51]

Copy of Bull’s response to the Commons House address [document 145],

accusing Commons House of exercising “an appearance of Slight and

disrespect” in delaying response to Bull’s address, with details [enclosed with

Bull’s March 4, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 144]

147. January 25, 1771 [53]

Copy of Commons House response to Bull’s response [document 146], denying

any intent toward slight or disrespect in its previous communications to Bull or in

their timing [enclosed with Bull’s March 4, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document

144]

148. January 31, 1771 [55

Copy of Commons House address to Bull, informing him that the House had

made a decision to release, through the Treasurer, to Bull, a sum sufficient for

him to pay £7 to each person in a distressed group of Irish Protestant settlers

who had petitioned for assistance to start their settlement, under condition that

the recipients “make provision to reimburse the Public Treasurer the said sum”

[enclosed with Bull’s March 4, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 144]

149. February 7, 1771 [57]

Copy of Bull’s reply to Commons House’s January 31, 1771 address (document

148), stating that he cannot comply with the House’s action calling for him to

distribute funds to the group of Irish Protestant settlers, stating that the funds

involved were already designated for other, more needy people, and that Bull

could not act against the legal requirements for expenditure of these funds;

stating also that the Crown’s Additional Instruction, ordering that the Assembly

could not take financial actions such as this, was still in force; stating further that

another matter of three men who had been convicted of “feloniously carrying

away Colonel Glover’s Schooner and Negroes last Spring”, rewards were to be

paid for “apprehending and bringing into the Province” the three men, and notice

had been given of the opportunity for those with claims to submit them for

settlement [enclosed with Bull’s March 4, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document

144]

150. February 13, 1771 [59]

Copy of Commons House’s response to Bull’s reply of February 7, 1771

[document 149], arguing that Bull should have had no difficulty in understanding

the House’s familiarly worded order or of complying with it; stating that Bull had

made an unnecessarily large fuss over a very small amount of money; dismissing

the significance of the Additional Instruction in this situation, since that Instruction

violated the rights and privileges of the Assembly, and that the Assembly’s

compliance with Bull’s demands would also violate those rights and privileges

[enclosed with Bull’s March 4, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 144]

349

151. February 15, 1771 [61]

Copy of Bull’s response to Commons House’s response of February 13, 1771

[document 150], pointing out that Bull could not now legally follow an order once

accepted under South Carolina law but now prohibited by an Instruction from the

King; stating that it was not within his nor the Assembly’s power to decide

whether an Instruction from the King was acceptable or not [enclosed with Bull’s

March 4, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 144]

152. February 27, 1771 [63]

Copy of Commons House’s response to Bull’s response of February 15, 1771

[document 151], reiterating that the House meant no offense but only sought to

defend the House’s rights and privileges, with additional justifications [enclosed

with Bull’s March 4, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 144]

153. January 21, 1761 [65]

Copy of a message by Lieutenant Governor Bull “relative to his drawing money

out of the Treasury”, informing Commons House that insufficient money was

available in the treasury, asking the Assembly to approve additional sums for

defense [sent by Bull in 1771 to Commons House in support of his position on

Commons House’s role in financial decision making] [enclosed with Bull’s March

4, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 144]

154. January 24, 1761 [67]

Copy of Commons House’s 1761 response to Bull’s message [document 153],

agreeing to make available additional money for defense expenses [sent by Bull

in 1771 to Commons House in support of his position on Commons House’s role

in financial decision making] [enclosed with Bull’s March 4, 1771 letter to

Hillsborough, document 144]

155. March 5, 1771 [69]

Letter No. 44 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing him that Bull had

appointed joint treasurers for South Carolina, Henry Peronneau and Benjamin

Dart, as a means of countering the Assembly’s implementing independent

financial decisions through a single Treasurer it can control; including a legal

precedent for this approach, in 1721 South Carolina law [SS document D.11.]

[with enclosure, document 156] [similar letter, dated March 4, 1771, from Bull to

Board of Trade, in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

161] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 166] [negative legal opinion on the concept of joint treasurers in Reel

2 document 162] [see note after Reel 2 document 161]

156. [no date] [71]

“Bond” of Benjamin Dart to perform the responsibilities of Joint Treasurer totally

within the bounds of the law; signed by 10 individuals [one of whom was Speaker

of Commons House] [enclosed with Bull’s March 5, 1771 letter to Hillsborough,

document 155]

350

[in June 1773, a copy of Dart’s bond, probably this one, was sent to Secretary of

State Dartmouth (see Reel 7 document 13)] [similar bond for Henry Peronneau

is found in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 203, of

which a copy was apparently sent also to Dartmouth (see Reel 7 document 20);

see also note after Reel 2 document 161]

157. May 4, 1771 [72]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 46 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Bull, notifying him

that Montagu’s ship still had not left England for Charleston

158. April 2, 1771 [74]

Letter No 45 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing Hillsborough of

Bull’s assent to several ordinances and to appointment of George Sheed to be

Commissary General of South Carolina; stating that he had tried to get the

Assembly to stay in session until Governor Montagu returned, but that he had

had to approve its adjournment on May 7, 1771; reporting that Attorney General

[Egerton] Leigh had left on a leave of absence and that Bull had appointed

James Simpson [who was then Vice Admiralty Judge in South Carolina, from

which he soon resigned; see document 167] in his place [duplicate letter in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 168; see also note

after it for more on both Leigh and Simpson] [SS number D.12.]

159. May 7, 1771 [76]

Letter No. 46 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, expressing satisfaction at

the Spanish King’s disavowal of involvement with or support for a recent invasion

of the Falkland Islands; advocating a strong stand by British leaders against any

such incursions or dangers from abroad [SS number D.13.] [duplicate letter in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 169]

160. May 7, 1771 [78]

Letter No. 47 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, updating him on several

matters, including the unchanged conflict situation with Commons House [SS

number D.14.] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence,

Reel 2 document 170]

161. June 4, 1771 [80]

Letter No. 48 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, expressing pleasure at the

British government’s happiness over the results of Bull’s governing of South

Carolina during Montagu’s absence [SS number D.15.] [copy of letter in Board

of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 171]

162. July 9, 1771 [82]

Letter No. 49 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, concerning the economic-

development situation in South Carolina and of manufacturing tar as made in

Sweden in particular [SS number D.16.] [copy of letter in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 172]

351

163. July 9, 1771 [84]

Letter No. 50 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, conveying a memorial

[document 164] from South Carolina surgeon of garrisons [George] Milligan,

which contains allegations that deserve serious attention [SS number D.17.]

[duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

173]

164. July 9, 1771 [86]

Memorial to Bull of George Milligan, explaining his circumstances and hoping for

a salary sufficient for his sustenance [enclosed with Bull’s July 9, 1771 letter to

Hillsborough, document 163] [copy of memorial in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 174]

165. July 10, 1771 [88]

Letter from Bull at Charleston to Undersecretary of State John Pownall,

acknowledging receipt of information on the making of tar in Sweden; Bull had

distributed copies of this information to those in South Carolina who can best use

it for the colony’s economic development [Frame 88 microfilmed twice] [SS

number D.18.]

[Note: No document in Volume 394 was assigned an SS number after document

165 (July 10, 1771). The reason SS numbers were discontinued here is not clear

from the microfilmed documents alone. It does not appear to have had anything

to do with the numbering of official letters.]

166. August 7, 1771 [90]

Letter No. 51 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, acknowledging with joy the

birth of a prince to the Queen and King

167. August 7, 1771 [92]

Letter No. 52 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing him that Bull had

filled the position of Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court in South Carolina,

following James Simpson’s resignation, with Edward Savage

168. August 19, 1771 [94]

Duplicate letter No. 53 from Bull at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing him that

Peter Delaney, Deputy Post Master General for North America and the

Bahamas, had been shot and killed in a duel, leaving a vacancy in that position;

reporting having appointed William Henry Drayton to the position subject to royal

approval [copy of letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 175]

352

169. September 26, 1771 [96]

Letter [unnumbered; actually No. 1] from Governor Charles Greville Montagu at

Charleston to Hillsborough, informing Hillsborough he had arrived September 16

at Charleston; stating that he was hopeful the Assembly would do business with

him; offering initial impressions of the situation in South Carolina [with

enclosures, documents 170, 171]

170. September 19, 1771 [98]

Copy of address from South Carolina Council to Governor Montagu,

congratulating him on his safe return; stating the importance of resolving the

location of the boundary with North Carolina; stating that the “dissentions that

have of late unhappily subsisted in this Province have given us great concern”;

stating their intent to focus on the business of the colony [enclosed with

Montagu’s September 26, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 169]

171. September 19, 1771 [100]

Copy of address from South Carolina’s Commons House of Assembly to

Governor Montagu, thanking him for his speech upon his return; mentioning the

importance of resolving the North Carolina boundary; stating the opinion that the

“dissentions” can be resolved through “Candid, impartial, unprejudiced

examination and enquiry into the Original Cause”; promising to work with the

Governor to conduct the business of the colony [enclosed with Montagu’s

September 26, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 169]

172. December 4, 1771 [102]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 47 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

expressing hope that “your Lordship’s Administration will not be entangled with

those Difficulties which the former Violence and Prejudice of the Assembly had

created”; stating further that the sole purpose of Montagu’s administration should

be “to restore to the Constitution of the Colony those barriers against the like

Attempts for the future”; stating that he had forwarded to the Lords

Commissioners of the Treasury the petition for salary relief from surgeon George

Milligan

173. October 24, 1771 [104]

Letter No. 2 from Montagu at South Carolina to Hillsborough, acknowledging,

despite his hopes, that disputes were again dominating relations with Commons

House, now over the “Tax Bill”; expressing frustration that he had not been able

to acquire a proper governor’s house in Charleston

174. November 13, 1771 [106]

Letter No. 3 from Montagu at South Carolina to Hillsborough, notifying him with

sorrow that Montagu had had to dissolve the Assembly because Commons

House sought to order the Treasurer to give to the Commissioners of Silk

Manufacture £3,000 to use to send raw silk produced in South Carolina to Great

Britain;

353

stating that the Upper House had added an amendment making the transfer of

the money a loan to be paid back, but that this amendment had been omitted in

the final bill; reporting that when the [joint] treasurers refused to pay out the

money, they were both placed In jail; they were released only after Montagu

dissolved the Assembly [Frame 106 microfilmed twice] [with enclosures,

documents 175 to 177]

175. November 5, 1771 [109]

Copy of warrant from Commons House that the two joint Treasurers be jailed for

”a Violation and Contempt of the Authority and Privileges” of Commons House

regarding its order to release £3,000 to the Commissioners of Silk Manufacture

[enclosed with Montagu’s November 13, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document

174]

176. November 7, 1771 [110]

Certification of authenticity of the warrant dated November 5, 1771 [document

175], signed by Provost Marshall Roger Pinckney [enclosed with Montagu’s

November 13, 1771 letter to Hillsborough, document 174]

177. November 4, 1771 [111]

Extract from journal of Commons House, containing the text of a message from

the South Carolina Council to Commons House, expressing concern over the

“Difference of Sentiments” between Commons House and the Council; hoping

that Commons House would consider adopting “Sentiments upon this Subject

more agreeable to the nature of our Constitution, & to the Laws & Customs of

Parliament”; stating that the financial transactions in the Commons House bill

were not itemized in the annual tax bill, and therefore could not be allowed; with

additional details; Commons House responding with its own message, quoted in

the extract, informing the Council that Commons House “never shall regard any

Ministerial Instruction in the framing of a Money Bill, nor alter any part of the

Schedule upon your Requisition, And we are firmly persuaded that these will be

the Sentiments of every future Commons House of Assembly. We therefore

return you the Tax Bill without any Alteration”; Commons House following up with

a resolution reaffirming the initial items in the Tax Bill to which the Council

objected; followed by

November 5, 1771

Extract of journal of Commons House, containing a resolution ordering that the

two joint Treasurers be jailed because they had violated the authority and

privileges of Commons House and containing the text of Governor Montagu’s

November 5, 1771 proclamation dissolving the General Assembly of South

Carolina because of this dispute

[both enclosed with Montagu’s November 13, 1771 letter to Hillsborough,

document 174]

354

178. January 11, 1772 [115]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 48 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

informing him that, Montagu’s recent letters and enclosures having been “so

contrary to the expectations which the King had entertained of a more moderate

and respectful conduct, have given His Majesty great concern & cannot fail of

having consequences equally prejudicial to His Majesty’s Service & to the Affairs

of the Colony”; Hillsborough also dismayed that the Assembly had not provided a

decent governor’s house for Montagu; holding out hope that the “violent

Measures and unwarrantable pretensions of the Assembly will be disapproved by

all real Friends of the Constitution” especially by supporting the two public

treasurers; making clear that the King supports Montagu’s dissolution of the

Assembly and encouraging Montagu to continue observing the provisions of the

Additional Instruction of April 14, 1770; finally, instructing Montagu to do all this

with the appearance of moderation

179. February 5, 1772 [118]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 49 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

informing him that the Treasury had looked favorably on the petition from

surgeon Milligan

180. February 5, 1772 [120]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 50 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu, sending

the King’s disallowance of two South Carolina laws [not identified here] passed in

April 1770 [the King’s disallowance order (dated January 15, 1772, Reel 2

document 196) identified the two bills as first, encouraging the making of flax,

linens, and thread, and second, ordering the stamping and issuing of £70,000

worth of paper money]

181. January 25, 1772 [122]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at South Carolina to Hillsborough, concerning

receipt of a complaint letter from several assistant judges; reporting little

additional news; reporting that a Spanish ship in distress was now in Charleston

harbor; reporting his effort to gain Assembly approval for expenses for work on

surveying the new boundary between North and South Carolina [with enclosure,

document 182] [Frame 122 microfilmed twice]

[Note: Assistant judges appear infrequently in the Board of Trade and

Secretary of State incoming correspondence. They appear from time to time to

have become involved collectively in public policy debates relating to the judicial

system. In particular, in 1766, they weighed in on enforcement of the Stamp Act,

leading Governor Montague to warn about their increasing power (Reel 2

document 45, August 6, 1766). The assistant judges became directly involved in

a legal case against Chief Justice Charles Skinner, who inflexibly supported

enforcement of the Stamp Act (see selected documents dated between April and

August 1766 in Reel 2 (Board of Trade) between documents 28 and 69 and, later

in 1766, in Reel 6 (Secretary of State) documents 152, 153, and 170.]

355

182. January 23, 1772 [124]

Letter from assistant judges in South Carolina to Hillsborough, complaining that

“the Leading Men here take every method to gratify their spleen by distressing

the Servants of the Crown”, with details; signed by three individuals, Edward

Savage, John Murray, and John Newtzell [enclosed with Montagu’s January 25,

1772 letter to Hillsborough, document 181] [it would make more sense for this

letter to have been sent to Montagu, who then forwarded it to Hillsborough;

however the evidence suggests that the assistant judges sent it directly to

Hillsborough]

183. April 1, 1772 [126]

Draft [outgoing] letter No 51 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

responding to Montagu’s communications about the three assistant judges and

other matters

184. June 1, 1772 [128]

Memorial to Hillsborough of Charles Garth, royal agent of South Carolina, at

Queen Street, London, requesting his assistance to intercede, on behalf of the

inhabitants of South Carolina, with the King to curb Governor Montagu’s illegal

actions [earlier in 1772] against the legally elected Commons House of the South

Carolina

185. June 6, 1772 [130]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 52 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

expressing surprise at not having received a letter from Montagu in response to

Hillsborough’s last letter to Montagu

186. April 27, 1772 [132]

Letter No. 4 from Montagu at South Carolina to Hillsborough, offering bit of news

of a new election in anticipation of a new Assembly, and other matters [with

enclosures, documents 187 to 190]

187. April 3, 1772 [135]

Copy of speech by Montagu to Commons House at opening of its new session

following an election, informing them of his displeasure that his initial hopes to

work well with Commons House had been dashed during the previous Common

House session by its unsupportable positions on spending the colony’s public

money through direct transactions with the Treasurers [enclosed with Montagu’s

April 27, 1772 letter to Hillsborough, document 186]

188. April 4, 1772 [137]

Copy of address from Commons House to Montagu, responding to his speech

[document 187], defending its decision to jail the two treasurers because of their

illegal behavior; therefore expressing its own disappointment with the actions of

the Governor [enclosed with Montagu’s April 27, 1772 letter to Hillsborough,

document 186]

356

189. April 9, 1772 [139]

Copy of response by Montagu to Commons House address [document 188],

informing Commons House that it should not expect any change in the Additional

Instruction of April 1770, considering its conduct [enclosed with Montagu’s April

27, 1772 letter to Hillsborough, document 186]

190. [no date; likely in April 1772] [141]

Copy of address by Montagu to Commons House, announcing that, because of

the disrespectful behavior of Commons House, the Governor was dissolving the

Assembly [enclosed with Montagu’s April 27, 1772 letter to Hillsborough,

document 186]

191. July 1, 1772 [143]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 53 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Montagu,

expressing sorrow that Montagu had not been able to moderate the positions of

Commons House and had to resort, again, to dissolving the Assembly; offering

bits of advice, despite his distance from the events and disputes; urging Montagu

to resist looking at all timid or irresolute; offering additional advice

192. June 25, 1772 [146]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu to Hillsborough, reporting the death of [John]

Hughes, collector of customs at Charleston and Montagu’s appointment of

[Roger Peter Handasyde] Hatley to the position; who did a good job, until Royal

Commissioners of Customs in Boston sought to replace him with their own

choice, [George] Roupell; reporting that he [Montagu] had asked Chief Justice

Thomas Knox Gordon for a legal opinion, but that in two opinions, he had

contradicted himself, suggesting he was not a reliable source of legal advice;

concluding that Roupell now had undue power as customs collector, deputy

postmaster general, and a “searcher” of the customs [an investigator who

searched ships for contraband goods] [with enclosures, documents 193 to 195]

[undated duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 182] [for more on George Roupell and his politics in 1772, see also, in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 documents 183, 185; for

background information, see Reel 5 document 186 (October 1767)]

193. June 15, 1772 [150]

Copy of journal of the South Carolina Council meeting, concerning death of

Hughes as customs collector at Charleston, appointment by Montagu of Hatley in

his place, but also appointment by Commissioners of Customs in Boston of

George Roupell to fill this position, which, according to the South Carolina Chief

Justice Thomas Knox Gordon was contrary to law [see document 194] [extract

of this journal entry is in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 185]

followed by

357

June 16, 1772

Copy of journal of the Council, continuing consideration of the Roupell

appointment, on which the Chief Justice had reversed himself, now stating that

this appointment was legal and should be “acquiesced in”; however, the Council

persisting in its original position that Roupell had not been lawfully commissioned

and therefore that Montagu should suspend him; followed by

June 18, 1772

Copy of journal of the Council, containing Montagu’s announcement to the

Council that he had suspended Roupell [see document 195]; seeking Council

support to enforce compliance from the rest of the customs officials in South

Carolina, who were refusing to recognize Roupell’s suspension

[all enclosed with Montagu’s June 25, 1772 letter to Hillsborough, document 192]

194. June 14, 1772 [152]

Copy of letter from Thomas Knox Gordon, South Carolina’s Chief Justice,

offering the opinion that the appointment power over the customs collector

position ultimately rests with the colonial governors, although the King had also

created a Commission of Customs, which could, at the King’s command, assume

this appointment power [enclosed with Montagu’s June 25, 1772 letter to

Hillsborough, document 192] [duplicate but undated letter in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 184]

195. June 16, 1772 [150]

Copy of letter from Montagu to Roupell, stating that, because the Commission in

Boston did not have authority to appoint Roupell to be Customs Collector at

Charleston, Montagu was suspending Roupell from that position [enclosed with

Montagu’s June 25, 1772 letter to Hillsborough, document 192] [duplicate letter

in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 183]

196. July 27, 1772 [156]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, reminding

Hillsborough that he had expected to go to the “Northern Provinces” during the

summer for his health, but that no vessel had yet arrived that could carry him

there; stating that he had made appointments to carry on the work of settling the

boundary line with North Carolina; stating that some of the areas where the

boundary was not yet established had thriving settlements from South Carolina,

and that the boundary line should observe this reality

[Public Record Office note placed here, dated October 8, 1929, references a

map of “Part of the Counties of Mecklenburg and Tryon, lately added to the

Province of South Carolina” and states that the map was enclosed with

Montagu’s July 27, 1772 letter to Hillsborough (but which is not microfilmed

here)]

358

197. August 2, 1772 [158]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at South Carolina to Hillsborough, listing 11

current South Carolina Council members by name or title with their attendance

records, pointing that only two of them could reliably be expected to attend

meetings; recommending that John Drayton be removed for nonattendance;

recommending four individuals from whom to fill this vacancy, Charles Pinckney

Sr., Thomas Loughton Smith, Benjamin Huger, Charles [Matthew] Coslett, and

Edward Savage

198. September 27, 1772 [160]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 1 from new Secretary of State for the Colonies Lord

Dartmouth, at Whitehall, to Governor Montagu of South Carolina, continuing

consideration of the South Carolina situation over appointment of the Customs

Collector and of subordinate customs officials [who had refused to accept the

suspension of George Roupell as Customs Collector]; rather the question was

whether Montagu was going to follow the dictates of his Instructions from

London, a matter on which Dartmouth was requesting clarification from the

Treasury; expressing a lack of certainty on the propriety of several of Montagu’s

actions

[Note: William Legge, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth (1731-1801), replaced the Earl

of Hillsborough as Secretary of State for the Colonies on August 27, 1772, and

served until November 10, 1775. Hillsborough’s last numbered letter microfilmed

here is No. 53, dated July 1, 1772. References appear in Montagu’s later letters

to Hillsborough to the latter’s displeasure with Montagu, and Montagu’s defensive

responses.

Dartmouth served as Secretary of State until November 10, 1775. He did not

hesitate to inject himself directly into the colonial government’s issues of

governance under royal aegis. He also decided to follow Hillsborough’s practice

of numbering his outgoing letters, starting over at No. 1 for his letters.

He did not succeed (if he tried) to hold Governor Montagu to the same standard.

Montagu’s letters to Hillsborough after he returned from his extended leave of

absence in England in September 1771, at least those microfilmed here, were

infrequent and only irregularly numbered (11 letters between September 1771

and October 1772, only three of them numbered, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4., dated

between October 1771 and August 1772.] Montagu’s first letter to Dartmouth,

dated was likewise un-numbered.]

199. August 22, 1772 [162]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at South Carolina to Hillsborough, informing

Hillsborough that Montagu hoped his “letters in regard to the Assembly” had

arrived in London, and warning that his speech to the Assembly [which he had

dissolved soon after it met] attached to that letter, might, via passengers on

another vessel to London, have reached the English newspapers before his letter

to Hillsborough

359

[Note: Because of delays in communications back and forth across the Atlantic

Ocean, colonial governors often learned only months later when political

circumstances in London had brought about changes in key governmental

positions, such as Secretary of State. In this case, Hillsborough had been

replaced by Dartmouth as Secretary of State for the Colonies on August 27,

1772. Yet, Montagu, oblivious to this change, kept writing letters to Hillsborough

through late October 1772 (document 201). On November 4, 1772, Montagu first

wrote to Dartmouth, congratulating him on his appointment. Meanwhile,

Dartmouth wrote first to Montagu in his letter No. 1 of September 27, 1772

(document 198).]

[Note: It is interesting that, during this period of political transition in England,

both outgoing Hillsborough and incoming Dartmouth found themselves

disenchanted with Montagu’s approach to colonial governing, in the face of

considerable challenges from the Commons House of the South Carolina

Assembly. The slow-motion series of communications from document 198 to

206 (dated between September 27 and December 4, 1772) reveal the fragility of

both Montagu’s governorship and South Carolina’s colonial government, two and

a half years before revolutionary military hostilities began in April 1775 and three

and a half years before thirteen colonies, including South Carolina, declared their

independence from England.]

200. November 4, 1772 [164]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 2 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Montagu, responding

to Montagu’s letter to Hillsborough concerning nonattendance by some South

Carolina Council members; stating that attendance at Council meetings was an

important duty and that Montagu should represent such to both Othniel Beale

and John Drayton and, then, if they failed to attend, the governor’s duty was to

replace them on the Council; stating that [David] Deas would shortly be

appointed [to the Council] and [Barnard] Elliot shortly thereafter

201. September 24, 1772 [167]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Fort Johnston, South Carolina, to

Hillsborough, expressing uneasiness over Hillsborough’s letter expressing

disapprobation over Montagu’s speech to the Assembly and his dissolution

(rather than proroguing) the South Carolina Assembly; defending his approach

and the wording of his speech; explaining that his next move would be to

convene the Assembly, after an election, at “Beaufort, Port Royal” rather than in

Charleston, with the hopes that the change of location would help the Assembly

to adopt the Tax Bill; otherwise, Montagu felt governing was at an impasse;

listing his reasons for this assertion

[Note: Today, Beaufort and Port Royal, South Carolina remain separate towns,

located about nine miles apart by water on one among many sea islands

surrounded by the snaky meanders of numerous tidal creeks and rivers, about 50

miles as the crow flies—but many more as traveled by land or by water—

southwest of Charleston.]

360

202. October 20, 1772 [171]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Hillsborough, informing him

that Montagu had followed Hillsborough’s suggestion to try being conciliatory by

proroguing the Assembly on its first day meeting at Beaufort, to reconvene soon

after in Charleston; enclosing a copy of his speech to the Assembly [document

203]

203. October 10, 1772 [173]

Copy of Montagu’s speech to the South Carolina Assembly, convened at

Beaufort; in a spirit of working in cooperation with the Assembly, invoking the

King’s and the British constitution’s authority over colonial government, and

concluding by proroguing the Assembly to reconvene in Charleston on October

22 [enclosed with Montagu’s October 20, 1772 letter to Hillsborough, document

202]

204. December 9, 1772 [175]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 3 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Montagu, disagreeing

with Montagu’s tactic of convening the Assembly at Beaufort but happy to learn

that Montagu had quickly prorogued the Assembly to reconvene at Charleston;

commenting that Montagu’s speech was so dominated by his views on the

dispute between the Assembly and Governor that it “appears to me more likely to

protract than accelerate that happy Issue of this disagreeable business, which is

so earnestly desired by all who wish well to the Peace and Prosperity of the

Province”

205. December 14, 1772 [177]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 4 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Montagu, concerning

an issue raised by the Postmaster General, of “frequent & unnecessary

Detentions in the American Ports” of packet boats; stating that in all the colonies,

standards should be enforced so that “the Departure the Packets should be at

fixed periods, generally known, and from which no deviation should be made but

in Cases of the most urgent Necessity”; ordering Montagu to observe this

standard in South Carolina

206. November 4, 1772 [179]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Charleston to Dartmouth, congratulating

him on his appointment as Secretary of State for the Colonies, of which he had

just learned; enclosing resolutions of Commons House had adopted October 30,

1772, plus “some strictures” from the Governor “published with a view to

counteract the ill impressions those Resolves, might perhaps make here...”;

stating that Commons House had refused to give him copies of its deliberations

while they were debating these resolutions; that Commons House had rejected

his command to meet with him immediately; that he thereafter had prorogued the

Assembly; strongly denouncing the resolutions for denying the King’s

prerogatives [with enclosure, document 207]

361

207. October 30, 1772 [181]

Copy of Journal of Commons House, containing text of the Committee on

Grievances Report, which reported the House’s displeasure at how the Governor

had treated them by convening them at Beaufort and then back at Charleston,

creating delays and inconveniencing the members’ attending to their businesses;

therefore reporting four resolves, each a grievance against the Governor;

Commons House receiving a command from the Governor to convene

immediately with him, they continued their business, amending and adopting

altered resolutions, which were then sent to South Carolina’s royal agent,

Charles Garth, to be used to raise the people’s grievances with the government

in London; the House then went to meet with the Governor, who prorogued the

Assembly until November 9, 1772 [Frames 181, 182 microfilmed twice]

208. [no visible date] [no visible Frame Number]

Printed newspaper page [barely visible; not clearly part of Volume 394 but not

clearly not part of it]

362

Reel 7 (Volumes 395, 396)

Volume 395—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

January 15, 1771 to November 22, 1773 Documents 1 to 46 [Frames 1 to 98]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. See notes before Volumes

382, 385, 386, and 389 to 394 for information and content of the preceding microfilmed

Volumes of this correspondence. See also the overall summary of the microfilmed

Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13. Volume 395

continues the fairly regular pattern of correspondence from Volume 394 with documents

dated between January 1773 and November 1773 (with a few attachments dated in

1771). During this period, Governor Montagu left Charleston abruptly in March 1773,

resigning only after he had returned to England. A new governor, William Campbell,

was appointed in March 1773 but did not actually arrive in Charleston to begin

governing until June 1775. During the interim, Lieutenant Governor William Bull II again

filled in as acting governor in all but title.

Note: In the midst of Volume 394, archivists in the Secretary of State’s office had

discontinued the practice of numbering official incoming documents. Volume 395 also

has no SS numbers. In this Volume, Governor Montagu’s few letters to Dartmouth

before he sailed for England on March 6, 1773 are all unnumbered. When Bull again

assumed the role of acting governor on the day Montagu left, he continued the practice.

For more on letter numbering, see especially the section on the subject in the

Introduction and the notes at the beginning of Volume 379 (Board of Trade) and of

Volume 390 (Secretary of State).

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. January 6, 1773 [1]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 5 from [Secretary of State for the Colonies] the Earl of

Dartmouth at Whitehall to [Governor of South Carolina] Charles Greville

Montagu, expressing dissatisfaction at the results of Montagu’s strategy of

moving the Assembly’s convening location from Charleston to Beaufort, which

apparently made the situation worse rather than better

363

[Note: William Legge, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth (1731-1801), replaced the Earl of

Hillsborough as Secretary of State for the Colonies on August 27, 1772. He held

the office until November 10, 1775. His prior draft letters No. 1 to No. 4 are

found near the end of Reel 6, dated between September 27 and December 14,

1772. Charles Greville Montagu was officially Governor for almost 7 years,

from June 1766 to March 1773. However, he ruled actively in Charleston for only

about 3.5 years, with two leaves of absence for health reasons, from May to

October 1768 and from July 1769 to September 1771.]

2. January 23, 1773 [3]

“Observations” by Charles Garth, agent for South Carolina, in London, [to

Dartmouth?], concerning the dispute between the Assembly and Governor in

South Carolina, during which the Governor moved the Assembly to meet at

Beaufort, thus causing an “irreparable Breach between the Governor and His

people”; arguing that the Governor was at fault and that charges made against

the Speaker of Commons House were ignorant of the facts [unnumbered Frame

2 and numbered Frame 3 are microfilms of the same manuscript page; also,

Frame 4 is microfilmed twice]

3. January 23, 1773 [5]

Petition of Garth to the King concerning the difficulties of the Commons House of

Assembly in South Carolina, which were blamed on the Governor, with details;

seeking removal of Montagu by the King

4. [no date] [7]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette [masthead, and thus the date, are

missing]; with news and comment pertinent to Garth’s petition; followed by

November 12, 1772

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette with news and comment

[both possibly enclosed with Garth’s petition to the King, document 3]

5. January 4, 1773 [9]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at South Carolina to Dartmouth, expressing

displeasure at Dartmouth’s displeasure with Montagu’s dispute with Commons

House; stating that he had done what he felt was necessary, and hoped still to

take steps to obtain an Assembly he could work with

6. January 21, 1773 [11]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at South Carolina to Dartmouth, informing

him that the Commons House had convened on January 6, had elected the same

Speaker as in the previous session, and had acted in ways that required him to

prorogue the Assembly [again]; hoping for the King’s approbation for his actions

364

7. [no date; received at Secretary of State office March 18, 1773] [13]

Petition of Edward Wilkinson of South Carolina to Dartmouth, concerning

Wilkinson’s past employment as a trader with the Cherokee Indians, resulting in

considerable debts owed to him by Cherokees for land that had been ceded to

the British, which he calculated at £8,436.9.9 and did not believe he could

recover from the Indians; seeking royal assistance in recovering the amounts

owed him through the King’s assistance

8. April 10, 1773 [15]

Letter [unnumbered] from Montagu at Falmouth Harbour [most western sizeable

English harbor on Cornwall’s south coast facing the English Channel] to

Dartmouth, reminding Dartmouth that he had previously suggested he would

need, again, to take a leave from his duties at South Carolina to recover his own

health and the health of his family; stating that, at the immediate time when the

dispute with Commons House had become most impossible to deal with, he had

left South Carolina for England, but that if he had felt that the Assembly could be

moved to conduct public business, he would not have left; stating his intention of

“waiting upon your Lordship in London, as soon as possibly I can”

9. March 30, 1773 [17]

Letter No. 54 from William Bull II at Charleston to Dartmouth, informing

Dartmouth that Montagu had left Charleston on March 6, and that the governing

of South Carolina had again devolved to Bull; stating that, the prorogation of the

Assembly having expired, he had met with its members, seeking a conciliatory

approach, hoping that the issue of the Assembly’s withdrawing money from the

treasury unilaterally was constitutionally resolved; hoping to move the colony

beyond the recent disputes toward functioning as a loyal British colony [duplicate

of letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 199]

Note: William Bull II (1710-1791) served as Lieutenant Governor of South

Carolina from 1759 to 1775. Between 1760 and 1775, while officially remaining

Lieutenant Governor throughout the period, Bull was called on five separate

times to serve as acting governor of South Carolina. This was his fifth and last

time to serve as acting governor, officially from, March 6, 1773 when Montagu

sailed out of Charleston, without bothering to resign, until Lord William

Campbell arrived to replace Montagu on June 18, 1775, to serve as Britain’s last

royal governor of colonial South Carolina until September 15, 1775, when the

colonial government functionally expired. For more on Governor Campbell and

the last months of South Carolina’s British colonial government, see note after

Reel 3 document 147. Bull remained in his Lieutenant Governor position until the

colonial government collapsed in September 1775. Although he had been in

many ways the glue that kept colonial South Carolina together and functioning,

he too ultimately failed to resurrect the British colony in the face of revolution.

For more on Bull, see note after Reel 1 document 108.]

365

10. April 9, 1773 [19]

Letter No. 55 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, noting that Council member

Othniel Beale had died, recommending a choice between Thomas Smith, Miles

Brewton, and John Deas as possible replacement. [duplicate letter in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 200]

11. June 10, 1773 [21]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 6 from Dartmouth to Bull, expressing the King’s

pleasure that Bull had convened the Assembly with a conciliatory speech; hoping

that now the South Carolina colony would move on toward better government;

stating that Lord William Campbell had been appointed to replace Montagu as

Governor of South Carolina [appointed in June 1773, but did not arrive at

Charleston until June 1775, too late to save the South Carolina government from

collapsing, three months later, under long-building revolutionary pressures, on

September 15, 1775.] [Dartmouth continued his sequence of numbered letters

when Lieutenant Governor William Bull II again became acting governor after

Governor Montagu sailed to England and only when he arrived there announced

his resignation]

12. June 16, [1773] [23]

Letter from Charles Garth at Devizes [a small town east of Stratford-on-Avon, in

Wiltshire, England] to Dartmouth, concerning the bond required to be signed by

South Carolina’s joint treasurers [with enclosure, document 13]

13. [no date] [25]

Copy of bond signed by South Carolina “Joint Public Treasurer” Benjamin Dart

[probably in March 1771 (see Reel 2 document 167, Reel 6 document 156); in

June 1773, Garth sent a copy of apparently this bond to Secretary of State

Dartmouth (document 12)] [a separate bond was signed by Henry Peronneau,

the other joint Treasurer, also in March 1771 (see Reel 2 document 203, Reel 7

document 20); see also note after Reel 2 document 161] [enclosed with Garth’s

June 16, 1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 12]

14. June 17, 1773 [27]

Letter from Garth at Devizes to Undersecretary of State John Pownall, sending

certain papers for the Secretary of State; concerning funds for a governor’s

house in Charleston [with enclosures, documents 15 to 17]

15. October 9, 1771 [29]

Extract from Journal of Commons House, concerning funding for a governor’s

house in Charleston; establishing a committee on the subject; followed by

October 11, 1771

Extract from Journal of Commons House, containing the committee’s report that

a search had been done of the town, and no house could be found none could be

found that “is agreeable to the Governor”; recommending that the Governor’s

annual house rental allowance be doubled to £200 Sterling; followed by

366

October 18, 1771

Extract from Journal of Commons House, with consideration of the committee

report, including an amendment changing the revised rental allowance sum from

“£200 Sterling” to “£1,200 Currency”, after which the committee report was

approved; followed by

January 15, 1771

Extract of speech by Bull, stating that the first priority for defense spending was

for a battery at Fort Lyttelton; followed by

January 24, 1771

Extract of response to Bull’s speech by Commons House, stating that it had

already committed to necessary funding for a battery at Fort Lyttelton

[all enclosed with Garth’s June 17, 1773 letter to John Pownall, document 14]

16. May 3, 1773 [31]

Sworn statement by Clerk James Johnston of the accuracy of the copied

documents in document 15 [enclosed with Garth’s June 17, 1773 letter to John

Pownall, document 14]

17. May 5, 1773 [33]

Account of public gun powder “expended” to various fortifications under an order

of Governor Montagu, with transactions dated from October 1, 1771 to February

4, 1773, with a total weight of 12,200 pounds [enclosed with Garth’s June 17,

1773 letter to John Pownall, document 14]

18. May 12, 1773 [35]

Letter [unnumbered] from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, conveying

congratulations for the Queen’s safe delivery of a young Prince

19. May 15, 1773 [37]

Letter No. 56 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, hoping that legislative

matters would settle down; conveying copies of the two bonds signed by the joint

Treasurers for South Carolina; updating Dartmouth on efforts being made to

grow grape vines in South Carolina, plus other domestic economic and social

matters [with enclosure, document 20] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 201]

20. March 1, 1771 [39]

Copy of bond signed by Henry Peronneau as one of two joint Treasurers [he had

served previously as the sole Treasurer since mid-1770 (see Reel 2 documents

140, 203, Reel 6 document 102)] [In May 1773, Bull sent to Dartmouth a copy of

apparently this bond (document 19)] [similar bond signed in March 1771 by Dart,

the other joint treasurer (see Reel 2 document 167, Reel 6 document 156, Reel

7 document 13] [enclosed with Bull’s May 15, 1773 letter to Dartmouth,

document 19]

367

21. June 14, 1773 [41]

Letter No. 57 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, promising to enforce a new

law of Parliament, to be enforced by a royal order dated April 7, 1773 concerning

land surveying for land grants and other purposes but finding potential difficulties

with them [duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 202]

[Note: The law is known as the Enclosure Act of 1773. It established

procedures for land surveying, purchasing, possessing, owning, and enclosing

for private use, which encouraged land ownership and speculation by the wealthy

and powerful. It also abolished the old English common law concept of

“commons” land owned in common by common people. Although wealthy South

Carolina plantation owners had long subscribed to this way of thinking, because

the source of this law was the British government in London, it was distrusted as

being potentially dangerous for American self-government.]

22. August 4, 1773 [43]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 7 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, encouraging

South Carolina’s attempts to develop vineyards; concerning support for efforts of

the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in South Carolina; supporting Bull’s

initial steps to enforce the royal order concerning surveying

23. July 24, 1773 [45]

Letter No. 58 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, stating that he had prorogued

the Assembly on July 9, 1773 because it was not conducting business; not

expecting productive legislative work from this Assembly; stating, however, that

not all inhabitants supported the Assembly’s March 1773 resolutions [duplicate

letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 207]

24. August 26, 1773 [47]

Letter No. 59 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, explaining his actions

regarding the Assembly when it met (briefly) on July 9; explaining a new financial

issue involving the joint treasurers and public funds and private merchant debts

plus other issues between the acting governor and Assembly [with enclosures,

documents 25 to 30] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 204]

25. August 11, 1773 [51]

Copy of Bull’s address to Commons House, stating that, under the

circumstances, he would not be opening the session with a speech; stating that

he thinks the Assembly should move rapidly to provide for paying the public

debts [enclosed with Bull’s August 26, 1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 24]

368

26. August 13, 1773 [53]

Copy of Commons House’s response to Bull’s address, stating that Commons

House was ready to do business, whether on matters suggested by the acting

governor or on its own accord; pointing out the stress of dealing with the public

debt and annual tax bill at the same time; [enclosed with Bull’s August 26, 1773

letter to Dartmouth. document 24]

27. August 16, 1773 [55]

Pages of a printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, without the front page

with masthead and date, with news and commentary in South Carolina, including

actions of the acting governor and Assembly; followed by

August 16, 1773

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, without the front page with

masthead and date, with news and commentary in South Carolina, including

actions of the acting governor and Assembly; followed by

August 23, 1773

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, without the front page with

masthead and date, with news and commentary in South Carolina, including

actions of the acting governor and Assembly

[all enclosed with Bull’s August 26, 1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 24]

28. August 23, 1773 [59]

Copy of address from Upper House of the South Carolina Assembly [which was

also the South Carolina Council] to Bull, expressing amazement that Commons

House had represented the Council as having tried to deceive the acting

governor; commenting on the middle position the joint Treasurers hold,

answering to Commons House and to the acting governor, with details on the

financial condition of the colony [enclosed with Bull’s August 26, 1773 letter to

Dartmouth, document 24]

29. August 23, 1773 [61]

Copy of resolutions by the Council, estimating that the Treasury held no more

than about £10,000, but that £127,674.6.11 was owed on the public debt, and

that amount could not be said to be in the Treasury; stating that the lack of

attention by Commons House to the colony’s finances had put in jeopardy public

confidence in the South Carolina’s finances and economy; stating that Commons

House’s communication had been “unparliamentary” and insulting; expecting

Commons House to communicate “in all deliberations for the public good”;

signed by Egerton Leigh, leader in the Council/Upper House [enclosed with

Bull’s August 26, 1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 24]

30. August 11, 1773 [63]

Extract of journals of the Upper House of Assembly in relation to the financial

condition of the Treasury, including testimony from Joint Treasurer Peronneau

that the money in the Treasury, under normal expenditures, would last until the

beginning of October; followed by

369

August 13, 1773

Extract of journals of the Upper House, still in relation to the financial condition of

the Treasury, Peronneau reporting that £158,476 had been spent since the

previous year’s tax bill was adopted; followed by

August 20, 1773

Extract of journals of the Upper House, with Peronneau reporting that bonds

issued to pay the previously existing debt had become due on June 1, 1773;

followed by

August 21, 1773

Extract of journals of the Upper House, including report of a committee consisting

of Chief Justice [Thomas Knox Gordon] and [Council member William Henry]

Drayton, who had inspected the Treasury accounts to determine South

Carolina’s public financial condition and that the Treasury had only something

approaching £10,000 in it; passage of a motion to report their findings to the

acting governor

[all enclosed with Bull’s August 26, 1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 24]

31. October 28, 1773 [65]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 8 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, judging the

evidence Bull had sent concerning the colony’s finances was “fresh Evidence of

the ill effects of the Assembly’s obstinacy in refusing to comply with the just and

equitable expectations of the Crown”

32. September 18, 1773 [67]

Letter No. 60 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, describing “extraordinary”

happenings “in our Legislative Theatre”, that the Upper House had had a printer

jailed for having printed in The South Carolina Gazette journals of the Council

without an order, but that justices of the peace who heard the printer’s habeas

corpus plea, who happened to be the speaker and a member of Commons

House, had released the printer; describing conflict between Commons House

and the acting governor on the issue of Commons House’s using the power to

issue money to finance paying off the public debts of merchants; including Bull’s

thoughts, both historically and given the current situation, about proper governing

[with enclosures, documents 33 to 38] [duplicate letter in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 208]

33. September 11, 1773 [72]

Copy of memorial from South Carolina Council to the King, laying “at your Royal

feet the critical and dangerous State of Our present situation”; describing the

conflict between Commons House and the acting governor and Council over the

jailing of a printer, as an example of a larger problem in the American colonies;

seeking to convince the King of the severity of the situation and of the need for

royal assistance to return the colonies to proper governing [enclosed with Bull’s

September 18, 1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 32] [copy of memorial, with

no date, in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 210]

370

34. September 4, 1773 [75]

Certification by Roger Pinckney, sheriff of Charleston, identifying a copy of

Council journal that had been printed in The South Carolina Gazette without

authorization by Thomas Powell, printer, and concerning the legal proceeding

that followed [enclosed with Bull’s September 18, 1773 letter to Dartmouth,

document 32]

35. August 31, 1773 [76]

Extract of journal of Upper House of Assembly of South Carolina, containing the

decision to jail Thomas Powell, printer [enclosed with Bull’s September 18, 1773

letter to Dartmouth, document 32]

36. September 1, 1773 [part of 77]

Copy of document by which Justices of the Peace Rawlins Lowndes and George

Gabriel Powell released Thomas Powell [enclosed with Bull’s September 18,

1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 32]

37. September 2, 1773 [part of 77]

Certification by Roger Pinckney, sheriff of Charleston, of the authenticity of the

Justices of the Peace document [document 36]; followed by

September 3, 1773

Certification by Justices of the Peace Lowndes and G. G. Powell of their action

concerning Thomas Powell [enclosed with Bull’s September 18, 1773 letter to

Dartmouth, document 32]

38. September 15, 1773 [78]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, with news and comment plus

public documents, including documents related to the Thomas Powell legal

situation [enclosed with Bull’s September 18, 1773 letter to Dartmouth,

document 32] [copy or similar with same date in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 209]

39. September 19, 1773 [80]

Letter No. 61 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, forwarding a letter from

Egerton Leigh, who was the nucleus of communications back and forth about the

Thomas Powell situation [with enclosure, document 40] [duplicate letter in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 211]

40. September 18, 1773 [82]

Copy of letter from Egerton Leigh at Charleston to Bull, informing Bull of having

received a letter from Edward Rutledge that he had been asked to represent

Thomas Powell in a case against Leigh for bringing legal difficulties upon Powell

[enclosed with Bull’s September 18, 1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 39]

[copy of letter in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

212]

371

[Note: In 1773, the leading men of South Carolina were already beginning to

take sides and square off against one another. Egerton Leigh remained a

staunch loyalist, who fled to England in 1775 to escape from what he saw as

“rebel” persecution in South Carolina. Edward Rutledge, who considered

himself a “patriot” rather than a rebel and was a signer of the Declaration of

Independence in 1776.]

41. November 22, 1773 [84]

Letter from William Campbell at Portsmouth [England] to Dartmouth, announcing

his having just arrived at Portsmouth and intending to wait upon the Secretary of

State shortly [although appointed Governor of South Carolina in June 1773,

Campbell proved to be in no hurry, having just arrived in England, to undertake

the voyage to Charleston to take over his responsibilities as Governor]

42. November 29, 1773 [86]

Letter from Charles Garth at Devizes to Dartmouth, concerning the case against

Attorney General Egerton Leigh in relation to Thomas Powell

43. October 20, 1773 [88]

Letter No. 62 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, concerning a bill in Commons

House against Attorney General Egerton Leigh for his actions in relation to the

printer Thomas Powell [with attachment, document 44]

44. October 16, 1773 [90]

Duplicate letter from Egerton Leigh at Charleston to Bull, reporting on the

situation of the charges against him in the Powell case, with details [enclosed

with Bull’s October 20, 1773 letter to Dartmouth, document 43]

45. October 21, 1773 [92]

Letter [unnumbered] from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, enclosing journals of

the Council/Upper House of the Assembly of South Carolina [not microfilmed

here]

46. December 15, 1773 [94]

Copy of petition from Garth at London to the King concerning the charges against

Leigh in the Powell situation; presenting the side of Powell and Commons House

against Attorney General Leigh [with scrivener’s note that original petition had

been sent to the Privy Council]

372

Volume 396—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), continue

December 24, 1773 to November 26, 1777 Documents 47 to 172 [Frames 1 to 319]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. See notes before Volumes

382, 385, 386, and 389 to 395 for information and content of the preceding microfilmed

Volumes of this correspondence. See also the overall summary of the microfilmed

Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13. Volume 396

continues the fairly regular pattern of correspondence from Volume 395 with documents

dated between the end of 1773 and the end of 1777. Lieutenant Governor William Bull

II continued as acting governor as this period began. On June 18, 1775, new Governor

William Campbell finally arrived (after having been appointed in June 1773). By this

time the protest movement against the colonial government in South Carolina had

escalated into establishment of an alternative government with Provincial Assembly and

Council of Safety, and relations between the two “governments” had deteriorated and

become violent. In this situation, Campbell had little or no chance to pull the colonial

government back from collapse on September 15, 1775, resulting from the pressure

exerted by the “rebels”. A rebellion had begun, and Britain’s policy quickly changed

from managing unruly colonies to punishing and defeating rebellious colonies—using

military violence. Governor Campbell tried to exercise some measure of control in his

colony, but he was forced to live on a British Navy vessel for protection and had no real

authority in South Carolina. By the end of this period, he was still trying to re-establish

some colonial governmental authority, with little success.

Note: In the midst of Volume 394, archivists in the Secretary of State’s office had

discontinued the practice of numbering official incoming documents. Volume 396 also

has no SS numbers. In this Volume, acting governor Bull’s ongoing correspondence

with Secretary of State Lord Dartmouth is numbered continuously without break from

No. 54 through No. 90. Thus ended the longest series of consecutively numbered

letters in the system of official, numbered correspondence between secretaries of state

and South Carolina governors (acting governor in this case). Multiple political events in

1775 led to greater instability and fragmentation, which shows up even in letter

numbering. On June 18, Governor Campbell finally arrived in Charleston. He started a

new series of official letters to Secretary of State Dartmouth. Bull was out (again) as

acting governor, so his series of letters was discontinued. By September 15, South

Carolina’s colonial government collapsed under intense pressure of rebellious

protesters in Charleston. Yet ironically, no letter-numbering series was affected. Since

Britain had not given up the war, the apparent loss of South Carolina was considered

temporary and contingent. In London, on November 10, Dartmouth was replaced by

Germain as Secretary of State. Thus Germain started a new series of letters to

Campbell, but Campbell chose to continue the series he had started in January 1775

with Dartmouth. Campbell’s last numbered letter to Germain was dated November 29,

1776. Soon after, he returned to England, having played the role of governor without a

government for more than a year. Germain continued his official correspondence with

Campbell until January 14, 1777.

373

With Campbell back in England “without a job” as governor and with little chance of a

southern military campaign any time soon to recapture Charleston, little point remained

in corresponding.

Yet, four years later, the numbered letters reappeared (see transcripts of Germain and

Bull letters dated in 1781 in Reel 12 Volumes 408 and 410. This time Germain was

communicating with (whom else?) William Bull II. Still recognized as Lieutenant

Governor, Bull (along with other colonial government leaders) was being encouraged to

return to Charleston after its capture in May 1780, to re-establish colonial South

Carolina. Bull went, early in 1781, and served as Intendant General of Charleston’s

quasi-civil municipal government, the Board of Police, during the city’s British military

occupation. When the British troops evacuated Charleston in December 1782, Bull

went with them. And thus finally ended the British South Carolina colony, which had

held out (a least in British minds and official correspondence) for over seven years.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

47. January 8, 1774 [1]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 9 from [Secretary of State for the Colonies] the Earl of

Dartmouth at Whitehall to [William] Bull [II, Lieutenant Governor of South

Carolina and acting governor between governors], expressing hope that he

would receive some of the credit if his advice to Bull concerning Commons

House had improved the situation; unhappy about the charges against South

Carolina Attorney General Egerton Leigh regarding Leigh’s actions against

printer Thomas Powell for printing journals of the Council without an order to do

48. December 24, 1773 [3]

Letter No. 63 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting that Captain Curling

had arrived at Charleston with 257 chests of tea “sent by the East India Company

with the same instructions to agents appointed here as at Boston, New York &

Philadelphia”; reporting that Curling had kept the tea on board his vessel

because he was aware of threats violence, as had occurred at the northern ports;

describing threats from some Charleston merchants; describing how the customs

collectors at the port had sought to seize the ship and its cargo, not to collect the

tea duties but to obtain and sell the tea; describing how the government had

instead seized the ship to protect it; describing the various reactions

Charlestonians had to the situation and how they should respond personally

374

49. February 5, 1774 [5]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 10 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, stating that the

actions to obtain the tea without the tea duty being paid, as described in Bull’s

letter of December 24, 1773 were “unwarrantable”, and that Bull’s protecting the

East India Company ship from seizure by the custom collectors was “much

approved by the King”

[Note: The famous Boston Tea Party occurred on December 16, 1773. Around

the same time, less violent but similarly motivated actions took place in the

harbors of New York, Philadelphia—and Charleston, as reported in document

48 by acting governor Bull and responded to in document 49 by Secretary of

State Dartmouth. For the protesting colonies, the dispute over a duty on tea

escalated the conflict with Britain another notch, moving it from protests,

pamphlets, and committee organizing toward political maneuvering and civil

disobedience—and violence against property. In New England, such violence

was not new at the Boston Tea Party. In June 1772, merchant leaders in Rhode

Island had instigated the burning of the British revenue schooner HMS Gaspée.

For the southern colonies, such violence was slower to be used, although by

early 1775, South Carolinians, along with other colonies, had gone beyond

violence against property to violence against loyalists and their property. Britain

recognized this as rebellion and responded with military violence to force colonial

obedience, but the colonies chose to define it as a war of revolution. See note

after document 95.]

50. February 11, 1774 [7]

Letter No. 64 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, concerning a “murderous”

attack by Creek Indians in Georgia’s interior and actions he had taken since for

protection in the interior of South Carolina; reporting having appointed William

Henry Drayton to a judge position, replacing Justice [John] Murray, who had

died; describing the controversy with Commons House over qualifications for

judges, which appointment of Drayton had helped resolve; concerning the need

to support a petition to assist Louis de Mesnil de Saint Pierre’s effort to redevelop

the failed settlement of New Bordeaux [with enclosure, document 51; see also

note after this document]

51. [no date] [9]

Petition of Louis de Mesnil de Saint Pierre to the King, seeking his approval for

South Carolina to grant additional lands to help re-establish New Bordeaux

settlement more prosperous [enclosed with Bull’s February 11, 1774 letter to

Dartmouth, document 50]

[Note: For more on St. Pierre’s effort to re-establish a faltering French immigrant

colony in South Carolina, see Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

documents 176 to 178, 180 to 181, 197 and Reel 3 document 145, all dated

probably in 1771 and 1772, plus notes after Reel 2 document 176 and Reel 3

document 145. Unfortunately this effort in 1774 also faltered when Saint Pierre

was killed sometime in the mid-1770s on an expedition against Indians.]

375

52. March 10, 1774 [11]

Letter No. 65 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting on the ongoing

conflict between him and Commons House, especially over treasury issues;

concerning raising troops for frontier defense [with enclosure, document 53]

53. March 3, 1774 [13]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, with news and commentary on the

conflict between the acting governor and Commons House and more [enclosed

with Bull’s March 10, 1774 letter to Dartmouth, document 52]

54. March 24, 1774 [14]

Letter No. 66 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, describing a “new expedient

contrivance by the Assembly” concerning Egerton Leigh and a sum of £1,500

and other matters in the conflict between Bull and Commons House [with

enclosures, documents 55 to 57]

55. March 10, 1774 [16]

Extract from journal of the South Carolina Commons House, containing report of

a committee considering a response to several commands of Lieutenant

Governor Bull; supporting Bull’s call for troops to defend the frontier [enclosed

with Bull’s March 24, 1774 letter to Dartmouth, document 54]

56. March 11, 1774 [18]

Extract from journal of Commons House, containing report of a committee

concerning a letter by Attorney General Egerton Leigh about enforcing the law in

relation to Commons House’s resolution of September 10, 1773 to use money

from the £10,500 withdrawn by Commons House from the Treasury on

December 8, 1769, and for the money to be made available under authority of

the bonds of the joint treasurers [enclosed with Bull’s March 24, 1774 letter to

Dartmouth, document 54]

57. March 11 to March 18, 1774 [20]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette, containing

news, commentary, and public documents, including some related to the dispute

between Commons House and the acting governor [enclosed with Bull’s March

24, 1774 letter to Dartmouth, document 54]

58. May 4, 1774 [22]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 11 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, concerning a

claim by a German Baron Alvensleben on land for settlement in South Carolina,

with orders that Bull was to report to Dartmouth on all the land transactions in

which this baron was involved [with enclosure, document 59]

376

59. March 30, 1774 [24]

Letter, written in French, from Baron Alvensleben at London to Dartmouth,

delivered to Secretary of State office with letter from Margrave of Anspach,

concerning Alvensleben’s land claim [enclosed with Dartmouth’s May 4, 1774

letter to Bull, document 58 (a draft outgoing letter)]

60. May 4, 1774 [26]

Draft [outgoing] letter No 12 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, reiterating the

policy that no public funding can be authorized by the lower legislative house

along; concerning the frontier violence in South Carolina, clearly blaming the

Creek Indians, without concern for the details presented by Bull; hoping that this

incident of violence was an isolated event by a few “disorderly young warriors”,,

that could probably be contained

61. April 26, 1774 [28]

Letter [unnumbered] from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, congratulating the

Queen and King for delivering a healthy prince

62. May 3, 1774 [30]

Letter No. 67 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, concerning Commons

House’s continuing to involve itself with financial matters on its own, combined

with intervening in financial matters pertaining to the public debt

63. May 3, 1774 [32]

Letter No. 68 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, stating that he would follow

new Instructions about how to handle land transactions

64. July 6, 1774 [34]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 13 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, stating that

Campbell would soon be embarking for his voyage to Charleston to begin

governing South Carolina and that affairs should be prepared for his arrival and

assumption of the governorship

65. May 25, 1774 [36]

Letter No. 69 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, expressing skeptical hope

that Georgia’s stoppage of the Indian trade would work out for the best; stating

that what had happened in relation to tea in Boston would not be allowed in

South Carolina;

66. June 4, 1774 [38]

Letter No. 70 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, concerning one Israel Baxter

who was convicted of harboring robbers and was jailed because he could not pay

his way out; requesting the King’s favor to remit the man’s fine

377

67. August 3, 1774 [40]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 14 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, reporting that

he had referred the case of Israel Baxter to the King

68. July 31, 1774 [42]

Letter No. 71 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, expressing hope that

Parliamentary action in the Boston Port Act would help the colonial situation in

America; stating that activities of resolutions and correspondence from certain

colonies “have raised an universal Spirit of Jealousy against Great Britain, and of

unanimity towards each other”, including South Carolina, where a large crowd

turned out in Charleston to hear about the initiative from Boston to establish a

“Congress of Committees” [also called the “High Court of Congress” (see

document 72) and later the First Continental Congress, which convened at

Philadelphia on September 5, 1774]; fearing that “this spirit of opposition to

taxation and its consequences is so violent and so universal throughout America,

that I am apprehensive it will not be soon or easily appeased”; stating that the

South Carolina Assembly was currently prorogued but would convene August 2,

and Bull did not expect positive results from it; expecting Governor Campbell to

arrive in September [having been appointed governor in June 1773, Campbell

actually arrived in Charleston, after many delays, on June 18, 1775] [with

enclosure, document 69]

69. July 11, 1774 [44]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, with news and commentary

[enclosed with Bull’s July 31, 1774 letter to Dartmouth, document 68]

70. August 1 1774 [46]

Letter No. 72 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting that Attorney

General Egerton Leigh had requested a leave of absence to return to England for

health reasons, and that he would be replaced temporarily by [James] Simpson

[in fact, Simpson served as the last Attorney General of colonial South Carolina]

71. August 1, 1774 [48]

Letter No. 73 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, stating that he was taking

steps to encourage closure of the affairs of [Hector de Berenger de Beaufain] the

Baron de Beaufain.

[Note: Baron de Beaufain, a wealthy plantation owner in South Carolina, was

clearly well connected in London as well as Paris. Secretary of State Dartmouth

made a point in 1774 of encouraging Bull to expedite settlement of Beaufain’s

estate. Later, in 1787, correspondence in Thomas Jefferson’s papers indicates

that the estate was still unsettled, and that now it was US interests rather than

British interests seeking to expedite the settlement. See also documents 75 and

80.]

378

72. August 3, 1774 [50]

Letter No. 74 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting that the Assembly

met but immediately conducted itself improperly, so Bull had prorogued it until

September 6, but not before the Assembly approving five individuals to attend

the upcoming Congress in Philadelphia and approved a request to the Governor

to provide arms for inhabitants against such dangers as Indian War; the latter

was left incomplete when the Assembly was prorogued [with enclosure,

document 73]

73. August 2, 1774 [52]

Abstract of minutes of Commons House of South Carolina Assembly, containing

the House’s action appointing Henry Middleton, John Rutledge, Thomas Lynch,

Christopher Gadsden, and Edward Rutledge deputies of South Carolina to the

“general Congress” scheduled in early September in Philadelphia; recording the

intent to request that arms be provided as needed in the colony for protection of

inhabitants [enclosed with Bull’s August 3, 1774 letter to Dartmouth, document

72]

74. October 5, 1774 [54]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 15 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, requiring Bull to

write as often as needed to keep the Crown fully informed on affairs in South

Carolina and the other colonies, “during the present state of affairs”; fearing that

the South Carolina deputies to the Congress in Philadelphia would add a

negative viewpoint to the mix from this colony

75. August 30, 1774 [56]

Letter No. 75 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, explaining details behind the

effort to close out the affairs of Baron de Beaufain, with a memorial from the

Baron, an executor in place, but the “universal heir”, a nephew, had died and a

series of competing claims were pending; including additional details and

difficulties; seeking to meet the desires of the Crown to settle these affairs

positively from the Baron’s perspective

76. August 30, 1774 [59]

Letter No. 76 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, thanking Dartmouth for his

approbation of Bull’s timely correspondence and actions as acting governor

77. August 31, 1774 [61]

Letter No. 77 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, enclosing a copy of a

“notable production” which he describes as applying to both the pamphlet and its

author, who was William Henry Drayton, a member of the South Carolina

Council, as “replete with sentiments so derogatory to the Royal Prerogatives, &

the Authority of Parliament & the long established Constitution of Government in

America that it cannot fail to excite indignation, while the futility tautology &

triteness of arguments raise contempt” [with enclosures, documents 78, 79]

379

[Note: William Henry Drayton had been a member of the South Carolina

Council since February 1771 (Reel 2 document 192, Reel 3 document 140) and

was a trusted member of South Carolina’s loyal British colonial leadership until

as late as February 1774, when he was appointed to a vacant judge position

(Reel 7 document 50). When he delivered to Bull his pamphlet, written under the

name “Freeman”, in August 1774, his change of sides was both sudden and

permanent. He went on to become a “rebel” leader in South Carolina, including a

South Carolina delegate to the First Continental Congress, until his death of

typhus in Philadelphia in 1779. For more on this member of the large, wealthy,

and publicly active South Carolina Drayton family, see notes after Reel 2

document 218. For more on his change of sides see Reel 2 documents 215 to

220 and documents 77 to 80 in this Reel.]

78. August 10, 1774 [63]

Printed copy of “A Letter from Freeman of South-Carolina to the Deputies of

North-America, Assembled in the High Court of Congress at Philadelphia”

published by Peter Timothy at Charleston; consisting of a cover, first

unnumbered page, and pages numbered 4 through 47; containing arguments

against Britain’s taxation policies imposed on the American colonies [Frame 66

microfilmed twice] [the Congress at Philadelphia to which Dayton refers is the

Continental Congress, which convened in September 1774, soon after this

pamphlet was printed; Drayton was there, as a delegate from South Carolina]

[enclosed with Bull’s August 31, 1774 letter to Dartmouth, document 77]

79. August 30, 1774 [88]

Letter from William Henry Drayton at Charleston to Bull, acknowledging to Bull

that he was the author “Freeman” of the letter to the South Carolina Deputies to

the Philadelphia Congress, and that he wrote it, and hereby presented it to Bull,

in the interest of bringing some sense into the debate over what would be best

for South Carolina and the other colonies in this crisis situation [enclosed with

Bull’s August 31, 1774 letter to Dartmouth, document 77]

80. November 2, 1774 [90]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 16 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Bull, expressing the

King’s approbation for Bull’s efforts on behalf of the affairs of Baron de Beaufain;

stating that he had received Drayton’s pamphlet from the author; agreeing with

Bull that it was “a very extraordinary performance” but that its impact was still to

be determined

81. October 12, 1774 [92]

Letter No. 78 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, informing Dartmouth that a

large group of Creek Indians would soon be meeting with Georgia authorities in

Savannah to settle the dispute over Indian murders that had led Georgia to close

the Indian trade; stating that there was no new news about “the general

disposition of the people in relation to the grand American Disputes”; still

expecting Governor Campbell’s arrival soon

380

82. December 10, 1774 [94]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 17 from Dartmouth to Bull, stating that the King was

pleased to hear that relations with the Creek Indians may be improving soon;

stating that “Lord William Campbell is still here having been detained on account

of some private Affairs of importance to his family, but as I understand those

affairs are now brought to a Conclusion”; expecting Campbell to depart “as

speedily as possible” [although appointed governor in June 1773, Campbell kept

delaying his departure for Charleston to the point where Dartmouth was

becoming irritated; Campbell further increased Dartmouth’s irritation and Bull’s

anticipation until he finally arrived in Charleston on June 18, 1775; see also

document 41]

83. November 23, 1774 [96]

Letter No. 79 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting on a murder by Joel

Mosely Sr., for which he had been convicted, but for which circumstances

suggested the propriety of exercising Royal Mercy; stating that the mood in

South Carolina had not changed and that deputies were expected to represent

South Carolina when the Philadelphia Congress reconvened on January 24,

1775

84. December 19, 1774 [98]

Letter No. 80 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, still reporting nothing new on

the “American discontents” and not expecting anything until the Congress

reconvenes in January; reporting a robust economy in South Carolina and

lamenting that it was accompanied by the discontents [with enclosure, document

85]

85. December 12, 1774 [100]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, with news and commentary

[enclosed with Bull’s December 19, 1774 letter to Dartmouth, document 84]

86. December 19, 1774 [102]

Letter No. 81 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, explaining his difficulties in

filling a court judge position, which was causing a delay in court activities

87. December 19, 1774 [104]

Letter No. 82 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, stating his intent to try to

control the import of gunpowder and ammunition into South Carolina, during

these dangerous times, despite the large amount of private smuggling

88. January 4, 1775 [106]

Letter No. 83 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, stating that nothing had

changed in the discontent, neither the instances of outrages nor any diminution

of mutual hostilities.

381

89. January 20, 1775 [108]

Letter No. 84 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting on ways South

Carolina was dealing with prosperous agriculture but restrictions in commerce

and debt financing, which were stubborn problems British governments probably

could not resolve; it had been some time since the Assembly met successfully

and legislated helpfully [with enclosures, document 90]

90. January 17, 1775 [110]

Copy of address of members of the [recently established, extralegal] South

Carolina Provincial Congress to acting governor Bull, seeking redress at the

colonial level for political and economic grievances; signed by Charles Pinckney,

President of the Provincial Congress; followed by

January 17, 1775

Copy of response by Bull, making clear that the only legitimate representative of

the people of South Carolina was the Commons House of the Assembly, not the

provincial congress, and that the Assembly was currently prorogued and would

reconvene on January 24, only a few days away

[both enclosed with Bull’s January 20, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 89]

[Note: Charles Pinckney (1757-1824) sided with the Americans, fought in the

Revolutionary War, served in the Continental Congress and later the U.S. House

of Representatives, signed the U.S. Constitution with his cousin Charles

Cotesworth, and was governor of the State of South Carolina from 1806 to 1808.

For more on the Pinckney family of South Carolina, see note after Reel 1

document 31.]

[Note: By establishing a Provincial Congress, South Carolina’s protest

movement was taking a step toward disassociation with the British colonial

government, consistent with steps being taken in other colonies. Loosely

speaking, the new provincial congresses were colony-level analogues to the

Continental Congress that had convened in September 1774, including delegates

from South Carolina. The timing of the emergence of a provincial congress in

South Carolina coincided with Bull’s convening the colonial government’s

Assembly (in reality its lower Commons House) on January 24, 1775, and its

quick demise, never to convene again.]

91. January 28, 1775 [112]

Letter No. 85 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, enclosing communications

between the Assembly and acting governor during the convening of the

Assembly on January 24, 1775; stating that the Assembly had not legislated

usefully but that Bull was keeping it in session so no accusations could be made

that the acting governor had shut down the representative process prematurely

[with enclosures, documents 92 to 94 (actually one copy of Bull’s speech to

Commons House, two copies of Commons House’s address in response to Bull’s

speech, and two copies of Bull’s response to Commons House’s address)]

382

[Note: Despite trying to cover himself politically, Bull on January 24, 1775 was in

fact initiating the shut-down the British Colonial Assembly and specifically its

lower Commons House. By January 26, the deadlock between the Assembly

and the acting governor had begun to rip the government apart. The Assembly

was never reconvened, the colonial government limped along without a

legislative body, and the direction of South Carolina’s protest movement shifted

from trying to take control over and alter the existing South Carolina government

toward replacing that government, with yet unpredictable consequences.]

92. January 26, 1775 [114]

Copy of address of Commons House to Bull, thanking him for his speech to them

on the opening of the Assembly session; complaining that Bull presented no

information on Instructions from the King, because these were being held secret

until arrival of the new Governor; assuring that Commons House would always

do its duty, as representatives of the people, to carry out policies in the best

interest of the colony; followed by

January 26, 1775

Copy of Bull’s response to Common House address, explaining that royal orders

kept him from releasing the Instructions to the new governor

[both enclosed with Bull’s January 28, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 89]

93. January 24, 1775 [116]

Copy of Bull’s speech to Commons House and Council of South Carolina at

opening of the Assembly session, reporting that he had no new Instructions to

share with the Assembly but that matters of concern, such as the threat of war

with the Creek Indians, were being handled and resolved; offering to work

productively with the Assembly if it was willing to work with him; followed by

January 26, 1775

Copy of Commons House address to Bull [another copy in document 92]

[both enclosed wit Bull’s January 18, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 89]

94. January 26, 1775 [117]

Copy of Bull’s response to Commons House address, stating that he must follow

the Instructions received from the King [another copy in document 92] [enclosed

with Bull’s January 28, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 89]

95. February 22, 1775 [118]

Letter No. 86 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting that on February

17, a day of general fasting throughout the colony, [former] members of the

Assembly and other people had assembled at St. Philips Church for a special

gathering and sermon—an intended humiliation to the King and his government;

pointing out that several of the Church of England’s clergy had sided with the

Assembly on this day; in general, the Church, whose titular head was the King,

had grown independent of the colonial government and, in some ways, no longer

recognized the King’s authority;

383

informing Dartmouth that the South Carolina Council had advised Bull to suspend

William Henry Drayton from the Council, that Drayton had objected, and Bull had

taken the position that Drayton must answer for his behavior to the King; asking

the King’s support for Bull’s objecting to the Assembly’s practice, last year and

probably for this year, of issuing certificates as payment on public debts;

concluding that “Boston seems to be still the North Star by which our Political

Courses are Shaped” [with enclosure, document 96]

[Note: A month after the South Carolina Assembly had been effectively shut

down by Bull, it continued to exist in the minds and political calculations of South

Carolinians, but more in the minds of British “loyalists” than of the American

“rebels.” In the meantime, the American “disturbances” had been moving

gradually from political and economic protest toward civil disobedience and then

rebellion, a trajectory accompanied by increases in the use of violent tactics.

Massachusetts responded to the British Tea Act of May 1773 (a new British

attempt to impose new taxes on the colonies) with the Boston Tea Party in

December, an example of civil disobedience with intentional violence against

property. As the British East India Company’s tea was arriving in Boston, other

shiploads of tea were sailing into New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston (see

documents 48 and 49). What was noticed in London was what had happened at

Boston, not Charleston. The British Parliament responded quickly in early 1774

with four punitive laws, which, among other things, strangled Boston’s (legal)

commerce with a boycott and abolished self-government in Massachusetts.

Collectively called by Americans the “Intolerable Acts” or “Coercive Acts,”

these vindictive responses had the opposite affect than what was intended. They

led in September 1774 to the convening of a Continental Congress in

Philadelphia, a political escalation designed to coordinate protest movements

across colonies and to achieve greater unanimity among diverse protesters from

New England to the Southern colonies. South Carolina sent delegates at the first

opportunity to the Continental Congress.

(Meanwhile, Georgia sought to remain somehow uncommitted and neutral until it

succumbed to becoming the 13

rebellious colony by July 1776, but still hung on

with a tattered colonial government until 1782. East Florida and West Florida

never seriously connected with the protest movements from Savannah

northward, did not attend the Continental Congresses, remained solidly loyalist

throughout the Revolutionary War, and were extracted from the British Empire

only by terms of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which returned them to the Spanish

empire, after only 20 years of British rule.)]

96. February 13, 1775 [120]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, containing news and commentary

on recent aspects of the ongoing disputes between the Assembly and the acting

governor [enclosed with Bulls February 22, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document

95]

384

97. March 13, 1775 [122]

Letter No. 87 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting having suspended

William Henry Drayton from the Council, based on the Council’s charges and

Drayton’s response, which was a further statement of protest; reporting having

signed two bills and not agreed to others passed by the South Carolina

Assembly; stating his belief that no arms and ammunition had been illegally

smuggled into South Carolina, in violation of the King’s order [scrivener’s note

that Bull had not signed this letter]

[Note: As the American colonies of Britain were separating in starts and stops

from British rule between 1773 and 1776 (with earlier roots), American families

also were separating, often wrenchingly, and often along generational lines. The

splitting apart of the Drayton family in South Carolina provides a visible example

in one of South Carolina’s wealthiest, most prominent, and most powerful

families. Overall, estimates suggest that the South Carolina colony was split

nearly 50/50, loyalist and patriot/rebel, with a very generalized geographic/class

split between lowland/urban planters and commercial interests v. upland/rural

farmers, artisans, and frontier settlers. Despite the more or less equal divide of

the population, those who rebelled acted more decisively, seeking major change,

while the colonial government, consistent with its doctrine of maintaining the

imperial status quo of royal authority and established institutions, gradually

collapsed inward from the external pressure. For more on the William Henry

Drayton and the Drayton family, see note after document 99.]

98. March 28, 1775 [124]

Letter No. 88 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting little likelihood that

the situation in America would change much; that popular opinion was strongly

against the British government, and that unless something changed in Boston or

in London, that situation probably would not change; reporting also, however,

some dispute within the Assembly “between demagogues”, somewhat influenced

by class, as with the mechanics against the planters and merchants; expecting

soon the arrival of the new Governor Campbell [who actually finally arrived on

June 18, 1775]

99. March 15, 1775 [126]

Letter from William Henry Drayton to Dartmouth, informing Dartmouth of his

having been suspended from the Council but insisting that this did not mean that

he had acted against the interests of the South Carolina colony; offering

evidence that he—stating that he was the only Carolinian on the Council—had

perhaps been more loyal than the others to the true interests of South Carolina;

insisting, therefore, that his protests were more than “captious and frivolous”;

claiming that he had unjustifiably endured “ill will” from the Chief Justice;

including additional claims justifying his protests in detail; stating his respect for

his uncle, acting governor William Bull II, and his feeling that Bull’s actions in

relation to his nephew must come from a sincere but misguided conviction that

he was upholding the King’s desires and orders;

385

stating also his disinclination to dispute his suspension and his inability to

conceive of continuing in the “Royal service” but wanting to offer to the British

government and to the King an honest accounting of the true situation in South

Carolina [with enclosures, document 100]

[Note: For more on Drayton’s public life and his remarkable public change of

horses during the midst of South Carolina’s contest between British colonial

power and American democratic power, see, in the Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 documents 215 to 220 plus notes (document 219 is

Drayton’s representation of his principled position to Bull in August 1774) and, in

the Secretary of State incoming correspondence, Reel 7 documents 77 to 80 and

95 to 99 plus notes (document 78 is Drayton’s August 1774 printed pamphlet of

his principled positions; this document 99 is Drayton’s justification of his

principled positions to Dartmouth in March 1775, after he had been suspended

from the South Carolina Council)]

100. March 6, 1775 [130]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, containing news and commentary;

followed by

January 23, 1775

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette, containing news and commentary

[both enclosed with Drayton’s March 15, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 99]

101. May 1, 1775 [133]

Letter No. 89 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, lamenting that, despite the

unflagging efforts of the King to preserve the glory of the British Empire and its

American colonies, Bull’s own efforts in South Carolina to support the King “have

been in vain”; stating that no one he had spoken with in South Carolina had

retained any hope of reconciling the two sides in the dispute, or of the colonial

government in South Carolina continuing to receive support from its inhabitants;

predicting that the popular movement “will not dissolve or weaken, but strengthen

in their unanimity”; reporting that armories at Charleston had been broken into

and arms and powder stolen, that other illegal and violent actions had occurred,

and that the acting governor and council had met but felt helpless to respond;

reporting that the militia continued to muster frequently to maintain discipline, but

that rumors abounded that the militia in Virginia were preparing to move into

other colonies to support the popular cause [Frame 133 microfilmed twice] [with

enclosure, document 102]

[Note: Between March (document 100) and May (document 101) of 1775, the

first armed hostilities of the Revolutionary War broke out on April 19, 1775 in

Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, between British soldiers and

Massachusetts militia loyal to that colony’s rebellious protest movement. This

event was not specifically recognized at the time in the South Carolina official

colonial correspondence of the Board of Trade or Secretary of State, but was

indirectly reflected in correspondence like this letter from a pessimistic Bull to

Dartmouth.]

386

102. April 27, 1775 [135]

Copy of cover letter from Commons House to Bull, acknowledging receipt of a

message from Bull dated April 24, 1775 [pertaining to the theft of arms and

powder from public armories]; followed by

Copy of Commons House’s response, enclosed with the cover letter, stating that

members of the House “are not able to obtain any certain Intelligence relative to

the removal of the Public Arms & Gun Powder, as mentioned in His Honor’s

Message, but think there is reason to suppose that some of the Inhabitants of

this Colony may have been induced to take so extraordinary and uncommon a

step in Consequence of the late alarming Accounts from Great Britain” [enclosed

with Bull’s May 1, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 101]

103. May 1, 1775 [137]

Letter from Alexander Innes to Dartmouth, informing Dartmouth that he had

arrived at Charleston [evidently at Dartmouth’s request or at least to observe and

report to him] on April 19, 1775 and was sorry to report that “this Province hardly

falls short of the Massachusets in sorry Indecency, Violence, & Contempt to

Government”; stating that “Lord North’s conciliatory Motion” had failed to

conciliate but rather “added fuel to the flame”; describing the theft of arms from

the arsenal; describing the “Provincial Congress” [see note after document 90] as

consisting of “many people of the best fortunes in Town, & Country, several of

them Members of the Assembly, particularly the Speaker”; stating that support for

the protests and violence was not unanimous, but it was “faint”; stating also that

the leaders in the popular movement disagreed greatly and fought among

themselves; describing the unseemly proceedings of the Commons House;

stating that Bull was looking forward to the time when he could retire to the

country; remarking about his surprise to find that even wealthy people like

[Henry] Laurens were strongly on the side of the popular movement [with

enclosure, document 104]

[Note: Alexander Innes had been sent to South Carolina to serve as Governor

Campbell’s secretary, but he carried with him, in addition, secret orders to

observe and report personally to Dartmouth on colonial politics in South Carolina.

Arriving on April 19, 1775, two months before the Governor did, he got busy first

with his secret agenda, sending this letter to Dartmouth less than two weeks after

his arrival. Reference: B. D. Barger, “Charles Town Loyalism in 1775: The

Secret Reports of Alexander Innes,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine,

Vol. 83, No. 3 (July 1962), pp. 125-136.]

104. [no date] [141]

Clipping from printed edition of [probably] The South-Carolina Gazette [not

including the masthead or date], containing news and comment on the popular

movement against the colonial government, in about April 1775 [enclosed with

Alexander Innes’ May 1, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 103]

387

105. May 15, 1775 [142]

Letter No. 90 from Bull at Charleston to Dartmouth, enclosing a petition to the

King from South Carolina Receiver General of quit rents, Mr. [Thomas] Irving,

and other inhabitants now living in South Carolina, seeking relief for them after

their lands were changed from North Carolina (from which they had land patents)

to South Carolina, when the boundary between them was redrawn at the King’s

orders in 1764 [with enclosure, document 106]

106. [no date] [144]

Petition to the King from “sundry” British subjects who had settled in North

Carolina on lands that in 1764 were transferred to South Carolina, when the

boundary was redrawn; concerned that these settlers’ “old” land grants might not

be honored; therefore, seeking “new” grants confirming the authenticity of the

“old” ones, and hoping that the quit rents would not be increased if new grants

were issued; signed by 150 individuals [enclosed with Bull’s May 15, 1775 letter

to Dartmouth, document 105]

[Note: In this correspondence, William Bull II’s long rule as Lieutenant

Governor of South Carolina, which began in 1759 and was interspersed five

times with periods as acting governor, came to an inconclusive end in 1775. His

long period of colonial public service ended with a whimper, not a British imperial

roar. And, it ended with ultimate failure, on his watch so to speak, as his

government gradually sank into dispute, then dysfunction, and finally

disintegration, between 1759 and 1775. Yet during his almost 17 years of active

rule in South Carolina, Bull’s record of moderate policies and competent

management looks, with hindsight, more successful from year to year than the

collective rule of the several Governors who came and went during his tenure as

Lieutenant Governor.

When Governor William Campbell arrived in Charleston on June 18, 1775, he

reported (in document 108) that Bull was not present to greet him. Apparently,

Bull never did formally greet and turn over colonial governmental power to newly

arrived Governor Campbell. Instead, he left Charleston and retired to the privacy

of his plantation, sometime soon after having written his last official letter as

acting governor to Dartmouth, on May 15, 1775 (No. 90; document 105).

While this last numbered letter dealt with relatively mundane administrative

matters, the previous letter (No. 89; document 101) contained Bull’s last

thoughtful summary of the constitutional and political situation in South Carolina.

This letter was pessimistic about the future of the colony but did not suggest that

he would himself be forced into exile, which occurred in May 1777, after he had

refused to sign an oath of allegiance to the new State of South Carolina, and it

had responded by confiscating his estate and banishing him. After the British

Army captured Charleston in May 1780, Bull returned in February 1781, soon

becoming active in the British occupation government for the city. However,

when the British Army evacuated Charleston as the war waned in December

1782, Bull was forced again into exile, this time permanently. For more on Bull’s

life after 1775, see note after Reel 8 document 180.]

388

107. July 5, 1775 [147]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 18 from Dartmouth to Governor William Campbell of

South Carolina, hoping that, when Campbell had arrived in Charleston, he would

find that the situation there was better than Bull’s letters suggested, but expecting

that would not be the case, that the “flame of Rebellion” had reached almost

every American colony, and that the only remaining question was of “the means

by which it may be the most effectively suppressed”; stating the King’s firm

resolution to use any [military] means, by land or sea, to suppress the rebellion

and re-establish obedience of the colonial inhabitants; detailing plans for

suppression, initially by sea power to cut off colonial commerce, but if Britain’s

Navy were confronted with violence, a full military response was planned

[Note: By the date of this draft letter, three months after the first military

engagement of what became the Revolutionary War, Secretary of State

Dartmouth had no remaining uncertainties about the existence of a full-scale

rebellion and of the British government’s necessary response to it—full-scale

military action to suppress it.]

108. July 2, 1775 [151]

Letter No. 1 from Governor William Campbell at Charleston to Dartmouth,

reporting having arrived late on June 17, 1775 at Charleston and the following

morning had begun his rule as Governor of South Carolina; his first assessment

of the situation was that “the people of the best Sense, & greatest property, as

well as the Rabble, have been gradually led step, by Step, into the most violent

measures, by a set of desperate, & designing men”; acknowledging having

received useful information from Alexander Innes; stating that, so far, Lieutenant

Governor William Bull II had ignored him and his arrival, which Campbell

interpreted as disrespect; stating his difficulty in finding sufficient members of the

Council to convene a meeting; stating that three days after his arrival, Campbell

had received an address from the Provincial Congress, which he deemed “of an

extraordinary, & criminal nature”, to which he responded; although the “violent

faction” had pushed the colony almost into open rebellion, Campbell still hoped to

follow a policy of clemency; expecting support in re-establishing obedience from

what he considered to be a large number of moderates; anticipating efforts to

reduce communications among the colonies by increasing British military

presence; explaining having delayed calling the Assembly into session; including

other news [with enclosures, documents 109 to 112]

109. June 20, 1775 [155]

Copy of address from Provincial Congress of South Carolina to Governor

Campbell, explaining why loyal British-American colonists were taking

extraordinary actions in the face of injustices within the British system, as the

normal process of grievances had failed; followed by

389

[no date]

Copy of Campbell’s response, stating that constitutionally he could answer only

to the Assembly of the Colony, not to another “extraordinary” body; stating that

he had not yet been in South Carolina long enough to understand all the issues

and disputes, so he could not respond to the request of the Provincial Congress

to know his positions as Governor on these issues and disputes

[both enclosed with Campbell’s July 2, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 108]

110. [no date] [157]

List of “Members of the Council of Safety” [extralegal body with executive

powers, analogous to the legislative powers of the Provincial Congress, in South

Carolina’s “rebel” shadow government; formerly the Committee of Safety; see

note after Reel 2 document 218], including as members, Henry Laurens,

President of the Council, four delegates to the Continental Congress, and 12

other individuals, of whom 10 were identified to be also members of the South

Carolina Assembly [enclosed with Campbell’s July 2, 1775 letter to Dartmouth,

document 108]

111. June [?], 1775 [159]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette for 1775,

with news and commentary plus public documents of the Provincial Congress

[Frame 159 microfilmed twice] [enclosed with Campbell’s July 2, 1775 letter to

Dartmouth, document 108]

112. [no date] [160]

Printed list of members of the Provincial Congress held on January 11, 1775

[and, handwritten in, January 1, 1775] at Charleston, including 183 member

names arranged by the Parish each group of members represented, [with

handwritten notations of 39 who were also members of the Assembly] [enclosed

with Campbell’s July 2, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 108]

113. July 2, 1775 [162]

Note written by Jervais Henry Stevens [deputy postmaster at Charleston] stating

that at 8 o’clock in the evening William Henry Drayton, Thomas Corbett, and

John Neufville had come to the Post Office and demanded entry, threatening to

tear down the door if their order was not complied with. After entering, they had

“taken away with them 26 Packets directed on Government Service to L

Gov

[William] Bull [II of South Carolina] Gov

[Patrick] Tonyn [of East Florida] Gov

[Josiah] Martin [of North Carolina] Sir James Wright [Governor of Georgia] & L

Gov

[John] Moultrie [of East Florida]”

114. June 9 to 16, 1775 [166]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette, with news

and commentary of the week; followed by

390

June 16 to 23, 1775

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette, with news

and commentary of the week

115. July 19, 1775 [168]

Copy of letter No. 2 from Campbell at Charleston to Dartmouth, reporting at

length on the situation he found when upon arriving in South Carolina; reporting

on the Post Office incident [see document 113] stating that William Bull II and

other officials in the colonial government were still not complying with the

expectation of visiting and communicating with the new Governor; reporting that

[William] Wragg, a real gentleman, had declined to accept appointment as Chief

Justice of South Carolina; commenting on the bad situation also in Georgia;

reporting that reliable communications were difficult and that correspondence

was easily intercepted and stolen by rebels [letter not signed but initialed, with

handwritten note that original letter had been mislaid] [with enclosures,

documents 116 to 124]

116. July 18, 1775 [172]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina Gazette and Country Journal, with news

and commentary of the day [enclosed with Campbell’s July 19, 1775 letter to

Dartmouth, document 115]

117. July 10, 11, 1775 [174]

Copies of two circular letters with separate dates from the [Provincial Congress’]

“Committee of Intelligence, to the COMMITTEES in the several Districts and

Parishes of South-Carolina”, including news with various dates about rebellious

activities [enclosed with Campbell’s July 19, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document

115]

118. June 23 to 30, 1775 [175]

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette, containing

news and commentary of the day; followed by

July 7 to 14, 1775

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette, containing

news and commentary of the week [both enclosed with Campbell’s July 19,

1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 115]

119. July 17, 1775 [180]

Copy of sworn statement by Jervais Henry Stevens, Deputy Postmaster at

Charleston, before Chief Justice Thomas Knox Gordon concerning the incident at

the Post Office on July 2, 1775 [see Stevens’ own note, document 113]

[enclosed with Campbell’s July 19, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 115]

391

120. July 12, 1775 [181]

Copy of sworn statement by George Roupell, Deputy Postmaster General for the

Southern District of North America, before Chief Justice Thomas Knox Gordon,

concerning safety of the mails in general and the incident at the Post Office on

July 2, 1775 in particular [see Stevens’ own note, document 113] [enclosed with

Campbell’s July 19, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 115]

121. July 19, 1775 [183]

Statement made to Governor Campbell about incident of stolen mail on July 11,

1775, during which four selected letters were opened, signed by George Roupell

[Frame 183 microfilmed twice] [enclosed with Campbell’s July 19, 1775 letter to

Dartmouth, document 115]

122. [no date] [185]

Petition to Governor Campbell from Joel Moseley Sr., convicted of murder, but

having had his sentence delayed by Lieutenant Governor Bull; seeking an

extension of this delay beyond the current deadline of the third Wednesday in

July, hoping for clemency because he did not mean to kill the person [enclosed

with Campbell’s July 19, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 115]

123. July 12, 1775 [187]

Printed edition of the Georgia Gazette, with news and commentary from Georgia

[enclosed with Campbell’s July 19, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 115]

124. July 12, 1775 [189]

Extract from journal of Commons House of South Carolina Assembly, authorizing

the issue of money to pay for troops needed to secure the colony from safety

dangers from both slave insurrections and Indian violence [enclosed with

Campbell’s July 19, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 115]

125. July 23, 1775 [191]

Letter No. 3 from Campbell to Dartmouth, informing Dartmouth that “the

[General] Committee” [of the Provincial Assembly] had been summoning officials

working for the colonial government to appear for interrogation by the Committee,

partly seeking to force them to sign “the association” [supporting the shadow

government over the colonial government]; Campbell stating his displeasure over

all this and his determination to re-establish British colonial authority;

commenting that “It is hardly possible to conceive a situation more irksome than

mine is at present, scarce a shadow of authority left, but I am resolved to keep

my ground as long as possible” [with enclosures, documents 126 to 128]

392

126. July 20, 1775 [193]

Copy of printed form of the Provincial Congress, concerning those who had

refused to sign the “Association entered into by the Congress”, who were being

summoned “to appear before the General Committee, to give reasons in

Justification of their refusal”; this form having been completed in handwriting,

addressed to “Captain Alexander Innes”; followed by

[no date]

“Capt Innes’s Answer, to the Committee”, stating that he would not have

expected to have to respond to such a summons if it had properly been delivered

through the Governor; however expressing his willingness to respond in any

case, as follows: “I could not sign the Association consistently with that

Allegiance I owe my King or that Duty I owe my Country”

[both enclosed with Campbell’s July 23, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 125]

127. July 21, 1775 [196]

Copy of letter from Commons House to Governor Campbell, informing him that,

with the current situation in the American colonies, it would be fruitless for

Commons House to stay in session and expect it to be able to accomplish

anything of benefit to its constituents; requesting therefore that the House be

adjourned until November 1, 1775 [enclosed with Campbell’s July 23, 1775 letter

to Dartmouth, document 125]

128. July 24, 1775 [198]

Copy of Campbell’s response to Commons House, stating that, considering the

“alarming, & distress

situation” in the American Colonies, “I cannot consistently

with my duty deprive myself of your assistance at so dangerous, & critical a

juncture”; therefore refusing to grant Commons House’s request to adjourn until

November; pointing out that he had made several years of South Carolina

accounts available the House, hoping they would serve their constituents by

crafting a constitutional policy for the public debt for South Carolina; not doubting

that Commons House would always be willing to postpone private affairs to the

needs of the public, their constituents [enclosed with Campbell’s July 23, 1775

letter to Dartmouth, document 125]

129. July 20, 1775 [200]

Letter from Alexander Innes at Charleston to Dartmouth, enclosing duplicate of a

previous letter; informing him that Innes’ “situation in the present state of this

Province is very particular, & not a little distressing”; hoping that he would

continue to be capable of performing his service well for Dartmouth

130. July 30, 1778 [note “should be 1775 (see No. 5.)”] [202]

Copy [note “original mislaid”] of Letter No. 4 from Campbell at Charleston to

Dartmouth, reporting on a new proposal approved by the Council of Safety to

fortify Charleston and Charlestonians from the armory; commenting further on

the situation in South Carolina

393

131. August 19, 1775 [204]

Copy [note: “original mislaid”] of Letter No. 5 from Campbell at Charleston to

Dartmouth, worrying that he had received no assistance from General Gage or

the Admiral, and that he had not been able to raise as many troops as he had

heard were assembling in the cause of rebellion in the northern colonies; stating

that North Carolina and Georgia were “equally neglected, equally abandoned”

with South Carolina; reporting with displeasure the hanging and burning of a well-

to-do free Negro on suspicion that he had instigated a slave rebellion; expressing

distress that the conflict was rapidly moving toward more violence, as with a

recent tar-and-feathering of a man for expressing loyalty to the Crown; feeling

bad that he and his government were no longer able to protect those loyal to the

King in South Carolina; among these loyalists being Quakers and those

sympathetic to Quakers living in the back country, whom he could not protect;

reporting other instances of what was happening to the royal colony, including

capture by a “rebel” vessel of a large quantity of gunpowder from a British vessel;

reporting that the other side was actively arming and recruiting troops, while he

could not do so [with possible enclosure, perhaps the first item in document 132]

132. June 4, 1775 [208]

Statement of Association, subscribed to by members of the South Carolina

Congress, identifying injustices by the British which justify “resisting Force by

Force”, as well as supporting the Continental and Provincial Congresses,

including an “Obligation to continue in full Force until a Reconciliation shall take

place between Great Britain & America upon Constitutional Principles”;

Subscribed by all members [of apparently the South Carolina Provincial

Congress and Council of Safety] and certified by Henry Laurens, President [of

the Council] [apparently enclosed with Campbell’s August 19, 1775 letter to

Dartmouth, document 131]; followed by

“At sea, on board the Eagle Packet 15 Sept. 1775”

Statement, signed by George Milligan, Surgeon to the garrison of British forces in

South Carolina, of his personal opposition to the principles of the Statement of

Association; stating that the Congress had about 170 members; that its principles

were not based on monarchy but on republicanism and therefore were opposed

to the British government and its colonial governments; describing in detail the

unconstitutional nature of the Congress governments in the colonies and the

rebellious actions of those loyal to these governments;

including text of a statement he had made to the [General] Committee, stating

that he had received a form to sign supporting the Association, which he refused

to sign; providing justification; stating he had subsequently been told by a

member of the Committee “that these reasons gave great offence, but this I

disregarded”;

394

describing with details how later, he was surrounded by a hostile crowd in the

streets and “abused,” having to carry his wife in his arms through the “mob” to his

house; describing how, later, a small delegation led by [President of the

Provincial Congress, Charles] Pinckney came from the Statehouse to Milligan’s

home, urging him to sign an oath that he would not, by deed or word, “attempt to

Counteract or oppose the proceedings of the People in North America and

particularly in this Province”, which he refused to do;

describing how, having already “taken leave of my Wife and Family”, he

immediately escaped from his home and sailed from Charleston on the Packet

Eagle [chronologically, this statement could not have been enclosed with

Campbell’s August 19, 1775 letter; how it reached the Secretary of State office is

not clear]

[Note: This statement is as intriguing for what it does say as for what it does not

say. As Surgeon of British forces in South Carolina, Milligan had been a

recognized leader in the colony’s governing inner circle. Why he, among

prominent loyalists who were at this time receiving similarly violent treatment,

decided to write such a full and direct statement of his political beliefs, the

treatment he received from the rebel “mob,” and his escape with his wife and

family is not clear. Nor is it clear why his particular statement was received and

archived in the Secretary of State office. Other documents reveal that Governor

Campbell suffered much less, and did not escape to England but only to the

(relative) safety of a British warship in Charleston harbor.]

133. October 4, 1775 [217]

Draft [outgoing, unnumbered] letter from [Undersecretary of State] John Pownall

at Whitehall, in the absence of Dartmouth, to Campbell, commending him on his

conduct, that, “in a very difficult & dangerous situation, has given great

Satisfaction”, with details about the government’s determination to “repel Force

by Force” and about the military plans already made to put down the rebellion;

with hopes that the planned military action would include a “Diversion to the

Southward” during the winter

[Note: This outgoing draft letter was addressed by Pownall to Campbell

apparently in Charleston, so the commendation assumed Campbell was still

actively ruling over a colonial government of South Carolina, when that

government had actually collapsed over two weeks before. Nevertheless, the

general assumption at this early time, on the British side, appears to have been

optimism that the rebellion could be broken fairly quickly, if enough British military

might were committed to the effort.]

395

134. November 7, 1775 [221]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 19 from Dartmouth at Whitehall to Campbell, informing

Campbell of British commitments of armed forces to the southern colonies, with

details on strategy for the campaign; giving Governor Campbell his own tasks, to

send “Emissaries among the Inhabitants of the well disposed Counties, with

authority and commission to the principal persons of trust & confidence, for

raising and embodying as many men as can be procured, & informing them of

His Majesty’s Intentions of supplying them with Arms, & giving them the same

pay as the Regular Troops as soon as they come down, which they should be

encouraged to do, as soon as they hear of the arrival of the Troops upon the

Coast”; itemizing a few limitations on the American recruits, mostly related to quit

rents

[Note: Where Dartmouth thought Campbell would receive this draft of an

outgoing letter is not clear. Clearly, however, he was writing to Campbell as

Governor of South Carolina, who could play an active role in rallying the loyalist

population within what was still a British colony.]

135. August 31, 1775 [225]

Letter No. 6 from Campbell at Charleston to Dartmouth, describing “diabolical”

activities by the rebellious South Carolinians, especially the leaders and press,

which had stirred up the people and spread misinformation; recounting many

rumors and much second hand information, including threats of slave

insurrections and attacks from Indians, with details of specific instances;

describing also the “poignancy of my agony, & distress” in these situations [with

enclosures, documents 136 to 139]

136. August 17, 1775 [231]

“Report of the Judges and Attorney General on the case of Jerry a Free Negroe,

now under Sentence of Death in an Attempt to raise an Insurrection”, stating their

collective legal opinion (with one dissension) that, given the facts of the situation,

those who sentenced this free Negro to death did so illegally; signed by Thomas

Knox Gordon, Edward Savage, William Gregory, and James Simpson [enclosed

with Campbell’s August 31, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 135]

137. [no date] [233]

Statement of a differing opinion on the case of Jerry, a free Negro, concerning

questionable testimony by Justice of the Peace John Coram, signed by Justice

Charles Matthew Coslett [enclosed with Campbell’s August 31, 1775 letter to

Dartmouth, document 135]

138. August 19, 1775 [235]

Letter from Justice John Fewtrell, suggesting that the process used to review the

case of Jerry, a free Negro, was faulty. Instead of review by justices, the matter

should have been sent back to the court of the first trial for a more democratic

resolution [enclosed with Campbell’s August 31, 1775 letter to Dartmouth,

document 135]

396

139. June 16, 1775 [237]

Sworn statement by Justice of the Peace John Coram in case of Jerry a free

Negro; followed by

Statement of what “Sambo” said was said by Jerry, which could be interpreted as

predicting a slave insurrection [enclosed with Campbell’s August 31, 1775 letter

to Dartmouth, document 135]

140. September 1, 1775 [239]

Copy of a declaration from loyal inhabitants of South Carolina [all colonial

government officers, mostly judges] to Governor Campbell, stating their view of

the current situation, that the “popular committee” had become “violently agitated

and [against] which the executive power of Government have been altogether

impotent”, and reporting on actions by the General Committee against them

which have threatened their loyalty to Britain, including: reporting on the

Congress’s effort, approved by a resolution dated June 4, 1775, and quoted in

full, to require colonial government officials, among others, to sign the

“Association” document of allegiance to the new South Carolina “government” of

Provincial Congress and Council of Safety; reporting that, when these South

Carolinians had refused to sign, they received a written summons dated July 10,

1775, also quoted, to appear before the General Committee; reporting that they

and other “crown officers”, abiding by the summons on July 22, were requested

to sign or to explain their reasons for refusing to sign, the latter of which they did;

reporting that, on August 11 and 12, they were visited by members of the

General Committee, read an oath of allegiance to the new “government”, also

quoted, and were subsequently repeatedly asked to sign it, but all refused;

quoting also the August 23 order of the General Committee to seek signatures on

this oath; expressing their collective opinions that this effort had disrupted their

lives and threatened their loyalty, but that they had remained steadfast in their

allegiance to Britain; signed by Thomas Knox Gordon, Edward Savage, Charles

Matthews Coslett, John Fewtrell, William Gregory, James Simpson, and James

Trail [a similar original declaration is found in document 142]

141. September 19, 1775 [241]

Letter No. 7 from Governor Campbell, “On Board His Maj

Ship Tamar in

Rebellion Road” [a protected docking area in the narrows of Wappoo Creek, a

tidal estuary running between the Ashley and Stono Rivers west of the City of

Charleston, above Charleston harbor], to Dartmouth, stating that he had

remained in Charleston as long as physically safe and then had retired to the

protection of this British navy ship; reporting ongoing violence by the rebels and

defiance that it must be subdued by “the most spirited, & vigorous measures”;

reporting that [William] Wragg had been treated “with greater inhumanity, by

banishing him in this sickly season to his Plantation, cutting him off from all

society with his family & friends, & to add to his distress he left Mr

Wragge big

with Child”; reporting on efforts by other loyalists in the colonial government to

resist being forced to disarm, to lose their homes, and other actions by the

rebels;

397

reporting that [Alexander] Innes had been forced to leave South Carolina on

short notice; reporting on other actions and occurrences in detail; stating that he

was having to spend time and money on personal matters, under these

circumstances, which he would pay for himself, including portions of his salary;

adding a last minute statement, that the captain of the ship he was on had been

ordered to discontinue provisioning the ship; adding again, pointing out that the

packets were unarmed and defenseless in this situation, so delivery of the mail

was in jeopardy, and reporting that both Fort Johnson and Fort Charlotte were in

rebel hands [with enclosures, documents 142 to 144]

[Note: William Wragg (1714-1777) was an attorney, politician, and plantation

owner, who served in public offices off and on from the 1750s. Although not

always appreciated and once suspended from the Council, when the Revolution

came, he remained a loyalist—and paid a heavy price, as described in this letter.

See also Reel 1 documents 13, 31, 36, Reel 2 document 186, Reel 6 document

41, and Reel 7 document 115. Two years after his humiliation in South Carolina,

he died at sea at the age of 63.]

[Note: Alexander Innes had come to South Carolina in May 1775 ostensibly to

be Campbell’s secretary but secretly also to provide intelligence to Dartmouth on

the situation in South Carolina. Only two months later, in July 1775, when he

was caught in the General Committee’s dragnet requiring colonial government

officials to sign an oath to the “Association” of rebels, Innes staunchly defended

his loyalty to the British Crown—and paid a price by being forced out of South

Carolina on short notice, as recognized by Campbell in this letter. However,

unrecorded in this correspondence, When Campbell was forced to seek

protection on a British Navy vessel, he took Innes with him to continue acting as

his secretary. See also documents 103, 108, 126, and 129.]

142. September 1, 1775 [245]

Declaration from loyal inhabitants of South Carolina [and colonial government

officers, mostly judges] to Governor Campbell [the same or similar statement as

in document 140 (which see for details), signed—here with original signatures—

by the same seven individuals] [enclosed with Campbell’s September 19, 1775

letter to Dartmouth, document 140]

143. September 4, 1775 [249]

Copy of letter from Campbell to the loyalist colonial officers [mostly judges] who

had sent him a declaration of their loyalty [document 140 and document 142],

expressing his approbation of their conduct and stating that he would forward

their statement to the King; stating that it is in these kinds of situations that one

discovers one’s true friends; expressing hope that after government had perhaps

been destroyed, it would reemerge, and then, “I trust we shall soon see happier

days, when you Gentlemen will be enabled to resume, & execute your offices

with proper deputy, & then this unhappy Province will be deliver

from the most

unbelievable of all Tyrannies, that of a Lawless, & Vindictive Mob, led by artful,

wicked, & Designing men” [enclosed with Campbell’s September 19, 1775 letter

to Dartmouth, document 141]

398

144. August 14, 1775 [251]

Extract of journal of South Carolina Council meeting, containing a statement of

the Governor’s sorrow and apprehension concerning the menacing rebellion

underway and the increasing personal danger to government officials and their

families; stating that only action by Commons House could avert this rebellion

and this danger; proposing that he send a message seeking to persuade

Commons House to take action to curtail the rebellion; followed by

September 2, 1775

Extract of journal of South Carolina Council meeting, containing information from

the Governor that a group of judges had informed him of threats to their loyalty

and of their having remained steadfast in their loyalty and that [William] Wragg

had been treated more harshly; reporting that the judges were thinking of

shutting down their offices, thus leaving the colony without a legal system, an

idea that might be broadened to the remaining colonial government; the Council

advising that this proposed action deserved time “to reflect and deliberate” before

acting; followed by:

September 4, 1775

Extract of journal of South Carolina Council meeting, with Campbell informing the

Council of how Alexander Innes had been treated by the General Committee;

Council members responding to the idea of intentionally shutting down the

colonial government, with one Council member supporting a shut-down because

continuing it in this situation was itself a travesty of British royal authority, and

four Council members opposing this approach as premature; followed by

September 15, 1775

Extract of journal of South Carolina Council meeting, in which Campbell

described having been met the previous day [September 14] by officials of the

Central Committee, including Charles Pinckney, who asked about whether troops

were being sent to South Carolina to put down a rebellion; to which Campbell

had responded that he had indeed heard that, and that he had come to the

conclusion that no other alternative remained to put down the violent rebellion

already underway; describing how, following that encounter, he had decided he

must seek protection on a British man-of-war and remain there “until some Event

should happen which might render it expedient for him to return again to Charles

Town” [Campbell did not take these Council members or other government

officials with him when he escaped to the HMS Tamar; apparently his sole

companions in this exile were his wife and family and his secretary Alexander

Innes; initially at least, he may have hoped that the rebellion would be put down

quickly and he would be able to return to ruling colonial South Carolina]

[all enclosed with Campbell’s September 19, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document

141]

399

145. October 19, 1775 [253]

Letter No. 8 from Campbell on board the armed ship Cherokee in Rebellion Road

[Charleston] to Dartmouth, explaining that he had moved from the Tamar to the

Cherokee because the latter was “more commodious & roomy vessel”; stating

that rebel plans to fortify Charleston against the King’s navy were “madness” and

that the more “respectable” inhabitants were protesting; sharing other information

he had received of the situation in Charleston; stating that rebel efforts to enlist

the Catawba Indians to fight against the British led to no more than the Catawbas

declaring their neutrality; including other related information [with enclosures,

documents 146, 147]

146. September 27, 1775 [257]

Printed edition of The Georgia Gazette, with news of the colonial government

and the rebel movement in Georgia; followed by

September 29 to October 6, 1775

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette, with news

and commentary on events in Charleston [both enclosed with Campbell’s

October 19, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document 145]

147. [no date] [261]

Note in Campbell’s handwriting about arrival at Charleston of a Spanish ship in

distress on September 26, 1775, after having been damaged in a storm; with

related information [enclosed with Campbell’s October 19, 1775 letter to

Dartmouth, document 145]

148. October 22, 1775 [263]

Letter No. 9 from Campbell, on board the Cherokee at Rebellion Road

[Charleston], to Dartmouth, offering additional intelligence of rebel efforts to arm

and fortify areas around Charleston in South Carolina [with enclosures,

documents 149, 150]

149. October 18, 1775 [265]

Copy of report by Thomas Brown to Governor Campbell, informing Campbell

about loyalist organizing and arming on the frontier to confront rebels that were

doing the same [enclosed with Campbell’s October 22, 1775 letter to Dartmouth,

document 148]

[Note: Thomas Brown’s Report provides much detailed information at a

moment in time, with little context. It gives a glimpse into what appears to have

been “the only game in the colony,” a contest on the South Carolina frontier when

Charleston and the low country were more quiet and under rebel control. See

the note below for more information to help clarify the contents of the report.

Governor Campbell must have welcomed Brown’s report and the loyalist action

on which it reported, since it proved that “his” colony was not completely

moribund and rebel-controlled.]

400

[Note: Campbell appears to have been indirectly involved in these matters, thus

effectively redefining the responsibilities of a colonial governor—one

without a colony. Of course, neither he nor British policy conceded at the time

that South Carolina was no longer a British colony with a colonial government

(although the truth of this is evident with the benefit of hindsight). So, unable to

govern, Governor Campbell assumed a new responsibility—to do all he could to

aid and abet loyalist efforts in South Carolina, as well as the adjacent southern

colonies of Georgia and North Carolina, with the goal of helping to defeat the

rebellious insurgency and return his and the other colonies to tranquil, obedient

status as loyal royal colonies of the British Empire.

Toward this end, Campbell had to work cooperatively with others—in particular

the governors of North Carolina (Josiah Martin), Georgia (James Wright), and

East Florida (Patrick Tonyn), as well as military leaders in the British armed

forces stationed along the southern Atlantic coast and in command of North

American operations.

Documents 152 to 171 in the remainder of this Reel provide bits of information

about Campbell’s efforts to work with the following between late 1775 and early

1777: North Carolina Governor Josiah Martin; British Navy Captain Edward

Thornburgh; British Army General Thomas Gage; British Navy Vice Admiral

Samuel Graves, British Navy Captain Tobias Furneaux, and British Army

General William Howe. Working with these leaders was always difficult, and

Campbell’s efforts were often thwarted. By fall 1776, he had been transported to

New York (see below for details), where he sought assistance and recognition of

his authority as governor, with a duty to his colony and the King, to help defeat

the rebellion. Making contacts and influencing events was a difficult task for a

governor forced to live on board an armed vessel and having to beg the British

Navy for transport.]

[Note: British invasion and Georgia/South Carolina frontier conflict

between loyalists and rebels in 1775-1776: Before getting to New York, in

August 1776, he had been present for the first British military effort to recapture

Charleston. The anticipated British fleet had arrived off of Charleston in early

June 1776. It consisted of 20 warships commanded by Admiral Peter Parker,

carrying about 2,500 soldiers commanded by General Henry Clinton. A battle

was fought on June 28, 1776. Superior numbers of British invaders were turned

back by rebel defenders under the command of General Charles Lee. Lee

sought to follow up his advantage with a rebel invasion of East Florida. This

failed, partly because of Brown’s intelligent use of his Florida Rangers and the

Creek Indian threat. Campbell, on deck on Admiral Parker’s flagship HMS Bristol

during the battle, sustained a significant wound from a flying splinter of timber.

Following the battle, Campbell was taken, on the Bristol, to New York, both to

recover from his wound and to try to influence the top British military officials to

organize a second, larger southern campaign. He was not successful with the

military leaders, nor did his wound heal well, and sometime in 1777 he returned

to England, never to return. In September 1778, his unhealed wound led to his

early death at the age of 48.

401

Meanwhile, Thomas Brown, Campbell’s key contact for influencing frontier

loyalist effort, was making his own way as a creative and active frontier loyalist

leader. He combined an adventurous bent, affinity for the Creek Indians, passion

for the British Crown, willingness to fight for his principles, ability to energize and

organize men to work and fight, and a penchant to live on the edge of trouble, all

mixed into one complex character.

Brown had emigrated as a young man from England in 1774, with the goal of

becoming a “country gentleman.” Settling in the Georgia/South Carolina frontier,

near Augusta, Georgia by early 1775, he was actively involved in recruiting and

organizing loyalists into militia-like Ranger troops to oppose similar militia troops

being organized by rebels under the leadership of South Carolinians Rev. William

Tennant and William Henry Drayton, along with Colonel Thomas Fletchall.

Fellow leaders with Brown on the loyalist side were Captain Robert Cunningham

and Moses Kirkland.

Brown was abruptly initiated into the violent culture of the frontier, leavened by

the boiling-over passions of the loyalist-rebel conflict, by being tarred and

feathered by a mob at New Richmond, South Carolina when he refused to sign

the loyalty oath to the new provincial government [New Richmond was a small

settlement about 30 miles upstream from Augusta on the Savannah River; the

site is now under the dammed-up river. This experience instantly radicalized

Brown toward the greater glory of Loyalism to the British Crown.

The motley forces of Loyalism and Rebellion confronted each other in August

1775 near Ninety-Six, South Carolina (located west of present-day Columbia,

South Carolina; calculated [inaccurately], when settled as a fort and way station

on the so-called Cherokee Trail running from Charleston to the Lower Cherokee

Villages, to be 96 miles from the main Cherokee village named Keowee). The

confrontation occurred at Ninety-Six because Kirkland was already there with an

encampment of loyalist militiamen. Each side had sought to recruit an Indian

Nation to fight on its side, but the Indians resisted commitments. Nevertheless,

when treaties were negotiated, they were at the table. After apparently minimal

fighting, William Henry Drayton (former leader in colonial South Carolina’s

government and member of one of the colony’s most powerful and wealthy

families), negotiated a pro-rebel treaty, which did not please anyone. A second

treaty was negotiated on November 22, 1775, this one dictated by loyalist

Cunningham. Neither treaty was observed much in practice. Soon after this

inconclusive affair, both Cunningham and Kirkland were imprisoned by the rebels

(and Cunningham soon changed sides, joining the rebellion), leaving Brown

alone but vulnerable.

Early in 1776, Brown was invited to St. Augustine, capital of the much safer,

solidly loyalist British colony of East Florida, where he met Patrick Tonyn,

Governor of East Florida and John Stuart, Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the

Southern British colonies. Tonyn and Stuart were interested in plans Brown was

developing for military action by British troops supported by loyalist rangers

(militia) on the frontier. They persuaded Secretary of State Lord George

Germain and British General Henry Clinton to support the plan, incorporating it

into their own plans for an invasion of the southern colonies.

402

Brown strengthened his roles as commander of the Rangers and author of the

invasion plans, by applying his knowledge of the territory around Augusta and his

understanding of how to work successfully with the Creek Indians (he had

married an Indian wife and lived with the Creek Nation some of the time).

Governor Tonyn, urged on by Campbell, lent his support by giving Brown,

commissioned as a Lieutenant Colonel commanding the East Florida Militia, the

opportunity to mold this body of citizen-soldiers into a well-trained military unit

called the Florida Rangers. The Rangers went on, under their commander

Thomas Brown, to perform well in 1777-1778 defending East Florida successfully

from weak rebel invasions from Georgia and in 1778-1779, alongside British

troops, in British invasions from East Florida into Georgia, during which

Savannah was captured for the duration of the war, and Augusta was captured

twice but only briefly before being lost again.

Brown stayed in East Florida, both because it was safer territory and because he

had been given responsibility and authority to contribute toward the loyalist

cause. Besides being commander of the Florida Rangers, in 1779, following

John Stuart’s death, he also became British Superintendent of Indian Affairs for

the southern colonies. Brown performed effectively in both positions and

retained both until the end of British rule in June 1784. Thereafter, he remained

in St. Augustine, assisting with the orderly evacuation of British inhabitants from

East Florida, finally leaving East Florida with Governor Tonyn and a few other

remaining British officials in August 1785, when the evacuation was completed

and both British Florida colonies were returned to Spanish occupation and rule.

(Reference: Edward T. Cashin, The King’s Ranger: Thomas Brown and the

American Revolution on the Southern Frontier. Fordham University Press, 1999;

previously published by University of Georgia Press, 1989.)]

150. [various dates] [270]

October 6 to 13, 1775

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette, with news

and commentary on the rebellion; followed by

October 13 to 16, 1775 [272]

Printed edition of A General Gazette Extraordinary with information about the

South Carolina Provincial Congress and Council of Safety [Frame 272

microfilmed twice] followed by

October 16 to 20, 1775

Printed edition of The South-Carolina General and American Gazette, with news

and commentary on the rebellion

[all enclosed with Campbell’s October 22, 1775 letter to Dartmouth, document

148]

403

151. December 23, 1775 [275]

Draft [outgoing] Letter No. 1 from George Germain at Whitehall to Campbell,

informing him that the expedition for a southern campaign to put down the

rebellion in America was almost ready to sail; wishing to make sure that

Campbell was making all possible preparations to support this campaign in South

Carolina; commending Campbell on providing valuable information about

Spanish shipping and of preparations for armed conflict by both sides in South

Carolina; expressing sensitivity to the distress Campbell had and was still

experiencing as he sought to do his duty as Governor

[Note: Lord George Germain, 1

Viscount Sackville (1716-1785) replaced the

Earl of Dartmouth as Secretary of State for the Colonies on November 10, 1775.

He served during the wartime Lord North administration, until February 1782.]

152. January 1, 1776 [277]

Letter No. 10 from Campbell, on board the Cherokee at Rebellion Road

[Charleston], to Dartmouth, expressing disappointment that no military assistance

had come to South Carolina’s aid, and now it seemed to be too late; saying that

he would have to abandon Charleston harbor [because he and the British Navy

could not stay there indefinitely; reporting that the rebels had made some

progress toward fortifying the city and harbor, although the two British ships

[Tamar and Cherokee] had come close enough to cannonade some of the work,

causing some damage; describing actions he was taking to try to get the Navy

ships to act more aggressively, but Captain [Edward] Thornburgh of the small

British fleet that included the Cherokee, hinting that the Navy might be moving

out of Charleston harbor; reporting on activities among mobilized loyalists on the

frontier, including capture of a substantial amount of rebel powder and

ammunition; reporting that Governor [Josiah Martin] of North Carolina had

arrived, also living on a Navy ship; expressing displeasure that Thornburgh

allowed several ships at Charleston to leave for Cape Fear, feeling that the

British forces should have been consolidated at Charleston harbor rather than

scattered; Martin and Campbell now on board the HMS Scorpion, still in

Charleston harbor; reporting that “a set of Ruffians beset my house in

Charlestown”, which was later occupied by the rebels; meanwhile, Campbell’s

wife and children, who had been living with him, were secreted away to another

Navy ship at Cape Fear; describing bad news he had heard about a Rebel-

Loyalist armed conflict near Ninety-Six, about involvement with the Creek and

Cherokee Indians, and about a Rebel-Loyalist treaty that had gone bad [see note

after document 149] [with enclosures, documents 153 to 159]

[Note: Lord George Germain replaced the Earl of Dartmouth as Secretary of

State for the Colonies on November 10, 1775. On the date of this letter,

Campbell hadn’t written to Dartmouth since October 22, 1775, when Dartmouth

was still in office. When Campbell did learn that Germain was the new Secretary

of State is not evident because of gaps between letters. Letter No. 11, dated

January 1, 1776 (document 160), was sent to Dartmouth. Letter No. 12, dated

July 8, 1776 (document 166), was sent to Germain.

404

Probably because of the turmoil connected with the rebellion, Germain did not

write frequently to Campbell either. Dates of his letters No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3

were December 23, 1775, June 14, 1776, and January 14, 1777 respectively.]

153. August 9, 1775 [282]

Copy of letter from General Thomas Gage at Boston to Campbell, offering a

pessimistic prediction of the future, including a long, bloody war, and, before it

was over, the “not unlikely” outcome that “some of the maritime Powers may

have possession of some of the Provinces” and stating in closing that “I wish

your Lordship may not at length fall a prey to the negroes”, and offering no

assistance to South Carolina [enclosed with Campbell’s January 1, 1776 letter to

Dartmouth, document 152]

[Note: General Thomas Gage (1718-1787) served in the British Army as

commander in chief in North America from 1763 to 1775. In the latter year, fully

engaged against the rebels in Boston with a large British army, he was held

responsible for not decisively winning the first armed conflicts of what became

the Revolutionary War—the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord in April and

then the bloody battle at Bunker Hill on June 17. By October 10, 1775, Gage had

been replaced by General William Howe. On General William Howe and his

brother Admiral Richard Howe, see note after document 157]

154. September 20, 1775 [283]

Copy of letter from Campbell on the Tamar at Rebellion Road [Charleston], to

Gage, expressing the unfulfilled hope that Gage’s command “would have

permitted some little attention to have been paid to his Southern Provinces”;

stating that this letter was being delivered by [Moses] Kirkland, a loyalist who had

plans for local loyalist action aimed at re-establishing British authority [enclosed

with Campbell’s January 1, 1776 letter to Dartmouth, document 152]

155. July 1, 1775 [284]

Letter from Campbell at Charleston harbor to Gage, announcing his arrival as

Governor of South Carolina; describing the dangerous situation in the colony;

making a case that South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina all were in

immediate need of military assistance to counter the violence of the rebels;

suggesting what military aid might be most useful [enclosed with Campbell’s

January 1, 1776 letter to Dartmouth, document 152]

156. July 1, 1775 [286]

Copy of letter from Campbell at Charleston harbor to Vice Admiral Samuel

Graves at Boston, announcing his arrival as Governor of South Carolina; stating

that he had written to Gage seeking military assistance for Georgia and North

Carolina as well as South Carolina; seeking naval assistance [enclosed with

Campbell’s January 1, 1776 letter to Dartmouth, document 152]

405

157. August 22, 1775 [287]

Letter from Graves [on board HMS] Preston at Boston, responding to Campbell’s

situation with sympathy but no assistance; stating that his orders would not allow

him to send any ships to the southern colonies, and that he was having to move

the Tamar northward; offering no hope of any assistance any time soon

[enclosed with Campbell’s January 1, 1776 letter to Dartmouth, document 152]

[Note: Vice Admiral Samuel Graves (1713-1787) held the North American

command of the British Navy from July 1774 until January 27, 1776, when he

was replaced by Vice Admiral Richard Howe, brother of General William

Howe, who had replaced General Thomas Gage as Commander in Chief of

British forces in North America in October 1775. The Howe brothers

commanded the land and sea war in the American colonies until mid-1778, when

William was replaced by General Henry Clinton, and Richard left his command

because of perceived lack of support from Prime Minister Lord North.]

[Note: Between the writing of document 157 and 158, the colonial government of

South Carolina was overwhelmed by rebel protest and violence, collapsed on

September 15, 1775, and was never resurrected.

The chronological remainder of this microfilmed Secretary of State incoming

correspondence for South Carolina (from Reel 7 document 158 through Reel 8

document 205) is actually post-colonial in content. Put another way, this

correspondence is transitional, as South Carolina began making the

considerable leap from being a British colony to being a State in the United

States of America. See Introduction and note at beginning of Reel 8 for a

summary of these content changes.]

158. December 1, 1775 [289]

Copy of letter from Campbell, on board the Cherokee in Rebellion Road

[Charleston], to Josiah Martin, Governor of North Carolina, expressing pleasure

at having met Martin, who had come by ship to Charleston harbor, where

Campbell was residing on board another ship; expressing the hope of working

with Martin in their mutual effort to serve the King and to suppress the rebellion;

followed by

December 1, 1775

Copy of letter from Martin, on board the sloop of war Scorpion at Rebellion Road

[Charleston] to Campbell, stating that he had been happy to have the opportunity

to leave his former on-board accommodation [having also been forced to leave

his home for protection on a British Navy vessel] which was neither pleasant or

safe, to reside in the Scorpion and to be transferred to Charleston [so that the

Tamar could be transferred northward]; expressing pleasure that, as a result, he

would be able to share location and duties with Campbell; agreeing that a “fatal

contagion” of rebellion had spread throughout the colonies and specifically in

both North Carolina and South Carolina; declaring his zeal for re-establishing

British control and obedience in both colonies;

406

stating, however, his feeling that he could not serve the King’s wishes by

remaining on the Scorpion at Charleston, and his having requested that Captain

Thornburgh make necessary repairs to the Scorpion as soon as possible, and

then that Martin be transported back to North Carolina, where he needs to be on

duty [both enclosed with Campbell’s January 1, 1776 letter to Dartmouth,

document 152]

159. December 3, 1775 [293]

Copy of letter from Campbell on board the Cherokee to Captain Thornburgh,

suggesting that if the Scorpion leaves again for Cape Fear, Charleston harbor

would once again be dangerously vulnerable for rebel attack and occupation;

suggesting strongly that if the Scorpion does leave, Thornburgh’s intent would

probably be to abandon the harbor to the rebels; followed by

[no date]

[Apparently notes by Campbell to himself] Listing questions apparently in

connection with this letter, expressing his concerns of the extremely negative

consequences if Charleston harbor were to be abandoned by the British Navy;

followed by

December 4, 1775

Copy of letter from Thornburgh on the Tamar at Rebellion Road [Charleston] to

Campbell, informing Campbell that among all the considerations of the decisions

Thornburg must take, he had felt that the best course would be to meet Governor

Martin’s request to return to North Carolina so that he could do his duty in North

Carolina, and by transporting him there on the Scorpion; stating that he was also

committed to maintaining control over Charleston harbor as long as Governor

Campbell was present and seeking to do his duty as Governor of South Carolina;

pointing out that he was relying on Campbell to provide better information than

Thornburgh had on the rebellion in Charleston, so that it was Campbell who must

inform Thornburgh on how to maintain control in the harbor, while leaving

Thornburgh to do his job of commanding the fleet [all enclosed with Campbell’s

January 1, 1776 letter to Dartmouth, document 152]

160. January 23, 1776 [295]

Letter No. 11 from Campbell on board the Cherokee in the Savannah River,

Georgia, to Dartmouth, reporting events since January 1 at Charleston harbor,

including movements of vessels and loading and unloading supplies until

January 6, when the Cherokee sailed to the Savannah River [evidently to deliver

Campbell there], where it found other British Navy vessels and where he

received Dartmouth’s letter of November 7, 1775 with news of plans for a

southern-colony military expedition; reiterating his view that Charleston harbor

was a place of top priority for the British to defend, and Charleston city was of

prime concern to return to British rule as soon as possible; reporting that he had

not yet seen Georgia Governor James Wright, who appeared to be imprisoned in

Savannah with a few of his Council members and friends of government;

407

reporting knowing nothing about the situations of families of Georgia’s

government officials; reporting that [James] Hume, Attorney General of Georgia

[and James Wright’s nephew], having been banished by the rebels, would shortly

be sailing for England and would be bearing news; requesting that Campbell’s

personal situation, including loss of his home and estate, be placed before the

King with Campbell’s request for relief; stating that he would be leaving the

Cherokee shortly [with enclosures, documents 161 to 163] [Campbell’s last

numbered letter written to Dartmouth, even though Germain had become

Secretary of State on November 10, 1775; Campbell’s first letter written to

Germain (No. 12 but identified as No. 13) was dated July 8, 1776 (document

166)]

161. January 18, 1776 [298]

Copy of letter from Campbell, on board the Cherokee [after its arrival in the

Savannah River] to [Captain] Tobias Furneaux, requesting that Furneaux would

help arrange for Campbell’s wife and family to be transported to safety at St.

Augustine; explaining that he, as governor, and his secretary, Alexander Innes,

felt obliged to return to their colony, to either Charleston or Beaufort [enclosed

with Campbell’s January 23, 1776 letter to Dartmouth, document 160]

[Note: Tobias Furneaux (1735-1781 had an extraordinary career as a naval

officer and explorer. After early entry into the British Navy and successful

advancement through the ranks, his claim to fame came through his experiences

as an explorer. He may have been the first human to circumnavigate the globe

in both directions. In 1766-1768, he served in a Royal Navy exploratory voyage

on the HMS Dolphin, under the command of Samuel Wallis, which sailed

westward, around Cape Horn, to explore in the vast Pacific Ocean, including

Tahiti and New Zealand, before returning via the Cape of Good Hope. Then, in

1771-1775, he commanded the HMS Adventure, the companion ship that sailed

with Captain James Cook’s HMS Resolution during Cook’s second exploratory

voyage. Cook and Furneaux sailed eastward via the Cape of Good Hope and

New Zealand to the Pacific Ocean, where they also explored, and finally around

Cape Horn and up the Atlantic Ocean to England. Now, in 1776, less than a year

after having returned home with Cook, Furneaux was commanding the HMS

Syren, on duty at Savannah with other British Navy vessels. Perhaps it was

Furneaux’ notoriety that attracted Campbell to him with his requests for transport.

By late June, the Syren, with 19 other warships and a quantity of British troops,

converged on Charleston to attack both the harbor and city—both of which, to the

great surprise of the British, refused to be defeated.]

162. January 20, 1776 [part of 299]

Letter from Captain Furneaux [on board the] Syren, to Campbell, informing

Campbell that he had no power to order ships and their passengers, including for

Campbell’s family, and that his opinion was that the British ships were in place

for the time being, until the expected fleet arrived from England [enclosed with

Campbell’s January 23, 1776 letter to Dartmouth, document 160]

408

163. January 21, 1776 [part of 299]

Copy of letter from Campbell, on board the Cherokee, to Furneaux, stating that,

given the situation he and Innes were in, they must either be transported to a

place where he could make his case to the Commander in Chief, or he would be

forced to take a packet, along with his family, straight to England; insisting that

his orders from the King’s ministers required him to do his duty without further

difficulties [enclosed with Campbell’s January 23, 1776 letter to Dartmouth,

document 160]

164. [no date] [300]

Information received from Captain Smith “Master of a Vessel arrived in the

Downes from S

Carolina”, [note written by (John) Pownall, Undersecretary of

State, dated April 17, 1776], Smith reporting having experienced distress at sea

on a commercial voyage from Jamaica to England and put into Stono Inlet

[mouth of the Stono River, near Charleston], South Carolina; was detained there

by the Committee of Safety from January 3 until February 24, 1776, after which

he was released to continue his voyage; noting that in Charleston harbor, the

Tamar and the Cherokee had sailed away, that the rebels now had several

warships in the harbor, and that the rebels were expecting a British fleet and

were preparing defenses

[Note: After Captain Smith and his vessel were released by the rebels, he

successfully sailed back to England, where he floated for a while in the sheltered

roadstead off the Kent coast called The Downs, probably waiting his turn to

deliver his cargo up the Thames River.]

165. June 14, 1776 [302]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 2 from Germain at Whitehall to Campbell, stating that

certain of Campbell’s letters to the Secretary of State had been lost on the packet

Cumberland on its return from America, encouraging Campbell and other colonial

governors to take advantage of opportunities of “transmitting an account of such

Occurrences as you shall judge it of importance to communicate to me for His

Majesty’s Information” [all of Campbell’s numbered letters to Germain appear to

have been delivered with none lost to the sea]

166. July 8, 1776 [304]

Letter No. 13 [actually No. 12] from Campbell on board HMS Bristol “in five

Fathom Hole near Charles Town” to Germain, reporting that the Bristol had met

General Henry Clinton at sea and gone with him to Cape Fear, where they met

Admiral Peter Parker and Major General Charles Cornwallis [the commanders

with their vessels and troops for the planned invasion of the southern colonies];

reporting that they had jointly decided against a move against North Carolina but

instead to move toward Charleston with its new fortifications, and that, if

successful there, the campaign would move northward from there; reporting on

their attack on Fort Sullivan on June 28; praising the British effort, with details,

even though it was not directly successful;

409

reminding Germain that he had requested a contingency account to pay for

numerous expenses he was responsible for during this unusual time of rebellion;

asking that it now be approved; reporting on relations with the Indian Nations and

about having removed a South Carolina schooner to St. Augustine, out of danger

from the rebels [although numbered No. 13, this letter actually is No. 12

consecutively among Campbell’s letters to Secretaries of States, first Dartmouth

and then Germain] [Campbell’s first numbered letter sent to Germain, although

he had become Secretary of State on November 10, 1775; Campbell’s last letter

sent to Dartmouth was dated January 1, 1776 (document 160)]

[Note: Five Fathom Hole, located south of Charleston harbor between the bar

and Morris Island, was an area of sea where the British warships could safely

wait before approaching the harbor or lay over. The Bristol was the flagship of

Admiral Peter Parker’s fleet that, with troops commanded by General Henry

Clinton, had on June 28, 1776 fought an inconclusive battle against fewer rebel

defenders in Britain’s first attempt to subdue the rebellious southern colonies.]

167. August 15, 1776 [308]

Letter No. 13 from Campbell on board the Bristol at New York harbor to Germain,

reporting that the invasion fleet and troops had sailed from Charleston, following

their indecisive engagement there, to New York; reporting that he had not

conferred with either Admiral Parker or General Clinton, so he did not know what

next actions were being planned [this second letter numbered No. 13 by

Campbell is, consecutively, No. 13]

168. November 29, 1776 [310]

Letter No. 14 from Campbell at New York to Germain, informing him of a letter he

had intercepted [but had since been lost with other mail on a packet that

foundered] from John Laurens, son of Henry Laurens, “Vice President of [rebel]

South Carolina”, who was in London and was collecting and sending detailed

information about British anti-rebellion actions; reporting that, since he had been

unable to acquire useful information on British plans in New York, he wished

permission to return to England “for a few months”, although he was sensitive to

being perceived by the King as a “refugee”; hoping for follow-up very soon on the

military campaign in the southern colonies [with enclosures, documents 169,

170]

169. September 22, 1776 [312]

Copy of letter from Campbell at Jamaica on Long Island to General William Howe

[Commander of British Forces in North America, having replaced General Gage

on October 10, 1775], containing an extract of a letter Campbell had written to

Germain [possibly Letter No. 13 dated August 15, 1776, document 166], stating

that General Howe had told him that plans for the “reduction of America” would

not include a southern invasion any time soon, which had strengthened his

desire to sail for England; seeking Germain’s assistance in obtaining approval for

this trip to England;

410

after recounting the suffering of “Friends of Government” in South Carolina,

expressing hope that the British government would not forget these people and

would act as quickly as possible to restore British rule in South Carolina, which

would relieve their suffering; suggesting in the meantime that his personal

secretary, Alexander Innes, be sent to the South Carolina interior to maintain

support for the loyalist cause [enclosed with Campbell’s November 29, 1776

letter to Germain, document 168] [for more on General William Howe and his

brother Admiral Richard Howe, see note after document 157]

170. September 17, 1776 [314]

Copy of letter from General Howe at headquarters on Long Island, New York, to

Campbell, stating that, “seeing no immediate Prospect of your Lordship’s return

to your Government in the present State of Affairs”, he sees no objection to

Campbell’s taking time now to return to England; approving of Campbell’s idea of

sending Innes to the South Carolina frontier; suggesting that loyalist inhabitants

of that area who feel insecure should consider moving to St. Augustine

[enclosed with Campbell’s November 29, 1776 letter to Germain, document 168]

171. January 14, 1777 [316]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 3 from Germain at Whitehall to Campbell, agreeing

with Howe’s assessment that British forces would not in the near future be able

to be sent to the southern colonies; thus sending the King’s approval for

Campbell to return to England; stating that Campbell’s financial requests had

been forwarded to the Treasury and that he was confident they would be

approved

Note: The chronological sequence of Secretary of State incoming

correspondence that began in Reel 3 ends here at the end of Reel 7. Yet there

is no real ending here. Governor Campbell was still officially governor, but his

government no longer existed, he had been ousted from “his” colony, the British

military’s July 28, 1776 attempt to recapture Charleston had failed, Campbell had

been wounded in that battle, and the Secretary of State was now telling him not

to hope soon for another “southern campaign.” Campbell had run out of options,

both in Charleston and in New York, so, in early 1777, he sailed home to

England. See the Introduction for a summary of Campbell’s “post-colonial”

activities from September 1775 until his death in 1778.]

172. November 26, 1777 [318]

Letter from Thomas Knox Gordon [former Chief Justice of colonial South

Carolina] at Belfast [Ireland] to [perhaps Germain], thanking him for expediting

financial support for Gordon following his return to England; stating that before

becoming South Carolina’s Chief Justice, he had successfully practiced law in

Ireland; aspiring now to become a judge in Ireland; seeking assistance in

applying for and being considered for such a position

411

Reel 8 (Volume 397)

Volume 397—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Correspondence (incoming), end

May 1, 1779 to March 1, 1784 Documents 1 to 205 [Frames 1 to 458]

Note: The DLAR’s microfilmed papers of Secretary of State incoming correspondence

for colonial South Carolina begin in Reel 3 Volume 382. See notes before Volumes

382, 385, 386, and 389 to 396 for information and content of the preceding microfilmed

Volumes of this correspondence. See also the overall summary of the microfilmed

Secretary of State correspondence, from 1719 to 1784, in Table 13. Volume 397, with

dates leading up to and following September 15, 1775, when the South Carolina

colonial government collapsed under pressure from South Carolina rebels, contains a

mixture of contents, some of it not directly related to South Carolina as a royal colony.

Documents 69 through 171 plus 184 and 185, dated between May 1, 1780 and January

31, 1781, pertain to the successful British military conquest of Charleston under General

Henry Clinton, concluded on May 12, 1780, and subsequent unsuccessful military

operations in South Carolina and northeastward under General Charles Cornwallis

seeking to regain control of interior South and North Carolina, which concluded with

Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown in October 1781. Documents 1 to 7, dated between

January 3, 1781 and March 1, 1784, and documents 172 to 205, except for 184 and

185, dated between August 31, 1781 and mid-October 1782, pertain to post-colonial

concerns, largely economic, of South Carolinians and London merchants during British

military occupation of Charleston (from May 1780 to December 1782) and after British

evacuation, concluded on December 14, 1782. An anomaly in this microfilmed

Secretary of State incoming correspondence for South Carolina is contained in

documents 8 to 68. These consist of two letters (each with numerous enclosures and

each letter plus enclosures received and microfilmed twice) from General Clinton to

Secretary of State Germain. One is a report on British loss by force of its West Florida

colony to the Spanish. The other reports on unsuccessful negotiation by designees of

General Clinton and General Washington concerning a possible general exchange of

prisoners of war. Neither pertains directly to South Carolina but both were mailed by

Clinton from Charleston so, apparently all these documents were filed by the Secretary

of State office under “South Carolina.”

Note: In the midst of Volume 394, archivists in the Secretary of State’s office had

discontinued the practice of numbering official incoming documents. Volume 397 also

has no SS numbers. In this Volume, no correspondence is found written by or written to

Governor William Campbell, whether numbered or unnumbered. By contrast, much

numbered correspondence is found from General Henry Clinton to Secretary of State

Germain. Evidently, this correspondence had been going on for some time, as it begins

abruptly on May 13, 1780 with letter No. 86 and ends as abruptly on June 5, 1780 with

letter No. 95. Clinton was away from his headquarters at New York as commander in

chief of British forces in North America from February until early June 1780.

412

During that time, he led a British army to Charleston, besieged the city and its 5,000

some rebel defenders plus additional inhabitants, and captured the city, accepting

surrender of the rebel army on May 12, 1780. Although he had been in South Carolina

for over three months, no letters he sent from there were archived in the South Carolina

Secretary of State incoming correspondence—until the day after Clinton’s victory at

Charleston. With dates between May 13 and June 5, 1780, he sent 10 numbered

letters (No. 86 to No. 95) to Germain. Two were the report letters mentioned in the

previous note containing information about the loss of West Florida (No. 86) and

unsuccessful negotiation for a general prisoner-of-war exchange (No. 87)—matters of

concern to the commander in chief of British forces in North America, not directly related

to South Carolina, but filed under South Carolina in the Secretary of State archives

apparently because Clinton mailed them from Charleston. The other letters do pertain

to South Carolina. This sequence of numbered letters ends as abruptly as it started, on

the day Clinton sailed from Charleston, returning to New York. No additional numbered

or unnumbered letters from Clinton to Germain are found in these microfilmed papers,

and no letters from Germain to Clinton are included here.

Note: The changing content in Secretary of State incoming correspondence

between the beginning of Reel 4 to Reel 7 document 157 compared with that in Reel 7

document 158 to Reel 8 document 205 (the end of this microfilmed correspondence),

Note that Table 15 is a more extended and differently focused version of Table 12 in

the Introduction, which pertains to the content of Reel 8 alone.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 15: Changing content in Secretary of State incoming correspondence

● Documents from the beginning of Reel 4 to Reel 7 document 157

From November 22, 1743, as James Glen was about to be appointed royal governor

of South Carolina, to August 22, 1775, just before the royal colonial government of

South Carolina collapsed on September 15, 1775

This set of documents contains official correspondence, primarily between South

Carolina’s colonial governor and pertinent Secretary of State (first Secretary for the

Southern Department; later Secretary of State for the Colonies). The contents of

this correspondence covers issues of colonial governance and economic

development plus the gradually developing American protest movement against

what its proponents saw as abuses of the rights of British subjects by Parliament

and the colonial government.

● Documents from Reel 7 document 158 to the end of Reel 8

From December 1, 1775, as the post-colonial-government period began, until the

end of the microfilmed Secretary of State incoming correspondence in mid-October

1782.

This set of documents contains much more diversity of contents, as the colonial

world had changed for South Carolina from running a colony to dealing with the

fallout of the colonial government’s collapse, as well as archiving documents on a

variety of other matters, some seemingly unrelated to South Carolina.

413

Summary of changing content of documents in the second set, dated from December

1, 1775 to mid-October 1782 (Reel 7 document 158 to 172 and Reel 8 document 1 to

205):

● Reel 7 documents 158 to 171 December 1, 1775 to January 14, 1777

Correspondence of Colonial Governor William Campbell, dealing with the aftermath

of the collapse of his government and of British authority in South Carolina; living on

British warships in Charleston Harbor, then Savannah, then on flagship during failed

battle on June 28, 1776 to retake Charleston (wounded), then to New York to

recover and promote southern campaign (Campbell still in New York in early 1777

but returned to England where no longer active governor; died in September 1778

from having never recovered from his Charleston war wound)

● Reel 7 document 172 November 26, 1777

Post-colonial government petition from former South Carolina Chief Justice seeking

a judgeship in England

● Reel 8 documents 1 to 7 January 3, 1781 to March 1, 1784

Miscellaneous, time-scattered post-colonial government documents pertaining to

individual situations, grievance, and claims (see note after document 1)

● Reel 8 documents 8 to 56 March 2, 1779 to March 24, 1780

General Henry Clinton correspondence to Germain with detailed description of

Spanish successful conquest of West Florida against Britain (letter with numerous

enclosures, dated May 13, 1780; content not pertaining directly to South Carolina

but part of Clinton’s larger responsibilities as Commander in Chief of British forces in

North America, and dated at Charleston, one day after General Benjamin Lincoln’s

surrender of his American army to Clinton at Charleston) (see notes after document

8 and document 30)

● Reel 8 documents 57 to 68 September 30, 1779 to March 30, 1780

Clinton correspondence to Germain with documents pertaining to an effort by British

and American military leaders to negotiate a general exchange of prisoners of war

(which failed); including correspondence by General George Washington; (letter with

numerous enclosures, dated May 13, 1780, not pertaining directly to South Carolina

but part of Clinton’s larger responsibilities as Commander in Chief of British forces in

North America, and dated at Charleston, one day after General Benjamin Lincoln’s

surrender of his American army to Clinton at Charleston) (see note after document

58)

● Reel 8 documents 69 to 132 May 1 to May 14, 1780

Clinton’s correspondence to Germain with documents pertaining to the final stages

of his army’s and Admiral Arbuthnot’s naval forces’ successful efforts to besiege

Charleston and force it to surrender (see note after document 70)

414

● Reel 8 documents 133 to 163 May 14, 1780 to June 5, 1780

Clinton correspondence pertaining to wrapping up his responsibilities in Charleston,

implementing, through Major General Charles Cornwallis and other British

commanders, his offensive war strategy for the south following the capture of

Charleston, and encouraging his plan to reinstitute colonial civil government, relying

on supposedly numerous loyalists and his generous “amnesty” proclamation for

Charleston prisoners of war. Document 163 is an unreadable printed edition of a

Gazette from Charleston with undermined date. On June 5, Clinton left Charleston,

returning to New York and leaving the southern command to Cornwallis. (see note

after document 142)

● Reel 8 documents 164 to 171, 184, 185 July 28, 1780 to January 31, 1781

Correspondence and other documents pertaining to the conduct and results of

Clinton’s offensive military strategy, as implemented by Cornwallis and other British

military commanders, initially mostly in South Carolina. It began with British military

successes but bogged down as rebel resistance took its toll, and the British armies

needed to resupply, which forced them toward the coast. In October 1781,

Cornwallis got trapped along the coast at Yorktown, Virginia and was forced to

surrender to an American army and French Navy, thus ending the southern strategy

and, actually, the entire war

● Reel 8 documents 172 to 205 August 31, 1781 to mid-October 1782

(except for documents 184, 185) Correspondence relating to preparation for British

evacuation from Charleston, including British occupation and rule, relations with the

State of South Carolina government, and transition issues, mostly economic,

concerning debts and trade plus the ownership and status of slaves

______________________________________________________________________

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides. Or, some manuscript sides were microfilmed on more than one

frame. In addition, frames either blank or with archivist notes were inconsistently given

or not given a frame number.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete microfilm Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. January 3, 1781 [1]

Note taken apparently in Secretary of State office, stating that “Mr. Laurens, in a

Conversation with Mr. Oswald, said he wish’d that he would let any of the

Secretaries of State know, that, if he was permitted to go to South Carolina on

his Parole, he believes he could satisfy them that he could do considerable

Service to this Nation”

415

[Note: Henry Laurens was a wealthy South Carolina planter who became

wealthier yet by running an extensive slave-trade operation. For him, the British

Empire’s imposition of commercial restrictions was anathema to the rights of

Englishmen. He became a “rebel” as a prominent leader in South Carolina’s

“shadow” government of Provincial Congress and Council of Safety in late 1774

and 1775. By title, he was South Carolina’s first “president.” The Continental

Congress sent him off to be the rebellious states’ first diplomat to the

Netherlands. In 1779, he was unfortunate to be captured on the high seas by a

British warship, which carried him to London, where he had the unique

experience for an American of being locked in the Tower of London, after having

been charged with treason. His well-placed South Carolina business partner and

friend Richard Oswald argued in the British courts that Laurens was

unconstitutionally being held in British prison as a criminal rather than as a

prisoner of war with greater rights. The British apparently conceded the point,

because Laurens was finally released through a prisoner-of-war exchange in

1781 for British Major General Cornwallis, who had been captured at Yorktown.

Not long after his release from British incarceration, he was appointed by the

Continental Congress to serve as one of the representatives of the new United

States who negotiated the Treaty of Paris between victorious America and

defeated Britain. Whether this could be construed as a “considerable service to

this [British] nation” is open to question.]

2. December 29, 1781 [3]

Memorial, to Secretary of State for the Colonies Lord George Germain, of

Thomas Fletchall of Ninety Six in South Carolina, at Charleston, stating that he

had commanded a regiment of South Carolina colonial militia and had loyally led

them at Ninety-Six against rebels on November 22, 1775, that after the battle, he

had been captured, jailed, and his property destroyed by the rebels; that since

then, he had been unable to support his family of sixteen; therefore, requesting

relief from the British government; with note added that a copy had been sent to

Fletchall’s attorney on March 6, 1782 [see note after Reel 7 document 149 for

the context of Fletchall’s loyalist involvement at Ninety-Six in 1775, as well as the

location and name of Ninety-Six]

3. [no date] [5]

Copy of statement by Henry Yonge to [possibly General Henry Clinton?]

reporting the arrest of Dr. William Wells at Charleston, which Yonge contends

was illegal because it occurred under a flag of truce, under which Wells had been

granted protection

[Note: This appears to be Henry Yonge Jr., Attorney General of East Florida.

Like his father, Henry Yonge Sr., who had been official surveyor of Georgia in the

1760s, he remained a staunch loyalist. The precise situation here, why Yonge

was involved in the Wells case in Charleston, and to whom he was actually

directing his legal opinion are not clear from this correspondence.]

416

[Note: Dr. William Wells (1753-1817) was a practitioner and scholar of

medicine as well as a printer. Born in Charleston but educated in Europe, he

returned to Charleston in 1771, only to leave again under duress in 1775 when

he refused to sign the oath of allegiance to the rebel shadow government.

Returning to Charleston in 1781 when it was under British control, Dr. Wells, an

American loyalist, was unlucky to be arrested, as Henry Yonge described it,

“under a flag of truce.” When Charleston returned to American control in

December 1782, Wells moved to St. Augustine, where he founded and published

the East Florida Gazette. When the Treaty of Paris returned East Florida to

Spanish control, Wells moved back to England in 1784, where he practiced

medicine and conducted highly regarded medical research.]

4. March 1, 1784 [7]

Copy of letter from Patrick Tonyn, Royal Governor of British East Florida, at St.

Augustine, to [Germain], concerning “the severe treatment of Mr. James

McDonald at Charles Town one of His Majesty’s faithful Subjects”; forwarding

McDonald’s petition seeking relief

5. June 10, 1782 [9]

Letter from James Simpson, former Attorney General of colonial South Carolina,

who had received a commission from General Henry Clinton “to the Peace

Commission in North America”; describing his qualifications for the position

relating to his public service to the colony of South Carolina [with enclosure,

document 6]

6. May 24, 1782 [10]

Memorial of James Simpson at London to Lords of the Treasury, describing his

having stayed in Charleston after the colonial government was ousted but

refused to take an oath to the new government, for which he was fined and his

property later seized, that he had left Charleston for New York in 1779 but was

ordered by the Crown to return to Charleston in March 1779; and that all the

moving, property loss, and lack of his salary as Attorney General had been very

costly to him; seeking relief

7. [no date] [13]

List [prepared by Secretary of State office staff?] of “Crown Officers in South

Carolina” whose arrears salaries had been ordered by Commissioners of the

Treasury to be paid, and their salaries had been paid; listing five positions held

by five named individuals

417

8. May 13, 1780 [14]

Duplicate letter No. 86 from General Henry Clinton at Charleston to Germain,

[written three days after Clinton’s army had successfully captured and occupied

Charleston, but reporting not on that major victory but on the “Critical State of

West Florida”, including news of the loss of Baton Rouge and Mobile and an

expected attack on Pensacola, with extensive documentation [including

enclosures, documents 9 to 30]

[Note: Documents 8 to 30 (Frames 14 to 69) ( first set) include a duplicate of

letter No. 86 from General Clinton to Secretary of State Germain, dated May 13,

1780, plus a table of contents for 21 enclosures that follow, plus the enclosed

documents in 21 separate documents.

Documents 31 to 56 (Frames 70 to 128) (second set) contain a triplicate of

Clinton’s Letter No. 86, plus the same table of contents, plus the same 21

enclosures, with the addition of two more documents, placed between

documents 22 and 23 in the first set, both Dated March 1, 1780.

The subject matter of the letter and set of enclosures is the Spanish invasion

and partial conquest of the British colony of West Florida during 1779 and

1780, including the surrender of Baton Rouge and Natchez on the Mississippi

River and of Fort Charlotte [not to be confused with Fort Charlotte on the South

Carolina side of the Savannah River, 40 miles north of Augusta, Georgia] and

Mobile on the Gulf Coast. The conquest was completed the following year, with

the siege and surrender of Pensacola in May 1781.

The only connection these documents have with South Carolina is that General

Clinton sent the documents to London from Charleston, dated, perhaps

coincidentally, just one day after the end of his army’s successful siege and

capture of South Carolina’s capital city. Why they were filed under South

Carolina rather than West Florida in the CO5 Colonial Office Papers is not clear.]

[Note: Spain entered the American Revolutionary War in June 1779. One of its

goals in America was to return Florida to Spanish rule, reversing the 1763

Treaty of Paris, which had given Florida to Britain. The British had decided for

administrative reasons to split the Spanish colony in half, creating two separate

colonies of East Florida (capital at St. Augustine) and West Florida (capital at

Pensacola). Between 1779 and 1781, the Spaniards pursued their goal against

West Florida, the weaker of the two British colonies, led politically by Don

Bernardo de Gálvez, the Spanish Governor at New Orleans, and militarily from

both New Orleans and Havana. Defeating the weak defenses of West Florida in

stages was a fairly easy task for the Spanish military. Baton Rouge fell in

September 1779, (see documents 12 to 17) leaving Natchez, farther up the

Mississippi River, exposed and defenseless. Fort Charlotte at the head of Mobile

Bay and Mobile itself fell in March 1780 (see documents 22 to 26). The conquest

was completed the following year, with the siege and surrender of Pensacola in

May 1781 (see document 25 and the note after it). See also the note after

document 10.

418

9. [no date] [16]

“Schedule of Copies and Extracts of Letters” enclosed in Clinton’s May 13, 1780

letter to Germain [document 8], including 21 enclosures microfilmed following this

schedule [documents 10 to 30] [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to

Germain, document 8]

10. September 11, 1779 [18]

Extract of letter from Major General John Campbell at Pensacola to General

Henry Clinton, stating that West Florida was poorly defended, with details

[enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

[Note: John Campbell of Strachur (1728-1806) Scottish clan leader and British

Army career officer, was no direct relation to South Carolina Governor William

Campbell. He had commanded the troops that attacked but failed to capture Fort

Sullivan at Charleston in May 1776. In October 1778, promoted to Brigadier

General and soon after to Major General, he was ordered to Pensacola, West

Florida, to defend that colony from expected Spanish attack. Arriving at

Pensacola in January 1779, he discovered how poorly defended West Florida

really was, and sought to strengthen its defenses. In June 1779, Spain entered

the war against Britain. By the date of this letter nine months later, Campbell

reported that the situation had not improved much. By now, however, Spanish

attack was imminent. Baton Rouge fell in September 1779, leaving the

Mississippi River in Spanish control. Fort Charlotte and Mobile fell in March

1780, and Pensacola surrendered in May 1781. Campbell spent the rest of the

war as a prisoner of war, paroled to New York. When returned to active duty, he

was rewarded by being given command of North American British forces from

1783 to 1787—after the war was over.]

11. December 15, 1779 [21]

Extract of letter from Campbell at Pensacola to Clinton, describing the

capitulation of Baton Rouge on September 21, 1779; describing the lack of

supply support to British forces in West Florida; suspecting that the Spanish

Governor at New Orleans and commander of Spanish forces there, Don

Bernardo de Gálvez, was aware of this weakness and had, judging from the size

of the force he commanded against Baton Rouge, a force that could successfully

attack other West Florida port towns [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter

to Germain, document 8]

12. September 21, 1779 [24]

Copy of Articles of Capitulation [written in French] of British Lieutenant Colonel

Alexander Dickson at Baton Rouge to Spanish Governor Gálvez [enclosed with

Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

419

13. September 21, 1779 [29]

Copy of address by Harry Alexander, representing inhabitants of Baton Rouge, to

Dickson after British capitulation to the Spanish, sorrowful at the British loss, but

understanding that they had fought well but were too weak to resist the Spanish

forces [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

14. September 22, 1779 [31]

Copy of statement by Dickson, at the Baton Rouge Redoubt, giving reasons for

his having to capitulate at Baton Rouge, with details; followed by

Certification of Dickson’s statement by Assistant Engineer Graham

[both enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

15. October 4,1779 [33]

Copy of address from inhabitants of Natchez to Dickson, sad at the British defeat

but supportive of the British troops’ effort to defeat the Spanish; signed by 59

inhabitants [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

16. October 20, 1779 [35]

Copy of letter from Dickson to Campbell concerning “the Behaviour of the Troops

in the Defense of Baton Rouge” [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to

Germain, document 8]

17. October 19, 1779 [37]

Copy of “Return of Prisoners with the Spaniards & the killed & wounded at Baton

Rouge &c”, including a total of 419 prisoners held at New Orleans, captured at

various places and times, listed by military unit and rank for the Royal Artillery,

Regiment, 60

Regiment, Waldeck Regiment, Independent Company, Staff

of the Garrison, and All Sergeants and Rank & File; including also numbers of

British soldiers killed and wounded, as well as prisoners who had died in captivity

[enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

18. February 5, 1780 [39]

Extract of letter from East Florida Governor Tonyn to General Clinton, reporting

having appropriated ordnance stores from a ship carrying them to Jamaica

because of great shortages in East Florida; followed by

March 20, 1780

Extract of letter from Tonyn to Clinton, reporting on intelligence from some

Indians suggesting that Gálvez might be losing a battle against British defenders

somewhere in West Florida [with enclosure, document 19]

[both enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

420

19. February 18, 1780 [41]

Extract of letter from Governor [Peter] Chester [of West Florida] to Tonyn, hoping

that news was accurate that Admiral Parker had captured seven Spanish

warships and transports; but reporting as well that Spanish vessels had been

busy crossing the bar into Mobile Bay and heading northward toward Mobile

[enclosed with Tonyn’s March 20, 1780 letter to Clinton, part of document 18;

also enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

20. February 10, 1780 [43]

Extract of letter from Campbell at headquarters [at Pensacola] to Clinton,

informing him that Campbell had sought to raise two troops of light dragoons

among West Floridians to help protect frontier inhabitants from hostile Choctaw

Indians; seeking ways to obtain returns of British prisoners at New Orleans and

to provide some of their salary pay to the Spanish to provide for the needs of the

prisoners; providing additional information about the status of Indian affairs,

which he stated were in disarray; reporting weak conditions of remaining British

forces in West Florida [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain,

document 8]

21. February 12, 1780 [47]

Copy of letter from Campbell at headquarters at Pensacola, to Clinton, reporting

what appeared to be a Spanish attack on Mobile [enclosed with Clinton’s May

13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

22. March 24, 1780 [49]

Extract of letter from Campbell to Clinton, reporting the loss of Fort Charlotte at

the mouth of Mobile Bay [not to be confused with Fort Charlotte located near

Augusta in South Carolina], which had surrendered March 14, 1780; enclosing

intelligence received about this loss; reporting that the Spanish had subsequently

besieged and captured Mobile; predicting that Pensacola would soon also be

besieged and captured, unless his attempts to fortify it were successful or unless

Admiral Parker would send a warship to defend it; reporting also that one of the

two new light dragoon troops had been surprised and several prisoners of war

taken to Mobile [with enclosures, documents 23, 24] [enclosed with Clinton’s

May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

[Note: The second set of Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, No. 86

(triplicate) contains two additional enclosures, located between documents 22

and 23. Both are dated March 1, 1780. See note after document 8 and

documents 47 and 48.]

23. March 2, 1780 [53]

Copy of letter from West Florida Lieutenant Governor Elias Durnford at Mobile to

Campbell, reporting details of the Spanish attack on Mobile [enclosed with

Campbell’s March 24, 1780 letter to Clinton, document 22; also enclosed with

Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

421

24. March 14, 1780 [55]

Copy of letter from Durnford at Fort Charlotte to Campbell, reporting the

surrender of the remaining, small garrison at Mobile to the Spanish, all of them

prisoners of war, resulting from the Spanish having had far superior arms

[enclosed with Campbell’s March 24, 1780 letter to Clinton, document 22; also

enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

25. March 28, 29, 1780 [57]

Copy of letter from Campbell at Pensacola headquarters to Clinton, reporting

having seen a large Spanish fleet of 29 vessels draw up outside the Pensacola

bar; reporting that Durnford was being paroled to Pensacola; expecting to receive

information from him on numbers killed, wounded, etc. at Mobile; reporting a day

later that the Spanish fleet was still deployed in front of Pensacola Bay, as if

waiting for instructions from Gálvez [with enclosure, document 26] [enclosed

with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

[Note: The fleet observed may have been the Spanish fleet commanded by

Governor Gálvez out of New Orleans. Plans to conquer Pensacola included a

second fleet with additional troops sailing from Havana. It may have been

planning to join the New Orleans fleet along the Gulf Coast before jointly

attacking Pensacola sometime in March 1780. In that year, the two fleets never

joined, apparently because a large storm (hurricane?) decimated the Havana

fleet. But that occurred in October 1780, after the time of this correspondence.

The following spring, the two fleets successfully merged, converged on

Pensacola, besieged it, and forced its surrender in May 1781, reducing the

number of British American colonies by one, without any colonial protest

movement, rebellion, or revolution.]

26. March 13, 1780 [59]

Copy of capitulation document for Fort Charlotte, with articles Gálvez rejected

accepted, or wrote, signed by Durnford and Gálvez [enclosed with Campbell’s

March 28, 29, 1780 letter to Clinton, document 25; also enclosed with Clinton’s

May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8] [Fort Charlotte, located at the

mouth of Mobile Bay, defended the British town of Mobile, located at the Bay’s

head]

27. April 24, 1780 [62]

Extract of letter from [Florida Rangers commander and Superintendent of Indian

Affairs] Colonel Thomas Brown to Clinton, passing on intelligence from Indians of

cannonading at Pensacola; reporting on positive relations with the Creek Indians

and uncertain relations with the Choctaw [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780

letter to Germain, document 8]

422

28. May 1, 1779 [64]

Copy of letter from Clinton at New York to Admiral John Byron [commander of

British forces in North America, following Admiral Richard Howe’s departure in

mid-1778], conveying Major General Campbell’s representation of the weakness

of Pensacola fortifications, especially after a hurricane in October 1779,

requesting that Byron consider sending a frigate to Pensacola to provide some

protection for the harbor [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to

Germain, document 8]

29. October 26, 1779 [66]

Copy of letter from Clinton at New York to Admiral Peter Parker, sending a copy

of the letter Clinton wrote to Byron, endorsing his request, and adding his plea

that food and other supplies also be sent from Jamaica to Pensacola [enclosed

with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Germain, document 8]

30. February 5, 1780 [68]

Copy of letter from Admiral Parker at sea on the HMS Ruby to Clinton, remarking

that so little news was being reached from West Florida that doubts existed as to

whether it was “still in our Hands”; stating that when he returned to Jamaica, he

would inquire into the needs of Pensacola and what might be sent to help

[enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 “duplicate” letter to Germain, document 8]

[Note: Documents 31 to 56 (Frames 70 to 128) (second set) contain the same

23 documents that are contained in documents 8 to 30, with a few notable

differences. These include General Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter to Secretary of

State Germain (document 31), plus a table of contents for 21 enclosures that

follow (document 32), plus the enclosed documents in 21 separate documents

(documents 33 to 46, 49 to 56). These documents are not itemized here for a

second time.

The second set of these documents differs from the first set as follows: Clinton’s

letter is identified as “triplicate,” instead of “duplicate. The table of contents is

identical in both sets, although two additional enclosed documents are included

in the second set (documents 47, 48, which are itemized below).

The subject matter of the letter and set of enclosures is the Spanish invasion

and partial conquest of the British colony of West Florida during 1779 and

1780, including the surrender of Baton Rouge and Natchez on the Mississippi

River and of Fort Charlotte and Mobile on the Gulf Coast. The conquest was

completed the following year, with the siege and surrender of Pensacola in May

1781 (see document 25 and the note after it)

The only connection these documents have with South Carolina is that General

Clinton sent the documents to London from Charleston, dated, perhaps

coincidentally, just one day after the end of his army’s successful siege and

capture of South Carolina’s capital city. Why they were filed under South

Carolina rather than West Florida in the CO5 Colonial Office Papers is not clear.]

423

47. March 1, 1780 [110]

Copy of letter, written in French, from Gálvez at “Pointe de la Chatolo” [near

Baton Rouge?] to Durnford, offering him the opportunity to surrender his inferior

force to avoid fighting

[Note: Documents 47 and 48 were included as two additional enclosures in the

second set of documents enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 triplicate letter

No. 86 to Germain but were not included in the first set enclosed with Clinton’s

same but duplicate letter; the remaining enclosures, plus the triplicate letter and

table of contents (which does not include these two additional documents) are

not itemized here.]

48. March 1, 1780 [112]

Copy of letter from Durnford, responding to Gálvez, refusing his offer to

surrender without a fight

[Note: The second set of Clinton’s Letter No. 86 with table of contents and

enclosures ends at document 56 and Frame 128.]

57. May 13, 1780 [129]

Duplicate letter No. 87 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain, enclosing a report

of negotiations at Amboy that have established a process for cartels for the

general exchange of prisoners of war; observing that already, “I am sorry to

observe [that it] has proved as ineffectual as the other Negociations entered into

with the Rebels on this business”

[Note: Amboy, now Perth Amboy and South Amboy lies on both sides of the

mouth of the Raritan River, New Jersey, near the south end of Staten Island. It

was apparently a convenient, protected location for negotiations between

American and British officers. During much of the war, Elizabeth City, now

Elizabeth), up a protected series of channels at the north end of Staten Island,

served as a way station for the exchange of British and German prisoners of war

from Philadelphia, Lancaster, and other places in Pennsylvania for American

prisoners held by the British in New York.]

58. [no date] [131]

“Schedule of Papers relating to the Commission for a General Exchange of

Prisoners”, including 10 documents, dated from September 30, 1779 to March

30, 1780

[Note: Documents 59 to 68 do not pertain specifically to South Carolina and

apparently were filed in the South Carolina Colonial Papers only because Clinton

sent this letter with enclosures from Charleston to Germain.]

[Note: Document 60 (Frame 135) is copy of letter dated September 30, 1779

from George Washington at headquarters at West Point to Major General

Phillips, the lead negotiator for the British on the issue of general prisoner-of-war

exchanges.

424

Document 63 (Frame 143) is copy of proclamation dated March 7, 1780 by

General George Washington naming Major General [Arthur] St. Clair and

Lieutenant Colonels [Edward] Carrington and [Alexander] Hamilton as

commissioners to negotiate with the British concerning a possible general

prisoner-of-war exchange. St. Clair and Hamilton were at this time aides de

camp to General Washington. Carrington was a Virginian, a capable artillery

officer with a distinguished career in battles throughout the war, and a personal

friend of Washington. Soon after Carrington completed his assignment as

commissioner to negotiate a possible general exchange of prisoners of war,

General Nathanael Greene appointed him to serve as quartermaster general

during Greene’s 1781 southern campaign, a task Carrington handled while still

leading artillery during battles.

Documents 64 to 68 (Frames 146 to 162) are copies of minutes of commissioner

meetings, a resulting British proposal and response, and plans for exchange of

two divisions of Convention Army prisoners of war. The unique invention of the

Convention Army of British prisoners of war was created after the battles of

Saratoga in October 1777 by the winning and losing generals respectively,

Horatio Gates and John Burgoyne. Burgoyne’s entire army surrendered to the

American army. Rather than negotiate the usual surrender terms to be ratified

later by higher ups and implemented through channels, Gates and Burgoyne

negotiated on the battlefield a complete arrangement, including special

disposition for the defeated British prisoners of war. Congress did not look kindly

on Gates’ expansive concept of his role and authority and never approved the

Gates-Burgoyne Convention. As a result the whole body of these thousands of

prisoners of war was maintained through most of the war off the land of rural

America, marched from one place to another to be kept far from active combat

zones.]

69. May 1, 1780 [163]

“Memorandum of the State of the Army” under Clinton’s command, including

“Return of Prisoners with the Spaniards of the Troops in West Florida, included in

the State, as Prisoners with the Rebels”, reported as British, German (Waldeck),

or Provincial (Loyal Pennsylvania), by rank, totaling 377 troops; also, return of

British troops in detachments separated from the main British forces in North

America, including 782 in South Carolina, 99 in Nova Scotia, 10 in East Florida,

42 in West Florida, and 9 in Georgia; signed by Clinton

70. May 13, 1780 [165]

Duplicate letter No. 88 from Clinton at headquarters at Charleston to Germain,

describing with details the “Delays and Difficulties which prevented serious

Operation until the 29

of March on which day the Landing on Charles town Neck

was effected” referring to the early stages of Clinton’s military effort against

Charleston that concluded with surrender of the rebel army at Charleston and

British occupation [with enclosures, documents 71 to 100;

425

documents 101 to 132 contain a triplicate copy of this letter No. 88 along with the

same enclosures plus two additional enclosures; among these, only the letter

(document 101) and the two additional enclosures (documents 121, 126) are

itemized here; see also the note below on Clinton’s Letter No. 88]

[Note: Like Clinton’s letters No. 86 (on West Florida) and No. 87 (on a general

prisoner-of-war exchange process), letter No. 88 (on capitulation of General

Lincoln’s rebel army at Charleston) contains detailed information on a particular

subject presented with a cover letter from Clinton to Germain, followed by a

schedule of numerous enclosures, followed by extracts or copies of the

enclosures. Each of these three letters with enclosures was dated May 13, 1780,

the day after General Lincoln’s army had surrendered Charleston to the British.

The reason for this juxtaposition of letters, subjects, and a date is not certain.

Unlike No. 86 and No. 87, the subject of No. 88 relates directly to South Carolina

and Charleston during the war period, after the British colonial government of

South Carolina had collapsed on September 15, 1776.]

[Note: Clinton’s letter No. 88 is microfilmed twice, along with lengthy sets of

abstract and copy enclosures. The first set (documents 70 to 100) contains a

duplicate of Clinton’s letter No. 88 to Germain (document 70), followed by a

“schedule” of 29 enclosures (document 71) plus the 29 enclosures, (documents

72 to 100). The second set (documents 101 to 132) is microfilmed immediately

after the first set. It contains a triplicate of Clinton’s letter No. 88 to Germain

(document 101), followed by no schedule of enclosures, but with 31 enclosures,

which include the 29 enclosures in the first set plus two additional ones

(documents 102 to 132; Frames 237 to 299), which are microfilmed in a slightly

different order. The two additional enclosures are itemized in this Finding Aid

where they were microfilmed, as documents 121 and 126. The 29 enclosures

that are microfilmed in both sets are itemized only once, where they were

microfilmed in the first set (documents 72 to 100).]

71. [no date [171]

“Schedule of Inclosures in N

88”, including 29 items [enclosed with Clinton’s

May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70]

72. April 10, 1780 [173]

Copy of summons from General Clinton and Admiral Arbuthnot to Major General

[Benjamin] Lincoln, commander of American forces at Charleston, declaring their

intent to capture the city by force unless Lincoln were to surrender [enclosed

with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy

of this enclosure is found in document 102, not itemized here; see also document

101 and note after it]

[Note: Mariot Arbuthnot had been named commander of the British fleet in

North America late in 1779, replacing John Byron. He personally commanded

the fleet that had conveyed Clinton’s army to South Carolina and occupied

Charleston harbor during the siege of the city.]

426

[Note: By this time, Clinton’s intent, along with Admiral Arbuthnot’s, had long

been clear to all. The campaign against Charleston had begun in February 1780

and the land-and-water siege in earnest in March. The purpose by April was to

force a conclusion to the punishing siege which General Lincoln and his

beleaguered troops and remaining Charleston population could not withstand

much longer. Clinton knew it, and he knew Lincoln knew it as well. I didn’t take

long for General Lincoln to open negotiations for capitulation, but these dragged

on until May 12, 1780, when Lincoln signed Articles of Capitulation and

surrendered his army and the city of Charleston, returning the capital of colonial

South Carolina back to British control until near the end of the war. However,

military occupation of Charleston alone could not resurrect the colony and its

government.]

[Note: Benjamin Lincoln of Massachusetts served as a high-ranking general

under General George Washington throughout the war. He was directly involved

in three major surrenders during the war. At Saratoga in 1777 and at Yorktown

in 1781, he was on the winning side. However, At Charleston in 1780, he sought

to salvage what he could from the greatest American surrender of the

Revolutionary War. He had tried unsuccessfully to obtain sufficient numbers of

troops to stave off defeat at Charleston, but in the end he surrendered an army of

5,000 that had been besieged into submission by Clinton’s much larger army of

13,500. After capitulation became inevitable, Lincoln stalled the negotiations

long enough to allow (rebel) South Carolina militia to escape, along with some

Continental Army soldiers. As is clear in the correspondence, General Clinton

realized what General Lincoln was doing and did his best to counteract it.]

73. April 10, 1780 [175]

Copy of response from Lincoln to General Clinton and Vice Admiral Arbuthnot,

acknowledging having known Clinton’s hostile intent for some time and refusing

to negotiate but expressing determination to defend Charleston, which was his

duty [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document

70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document 103, not itemized here;

see also document 101 and note after it]

74. April 21, 1780 [177]

Copy of letter from Lincoln at Charleston to Clinton, stating that “I am willing to

enter into the consideration of Terms of Capitulation”; proposing a cessation of

hostilities for six hours “for the Purpose of digesting such Articles” [enclosed with

Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of

this enclosure is found in document 104, not itemized here; see also document

101 and note after it]

75. April 21, 1780 [179]

Copy of Clinton’s reply to Lincoln’s letter seeking terms of capitulation, informing

him that he should have sent his letter to Arbuthnot as well as Clinton; stating

that he would consult with Arbuthnot and would set up the cessation of hostilities;

427

requesting that the battery on James Island “may desist firing” [James Island is a

large sea island between Morris Island and Charleston City, from which batteries

could have fired on vessels in the harbor or on the city itself] [enclosed with

Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of

this enclosure is found in document 105, not itemized here; see also document

101 and note after it]

76. April 21, 1780 [181]

Copy of articles of capitulation proposed by Lincoln to Clinton [enclosed with

Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of

this enclosure is found in document 106, not itemized here; see also document

101 and note after it]

77. April 21, 1780, “8 OClock at Night” [183]

Copy of Clinton’s response to Lincoln’s proposed Articles of Capitulation,

disagreeing with several articles as proposed; maintaining that the articles should

reflect Clinton’s and Arbuthnot’s “former offer”; insisting that all rebel combatants

[including militia and others] should surrender and become hostages, not just

Continental troops [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to

Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document 107,

not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

78. May 8, 1780 [185]

Copy of letter from Clinton to Lincoln, offering a new summons, observing that

the rebel situation in Charleston had further deteriorated, and that no hope

remained for Charleston to escape imminent British capture [enclosed with

Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of

this enclosure is found in document 108, not itemized here; see also document

101 and note after it]

79. May 8, 1780 [187]

Copy of letter from Lincoln to Clinton, stating that he was considering Clinton’s

latest summons and that because “there are so many different Interests to be

consulted”, requesting that hostilities “not again commence till Twelve” [enclosed

with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy

of this enclosure is found in document 109, not itemized here; see also document

101 and note after it]

80. May 8, 1780 [189]

Copy of letter from Lincoln at Charleston to Clinton, requesting that, because

consulting with the different interests had taken more time than expected, “the

Truce may be continued until 4 o’Clock” [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780

letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in

document 111, not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

428

81. May 8, 1780 [191]

Copy of letter from Clinton before Charleston to Lincoln, consenting to Lincoln’s

request to further continue the truce until 4 o’clock, but indicating that this would

be the last acceptable delay [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88

to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document

112, not itemized here; see document 101 and note after it]

82. May 8, 1780 [193]

Copy of letter from Clinton to Lincoln, stating that “I consent that Hostilities shall

not again Commence before the hour of twelve as you desire” [responding to

document 79] [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain,

document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document 110, not

itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

83. May 8, 1780 [195]

Copy of proposed terms of capitulation, containing changes required by Clinton

and agreed to by Lincoln [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to

Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document 113,

not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

84. May 8, 1780 [197]

Copy of letter from Clinton before Charleston to Lincoln, stating his need to

confer with Admiral Arbuthnot about the content of Lincoln’s last letter [enclosed

with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy

of this enclosure is found in document 114, not itemized here; see also document

101 and note after it]

85. May 8, 1780 “6 P.M.” [199]

Copy of letter from Clinton to Lincoln, suggesting that, to allow time for

consideration of revised Articles of Capitulation, the cessation of hostilities “shall

continue until the morrow Morning at Eight o’Clock, and that in the mean time

every Thing shall continue in its present Situation” [enclosed with Clinton’s May

13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure

is found in document 115, not itemized here; see also document 101 and note

after it]

86. May 8, 1780 [201]

Copy of letter from Lincoln at Charleston to Clinton, acceding to Clinton’s

suggestion that “hostilities shall cease untill tomorrow Morn

. Eight o’Clock, and

that in the mean time all works shall continue in their present State” [enclosed

with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy

of this enclosure is found in document 116, not itemized here; see also document

101 and note after it]

429

87. May 8, 1780 “Eight o’Clock P.M.” [203]

Copy of letter from Clinton before Charleston to Lincoln, stating that Lincoln’s

accession to Clinton’s suggestion included only cessation of hostilities, not that

“everything should continue in its present Situation; and my Meaning was, that

there should not be any Attempt made to remove any of the Troops, or remove or

destroy any of the Ships, Stores or other Effects whatever, now in the Town or

Harbour”; seeking clarification of Lincoln’s meaning [enclosed with Clinton’s May

13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure

is found in document 117, not itemized here; see also document 101 and note

after it]

88. May 8, 1780 [205]

Copy of letter from Lincoln at Charleston to Clinton, stating that his meaning was

to accede to Clinton’s meaning, which he reiterated [enclosed with Clinton’s May

13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure

is found in document 118, not itemized here; see also document 101 and note

after it]

89. May 9, 1780 [207]

Copy of Articles of Capitulation as proposed by Major General Lincoln and

answered by General Clinton and Admiral Arbuthnot, with acceptance of certain

articles and rewriting of certain others [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780

letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in

document 112, not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

90. May 9, 1780 [209]

Copy of alterations, proposed by Lincoln to Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in

the Articles of Capitulation as revised by Clinton and Arbuthnot, designed to

maintain the dignity of those surrendering, including changes such as seeking to

prevent militia from being made prisoners of war, allowing officers to keep their

horses, ensuring that citizens living in Charleston [including officers of

Charleston’s civil government] would not be made prisoners of war, etc.

[enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70;

another copy of this enclosure is found in document 120, not itemized here; and

also in document 126; see also document 101 and note after it] [an additional

enclosure to Clinton’s letter No. 88 is found in document 121, enclosed with the

triplicate copy of this letter in document 101; it is the cover letter from American

General Lincoln to General Clinton dated May 9, 1780 which delivered Lincoln’s

alterations to the proposed Articles of Capitulation, as found in this document

plus documents 120, 126]

430

91. May 9, 1780 [211]

Copy of letter from Clinton and Arbuthnot before Charleston to Lincoln, stating

that “The Alterations you propose are all utterly inadmissible. Hostilities will in

consequence commence afresh at 8 o’Clock” [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13,

1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is

found in document 122, not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after

it]

92. May 11, 1780 [213]

Copy of letter from Lincoln at Charleston to Clinton, while continuing to protest

that Clinton’s proposed treatment of surrendering militia and citizens was

inhumane, having learned that these people themselves were willing to comply

with that treatment in order to end the siege, he had been led “now to offer you

my Acceptance of them” [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to

Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document 122,

not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

93. May 11, 1780 [215]

Copy of letter from Clinton, before Charleston, to Lincoln, informing Lincoln that

the terms Clinton and Arbuthnot had previously proposed, having been acceded

to by Lincoln, were still acceptable to Clinton and Arbuthnot; stating that

therefore, they were agreed to, that a copy would be dawn for Lincoln’s

certification, and that then, a detachment of grenadiers would be sent into the city

to take possession of it [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to

Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document 124,

not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

94. May 12, 1780 [217]

Copy of letter from Lincoln at Charleston to Clinton, stating that he was sending

Colonel [Jean Baptiste Charles de] Ternant [a French volunteer officer] “as

Commissioner on my Part” to explain some matters about the situation and to

“execute this Business, and agree upon the place to which our Troops shall be

conducted” [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain,

document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document 125, not

itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it; [an additional enclosure

to Clinton’s letter No. 88 is found in document 126, enclosed with the triplicate

copy of this letter in document 101; it is another copy of the alternative terms of

capitulation that General Lincoln proposed to General Clinton, copies of which

are also found in documents 90 and 120]

95. May 12, 1780 [219]

Copy of Articles of Capitulation “as finally agreed upon and ratified”, with two

columns, Lincoln’s original proposal and Clinton’s and Arbuthnot’s revision, which

was agreed to on May 11 [document 93] and signed and dated the next day

431

[enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70;

another copy of this enclosure is found in document 127, not itemized here; see

also document 101 and note after it]

96. May 14, 1780 [221]

“Return of Ordnance, Arms, and Ammunition in Charleston” at the time of

surrender [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain,

document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in document 128, not

itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

97. May 12, 1780 [223]

“Return of the Killed and Wounded” in Clinton’s British army from the date of its

disembarkation at Charleston on February 11, 1780 until the surrender of

Charleston on May 12, 1780, including total killed 75 plus total wounded 180

[enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70;

another copy of this enclosure is found in document 129, not itemized here; see

also document 101 and note after it]

98. April 12, 1780 [225]

Copy of instructions from Clinton to Lieutenant Colonel [James] Webster,

containing detailed orders and contingent orders for his corps’ movement on April

13 and 14 along two lines of rural lowlands with rivers, ferries, bluffs, [each line of

march roughly paralleling a transportation route toward Charleston]

[Note: Intentionally not made clear in the instructions was their intent, to find and

engage rebel troops guarding the transportation routes and to destroy their

usefulness to resupply Charleston as part of General Clinton’s siege of

Charleston and its harbor. The remembered action during this operation was the

Battle of Monck’s Corner, fought on April 14, 1780. The Loyalist British

Legion commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton caught by surprise

the rebel troops assigned to protect the transport route running through this town

toward Charleston (which roughly follows modern U.S. Route 17A). British

success here closed one of the few remaining supply lines into Charleston,

helping to ensure the success of the British siege and the surrender of the rebel

army in Charleston on May 12, 1780 [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter

No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in

document 130, not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

[Note: Lieutenant Colonel Sir Banastre Tarleton, 1

Baronet (1754-1833)

was a British officer in his 20s during the Revolutionary War. An effective if

brutal military leader, he led loyalist troops during the siege of Charleston,

including the successful raid at Monck’s Corner in April 1780. After Charleston

fell, he organized Tarleton’s Raiders, a special loyalist corps of cavalry and light

infantry. Under the command of Major General Charles Cornwallis, 1

Marquess Cornwallis (1738-1805), among the more capable of the top generals

on the British side, Tarleton operated on offence in the North Carolina-South

Carolina frontier. His troops won again in the bloody battle (or massacre) at

Waxhaw south of Charlotte (see note after document 145) in May 1780.

432

In August, as Cornwallis was winning decisively at Camden, Tarleton’s troops

also won a subsequent, smaller victory against Brigadier General Thomas

Sumter of the South Carolina Militia, at a place variously known as Fishing Creek

or Catawba Fords. Soon after, however, Tarleton’s troops were decisively

defeated at the Battle of Cowpens in January 1781. He went on to play a

defensive role at Yorktown, surrendered with the rest of Cornwallis’ army, and

returned to England under parole. For more on Brigadier General Thomas

Sumter, see note after document 185.]

99. April 23, 1780 [227]

Copy of letter from Clinton at headquarters at the Neck of Charleston to Webster,

adding to the previous instructions some “hints” about Webster’s situation, to be

interpreted as hints of orders concerning the siege, now well underway

[enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter No. 88 to Germain, document 70;

another copy of this enclosure is found in document 131, not itemized here; see

also document 101 and note after it]

100. April 25, 1780 [229]

Copy of letter from Clinton to Lieutenant General [Charles] Cornwallis, asking

that he and his troops move toward controlling the Cooper River as part of the

tightening siege around Charleston [enclosed with Clinton’s May 13, 1780 letter

No. 88 to Germain, document 70; another copy of this enclosure is found in

document 132, not itemized here; see also document 101 and note after it]

[Note: Major General Charles Cornwallis, 1

Marquess Cornwallis (1738-

1805) was among the more capable of the top generals on the British side of the

Revolutionary War. He and his troops were involved in many of the major

engagements with American forces from 1776 onward. He is perhaps most

remembered for his surrender at Yorktown, Virginia in October 1781. Prior to

that, however, he led his troops with considerable success, under General Henry

Clinton’s overall command, during the British southern campaign of 1780 and

1781. During the siege of Charleston he played a leading military role.

Following that, Clinton sent him and his troops into South Carolina’s interior to

protect the British gains at Charleston and to go on the offense against rebels in

the south. He had significant early successes at Waxhaw (led by Cornwallis’

subordinate Lieutenant Colonel Tarleton) and Camden in May and August 1780,

respectively. By late 1780, however, loyalist forces lost at Kings Mountain in

October 1780, stalling Cornwallis’ offensive strategy into North Carolina,

Tarleton’s troops lost badly at Cowpens in upland South Carolina in January

1781, and Cornwallis’s troops suffered a bloody standoff at Guilford

Courthouse in north central North Carolina in March 1781, before Cornwallis

chose to retreat to Virginia via Wilmington, North Carolina.]

433

101. May 13, 1780 [231]

Triplicate letter No. 88 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain [for summary, see

a duplicate of this letter, document 70; see also note after document 70] [with

enclosures, documents 102 to 132, which are not listed here but are identified by

number in the entry for the same enclosures (documents 72 to 100) with the

duplicate of Clinton’s same letter No. 88, (document 70); the exceptions are

documents 121 and 126, which are entries for two enclosures to the document

101 letter, which are not microfilmed with document 70]

121. May 9, 1780 [275]

Copy of letter from Lincoln at Charleston to Clinton, the cover letter for Lincoln’s

proposed alterations [document 120], stating, in relation to Clinton’s and

Arbuthnot’s proposed alternative Articles of Capitulation [document 119], that

“they are inadmissible” and making his proposals for admissible alterations in

certain articles [this cover letter was not included among the enclosures with

Clinton’s duplicate letter No. 88, document 70]

126. May 9, 1780 [285]

Copy of Articles of Capitulation alterations proposed by Lincoln [this document

was not included among the enclosures with Clinton’s duplicate letter No. 88,

document 70, although another copy of it was enclosed in document 90, and

another copy is also found in the enclosures with this triplicate letter No. 88 in

document 120]

133. May 14, 1780 [300]

Duplicate letter No. 89 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain, acknowledging

receipt of a secret letter and a very secret letter, both dated March 15, 1780, both

to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty [with an enclosure, not microfilmed]

134. May 15, 1780 [302]

Duplicate letter No. 90 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain, concerning a

matter of required resignation of officers with commissions in both the British

Army and Provincial Militia, from one or the other, which was being enforced

except for two officers, Lieutenant Colonels [John Graves] Simcoe and

[Banastre] Tarleton, pending consideration of “how much the Kings Service

would suffer from it”; requesting that similar exemption be allowed for Captain

Robertson [among several Robertsons in the British Army at the time, the

identity of this person has not been found]

135. May 15, 1780 [304]

Duplicate letter No. 90 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain [another duplicate

letter No. 90, the same as in document 134]

434

136. May 15, 1780 [306]

Duplicate letter No. 91 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain, stating his difficulty

of having insufficient numbers of generals, so that he was promoting certain

colonels

137. May 15, 1780 [308]

Duplicate letter No. 91 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain [another duplicate

letter No. 91, the same as in document 136]

138. May 16, 1780 [310]

Duplicate of “Separate” [unnumbered] letter from Clinton to Germain, concerning

his support for [James] Simpson who was ”endeavouring to collect every

Information with respect to the present Temper and disposition of the

Inhabitants”, which Clinton hoped would lead to a decision of readiness to re-

establish a colonial British government in South Carolina [with enclosure,

document 139]

[Note: Clinton’s plan was to arouse loyalist enthusiasm and action to create an

indigenous movement toward re-establishment of British colonial rule in

South Carolina, following the fall Charleston to the British after Clinton’s siege of

the city. During the campaign to conquer Charleston, Clinton’s secretary had

been former South Carolina Attorney General James Simpson. Clinton

delegated implementation of his loyalist plan to loyalist leader Simpson.

Simpson was appointed to this responsibility on May 3, 1780, just days before

Benjamin Lincoln’s rebel army in Charleston surrendered on May 12. Only three

days after that capitulation, Simpson wrote a report to Clinton (document 139).

Simpson was, however, more than an individual intelligence gatherer and

reporter. Another loyalist named Richard Pearis, living in upland South

Carolina, working apparently under Simpson’s direction, had some success in a

related effort to organize a group of loyalist militia. In the end, none of these

efforts succeeded in re-establishing colonial rule in South Carolina.]

139. May 15, 1780 [311]

Copy of letter from Simpson at Charleston to Clinton, reporting that some

inhabitants seemed to be reasoning that a return to the King’s authority would be

the most logical alternative, while others seemed intransigent in their “error” of

rebellion, and others reportedly felt in other ways; suspecting that the number of

more consequential people who favored return to British rule outnumbered those

still opposed to that rule; stating that the number of loyalists who had always

supported the King’s authority were not so numerous as he had expected; stating

that additional loyalists were forced to leave Charleston to “settle in the country”;

believing that some of these loyalists may be “deservedly so obnoxious, that

whatever Measures may be adopted by Government, it will be Impossible for

them to Escape the Effects of private resentment”; believing that the “Lower class

of People” would “without trouble Submit quietly to the Government that Supports

itself”;

435

stating that, as a result of his inquiries into public opinion, he believed “it will be

very practicable to Establish the King’s Government in South Carolina”, although

it would take some time and effort to accomplish [enclosed with Clinton’s May

15, 1780 “separate” unnumbered letter to Germain, document 139]

140. June 3, 1780 [314]

Triplicate letter No. 92 from Clinton at Charleston headquarters to Germain,

informing Germain that Lord Rawdon had resigned his commission as Lieutenant

Colonel in the British Army and had chosen to continue as Colonel of Provincials,

but that having to make this choice was “mortifying” for him; suggesting that this

requirement was doing harm to the British military

[Note: Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1

Marquess of Hastings (1754-1826) was

a career army officer actively involved in the British response to the American

Revolution from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown and beyond. During the

southern campaign, he served under Clinton at Charleston. When Cornwallis’

army began moving northward after the August 16, 1780 Battle of Camden,

Rawdon became the de-facto commander of British troops remaining in the deep

south. Yet, his army was gradually forced by rebel military pressure back to

Charleston, where, in July 1781, he gave up his command and returned to

England, reportedly because of poor health. How this situation squares with his

having decided in 1780 to keep a provincial over a British military position is not

clear from these documents alone. Rawdon’s military and colonial career

continued after the American war elsewhere in the British Empire. From 1813

until 1823 he served as Governor General of India.]

141. June 3, 1780 [316]

Duplicate letter No. 92 from Clinton at Charleston headquarters to Germain [the

same as triplicate letter No. 92 in document 140]

142. June 4, 1780 [318]

Triplicate letter No. 93 from Clinton at Charleston headquarters to Germain,

reporting the capture of 5,618 prisoners of war through the surrender of the rebel

army at Charleston; reporting that Cornwallis and other British troops were now

marching inland in South Carolina to expand British-held territory beyond

Charleston, with some success [with enclosure, document 143] [an apparent

partial draft of this letter is found in document 144; a duplicate of the same letter

is in document 145 with its last (fifth) page microfilmed separately in document

152]

[Note: Just before the date of this letter, on May 29, 1780, Banastre Tarleton’s

loyalist troops (under Cornwallis’ overall command) had brutally defeated

Abraham Buford’s Continental Army troops at a place called Waxhaw, on the

South Carolina-North Carolina border. Shortly thereafter, on August 16, 1780,

Tarleton’s troops reinforced with other British troops clashed with and routed

Horatio Gates’ rebel army at Camden, South Carolina.

436

Despite this initial victory, and several more indecisive encounters with the

rebels, the British army eventually became bogged down and moved northward,

seeking access to needed supplies. When Cornwallis reached Yorktown,

Virginia, where he expected to be resupplied, circumstances had turned this

coastal area into a trap rather than an opportunity to resupply. French naval

support along with a large rebel army turned the tables, bottling Cornwallis’ army

up in September and October 1781, until it was forced to surrender. This more

than nullified the British victory at Camden, leading eventually toward final

American victory in its Revolutionary War against the British in 1783. Earlier in

the war, in 1777, General Gates had succeeded grandly by defeating General

John Burgoyne’s British army at Saratoga, New York. He was not so successful

at Camden. For more on Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton, see note after

document 98.]

143. [no date] [320]

Return of prisoners captured by British forces at Charleston on May 12, 1780,

including, 17 corps, each reporting numbers by rank for commissioned officers,

staff officers, noncommissioned officers, and rank and file plus numbers by

position in civil government, general hospital, commissary general’s department,

quarter master general’s department, and militia hospital, with various totals and

a grand total of 5,618 prisoners, plus a few in unique categories, leading to a

grand, grand total of 5,704 [enclosed with Clinton’s June 4, 1780 letter to

Germain, document 142]

144. [no date] [321]

Evidently an incomplete draft of parts of letter No. 93 from Clinton to Germain,

dated June 4, 1780, referring to efforts to certify the allegiance of Charlestonians

captured at the surrender of the rebel army and to seek to keep them in South

Carolina as loyal inhabitants; stating that “I may venture to assert, that there are

few Men in South Carolina, who are not either our Prisoners or in arms with us”;

reporting that “the loyalists in the back parts of North Carolina are arming”;

hoping that “within the Provinces” Cornwallis and his army “will call back its

Inhabitants from their State of Error and Disobedience”; proposing to send “a

small Expedition into Cape Fear River” to support the upland loyalists; stating

that he was leaving Charleston harbor with as many troops as possible, going to

New York [this draft begins in the middle of a sentence and consists of the last

two pages of the complete letter, whose date is written at the top of the second

microfilmed page in an archivist’s different handwriting; for complete copies of

this letter see triplicate letter (document 142) and duplicate letter (document 145

with the last, fifth page microfilmed in document 152]

437

145. June 4, 1780 [322]

Duplicate letter No. 93 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain, describing the

movement of Cornwallis’ corps northward and the engagement of Lieutenant

Colonel [Banastre] Tarleton with the rebels at [the Battle of Waxhaw]; making

positive assertions about possibilities for re-establishing British rule in South

Carolina, with the help of a perceived many willing loyalists, especially in the

interior, where Cornwallis and Tarleton were then finding military success [the

last (fifth) page of this letter is microfilmed separately in document 152] [see

evident partial draft copy of this letter in document 144 and triplicate letter

(complete) in document 142]

[Note: Waxhaw is now a small rural town not far south of Charlotte, North

Carolina, near the border with South Carolina. In the early 1760s this area was

home to a small band of Waxhaw Indians, apparently affiliated with the Catawba

Nation. During that time, the Indians and frontier settlers from both North

Carolina and South Carolina contended for this territory. A major concern of both

colonies for some time was negotiation of a firm boundary line between the two

Carolinas that would also move the Indians farther away on the frontier. See

note after Reel 1 document 165. In 1780, Waxhaw was a logistical meeting point

of two armies, not a destination. Nor were the Indians any longer major

contenders for power in the area, leaving hostilities to loyalists v. rebels, in the

British terminology.

The Battle of Waxhaw was a bloody affair. Tarleton’s rebels faced Continental

troops from Virginia commanded by Colonel Abraham Buford. Tarleton had, as

usual, charged up his troops for a hard fight. They were sufficiently effective that

Buford apparently sought to surrender. Meanwhile, during a charge, Tarleton’s

horse had been killed and Tarleton had been pinned under the horse’s body. His

hyped-up troops, furious at the thought he had perhaps been killed, violated the

surrender truce and turned the battle into a massacre.]

146. June 3, 1780 [324]

Duplicate letter No. 94 from Clinton at Charleston to Germain, enclosing copies

of proclamation and a handbill he had circulated seeking to encourage loyalist

leanings among prisoners and inhabitants [with enclosures, documents 147,

148] [another duplicate of the same letter is found in document 149, dated June

4, 1780]

147. May 22, 1780 [325]

Copy of printed handbill containing a proclamation from Clinton to the inhabitants

of South Carolina, warning against any new armed violence against British

authority and expressing he intent to reinstate civil government in South Carolina

loyal to the King; encouraging all inhabitants to disavow the rebellion and

overcome its “Disorder, Violence and Oppression”; stating that “the helping Hand

of every Man is wanted to re-establish Peace and good Government” and “to

secure to them Peace, Liberty, and Prosperity”;

438

calling for creation of a new [loyal] militia, in which young men would be expected

to serve “as his Debt to his Country” [another copy of this printed handbill in

document 151] [enclosed with Clinton’s June 3, 1780 letter to Germain,

document 146]

148. June 3, 1780 [328]

Copy of proclamation from Clinton stating his order that, to help repopulate South

Carolina with willing, loyal inhabitants, the paroles of prisoners of war who

surrendered at Charleston in May 1780 were to be ended because the paroles

were no longer needed for security purposes, and the men were needed to fulfill

the goal of re-establishing “peace and good government” in South Carolina;

declaring that those who were prisoners of war and on parole, after June 20,

1780 “are freed and exempted from all such Paroles and may hold themselves

as restored to all the rights and Duties belonging to Citizens and Inhabitants”;

and that any who “afterwards neglect to return to their Allegiance and to His

Majesty’s Government will be considered as Enemies and Rebels to the same

and treated accordingly” [same as document 150] [enclosed with Clinton’s June

3, 1780 letter to Germain, document 146]

149. June 4, 1780 [330]

Duplicate letter No. 94 from Clinton to Germain [another duplicate of the same

letter as in document 146, dated June 3, 1780] [with enclosures, documents

150, 151]

150. June 3, 1780 [331]

Copy of proclamation from Clinton calling on inhabitants of South Carolina to be

loyal to the King and to aid the task of re-establishing “peace and good

government” in the colony [same as document 148] [enclosed with Clinton’s

June 4, 1780 letter to Germain, document 149]

151. May 22, 1780 [333]

Copy of printed handbill with proclamation encouraging all South Carolina

inhabitants to be loyal to the King and to help out in re-establishing “Peace,

Liberty, and Prosperity” in the colony [same as document 147] [enclosed with

Clinton’s June 4, 1780 letter to Germain, document 149]

152. [June 4, 1780] [336]

Copy of last page of duplicate letter No. 93 from Clinton to Germain [the

previous four pages of this letter are microfilmed in document 145; an evident

draft of the last part of the letter is found in document 144, and a complete

triplicate letter is in document 142]

439

153. June 5, 1780 [338]

Duplicate letter No. 95 from Clinton on board the Man of War Romulus off of

Charleston bar to Germain, enclosing a more detailed description from

Cornwallis of the battle at Waxhaw [with enclosures, documents 154 to 157]

[same as duplicate letter No. 95 in document 158]

[Note: General Clinton had decided soon after Charleston’s surrender on May

12, 1780 that he would return with some of his troops to New York, to attend to

ongoing northern conflicts which he felt needed his attention. When he wrote this

letter on June 5, 1780, his troops were already on board transports and he was

ready to sail from outside the Charleston bar. He left Cornwallis behind, in

command of all British troops remaining in the south, with instructions to continue

the offensive strategy he had devised.

The military side of this strategy was to roll up victories throughout the south as

loyalists poured out to support re-establishment of the South Carolina colony.

The political side of the strategy was to engage loyalists quickly to reconstitute

British civil government in the colony.

Unfortunately for Clinton, and more directly for Cornwallis, the assumption of

widespread loyalist support in South Carolina missed the mark of reality by a

wide margin. The military strategy got bogged down. Cornwallis marched

eastward toward the coast, seeking reinforcements and supplies, and ended up

trapped at Yorktown. The political strategy was stillborn. In Charleston the

British had control through military rule but little support. In the rest of the colony,

despite Cornwallis’ military success in certain battles, the British never even

regained control. Tenacious military harassment by the American southern army

under General Nathanael Greene’s overall command and some capable

leadership beneath him also had something to do with Clinton’s and Cornwallis’

miscalculation.

Yet, the fatal blind spot belonged to the British—their unrealistic assumption that

the British system was superior and ultimately invincible, and that the trouble in

the American colonies was a mere rebellion caused by an insolent minority of

malcontents who would eventually fail if sufficient British force was applied,

whereupon the essentially loyal population would return from its misguided ways

to its natural loyalty and obedience to the King. In these microfilmed official

South Carolina Colonial Papers, this assumption became a persistent refrain

after the early 1760s, seemingly impervious to change based on clear evidence.

Between 1780 and 1782, the evidence in South Carolina against the faulty British

assumption became more and more clear, as the British strategy yielded neither

cumulative military victories nor a flowering of civil government.]

154. June 2, 1780 [339]

Copy of letter from Cornwallis at Camden, South Carolina to Clinton, enclosing a

more detailed report of the battle at Waxhaw from Tarleton along with return of

those killed and wounded on both sides in the battle [same as document 159]

[see enclosures, documents 155 to 157] [enclosed with Clinton’s June 5, 1780

letter to Germain, document 153]

440

[Note: The interior frontier country of South Carolina verging into North Carolina

that briefly became the center of operations for the British southern campaign

after the surrender of Charleston on May 12, 1780 remains today largely rural.

Locations in this area are most easily described today in relation to two larger

modern cities on the fringes of this area—Charlotte, North Carolina and

Columbia, South Carolina. Waxhaw, now in North Carolina, lies just a few miles

south of Charlotte. From Columbia, Camden is about 35 miles northeast and

Waxhaw is another 60 miles straight north from Camden.]

155. May 30, 1780 [341]

Copy of letter from Tarleton at Waxhaw to Cornwallis, containing details of the

British success at the battle there [same as document 160] [enclosed with

Cornwallis’ June 2, 1780 letter to Clinton, document 154, which was enclosed

with Clinton’s June 5, 1780 letter to Germain, document 153]

156. [no date] [343]

“Return of Rebel killed, wounded, and taken in the Affair at Wacsaw [Waxhaw]

the 29

May 1780”, reporting 113 killed, 150 wounded, and 53 captured for a

total of 316; reporting also the capture of cannons, wagons with ammunition,

gunpowder, clothing, arms, musket cartridges, new cartridge boxes, flints, and

camp equipage [see note about this battle-turned-massacre after document 145

[same as document 161] [enclosed with Cornwallis’ June 2, 1780 letter to

Clinton, document 154, which was enclosed with Clinton’s June 5, 1780 letter to

Germain, document 153]

157. [no date] [344]

“Return of British Killed and Wounded in the Affair at Wacsaw [Waxhaw] the 29

May 1780”, reporting 3 killed and 14 wounded [same as document 162]

[enclosed with Cornwallis’ June 2, 1780 letter to Clinton, document 154, which

was enclosed with Clinton’s June 5, 1780 letter to Germain, document 153]

158. June 5, 1780 [346]

Duplicate letter No. 95 from Clinton on board the HMS Romulus off Charleston

bar to Germain, [with enclosures, documents 159 to 162] [same as duplicate

letter No. 95 in document 153]

159. June 2, 1780 [347]

Copy of letter from Cornwallis at Camden to Clinton with enclosures about Battle

of Waxhaw [same as document 154] [enclosed with Clinton’s June 5, 1780

letter to Germain, document 158]

160. May 30, 1780 [349]

Copy of letter from Tarleton at Waxhaw to Cornwallis with details of results of the

battle there [same as document 155] [enclosed with Cornwallis’ June 2, 1780

letter to Germain, document 159, which was enclosed with Clinton’s June 5,

1780 letter to Germain, document 158]

441

161. [no date] [351]

Copy of return of rebels killed, wounded and taken at the Battle of Waxhaw

[same as document 156] [enclosed with Cornwallis’ June 2, 1780 letter to

Germain, document 159, which was enclosed with Clinton’s June 5, 1780 letter

to Germain, document 158]

162. [no date] [353]

Copy of return of British killed and wounded a the Battle of Waxhaw [same as

document 157] [same as document 157] [enclosed with Cornwallis’ June 2,

1780 letter to Germain, document 159, which was enclosed with Clinton’s June

5, 1780 letter to Germain, document 158]

163. June 22, 1780 [?] [356]

Printed edition of The South Carolina Royal Gazette [microfilmed too darkly to

be readable] [Frame 356 microfilmed twice]

164. July 28, 1780 [357]

Petition to the King of merchants at London trading to South Carolina, upon

learning that General Clinton had “given Orders to stop and Detain Indico and

other Property” in order to keep them from being used to pay foreign debts, and

that British naval and army personnel were taking “Books of Accounts, Papers,

Indico, and other Property”, pleading that the King would overrule these Orders,

would ensure that all property taken with no evidence of use for foreign debts

was restored to the rightful owners, and to encourage the continuation of using

such property to pay British debts

165. [no date] [359]

“A Sketch [Map] of the Environs of Charlestown in South Carolina”, with printed

information about places and the locations of military forces, during the siege of

Charleston in March to May 1780, identified in a printed legend

166. December 4, 1780 [360]

Copy of letter from Cornwallis in South Carolina to Clinton, complaining about

various ways in which the rebels were “insolent”, and related matters

167. January 6, 1781 [362]

Extract of letter from Cornwallis at Wynnsborough [South Carolina] to Clinton

[today’s Winnsboro lies about 40 miles north of Columbia near the Catawba

River]; complaining about how rebel militia keep the back country in an uproar;

planning to march his troops, [who seem to have come from Ninety-Six], from

Winnsboro northeastward across the Catawba and Yadkin Rivers [in South

Carolina and North Carolina respectively]; reporting having asked the Navy to put

some protection into the mouth of Cape Fear [evidently making plans to head

toward the coast, seeking to resupply, perhaps at Cape Fear]

442

168. January 28, 1781 [365]

Copy of letter from Cornwallis at Turkey Creek and the Broad River [evidently in

the upper reaches of the Broad River not far south of the mountains and North

Carolina] to Clinton, reporting that he was about to begin his march to North

Carolina; reporting on Tarleton’s bloody losses against an American army on

January 17, 1781 [referring to what became known as the Battle of Cowpens,

fought northeast of today’s Spartanburg, South Carolina, in which Brigadier

General Daniel Morgan’s American troops soundly defeated Tarleton’s loyalist

troops]; expressing concern that about 400 British troops may have been killed or

wounded in that battle]

169. January 8, 1781 [368]

Extract of letter from Major General [Alexander] Leslie to Clinton, reporting

having arrived at Wynnsborough and having seen Cornwallis, who was planning

to leave the next day; reporting healthy troops and good weather

[Note: Major General Alexander Leslie (1731-1794) had served in the British

Army in both the north and the south since early in the Revolutionary War. Now,

his and Cornwallis’ armies apparently had separate missions under General

Clinton. After Cornwallis surrendered his army at Yorktown in October 1781,

Leslie replaced him by early 1782 as commander in chief of British troops in the

south. Beginning in May 1782, Leslie reported to General Guy Carleton, who

had replaced Clinton as commander of British forces in North America. Leslie

commanded from Charleston, so he also was responsible for governing that city

under martial law during the British occupation, until the British evacuated

Charleston in December 1782.]

[Note: General Guy Carleton, 1

Baron Dorchester (1724-1808) served many

years in the British Army. In 1775-1776 he defended Quebec from invasion by

the rebellious colonies to the south. After Sir Henry Clinton was recalled to

London as Commander of British Forces in North America, following the British

defeat at Yorktown, Carleton was appointed to replace Clinton. He held this

position from May 1782 until December 1783.]

170. January 25, 1781 [370]

Extract of letter from Lieutenant Colonel Balfour at Charleston to Clinton,

reporting that on January 21, 1781, a naval expedition had left to occupy and

protect Cape Fear, without erecting any major new fortifications; seeking to react

to Tarleton’s “unfortunate affair” [the Battle of Cowpens] by sending additional

troops into the area because of the need to “keep that Country in awe”; reporting

having no information about the expedition under General [Benedict] Arnold

[Note: Lieutenant Colonel Nisbet Balfour was involved in the northern war

before coming south with Clinton’s army to Charleston. After that city

surrendered to the British, he was sent to command the military way station and

crossroads at Ninety-Six, South Carolina (west of today’s Columbia). Ninety-Six

was a key piece in the puzzle of subduing South Carolina’s interior.

443

By the time of this letter, Balfour had returned to Charleston and was the British

commander there for a time. In this capacity, he would appear to have reported

to General Cornwallis, but. here he was keeping Cornwallis’ boss, General

Clinton, informed.]

171. January 31, 1781 [372]

Extract of letter from, Balfour at Charleston to Clinton, reporting a raid at

Georgetown, South Carolina by rebel troops under command of Lieutenant

Colonel [“Light Horse” Henry] Lee and [Brigadier General Francis] Marion;

although it failed, it embarrassed the British as three of their officers, including

the local commander, Lieutenant Colonel George Campbell were captured [a

classic example of Marion’s “swamp fox” method, executed expertly by Lee and

others under Marion’s command, of appearing by surprise from the swamps,

conducting a quick, effective raid, and disappearing again into the swamp];

reporting also the destruction of wagons and supplies at Monck’s Corner

[apparently another rebel raid against a British military outpost] [Georgetown is

strategically located, about half way between Charlestown and present-day

Myrtle Beach, near the estuary of several rivers combined, including especially

the Great Pee Dee River]

172. August 31, 1781 [374]

Memorial to Germain of “Merchants and Others Interested in the Commerce and

Prosperity of the Province of S

. Carolina” at London, expressing satisfaction with

the positive prospects for restoring civil government and obedience to the King;

requesting that the King appoint a new governor for South Carolina; signed by 24

individuals

[Note: See note with Table 16 at end of Reel 8 about the abrupt change of

contents in these documents of incoming Secretary of State correspondence—

beginning with document 172 (August 31, 1781) and running through document

205 (mid-October 1782), which is at the end of the Secretary of State microfilmed

incoming correspondence and the end of Reel 8.]

173. March 2, 1782 [376]

Memorial to Secretary of State Welbore Ellis of William Blake of Charleston,

executor for the will of his brother Daniel Blake, deceased, seeking resolution of

debts and other matters pertaining to South Carolina

[Note: Welbore Ellis, (later) 1

Baron Mendip, (1713-1802) served briefly as

Secretary of State for the Colonies in February-March 1782, after Germain left

office when Prime Minister Lord North’s government fell, as political support

collapsed for the British war effort in America. Ellis served as Secretary of State

for a little over one month until March 8, 1782, when the office of Secretary of

State for the Colonies was abolished, in recognition of the failure of Britain’s

effort to re-establish its American colonies. The new name for the equivalent

office was Secretary of State for the Home Department or, more briefly, Home

Secretary. The name change reflected shifting British attitudes toward at least

one part of the world that had once been part of the British Empire.]

444

[Note: Between October 1781 and March 1782 (i.e. during the period between

document 172 and 173) “the world turned upside down.” In October 1781,

General Cornwallis surrendered his entire army to combined American and

French forces at Yorktown. In February 1782, the “war government” of Prime

Minister Lord North (Frederick (Lord) North, 2

Earl of Guilford (1732-1792)

fell as direct fallout from Cornwallis’ surrender. Public opinion and a

Parliamentary majority turned against the war. General Henry Clinton, Prime

Minister Lord North, Secretary of State Lord Germain, and others lost their jobs

as a new government led by the Earle of Shelburne as Prime Minister and

Thomas Townshend as Secretary of State for the Home Department took

over the British government in July 1782 (see note after document 186). Besides

replacing individuals, this government changed the structure of the government

in certain ways, especially in the Secretary of State office, which under Lord

Germain had played such a prominent war policy role. Now it was

“domesticated,” renamed the Home Department, and its leaders renamed (for

short) Home Secretaries. In March 1782, Parliament led the way to end the war,

voting to limit military orders in America first to defensive actions and then to no

actions, i.e. declaring a cessation of hostilities. In December 1782, following the

logic of their new orders, the British military evacuated Charleston, which they

had occupied as enemies by force since May 1780.]

174. March 6, 1782 [identified as Frame 376, a second time;

actually between Frames 376 and 377]

Extract of letter from Thomas Farr to [?] concerning the supply of beef and pork

to British troops [enclosed with Ellis’ March 6, 1782 letter to Clinton, a letter

apparently not microfilmed] [may relate to General Clinton’s overall responsibility

to ensure that British troops throughout North America were fed; in May 1782,

Clinton was replaced as commander in chief of British military forces in North

America]

175. August 10, 1782 [378]

Copy of petition to General Leslie [at Charleston] of a group of inhabitants of

Charleston, written along with Leslie’s responses to the petition’s requests, at

British military headquarters at Charleston, requesting relief from difficulties in

obtaining justice under the jurisdiction of the Board of Police; including Leslie’s

concluding opinion that he “does not think it advisable at present to make any

alterations in the mode of distributing Justice by the board of Police”

176. August 10, 1782 [380]

Copy of petition of merchants and inhabitants of Charleston to John Mathews,

Governor of the State of South Carolina and to members of the State’s Privy

Council, seeking clarification on how they may operate as merchants with

“commercial engagements” they had made since May 12, 1780; signed by 10

individuals, members of the General Committee representing the larger group of

merchant and inhabitant petitioners [the South Carolina Privy Council advised

the Governor]

445

177. August 13, 1782 [382]

Copy of letter from Governor Mathews to merchant and inhabitant petitioners

promising to convene the Privy Council about the petitioners’ concerns and to

convey their answer as soon as possible; followed by

August 13, 1782

Copy of letter from Nathaniel Green [perhaps a British military in Charleston;

clearly not related to Nathanael Greene of the Continental Army] responding on

behalf of Governor Mathews to the petitioners, stating that “whatever Conditions

are Agreed to by the Civil authority, will Strictly be adher’d to by the military”;

followed by

August 14, 1782

Copy of letter from Governor Mathews to the committee representing the

petitioners, enclosing his answer after “the most mature deliberation”; followed by

August 14, 1782

Copy of “Answer to the memorial and petition”, indicating that petitioners could

legally engage in commerce and in obtaining loans to finance their commerce

except for commerce with the enemy [Britain] and that they could not do anything

averse to the interest of the state; specifically denying a request that certain of

the petitioners be reimbursed by the State of South Carolina for expenses related

to their homes having been used by British military leaders while Charleston was

under British control

178. August 20, 1782 [384]

Copy of letter from [the Privy Council] at Charleston to Governor Mathews,

apparently the Privy Council’s response to Mathews to guide the Governor’s

response to the merchant and inhabitant petitioners

179. August 23, 1782 [back side of 384]

Copy of letter from Mathews to M. I. Harris [perhaps in the Privy Council],

indicating that his original response stands as written, after receipt of a response

to it from the petitioners and a “recommendation” [perhaps from the Privy

Council]; followed by

August 23, 1782

Copy of letter from Mathews to the committee representing the petitioners,

clarifying but not changing his previous responses for three of the requests in the

petition

180. August 15, 16, 1782 [386]

Copy of “Resolutions of the Board of Police” pertaining to request from Intendant

General William Bull II concerning the status of suits pending when Charleston is

evacuated [by the British], suggesting rules for differing procedures depending on

whether the defendant or plaintiff would be evacuating

446

[Note: Following on the footsteps of his father, William Bull Sr., William Bull II

(1710-1791) had a long history of public service in the colonial government of

South Carolina. He was a representative in the Commons House of the South

Carolina Assembly from 1736 until 1749. From 1749 until 1775, he served on

the South Carolina Council. From 1759 until 1775, he was also Lieutenant

Governor under several governors and during five lengthy interim periods

between governors, during which he served as acting governor (without the title).

When the colonial government collapsed in September 1775, he resigned from

the Council and retired to his plantation. He remained a loyalist, refusing in 1777

to sign the oath of allegiance to the State of South Carolina. As a result, his

property was confiscated, and he was banished, going into exile in England in

May 1777.

After General Henry Clinton’s victory over a besieged American army at

Charleston in May 1780, the British government in London encouraged Bull and

other leaders of the former colonial government to return to Charleston, with the

expectation of re-establishing British colonial rule in South Carolina. Bull, still

with his Lieutenant Governor title, returned in February 1781. Governor

Campbell would probably have returned as well, but he had died in 1778 and no

new governor had been appointed.

Bull and the others did not return to civilian government in Charleston. Instead,

the army had retained control, ruling through a military occupation and martial

law, with an overlay of civilian government called a Board of Police. Bull served

as Intendant General (top leader) of the Board of Police, replacing James

Simpson, former Attorney General of the former South Carolina colonial

government.

On December 14, 1782, the British Army evacuated Charleston, as a part of

Parliament’s post-war policy to disengage from the American conflict. This action

sealed the fate of the British Colony of South Carolina. British colonial officials,

including Bull, and other loyalists in Charleston, decided then either to remain in

South Carolina as citizens of the new State and United States or to return to

Britain as subjects of the British Crown. Bull returned to England, finally ending

his long career as a leader in British colonial government. He never returned to

America, although he did manage to recover his estate in South Carolina and to

have his banishment reversed. He died in London on July 4, 1791]

181. August 13, 1782 [back side of 386]

Copy of petition to General Alexander Leslie, Commander in Chief of British

forces in the Southern Department of North America, of “the Committee of

Merchants trading to Great Britain”, regretting the announced policy of the Board

of Police [probably actually the Council] concerning a limitation on the recovery of

debts owed to those soon to evacuate Charleston; stating that this policy would

be detrimental to traders who did not plan to evacuate and to the country [the

United States]; therefore requesting that provision should be made to treat all

traders with Great Britain equally in their ability to recover debts in trade with

Great Britain

447

182. [no date] [388]

Copy of letter from J. L. “in behalf of the Merchants” to Colonel Allen [probably

Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Allen, commander of the loyalist New Jersey

Volunteers] having been offered some hope from the field officers and from

General Leslie now learning that the Board of Police [probably actually the

Council] had passed resolutions that would preclude these merchants from equal

treatment concerning outstanding trade debts; seeking his understanding of the

merchants’ distress and the potential negative results for ongoing trade with

Great Britain, requesting that justice be done; stating that they had submitted a

petition to General Leslie concerning this matter

183. [no date] [390]

“Abstract of Pay due the Officers of the Charlestown Regiment & Royal Militia,

Commanded by Colonel Robert William Powell”, for 23 named officers, including

their ranks, dates of commission, dates of service, number of days, rate of pay,

and total amount due, with a total amount of pay due of £2,370.8.2

184. August 20,1780 [392]

Copy of letter No. 1 from Cornwallis at Camden to Germain, stating that General

Clinton had left Charleston for New York on June 5, leaving Cornwallis in

command of “His Majesty’s Forces in the Southern Provinces”; reporting that,

because his troops were very short on provisions, he had decided not to move

toward North Carolina immediately but to set up a series of posts “to awe the

disaffected & encourage the loyal Inhabitants”, while also seeking to recruit some

provincial Corps and to “establish a militia, as well for the Defense as for the

internal Government of South Carolina”; with details, including extra efforts in the

more populated area around Ninety-Six; reporting having heard about the

movement of Continental troops under Major General Baron de Kalb into North

Carolina, along with other rebel forces, and judging that they were too far away

for Cornwallis’ army to march to engage them in battle this late in the season;

stating also that “I had much Business to do at Charlestown in regulating the Civil

and Commercial Affairs of the Town and Country”; reporting that in much of the

countryside, inhabitants were greatly disaffected [not loyalists]; reporting

hostilities in various places on the frontier, especially in the area north of Ninety-

Six; recounting details of how these hostilities coalesced into a battle in August

as British forces led by General Rawdon and American forces under General

Gates met at Camden for a major battle; promising to inform “your Lordship of

the Consequences in my next Dispatch, which will be written to morrow”

185. August 21, 1780 [398]

Copy of letter No. 2 from Cornwallis at Camden to Germain, conveying the happy

news of a major British victory at the Battle of Camden on August 16, 1780;

describing how he had left Charleston on the 10

to join the army and take

command of it he led the British in the battle against rebel Generals Thomas

Sumter and Horatio Gates;

448

arguing that he might have decided to retreat to Charleston, but that this strategy

would have lost the entire upland to the rebels, so, despite the strength of the

enemy, he had decided to stand and fight, as described in detail; describing also

the great losses of the enemy; describing Tarleton’s follow-up operation two days

later, which was “executed...with his usual activity & military address”; describing

other follow-up efforts, seeking to take advantage of the inland victory in South

Carolina to increase loyalist support in North Carolina

[Note: Although Major General Baron Johann de Kalb was mentioned in the

first of these dual letters describing the British victory in the Battle of Camden,

not mentioned is that de Kalb was mortally wounded in the battle. He had come

to America as a patriotic professional soldier in the French army—and as the

mentor of the Marquis de Lafayette.]

[Note: Brigadier General Thomas Sumter (1734-1832), a Virginian planter and

politician who rose through the ranks of Virginia’s and then South Carolina’s

Militia, had been a thorn in the side of Cornwallis’ southern army. Besides

leading rebel troops in the Battle of Camden, he had been harassing the British

Army with hit-and-run raids to the extent that Tarleton referred to him as a

“gamecock.” After the war, Sumter returned to politics, representing South

Carolina subsequently in both the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

Years later, Sumter’s military contribution was recognized when the strategically

significant, water-surrounded fort in Charleston harbor was famously named Fort

Sumter. Later yet, the University of South Carolina’s football team chose the

name “Fighting Gamecocks.]

186. August 22, 1782 [406]

Copy of memorial to [Secretary of State for the Home Department] Thomas

Townshend from the Committee of Merchants at London, expressing their great

distress, having learned that the British army had withdrawn from Georgia and

that the British commander at Charleston was taking negative actions from the

perspective of English merchants and loyalist South Carolina merchants wishing

to maintain trade between the two; hoping that the government in London would

ensure against any more negative actions; signed by William Greenwood, John

Nutt, and John Clark

[Note: Lord George Germain, the last Secretary of State for the Colonies, had

been dismissed as part fall of Lord North’s government in February 1782. In

March 1782, the Earl of Shelburne became the first Secretary of State for the

Home Office, a position reflecting a shift in the Secretary of State’s

responsibilities from an outward view toward colonies to a more internalized view

toward the welfare of the people of Britain as well as the remaining British

Empire. When Shelburne became prime minister and formed his own

government in July 1782, Thomas Townshend, became Secretary of State for

the Home Department, serving, except for a brief hiatus in 1783, from July 1782

until 1789.]

449

187. September 16, 1782 [408]

Printed proclamation by General Cornwallis at Charleston, ordering the

sequestration of estates of traitorous persons still refusing to return to their duties

and loyalty to the King; appointing John Cruden to be Commissioner to oversee

the sequestration process, which will include seizure of accounts and other

papers to verify the content and values of estates; requiring that all inhabitants

give information to the Commissioner, with additional details

188. October 3, 1782 [409]

Copy of memorial to Townshend from the Committee of Merchants, dismayed at

additional news of injurious policies against those doing trade with South

Carolina; seeking an unequivocal statement of British government that the rights

of debt resolution should be equally justified and allowed for all debts in South

Carolina since 1776; signed by Greenwood, Nutt, and Clark

189. October 9, 1782 [411]

Copy of order by Lieutenant General Leslie to Alexander Wright and James

Johnson, concurring with South Carolina Governor John Mathew’s appointing

them [and subsequently others as well] as Commissioners to enforce a policy

requested by South Carolina inhabitants, ensuring “that all the slaves, the

Property of American Subjects in South Carolina, now in my Power, shall be left

here and restored to their former owners as far as it is practicable, except such

slaves as have rendered themselves particularly obnoxious by their attachment

and service to the British Troops, and such as have had specific promises of

freedom, and that those shall be valued by indifferent Persons and Certificates

given by one of their masters” including further details for enforcement

[Note: General Leslie and Governor Mathews negotiated a “compact” or “treaty”

between their “enemy” entities for the purpose of managing the ownership,

status, and movement of slaves during the planned evacuation of

Charleston by the British military at the end of 1782. Leslie’s goal was to allow

some Negroes to evacuate with the English, at least some of whom would be

freed from slavery. He understood that slaves taken would have to be paid for to

their South Carolinian owners. Mathews wanted to maintain the legality of slave

property ownership and the control of slavery to be in the hands of South

Carolina slave owners. He apparently agreed to Leslie’s compact to make the

process as controlled as possible so that neither side could easily abuse the

rules. The compact created a Commission to manage the controlled process. At

least four commissioners are mentioned in this correspondence. See document

190 for the text of the compact and the names of the four commissioners, who

were appointed by Leslie. See documents 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 203, 204.]

450

190. October 10, 1782 [413]

Copy of agreement or “compact” by the Commissioners appointed by Leslie and

Mathews to enforce the policy on leaving slaves in place when British forces

depart; stating the purpose of the policy “to prevent the great loss of Property and

probably the ruin of many families, which might be occasioned by the removal of

such slaves as are within the British Lines when the Troops shall be withdrawn

from Charlestown”; stating the rules that would be enforced; signed by

[Commissioners] Edward Rutledge, Benjamin Guerard, Alexander Wright, and

James Johnson; with addendum signed by Wright and Johnson that “We agree

that not only slaves, but any other Property of the Citizens of South Carolina is,

by us, considered and included in the foregoing Treaty as far as it is practicable

to restore it” [same as document 204]

191. [no date] [417]

Copy of “The objects of the Compact of the 10

October 1782” [not clear who the

author is or authors are], including a list of what “The Carolina Revolted [are] to

have”, including their slaves, the value of “obnoxious” slaves, public deeds,

records and papers, and property restored; another list of what, “To the loyalists

it is promised”, that debts to British merchants would not be seized or withheld,

property would be secured now and in the future, only property of citizens to be

taxed, prohibiting violence against family members, possible allowance from the

state to assist those choosing to leave South Carolina; including also

observations [by whom?] that the compact guaranteed immediate results for

rebels but only promises to loyalists; that uncertainty existed between revolvers

and loyalists on the status of debts and estates covered “by Family Settlements”,

which was an “equivocal expression”; that other provisions should be included,

such as no limits on claims of creditors; that actions taken by British or French

officials did not apply to properties designated as “Family Settlements”; that only

houses were included in the definition of estates abandoned by loyalists who had

moved away, and that other buildings and improvements should perhaps be

included

192. No date] [419]

Copy of unattributed opinions [from the perspective of what the British would

consider an unreconstructed and unforgiving rebel] making suggestions for how

the agreements being made prior to British evacuation of South Carolina should

be altered, stating that the evacuation would “leave the usurpation and

Sovereignty over the Persons and Property in their power”; hoping that General

Leslie would “find means to lessen the distress” [apparently of “patriot” South

Carolinians] by managing property so that it remained attached to those who now

owned it rather than allowing the “unrelenting spirit to the Loyalists”, whose

estates otherwise would be confiscated, to prevail; considering that the October

10 agreement may lead to unconditional restitution; stating that those trading with

Great Britain, who were more loyalists than English merchants, should not be

allowed to sweeten the bargain to collect on debts or to own property; wishing

not to favor “Loyalists—British Creditors or others, Resident or absent”

451

193. October 14, 1782 [421]

Copy of letter from Edward Blake and Roger Parker Saunders at Charleston to

Governor Mathews, stating that they were following instructions of the governor

to seek to enforce the rules of the new commission on the status of slaves, for

which they recruited several others to assist; stating their purpose to be to take

from outgoing vessels any Negroes who might be about to be taken from South

Carolina, when according to the commission, they should not be taken from the

state; asking the governor’s assistance in their efforts; followed by

October 19, 1782

Copy of letter from Edward Blake at Charleston to Governor Mathews, reporting

having searched a “fleet” bound for St. Augustine and had “taken out of it 136

Negroes which we supposed belongs to the citizens of this State”; seeking

assistance in searching additional vessels; having been told by one British officer

that if Negroes were in British vessels, they would generally be considered to be

part of the fleet and would not be removed; still awaiting an official reply from

British headquarters about full enforcement of the policy

[Note: Having agreed to the compact concerning how to handle slavery issues

during the evacuations, Governor Mathews apparently set up an enforcement

group to make sure the British didn’t “steal” additional slaves than agreed to by

the commissioners. Four men are identified in this correspondence as having

been a part of this enforcement effort. Some of the activities of two of them,

Edward Blake and Roger Parker Saunders, are documented in the

correspondence (documents 193, 196). The activities of two others, Mr.

Ferguson and Mr. Waring, are not documented. Partly because Mathews had

little trust in Leslie or the British military, he quickly discovered what he thought

was a plot by Leslie, using Blake and Saunders to steal slaves to benefit British

interests rather than South Carolina planter interests. He quickly disassociated

himself from Blake, Saunders, and their activities, and accused Leslie of

subverting the Commissioners and the Compact (documents 197, 200, 202).

Without explanation in writing, he also warned Ferguson and Waring to

disappear immediately because they were in grave danger (document 201). This

failure at attempted cooperation would not be resolved by completion of the

evacuation. Although the British military was leaving, many loyalists were

choosing to stay and already were petitioning for their rights in a relatively hostile

environment.

194. October 18, 1782 [425]

Copy of letter from General Leslie, Commander at Charleston to General Guy

Carleton, Commander in Chief of British forces in North America [having

replaced Clinton in May 1782], sending a petition from loyalists in Charleston

concerning the status of Negroes and other rebel property sequestered within

Charleston; expecting to resolve this situation satisfactorily; seeking advice on

how to handle situations of Negroes who have been particularly helpful to the

British; noting that the current policy was that they should be kept but paid for to

their former owners;

452

stating that he was working on several fleets of evacuation, one already gone to

St Augustine and two others to sail soon to New York and Halifax respectively

195. September 9, 1782 [428]

Copy of memorial to Leslie from loyalists at Charleston, stating that although

loyal, they were disturbed by the policies negotiated between the State of South

Carolina and the British Army concerning the status of debts, Negroes, and other

property; making the case for slavery as property and owners as both legally

owning slaves and also offering them a better life in bondage than they would get

outside of it; therefore, wishing for relief to that their loss of property would not be

any greater than it already had been; signed by 44 individuals, joined by 59

others who did not sign

196. October 19, 1782 [432]

Copy of letter from Edward Blake and Roger Parker Saunders to [Governor

Mathews] concerning General Leslie’s British Army approach to resolving issues

of slave ownership and movement in South Carolina, as agreed to in the

“Compact” or “Treaty with the state government; seeking to ensure full

enforcement of owners’ rights

197. October 19, 1782 [434]

Copy of letter from Mathews to [Blake and Saunders] instructing them not to

contact him further or to take possession of any Negroes [apparently wishing the

compact to be enforced as agreed between Leslie and Mathews]; followed by

October 19, 1782

Copy of letter from Mathews to Blake and Saunders later the same day,

confirming his previous decision, having been convinced that these two were

trying to subvert the compact as part of a larger “insidious Manouvering” of those

aligned with the “Enemy” [i.e. the British]; ordering their commissions [with the

state] to be “done away” with and forbidding them to take any actions to obtain

Negroes

198. October 26, 1782 [436]

Memorial to the King from merchants of London trading with South Carolina and

Georgia and representing other persons in this trade living in these provinces;

concerning dangers to their property and money “in consequence of the

measures, lately adopted by your Majestys Ministers, in the Sudden, and

unexpected Evacuation thereof”; seeking relief, with details; signed by 15

individuals

199. October 27, 1782 [438]

Letter from Grey Elliot [apparently a merchant] at Knights Bridge [London] to

[Townshend?], suggesting that, as reflected by the October 26, 1782 memorial

from London (and American) merchants [document 198], more should probably

be done to accommodate the memorialists’ wishes; using an act pertaining to

Granada to justify this suggestion; with details

453

454

200. October 19, 1782 [440]

Copy of letter from Mathews to Leslie, laying out evidence that certain individuals

were subverting the compact by taking Negroes off of vessels, including those

bound for St. Augustine, but seeking to abscond with them without going through

the commissioners of the compact; Mathews threatening to withdraw from the

compact

201. October 19, 1782 [442]

Copy of letter from Mathews to [?] Ferguson and [?] Waring, expressing “serious

alarm for your present Safety”, based on information he had received regarding

actions by General Leslie; declining to explain [in this letter] the reasons for his

warning; stating that he had “apprized Gen

Greene of the matter, & dare say he

will do what is necessary to render your return safe”

202. October 19, 1782 [444]

Copy of letter from Mathews to [Leslie] expressing concern and anger that he

and the British seem to have been conspiring to violate the compact in a scheme

to take Negroes away from Charleston without the knowledge or approval of the

commissioners; stating his intention to withdraw from the compact and his and

General Greene’s refusal to be threatened by the British efforts

203. October 31, 1782 [447]

Copy of letter from A[lexander] Wright and James Johnson, commissioners to

enforce the compact, to [Mathews?], stating that they wished for the compact to

be enforced as agreed to, and that General Leslie was supporting their efforts;

stating that Leslie had agreed to take steps to ensure that Negroes were not

being carried away; stating their confidence that Leslie would follow through

204. October 10, 1782 [449]

Copy of the original compact, containing the original permission for Blake and

Saunders to assist the commissioners [same as document 190]

205. [no date] [455]

“Observations of the Merchants Trading to South Carolina & Georgia” to

Townshend, referencing two previous laws concerning trade with Granada and

with St. Christopher’s, Nevis, and Monserrat, respectively, stating that “it would

seem Expedient to exempt from Capture for six months all ships & their

Cargoes”, seeking to return trading rules to their prior situation while making the

transition from British colonial rule, with details; followed by

[no date]

Legal opinions of “Mr Shorthead” [?] to [Townshend?] relating the Granada and

St. Christopher’s laws to the America situation; approving the concept of allowing

delivery of cargoes in “neutral bottoms” to ease the situation of traders between

Britain and the southern former American colonies

455

Note: Shift in thinking about public issues after August 1781 from wartime/colonial

rule to post-war/post-colonial South Carolina possibilities, Charleston from August 1781

to September/October 1782 (Reel 8, documents 172 to 205)

Table 16 illustrates the shift of important issues in Reel 8 documents 172 to 205,

between August 1781 and mid-1782 in official Secretary of State incoming

correspondence. In January 1781 and before, official correspondence focused more

narrowly on issues of British allegiance and loyalty, colonial obedience, and military

progress. After August 1781, a shift refocused thinking on issues of economic

prosperity, including the status of slavery.

In August 1781, most of South Carolina territory was nominally under rebel control,

except for Charleston, which was under British military occupation and martial law. The

war was winding down with little combat occurring in South Carolina. British General

Cornwallis had moved away from the deep south toward coastal areas of North Carolina

and then Virginia. By October 1781, his army surrendered at Yorktown, causing Lord

North’s government in London to fall in February 1782, after which Parliament ordered

military operations first curtailed and then discontinued. The British military responded

to new orders by staging a strategic retreat from the former colonies, including

evacuation of Charleston, accomplished on December 14, 1782. British evacuation left

the State of South Carolina free to pursue its statehood but the City of Charleston

without a civil government. It left loyalist and rebel planters, still full of mutual hostility,

to work out their differences—and to resolve the slavery issue on their own, mutual

terms.

456

______________________________________________________________________

Table 16: Shift of important issues in Secretary of State incoming

correspondence (Reel 8 documents 172 to 205, August 1781 to mid-1782) from

British allegiance and loyalty, colonial obedience, and military progress to

economic prosperity, including the status of slavery

Economic issues

(debt, bottoms, etc.)

Economic issues

(slavery)

Loyalist issues

British military issues

State govt. issues

August 1781

172

March 1782

173

August 1782

176, 177, 178

179, 181, 182

186

175, 186, 187

175, 181, 182

186

176, 177, 178

179, 180,

Sep/Oct 1782

188, 198, 199

205

189, 190, 191

193, 194, 195

196, 197, 198

200, 202, 203

204

187, 192, 194

195

187, 189, 190

191, 194, 195

196, 197,

198,200, 201,

202, 203, 204

189, 190, 191

193, 194, 196

197, 200, 201

202, 203, 204

______________________________________________________________________

457

Reel 9 (Volume 398)

Volume 398—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Abstract of Land Grants, begin

February 9, 1674 to October 31, 1765 1 Document [Frames 2 to 142]

Note: A summary table of contents (Table 10) for the South Carolina Colonial Papers

is found in the Introduction which differentiates locations of “actual documents” and

“abstract documents” for incoming and outgoing correspondence separately. Also

found there is a note on definitions and differences between abstracts, extracts,

summaries, and transcripts.

Note: Volume 398 consists of a single document, an abstract of grants of land by South

Carolina between 1674 and 1765 (280 manuscript pages microfilmed on 141 frames).

See archivist’s note referencing this bound abstract, which is found after Reel 2

document 26 (dated May 3, 1766) in the Board of Trade incoming correspondence,

where it is identified as Board of Trade document N. 29.

Yet, Volume 398 is not microfilmed in either Reel 2 or Reel 9 of the South Carolina

Colonial Papers (DLAR Microfilm Set 550b), but as a part of Reel 1 of the North

Carolina Colonial Papers, (DLAR Microfilm Set 550a) along with Volume 295 of the

North Carolina Papers. Thus actually no physical Reel 9 of the South Carolina Papers

exists. A companion to the abstract of grants in Volume 398 (covering the period 1674

to 1765) is found in Volume 399 (covering the period 1767 to 1773). It is microfilmed in

the South Carolina Papers, at the beginning of Reel 10.

458

Reel 10 (Volumes 399, 400, 401)

Volume 399—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Abstract of Land Grants, end

May 7, 1767 to May 18, 1773 11 Documents [Frames 1 to 71]

Note: Volume 399 consists of a single document abstracting, in single-line entries in

chronological order, land-grant transactions in South Carolina between 1767 and 1773

(about 140 manuscript pages microfilmed in 71 Frames). Because land grants were

reported by governors in periodic batches, and these batches seem to have been

entered less frequently into bound abstract letter books that were periodically certified,

the single chronological document looks like 11 run-on documents, both because the

batches of abstracts were not microfilmed in chronological order and the abstract pages

are occasionally interrupted with a separate certification statement. The details of the

11 documents and their numbering by Frame are not explained in more detail in this

Finding Aid. Also, the Finding Aid does not contain detailed information about this

abstract’s contents.

Note: Reel 9 Volume 398 contains a companion bound abstract of land grants that

covers the period 1674 to 1765. See notes at the beginning of Reel 9 Volume 398 for

more detail about the content and microfilm location of that Volume, and about the

related but different terms Abstract, Extract, Summary, and Transcript.

Volume 400—Itemized, Annotated Contents

[Board of Trade Abstracts of] Commissions, Instructions, Etc.

(incoming and outgoing) Part A

August 15, 1720 to August 20 1730 Numerous Documents [Pages/Frames 1 to 395]

Note: A summary table of contents (Table 10) for the South Carolina Colonial Papers

is found in the Introduction which differentiates locations of “actual documents” and

“abstract documents” for incoming and outgoing correspondence separately. Also

found there is a note on definitions and differences between abstracts, extracts,

summaries, and transcripts.

Note: Volume 400 and Volume 401, both in Reel 10, when combined, include a large

number of summaries and abstracts of documents pertaining to South Carolina

Commissions and Instructions, Etc. dated between 1720 and 1739. Both because

these documents date from before the DLAR’s period of primary interest (1750 to 1800)

and because few of these documents are full transcripts but instead are some sort of

summary or abstract, few of these documents have separate entries in this Finding Aid.

The microfilmed South Carolina Colonial Papers include only Parts A and B (Volumes

400 and 401 with dates from 1720 to 1730) and Parts E and F (Volumes 404 and 405

with dates from 1760 to 1775). Parts C and D (Volumes 402 and 403 with dates from

1739 to 1760) are not included in these microfilmed documents.

459

Note: Volume 400 is the first (Part A) of six Volumes of Board of Trade documents

identified as “Commissions, Instructions, Etc.” These documents, both outgoing and

incoming, were summarized or transcribed into letter books at the time the actual

documents were written and delivered. See note at the beginning of Reel 9 Volume 398

for more information on the differing terms extracts, abstracts, summaries, and

transcripts.

The six parts and Volumes of South Carolina Commissions, Instructions, Etc. are as

follows:

Part A: Volume 400 (1720 to 1730) in Reel 10

Part B: Volume 401 (1730 to 1739) in Reel 10

[Part C: Volume 402 (1739 to 1755) not included in the DLAR]

[ microfilmed documents]

[Part D: Volume 403 (1755 to 1760) not included in the DLAR]

[ microfilmed documents]

Part E: Volume 404 (1760 to 1774) in Reel 11

Part F: Volume 405 (1774 to 1775) in Reel 12

The documents consist of Commissions and Instructions for royal governors of South

Carolina, plus additional orders, correspondence, and other documents relating to

Commissions, Instructions, appointments, and additional subjects.

Note: Historical context of Volume 400/Part A’s documents: Part A contains

documents from the time of the establishment of South Carolina as a Royal Colony of

Great Britain (after having been a proprietary colony since its founding in 1663) and of

the rule of South Carolina’s first royal governor, Francis Nicholson (May 1721 to May

1725), followed by acting governor Arthur Middleton (May 1725 to December 1730).

The kinds of documents found in this Volume range from founding documents from

when South Carolina was being re-established as a royal colony, during the late 1710s

and 1720s, to later documents, during which South Carolina settled into operating as a

royal colony.

Note: The documents in Volume 400 were written into a bound letter book. Many are

summaries of the contents of documents pertaining to “Commissions, Instructions, Etc.”

A few larger, more important documents are transcribed. This Finding Aid itemizes only

a sampling of more important documents in Volume 400, which were fully transcribed.

Those selected are among the South Carolina royal colony’s major founding and

governing documents.

Note: In this Volume’s letter book, each side of paper written on was assigned a

handwritten page number in the upper right or left outer corners of facing pairs of pages.

In effect, these page numbers are also frame numbers for the microfilmed documents.

For Volume 400, this Finding Aid has assigned no DLAR Document Numbers. Instead,

documents can be found using their Frame Numbers, which appear in brackets at the

right margin.

460

● August 15, 1720 [1]

Transcript of order to prepare a Commission for a royal governor for the royal

colony of Carolina

● August 16, 1720 [4 to 24]

Transcript of draft text of royal governor Commission from Lords Justices, as part

of establishment of the royal colony of (originally) Carolina

● Aug 23, 1720 [28 to 29]

Transcript of “Complaints against the Lords Directors of Carolina”, containing list

of 24 complaints dated from April 15, 1705 to August 16, 1720; such complaints

were the basis for the King’s decision to discontinue the investor-based colony

and establish a royal colony

● August 30, 1720 [31 to 40]

Transcript of Board of Trade letter to Lords Justices justifying a royal governor

and offering draft Instructions for the first royal governor

● August 30, 1720 [41 to 91]

Transcript of text of draft Instructions for the first royal governor of South

Carolina, Francis Nicholson, containing 96 individual instructions

● August 30, 1720 [92 to 123]

Transcript of draft Instructions from Lords Justices for the King’s approval for

incoming Governor Nicholson, containing 24 individual instructions

[Nicholson served as governor until May 1725, when he was recalled, but he did

not resign until 1729. Arthur Middleton served as acting governor until December

1730. Various documents on Frame Numbers 134 to 243 pertain to South

Carolina’s rule under these two.]

● December 9, 1729 [244 to 269]

Transcripts of several items of correspondence pertaining to appointment of

Robert Johnson to be Governor of South Carolina, including a draft letter of

appointment and draft text of a Commission for him

● June 10, 1730 [283 to 376]

Transcripts of Board of Trade consideration of ideas for and a draft of General

Instructions for Governor Johnson

● August 20 to September 9, 1730 [384 to 395]

Transcripts of Board of Trade representations seeking the King’s pleasure

regarding a treaty negotiated with the Cherokee Nation in South Carolina,

including text of the agreement

461

Volume 401—Itemized, Annotated Contents

[Board of Trade Abstracts of] Commissions, Instructions, Etc.

(incoming and outgoing) Part B (Parts C and D not microfilmed here)

October 21, 1730 to July 19, 1739 Numerous Documents [Frames 1 to 418]

Note: See note at the beginning of Volume 400 for the combined view of Volumes 400

and 401.]

Note: Volume 401 is the second (Part B) of six Volumes of Board of Trade documents

identified as “Commissions, Instructions, Etc.” These documents, both incoming and

outgoing, were summarized or transcribed into letter books at the time the actual

documents were written and delivered.

See note at the beginning of Reel 9 Volume 398 for more information on the differing

terms extracts, abstracts, summaries, and transcripts.

See note at the beginning of Volume 400 for more on the six parts and Volumes of

Board of Trade abstracts of South Carolina documents pertaining to Commissions,

Instructions, Etc.

Note: Historical context of Volume 401/Part B’s documents: Part B contains

documents during the governorship of Robert Johnson (December 1730 to May 1735,

when he died), during the acting governorship of Thomas Broughton (May 1735 to

November 1737, when he died) and then during the acting governorship of William Bull

Sr. (November 1737 to December 1743).

The contents of these documents pertain to ongoing issues of running a royal colony.

These included economic-development issues, including projects to settle particular

groups from “mostly Protestant” ethnic populations (e.g. Jean-Pierre Pully’s settlement

of Swiss people started in 1731) and others with idealistic, altruistic intent (e.g. a

speculative, unsuccessful scheme to settle indigent people from London and

Westminster in South Carolina). Economic issues of migration and settlement led to

political issues of settling a frontier already occupied by multiple groups of Native

Americans (whom the British called Indians).

Note: The documents in Volume 401 were written into a bound letter book. Many are

summaries of the contents of documents pertaining to “Commissions, Instructions, Etc.”

Some are full transcripts of actual documents. Because none of the documents in this

Reel has a uniquely high level of importance in relation to South Carolina’s colonial

economic development or political issues, this Finding Aid itemizes no documents in

Volume 401.

Note: Volumes 402 and 403, which contain Part C and Part D respectively of

Commissions, Instructions, Etc. (with documents dated between 1739 and 1760) are

not included in these microfilmed South Carolina Colonial Papers.

462

Reel 11 (Volume 404)

Volume 404—Itemized, Annotated Contents

[Board of Trade Abstracts of] Commissions, Instructions, Etc.

(incoming and outgoing) Part E (Parts C and D not microfilmed here)

November 11, 1760 to October 25, 1774 92 Documents [Frame 1 to 498

plus unnumbered 500 to 513]

Note: A summary table of contents (Table 10) for the South Carolina Colonial Papers

is found in the Introduction which differentiates locations of “actual documents” and

“abstract documents” for incoming and outgoing correspondence separately. Also

found there is a note on definitions and differences between abstracts, extracts,

summaries, and transcripts.

Note: Volume 404 (in Reel 11) and Volume 405 (in Reel 12), when combined, include

99 documents pertaining to Couth Carolina Commissions, Instructions, Etc. dated

between 1760 and 1775. All of these documents are abstracts in the form of

transcripts. This Finding Aid includes a separate entry for each document in Volume

404.

Note: Volume 404 is the fifth (Part E) of six Volumes of Board of Trade documents

identified as “Commissions, Instructions, Etc.” These documents, both incoming and

outgoing, were transcribed into letter books at the time the actual documents were

written and delivered.

See note at the beginning of Reel 9 Volume 398 for more information on the differing

terms extracts, abstracts, summaries, and transcripts.

See note at the beginning of Volume 400 for more on the six parts and Volumes of

Board of Trade abstracts of South Carolina documents pertaining to Commissions,

Instructions, Etc.

Note: Historical context of Volume 404/Part E’s documents: The period between

1760 and 1775 turned out to be a crucible in which the integrity of the British empire and

its system of colonies was severely tested, and during which fledgling ideas of colonial

protest were heated and agitated toward rebellion and beyond that to American

revolution. During this period, the British political system was responding through

organizational change. Especially important from the American perspective,

Secretaries of State were going through an organizational shift. Before 1768,

Secretaries of State for the Southern District had been lesser equals with the Board of

Trade in a partnership to promote colonial (primarily economic) development. In 1768,

the realities of imperial diplomacy and hostility brought a new political official to the fore,

the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The incumbent in this new position quickly

gained superior recognition and power over the previous Secretaries of State for the

Southern Department and the Board of Trade.

463

His responsibilities included relations with foreign imperial/colonial competitors

(especially France and Spain, relations with the unpredictably friendly or hostile Indian

Nations in America’s colonial interior, and the increasingly confrontational politics of the

emerging protest movement of British/American colonists, which, between 1765 and

1776, evolved from protest to rebellion to revolution.

In 1760, William Pitt (Elder) was Secretary of State for the Southern Department. He

was replaced consecutively by a series of five short-term incumbents between 1761 and

1766. The last of these was the Earl of Shelburne, who took office in July 1766. In

February 1768, the organizational change went into effect, as the Earl of Hillsborough

was appointed the first Secretary of State for the Colonies. Shelburne remained in his

position during a transition period until October 1768, but his significant powers were

soon transferred to Hillsborough.

After the reorganization, the Secretary of State position stabilized considerably.

Hillsborough served until August 1772. He was replaced by the Earl of Dartmouth until

November 1775, who was then replaced by Lord George Germain, who served in Lord

North’s “war government” until it fell in March 1782.

Meanwhile, during this period, South Carolina was experiencing an unpredictable

turnover of multiple governors, interspersed with multiple stints by the stabilizing

Lieutenant Governor, serving without the title as on-call acting governor. In 1760,

Governor William Henry Lyttelton was in the process of leaving South Carolina, having

in April 1760 been promoted to become governor of Jamaica. Lieutenant Governor

William Bull II was available (not for the first time) to take over as acting governor until a

new governor, Thomas Boone, arrived in December 1761. Boone governed until May

1764, when he was recalled, at which time Bull again took over as acting governor, until

June 1766, when yet another new governor arrived—Charles Greville Montagu.

Montagu served as governor until March 1773, but he suffered from poor health and

twice took extended leaves of absence, each time leaving William Bull II to run the

government, from May to October 1768, and again from July 1869 to September 1771.

When Montagu resigned in March 1733, Bull once again stepped forward, ruling until

the arrival of South Carolina’s last royal governor, William Campbell, in June 1775.

Campbell ruled until September 1775, when the South Carolina colonial government

collapsed under pressure from South Carolinian rebel protestors.

Note: The documents in Volume 404 were written into a bound letter book. Its pages

were numbered in large, clear handwriting at the top outer corner of each facing side of

paper. In the Index (document 92) found at the end of the letter book, these page

numbers are identified as “Folio” numbers. In effect, they also are frame numbers for

the microfilmed documents. DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin.

Frame Numbers appear in brackets at the right margin.

1. November 11, 1760 [1]

Transcript of Board of Trade [and Plantations] letter to [Secretary of State for the

Southern Department] William Pitt (Elder), conveying papers pertaining to the

capitulation of Fort Loudoun to the Cherokee Indians and subsequent murder by

Indians of captured British officers on their march as prisoners to Fort Prince

George

464

[Note: For more on the capitulation of Fort Loudoun and massacre of its prisoner

officers, as well as their context as part of the Anglo-Cherokee War of 1759 to

1760, see: in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, documents and notes

after Reel 1 documents 1, 24, 82, 85, 96, 98 and: in Secretary of State incoming

correspondence, documents and notes after Reel 4 documents 123, 138, 139]

2. December 19, 1760 [3]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Pitt, transmitting letter from [South

Carolina Lieutenant Governor] William Bull II with information on the capitulation

and murder [original letter is in Secretary of State incoming correspondence,

Reel 4 document 138]

3. January 8, 1761 [4]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Pitt, transmitting letter from Bull with

information on state of affairs with Cherokee and Choctaw Indians

4. February 11, 1761 [5]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Pitt, transmitting letter from Bull

reporting having learned that the French were building a fort on the Tennessee or

Cherokee River midway between Fort Loudoun and Fort Assumption on the Ohio

River [original letter is in Secretary of State incoming correspondence, Reel 4

document 65]

5. February 17, 1761 [6]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Pitt, recommending that the [new] King

[George III] (re)appoint Joseph Stephenson to be Naval Officer of South

Carolina; he having been previously appointed by King George II, who had died

[this letter is in Reel 4 document 67]

6. February 17, 1761 [8]

Transcript of draft order of King George III (re)appointing Stephenson to be Naval

Officer of South Carolina

7. March 11, 1761 [12]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King recommending

reappointing officers appointed by the late king George II, William Bull II as

Lieutenant Governor and David Graeme as Attorney General

8. March 11, 1761 [13]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Pitt, recommending reappointment of

Dougal Campbell as Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas in South Carolina

[original letter is in Secretary of State incoming correspondence, Reel 4

document 68]

465

9. March 11, 1761 [14]

Transcript of draft order of the King appointing Dougal Campbell as Clerk of the

Court of Common Pleas

10. March 17, 1761 [16]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

accepting resignation of Thomas Pownall as governor of South Carolina and

appointment of Thomas Boone in his stead [for personal reasons, Pownall never

served although appointed; Boone served as Governor from December 1761 to

May 1764]

11. March 17, 1761 [18]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

Charles Skinner to become Chief Justice of South Carolina following the death of

Peter Leigh

12. April 1, 1761 [19]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, conveying draft

Commission for Thomas Boone as Governor of South Carolina

13. April 1, 1761 [20]

Transcript of draft text of Commission for Thomas Boone to be royal governor of

South Carolina

14. April 1, 1761 [46]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

reappointment of William Bull II as Lieutenant Governor

15. April 1, 1761 [47]

Transcript of draft order of the King reappointing Bull to be Lieutenant Governor

16. April 1, 1761 [49]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

appointment of David Graeme to be Attorney General of South Carolina

17. April 1, 1761 [50]

Transcript of draft order of the King appointing David Graeme to be Attorney

General of South Carolina

18. April 1, 1761 [52]

Transcript of representation of Board of Trade to the King, recommending

appointment of Charles Skinner to be Chief Justice of South Carolina

19. April 1, 1761 [53]

Transcript of draft order of the King appointing Charles Skinner to be Chief

Justice of South Carolina

466

20. April 21, 1761 [55]

Transcript of representation to the King, seeking the King’s permission, as

requested by Thomas Boone, for him to return to England for 12 months to settle

private affairs before traveling to South Carolina to begin serving as governor

21. May 6, 1761 [56]

Transcript of representation to the King, recommending Charles Skinner, John

Drayton, and John Battray to become members of the Council of South Carolina,

replacing George Saxby and Edward Fenwick, who wished to resign, and John

Cleland, who had died

22. May 6, 1761 [57]

Transcript of representation to the King, preparing a warrant approving 12

months leave for Thomas Boone to return to England to settle private affairs

before traveling to South Carolina to begin serving as governor

23. May 6, 1761 [58]

Transcript of King’s order permitting Boone to take a leave of absence as

requested

24. May 29, 1761 [59]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

repeal of two South Carolina laws passed in April 1759, one for correction of wills

and the other on election procedures

25. September 7, 1761 [64]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Boone ordering repeal of two South

Carolina laws passed in April 1759

26. September 21, 1761 [66]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, conveying

suggested changes in draft of General Instructions for Governor Boone, for the

King’s approval

27. September 21, 1761 [70]

Transcript of revised draft of General Instructions for Governor Boone

28. November 13, 1761 [161]

Transcript of representation to the King recommending Daniel Blake to be a

Council member in South Carolina

467

29. December 11, 1761 [162]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Secretary of State [for the Southern

Department the Earl of] Egremont, enclosing abstract of letter from Bull with copy

of articles for a “General Pacification with the Cherokee Indians” [this letter, the

abstract of Bull’s letter, and a copy of the proposed articles of “General

Pacification with the Cherokee Indians” are in Reel 4 documents 69, 70, 71

respectively] [The Earl of Egremont replaced William Pitt (Elder) as Secretary of

State for the Southern Department in October 1761, serving until replaced by the

Earl of Halifax in August 1763]

30. May 27, 1762 [163]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Lords of Treasury regarding memorial

of former South Carolina Governor Glen, seeking reimbursement for personal

expenses during a conference and treaty negotiation with the Cherokee Indians

in 1756-1757, including summary of facts in the case and other documentation

[enclosures not microfilmed here] [copy of this letter is in Secretary of State

incoming correspondence, Reel 5 document 143]

31. June 3, 1762 [171]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Boone, congratulating him on his safe

arrival in South Carolina; hoping for success from the Indian treaty;

recommending new law to regulate the Indian trade

32. December 3, 1762 [173]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Boone, concurring with Boone’s

reported action, when the South Carolina Assembly engaged in proceedings “so

irregular & improper, as to require an immediate Dissolution”

33. December 22, 1762 [175]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King concerning

boundary dispute between North Carolina and South Carolina, recommending

“that the most speedy end be put to the bad consequences of the Transactions

set forth by Gov

Boone” and that all such future disputes be prevented; including

historical background information

[Note: Governor Boone appears to have had a knack for alienating others. See

note after Reel 1 document 108 and also document 35 below and note after it.

Although he clearly had alienated officials in London by 1762, he was not

officially recalled until May 1764.]

34. March 29, 1763 [185]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee for Plantation

Affairs, suggesting that the Privy Council put before the King an order that, if he

approved it, would order a temporary boundary line to be drawn immediately

between North Carolina and South Carolina; followed by

Draft text of Instruction to Boone

468

35. May 30, 1763 [190]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Boone, concerning report received that

Boone’s government had approved warrants to survey large tracts of land south

of the Altamaha River for the purpose of making land grants there; expressing

the King’s “Surprise and Concern” that Boone had approved such an improper

action; informing him of the limitations of his proper jurisdiction in making land

grants

[Note: The issue of South Carolina’s actively encouraging settlement south of the

Altamaha River, which flows into the Atlantic Ocean about half way between

Savannah Georgia and the St. Johns River in northern Florida—thus not

contiguous with other South Carolina territory—was unusual in practice for a

British colony and considered by Georgia to be a direct threat by fellow colony

Georgia. See the DLAR’s Finding Aid for Georgia’s CO5 Colonial Papers for

that colony’s hostile reaction. South Carolina’s colonization efforts went back to

the late 1750s and were a matter of concern in London by the early 1760s (see

Reel 1 documents 1 and 160 and notes after each). The issue reached the top

levels of British government by 1767 (see Board of Trade draft outgoing

correspondence, Reel 3 documents 128, 129 and transcripts of these documents

in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 documents 64, 65

respectively.]

36. August 4, 1763 [194]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

John Burn to replace John Rattray, who had died, as a member of the South

Carolina Council [see also document 87 below]

37. August 5, 1763 [195]

Transcript of letter to John Stuart [Superintendent for Indian Affairs for the

Southern District of America], stating the King’s desire that more efforts be made

to improve communications about and regulation of trade with the Indians

38. October 13, 1763 [199]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

Thomas Skottowe to be a member of the South Carolina Council

39. November 18, 1763 [200]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, concerning his

order to support a settlement of French Protestants in South Carolina; stating

that actions already taken by Boone were sufficient, advantageous, and

beneficial

469

40. November 18, 1763 [203]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Charles Jenkinson, secretary to Lords

of Treasury, suggesting that the current verbal agreement with [Alexander]

McNutt, agent for the French Protestant group wishing to settle in South

Carolina, be put in writing with conditions suggested by the Board of Trade [see

related document dated August 3, 1763 in Reel 1 document 159, and also Reel 1

document 180 and documents 41, 42 below]

41. November 22, 1763 [206]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Boone, informing Boone that a large

number of French Protestants from southern France would be settling in South

Carolina; advising Boone that he should support these settlers and suggesting

actions he should take in providing that support [see reference to this letter in

Reel 1 document 180; see also documents 40, 42 below]

42. November 22, 1763 [212]

Transcript of “Liste des Protestants Refuges actuellement a Plymouth pour se

rendre en Amerique” including names, ages, and occupations for a total of 112

males and 61 females [see related documents in this Reel, documents 41, 42

and reference to document 41 in Reel 1 document 180]

43. November 22, 1763 [215]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Boone, recommending an individual

and his family for settlement in South Carolina

44. March 15, 1764 [217]

Transcript of letter from [Secretary to the Board of Trade] John Pownall to Boone,

conveying the Board of Trade’s recommendation that Boone seek approval from

the Assembly for a memorial from a particular individual whose settlement in

South Carolina would be “essential to the public Security and the decency of

Government”

45. June 25, 1764 [219]

Transcript of letter from Pownall to Bull, instructing him to treat well Monsieur

l’Abbe, one of the French Protestants settling in South Carolina [draft letter is in

Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 117]

46. July 2, 1764 [220]

Transcript of letter from Pownall to Jenkinson, requesting advice from Treasury

to Board of Trade concerning a doubt about implementing the quit rent laws in

North and South Carolina

470

47. July 3, 1764 [221]

Transcript of letter from Pownall to Charles Garth, concerning Garth’s reported

support for a petition from the Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina

“complaining of the Conduct of Governor Boone”: reporting that Board of Trade

would consider the petition shortly [see Garth’s memorial in Board of Trade draft

outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 184]

48. July 3, 1764 [222]

Transcript of letter from Pownall to Boone, informing him about the petition

complaining that Boone had refused to administer the “state oaths” to a person

duly elected to Commons House, and that Boone had improperly dissolved

Commons House; informing him that the Board of Trade would be meeting soon

to consider the petition, and that the Board of Trade “will also be ready to hear

what you may have further to offer in support of your Conduct”

49. July 10, 1764 [224]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King recommending John

Colleton and Henry Laurens to be members of the South Carolina Council

50. July 13, 1764 [225]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Bull, acknowledging receipt of Bull’s

letter with information that John Guerard, a South Carolina Council member, had

died, and, there being two vacancies, stating that Board of Trade had

recommended to the King John Colleton and Henry Laurens to fill the vacancies

51. July 16, 1764 [226]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee for Plantation

Affairs, reporting the results of Board of Trade’s consideration of the petition

against Governor Boone; finding that Boone had allowed personal “Passion and

Resentment” to interfere with his policy judgment; finding also that Commons

House had allowed itself to be overly provoked by the Governor, to the detriment

of its constituents; suggesting that steps be approved by the King to alleviate the

situation in the case of both the governor and Commons House

52. August 15, 1764 [230]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Bull, forwarding a memorial from John

Greg, merchant at London, requesting payment of money owed him for expenses

helping the French Protestants [John Greg’s undated memorial is in Reel 1

document 193, including note; Bull’s October 18, 1764 reply to Board of Trade is

in Reel 2 document 4, stating that the debt had been paid off]

471

53. December 24, 1764 [231]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Bull, awaiting receipt from Bull of a

plan to manage Indian affairs; offering ideas for positive steps, such as control

over public debt and approval of laws to reduce importation of Negroes, and to

encourage settlement of more white people; expressing hope for early

completion of the temporary boundary [draft of this letter is in Board of Trade

draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 119]

54. February 15, 1765 [234]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Bull, instructing that foreign

commercial vessels from countries hostile to Great Britain that were in distress

should be allowed to use the ports at Charleston and elsewhere in South

Carolina to receive emergency assistance [draft of this letter, to several colonial

governors, is in Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document

120]

55. December 24, 1765 [235]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, that according to

his command, a Commission and General Instructions had been drafted for

incoming governor of South Carolina Charles Greville Montagu; explaining a few

particular provisions [draft Commission is not microfilmed here but draft General

Instructions are] [Montagu began serving as governor in June 1766; during a

relatively lengthy period of service, he took two health-related leaves of absence,

from May to October 1768 and from July 1769 to September 1771] [draft

representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3

document 121]

56. December 24, 1765 [239]

Transcript of draft text of General Instructions for Montagu, consisting of 99

separate instructions

57. January 24, 1766 [360]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King regarding memorial

of Thomas Boone to Lords of Treasury, seeking payment of unpaid salary [draft

Instructions are in Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3

document 122]

58. February 10, 1766 [363]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade secretary John Pownall to Charles

Lowndes, secretary to Lords of the Treasury, forwarding Boone’s memorial

requesting payment of his salary

472

59. February 25, 1766 [364]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee on Plantation

Affairs, conveying draft of Additional Instructions for Montagu instructing him to

recommend to the South Carolina Assembly to “make good” on the salary debt

owed to Boone

60. February 25, 1766 [365]

Transcript of text of Additional Instruction to Montagu concerning payment of

back salary owed to former Governor Thomas Boone

61. July 4, 1766 [367]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Montagu, welcoming him to South

Carolina as governor [he had actually arrived on June 17, 1766]; acknowledging

the early challenge Montagu would have to contend with, resulting from colonial

opposition to the Stamp Act; stating that the temporary boundary line between

the Carolinas still had not been completed [draft of this letter is in Board of Trade

draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 125]

62. July 11, 1766 [370]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, stating that Bull had

informed Board of Trade that four of the assistant justices had requested that Bull

suspend Clerk of the Court Dougal Campbell for refusing to enter cases brought

seeking to enforce the Stamp Act; detailing the results of his decision not to

comply with their request, whereupon Commons House had fined Campbell

£100, on which Bull then suspended payment; seeking the King’s pleasure in this

situation [draft of representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing

correspondence, Reel 3 document 126]

63. January 6, 1767 [372]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending that

Daniel Moore be a member of the South Carolina Council, filling the Council at

12 members [draft representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing

correspondence, Reel 3 document 127]

64. July 13, 1767 [373]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee for Plantation

Affairs, conveying drafts of Additional Instructions to governors of South Carolina

and Georgia about settlements south of the Altamaha River [draft letter is in

Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 128]

65. July 13, 1767 [374]

Transcript of text of Additional Instructions to Montagu to resolve the situation of

South Carolina having issued land grants for territory located south of the

Altamaha River by transferring the South Carolina grants to Georgia inhabitants

[draft text is in Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document

129]

473

66. July 22, 1767 [376]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to the Earl of Shelburne, Secretary of

State for the Southern Department, regarding memorial from Charles Garth,

Agent for South Carolina, petitioning that sheriffs in counties be appointed in lieu

of a Provost Marshal; Board of Trade expressing the opinion that decentralization

of the Provost Marshal’s duties to county sheriffs was a good idea;

recommending that the King inform South Carolina that it favored adopting a law

instituting county sheriffs in lieu of a Provost Marshal [draft letter is in Board of

Trade outgoing draft correspondence, Reel 3 document 130 and in Secretary of

State incoming correspondence, Reel 5 document 183] [Garth’s memorial is in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 83 and Secretary of

State incoming correspondence, Reel 5 document 182] [The Earl of Shelburne

became Secretary of State for the Southern Department in July 1766, serving

until October 1768 (although he was superseded by appointment of the Earl of

Hillsborough as Secretary of State for the Colonies in February 1768]

67. July 24, 1767 [379]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, offering to draft an

Additional Instruction concerning South Carolina’s law that illegally created a new

county and changed the number of representatives in Commons House

68. July 24, 1767 [380]

Transcript from Board of Trade to the King of draft text for Additional Instruction

to Montagu, declaring South Carolina’s law creating a new county and changing

the representation in the Assembly to be unconstitutional and therefore

disallowed [draft text is in Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3

document 131]

69. September 15, 1768 [383]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

disallowable of a South Carolina act to establish courts, build jails, and appoint

sheriffs and other justice officials, based on advice of Matthew Lamb, one of the

King’s Counsels at Law, with details draft [representation is in Board of Trade

draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 132] [compare with transcript

dated November 22, 1769, document 72, and with Reel 3 document 135, for a

change of position and approval of this law, despite remaining defects]

70. July 28, 1769 [399]

Transcript of letter from John Pownall, Secretary to the Board of Trade, to Rev.

Dr. Burton, Secretary to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign

Parts, regarding a petition from Protestant Palatines in South Carolina, who were

seeking to find a minister for their settlement [draft letter is in Board of Trade

draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 134]

474

71. July 6, 1769 [400]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

William Wagg, Chief Justice of South Carolina, and Rowland Rugeley to be

appointed to the South Carolina Council [draft representation is in Board of

Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 133]

72. November 22, 1769 [403]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, reconsidering the

South Carolina act to establish courts after revisions; recommending it now be

approved although still imperfect. [compare this with the earlier representation in

Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3 document 132, dated

September 15, 1768, and its transcript in this Reel document 69, with a negative

recommendation] [this representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing

correspondence, Reel 3 document 135]

73. February 23, 1770 [406]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee for Plantation

Affairs, regarding the December 8, 1769 vote of the South Carolina Assembly to

order the Treasurer to make available £10,500 for several of the leaders of the

Assembly to take to London to use for purposes supporting the “Constitutional

Rights and Liberties of the People of Great Britain, and America”; citing the 1669

Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina as the true source of the colonists’ rights

and liberties; reciting the historical record since then verifying the logic of the

constitutional position taken; with details; thus, supporting the position that the

Assembly’s vote on December 8, 1769 was unconstitutional [financial and

political fallout from this vote of the South Carolina Assembly reverberated

through 1770 and, less frequently, into 1774, as documented in the Board of

Trade correspondence, scattered in Reel 2, especially between documents 122

and 188, and in the Secretary of State correspondence, scattered in Reel 6,

especially between documents 86 and 117 and in Reel 7 document 56.]

74. April 4, 1770 [425]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee for Plantation

Affairs, conveying draft Additional Instructions to Governor Montagu designed to

enforce control of public monies without unconstitutional interventions by the

Assembly

75. June 7, 1770 [432]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, concerning a South

Carolina act “to incorporate the Society commonly called & known by the name

of the Fellowship Society”, which had been found to be constitutional; therefore

recommending that the King approve it [see additional documents relating to the

Fellowship Society in Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3

document 135, dated December 7, 1770 and in references there to other

documents]

475

76. November 21, 1770 [434]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, regarding an

August 1769 act of the South Carolina Assembly authorizing stamping of

£106,500 in paper, equal to the currently lawful paper bills of credit; suggesting

that the King disallow it [this representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing

correspondence, Reel 3 document 137]

77. November 21, 1770 [436]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, regarding a 1767

South Carolina act establishing several new parishes, which would increase the

number of representatives in the Assembly, which was not constitutional; pointing

out that the King had already disallowed a similar act; proposing that the King

disallow this act [this representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing

correspondence, Reel 3 document 138]

78. February 13, 1771 [438]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, proposing approval

of Chief Justice Robert Knox Gordon and William Henry Drayton to be appointed

to fill vacancies in the South Carolina Council

79. March 27, 1771 [439]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee for Plantation

Affairs, concerning a petition from Charles Garth, conveying the “grief and

concern” at having incurred royal displeasure resulting in receipt of a recent

Additional Instruction of April 14 1770, which South Carolinians hoped would be

withdrawn; advising the King against withdrawing this Additional Instruction

80. April 24, 1771 [443]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee for Plantation

Affairs, concerning drawing a proper boundary line between North Carolina and

South Carolina, suggesting that the King instruct each governor to appoint

members to a commission to draw a “final” boundary line between the two

colonies

81. April 26, 1771 [447]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King regarding vacancies

in the South Carolina Council, recommending that Barnard Elliot and David

Sears be appointed to fill these vacancies

82. May 29, 1771 [448]

Transcript of Report from Board of Trade to Privy Council Committee for

Plantation Affairs, conveying draft Additional Instructions for Governors of North

Carolina and South Carolina to settle on a final boundary between the colonies

476

83. [probably about May 29] 1771 [449]

Transcript of Additional Instructions from Board of Trade to Montagu for him and

the North Carolina governor to take steps to settle on a final boundary line

between the two colonies

84. June 21, 1771 [452]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, regarding several

acts of the South Carolina Assembly, including an act to issue £70,000 to cover

the cost of constructing courthouses and another act to encourage making of

flax, linen and thread, recommending that both be disallowed, the first because it

violated the financial controls required for a colonial government, and the second

because the bounties offered were improper because they were applied to

manufacturing, not agricultural enterprises

85. December 18, 1771 [455]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, concerning

incorporation of “the Winyaw Society”, recommending its approval

86. December 18, 1771 [457]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, concerning a

memorial from Louis de Mesnil de Saint Pierre, who had worked to settle a large

number of French people at New Bordeaux in South Carolina, seeking a grant of

£2,000 to support bringing to America additional French and German people who

had settled unsuccessfully in Nova Scotia; recommending that the King should

consider supporting the request in a location in either South Carolina or Georgia;

suggesting making 5,000 acres of a land grant available to support this

settlement

87. November 2, 1772 [461]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending that

Charles Pinckney be appointed to the South Carolina Council in place of John

Burn, who had left South Carolina for England, without intention to return [draft

representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3

document 146; a question remains of which among several Charles Pinckneys

who supported the American side in the Revolution this might have been; see

also document 36 above]

88. June 10, 1773 [462]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, conveying, as

requested, a draft Commission appointing William Campbell to be governor of

South Carolina [draft representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing

correspondence, Reel 3 document 147]

89. June 10, 1773 [464]

Transcript of draft text from Board of Trade to the King of Commission for William

Campbell to be governor of South Carolina

477

90. January 12, 1774 [496]

Transcript of letter from [Board of Trade secretary] John Pownall to the “Clerk of

the Council in waiting”, concerning a petition from the South Carolina Council

“respecting some proceedings of the House of Assembly there, which they

conceive injurious to their Rights and Constitution of that Board” which was being

considered by the Privy Council and King, enclosing abstracts of Commons

House journals

91. February 21, 1774 [497]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending

Thomas Irving to become a member of the South Carolina Council [draft

representation is in Board of Trade draft outgoing correspondence, Reel 3

document 149]

92. [no date] [unnumbered but would be 500 to 513]

Index

[Note: This index lists the transcribed documents written into the letter book

identified as Volume 404, evidently written by contemporary scriveners. No page

numbers were assigned to the index pages. The index was organized by page

number in the same order that the documents were written into the letter book.]

[Note: The Index references one more document than was written into this letter

book. The referenced document is not included among the transcribed

documents in Volume 404, and the entry was X’ed out by hand. The Index entry

reads as follows:

October 25, 1774

Transcript of “Representation [from Board of Trade] to His Majesty

recommending W

Gregory Esq

to be of the Council” F 145

This entry is found in place in Reel 12 Volume 405, which is the subsequent Part

F of Commissions, Instructions, Etc. And it is located right where the crossed-out

entry at the end of the Part E Index indicates it should be, at Frame Number 145,

in correct chronological order.]

478

Reel 12 (Volumes 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410)

Volume 405—Itemized, Annotated Contents

[Board of Trade Abstracts of] Commissions, Instructions, Etc.

(incoming and outgoing) Part F

June 20, 1774 to June 1, 1775 7 Documents [Frame 1 to 148]

Note: See note at the beginning of Reel 11 Volume 404 for the combined view of

Volumes 404 and 405.

Note: Volume 405 is the sixth (Part F) of six Volumes of Board of Trade documents

identified as “Commissions, Instructions, Etc.” These documents, both incoming and

outgoing, were summarized or transcribed into letter books at the time the actual

documents were written and delivered.

See note at the beginning of Reel 9 Volume 398 for more information on the differing

terms extracts, abstracts, summaries, and transcripts.

See note at the beginning of Volume 400 for more on the six parts and Volumes of

Board of Trade abstracts of South Carolina documents pertaining to Commissions,

Instructions, Etc.

Note: Historical context of Volume 405/Part F’s documents: The two-year period of

this Volume’s documents is the tail end of the pre-war era of British colonial

development and rule in 13 of its colonies in North America. Likewise, it was the last

two years in the existence of the British Colony of South Carolina. See the note at the

beginning of Reel 11 Volume 404 for a summary description of the period of Part E of

Commissions, Instructions, Etc. documents (1760 to 1774), leading up to the beginning

of the American Revolutionary War. By June 1774 agitation by South Carolina’s “rebel”

protest movement had become strident and sometimes violent. Lieutenant Governor

William Bull II had been serving as acting governor of South Carolina following the

abrupt resignation of Governor Charles Greville Montagu in March 1773.

The next—and last—colonial governor of South Carolina, William Campbell, arrived

after considerable delay on June 18, 1775. By then, the situation had become so

inflammatory that Bull had left Charleston for the relative safety of his plantation. He

didn’t bother to return to Charleston when the new governor arrived, although he was

still officially South Carolina’s lieutenant governor. Campbell was miffed. He also soon

learned that the quickly deteriorating situation in Charleston was beyond his control. On

September 15, 1775, just shy of three months later, Campbell was forced to flee for his

safety to a British Navy warship in Charleston harbor, taking with him the legitimacy of

British colonial rule in South Carolina, which thereupon collapsed. Microfilmed

documents in Volume 405 pertaining to Commissions, Instructions, Etc. for colonial

South Carolina totaled only seven during this period and petered out completely on

June 1, 1775.

479

As South Carolina’s colonial government collapsed, the British government was gearing

up for war to teach its wayward colonies a lesson by force about—from London’s

perspective--the necessity and inevitability of loyalty and obedience to the Crown. In

November 1775 Lord North formed a “war government” that included Secretary of State

for the Colonies Lord George Germain. This parliamentary government ruled England

and prosecuted war against the 13 American colonies until the British army commanded

by General Charles Cornwallis surrendered to American and French forces at Yorktown

in October 1781, signaling the failure of the war policy and resulted in the fall of Lord

North’s government.

Note: All of the documents in this Volume are transcribed, not summarized or

extracted. All 7 documents are itemized in this Finding Aid. The documents were

written into a bound letter book with page numbers handwritten in the upper right or left

outer corner of facing pages. These page numbers also amount to frame numbers for

the microfilmed pages. DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin.

Handwritten Frame Numbers appear in brackets at the right margin.

1. June 20, 1774 [1]

Transcript of General Instructions from the King to Governor William Campbell,

including 94 items of Instructions

2. June 20, 1774 [100]

Transcript of Additional Instructions from the King to Governor William Campbell,

including 26 items of Instructions

3. [no date] [143]

Template form for reporting lists of ships and vessels entering ports in South

Carolina

4. [no date] [144]

Template form for reporting lists of ships and vessels clearing ports in South

Carolina

5. October 25, 1774 [145]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, recommending that

William Gregory be appointed a member of the South Carolina Council

6. May 16, 1775 [146]

Transcript of letter from Board of Trade secretary John Pownall to Egerton Leigh,

Council member in South Carolina, instructing him to return to Charleston “in a

reasonable time” to resume his responsibilities on the Council

480

7. June 1, 1775 [147]

Transcript of representation from Board of Trade to the King, concerning Bull’s

March 8, 1775 letter regarding his suspension of William Henry Drayton as a

Council member, recommending also suspending Bernard Elliot, because of their

joint anti-government activities

Volume 406—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Abstracts of letters to the Board of Trade (incoming)

July 13, 1721 to December 6, 1756 163 Documents [Frames 1 to 55]

Note: A summary table of contents (Table 10) for the South Carolina Colonial Papers

is found in the Introduction which differentiates locations of “actual documents” and

“abstract documents” for incoming and outgoing correspondence separately. Also

found there is a note on definitions and differences between abstracts, extracts,

summaries, and transcripts.

Note: Volume 406 contains summaries and abstracts of incoming correspondence to

the Board of Trade, almost all of it from royal governors of the colony of South Carolina.

See note at the beginning of Reel 9 Volume 398 for more on the definitions of and

distinctions between abstracts, extracts, summaries, and transcripts.

Note: This correspondence is dated between July 13, 1721 (soon after Francis

Nicholson had been appointed South Carolina’s first royal governor in May 1721) and

December 6, 1756, (soon after William Henry Lyttelton had replaced Robert Johnson as

governor in June 1756). These microfilmed documents do not include abstracts of

incoming Board of Trade documents dated after December 1756, although numerous

documents of Board of Trade incoming correspondence are found in Reels 1 and 2,

with dates between February 3, 1756 and November 10, 1775, with no major gaps.

See notes at beginning of Reel 1 and beginning of Reel 3 on dates of and gaps in Board

of Trade incoming and outgoing correspondence and other documents respectively in

these microfilmed South Carolina Colonial Papers.

Note: Summaries and abstracts were entered chronologically into a letter book, written

on both sides of the paper. Each two-sided sheet of paper in the bound book has been

assigned a consecutive page number (not always readable on microfilm but consistent),

either handwritten or printed or both. Although each side of a page has been

microfilmed in a separate frame, only every other microfilm frame has a number. In this

Volume of this Finding Aid, the written and/or printed page numbers are referred to as

“Frame Numbers.”

Note: Because none of the summaries and abstracts of Board of Trade incoming

correspondence in this Volume is a transcript of a full document, no documents in

Volume 406 have separate entries in this Finding Aid.

481

A Summary of Volume 406’s Contents follows:

 Letters from Governor Francis Nicholson: 47 documents dated from July 23, 1721

to April 30, 1725, in Frames 1 to 14 (including two letters from the South Carolina

Council and Assembly Speaker dated October 8 and November 15, 1723

respectively, in Frame 7) [Nicholson served as governor from May 1721 to May

1725, when he was recalled].

 Letters during transition between governors: 3 documents dated between May 6,

1727 and January 28, 1729 from Council President Arthur Middleton and 1 undated

document from the South Carolina Council, all in Frame 14 [Middleton served as

acting governor from May 1725 to December 1730].

 Letters from Governor Robert Johnson: 24 documents dated between December

27, 1730 and August 7, 1734, in Frames 14 to 18 [Johnson served as governor from

December 1730 to May 1735, when he died].

 Letters during transition between governors: 7 documents dated between May 6,

1735 and July 15, 1737 from Council President, then Lieutenant Governor Thomas

Broughton, in Frames 18 to 21 [Broughton served as acting governor from May

1735 to November 1737, when he died].

 Letters during transition between governors: 23 documents dated between

December 10, 1737 and November 22, 1743 from Council President, then

Lieutenant Governor William Bull Sr., in Frames 21 to 27 [Bull Sr. served as acting

governor from November 1737 to December 1743].

 Letters from Governor James Glen: 51 documents dated between December 26,

1743 and April 14, 1756, in Frames 27 to 49 [Glen served as governor from

December 1743 to June 1756, when he was recalled]. [an extract of Glen’s April 14,

1766 letter to Board of Trade is in Secretary of State incoming codependence, Reel

5 document 144]

 Letters from Governor William Henry Lyttelton: 7 documents dated between June 3,

1756 and December 6, 1756, in Frames 51 to 55 [Lyttelton served as governor from

June 1756 until April 1760; thus, only the beginning of his term as governor is

reflected in these documents].

482

Volume 407—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Abstracts of letters from Secretary of State (outgoing), begin

August 8, 1766 to October 8, 1767 11 Documents [Frames 1 to 10]

Note: A summary table of contents (Table 10) for the South Carolina Colonial Papers

is found in the Introduction which differentiates locations of “actual documents” and

“abstract documents” for incoming and outgoing correspondence separately. Also

found there is a note on definitions and differences between abstracts, extracts,

summaries, and transcripts.

Note: Summaries and abstracts of outgoing correspondence from the Secretary of

State in Volumes 407 and 408 contain: references to circular letters not summarized or

found elsewhere in these microfilmed documents; summaries of letters whose contents

are described generally, sometimes in the third person (but not organized with lettered

subsections as in the Board of Trade abstracts and summaries in Volume 406.)]

Note: The 11 documents in Volume 407 were written as “abstracts” into a letter book.

Among these documents, only 2 are full transcripts of letters that do not appear as

actual documents in these microfilmed documents. Therefore, only 2 documents in this

Volume have separate entries in this Finding Aid.]

Transcribing “abstracted” documents (rather than summarizing them) became prevalent

only after an inconsistent transition period between sometime in 1766 and sometime in

1768. For most researchers, actual documents are preferable to transcripts, and

transcripts are better than summaries. Since documents in Volume 407 date from the

transition period, some are summaries and others are transcripts.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers in Reel 12 start over again in each

Volume. Frame Numbers in Volume 407 include two sets of numbers, one set

handwritten and the other stamped. Handwritten numbers were assigned consecutively

for each microfilmed frame (one side of a page) but were written in the upper left hand

corner of every other frame, for odd numbered frames only. Stamped numbers were

assigned consecutively to pairs of frames, a left side followed by a right side of facing

pages, with the number on the second, right side.

7. February 3, 1767 [handwritten Frame 3]

Transcript of letter No. 5 from Secretary of State the Earl of Shelburne to

Governor of South Carolina Charles Greville Montagu, informing Montagu that

Robert Raper, Deputy Naval Officer at Charleston was to take a leave of

absence of one year to settle personal affairs; seeking Montagu’s approval for

him to leave his duties at Charleston for that purpose for that time

483

10. August 7, 1767 [stamped Frame 3]

Transcript of letter No. 8 from Shelburne to Montagu, sending him the King’s

order “repealing and Annulling” South Carolina’s 1765 act “establishing a Parish

in Berkeley County by the Name of S. Matthew & for declaring the Road therein

mentioned to be a Publick Road”

Volume 408—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Abstracts of letters from Secretary of State (outgoing), end

February 20, 1768 to February 6, 1782 106 Documents [Frames 1 to 158]

Note: Volume 408 follows Volume 407 as the second of two Volumes containing

“abstracts” of outgoing Secretary of State correspondence. Volume 408’s

correspondence covers the period from February 1768 to February 1772. . During this

period, three Secretaries of State, the Earl of Hillsborough (February 1768 to August

1772), the Earl of Dartmouth, (August 1772 to November 1775), and Lord Germain

(November 1775 to March 1782) corresponded with two royal governors of South

Carolina, Charles Greville Montagu (June 1766 to March 1773 with two leaves of

absence) and William Campbell (June 1775 to September 1775) plus Lieutenant

Governor William Bull II multiple times as acting governor during the absence or lack of

a governor in Charleston (May 1768 to October 1768, July 1769 to September 1771,

and March 1773 to June 1775).

When the South Carolina colonial government collapsed on September 15, 1775,

Britain did not recognize the end of its colonial rule and did not terminate Campbell’s

service as governor. When the unemployed Governor Campbell died in 1778, no new

South Carolina governor was appointed. Yet, when the British military successfully

recaptured Charleston in May 1780, the government in London ordered the top colonial

officials to return to Charleston from “exile” in England to re-establish civil rule there.

That civil government was never successfully recreated, and Charleston was ruled by

military force, martial law, and a “Board of Police” created by the military to simulate a

civil government. For a final time, William Bull II was called on, still as Lieutenant

Governor, to lead the Board of Police as its “Intendant General,” from sometime in 1781

until the British evacuation of Charleston in December 1772 (see Reel 8 document 180

and note after it).

Note: The 109 documents in Volume 408 were written into a letter book as “abstracts”

of mostly outgoing Secretary of State correspondence. They consist mostly of

numbered letters from Secretaries of State to Governors of South Carolina. Also

included are several unnumbered letters from Secretaries of State to Governors, a few

letters from other Secretary of State office officials, and a number of documents relating

to the correspondence. During a transition period from sometime in 1766 to sometime

in 1768, the practice of entering summaries into abstract letter books shifted toward

writing out full transcripts as “abstracts” of documents. Most of the “abstract”

documents in Volume 408 are full transcripts.

484

Since for most researchers, original documents are better sources than transcripts

(which in turn are better than summaries), this Finding Aid includes separate entries for

only those “abstract” transcript documents for which no actual document is found in the

microfilmed documents. This Finding-Aid contains separate entries for only 17

documents in Volume 408, all of which are documents found only here and only as

transcripts, among the microfilmed documents.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame Numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers in Reel 12 start over again in each

Volume. Frame Numbers in Volume 408 are complex. The letter book of abstract

documents is microfilmed with a separate frame for each side of paper. If the separate

framed sides of paper are viewed as pairs of left and right facing sides with odd

numbered pages on the left and even numbered pages on the right. The pagination is

as follows: For pages numbered 1 to 74, all numbers are handwritten. Page 75 has

both a handwritten and a stamped number. Pages 76 to 78 have all stamped numbers.

Pages 79 to 150 have handwritten even numbers and stamped even numbers. Pages

151 to 158 have only stamped numbers.

21. November 15, 1768 [13]

Transcript of letter No. 20 from the Earl of Hillsborough [Secretary of State for the

Colonies] to [South Carolina Governor] Charles Greville Montagu, conveying a

speech by the King in which, Hillsborough says, the King extolls “this happy

unanimity, and the resolution to preserve entire and inviolate the supreme

Authority of the Legislature of Great Britain over every part of the British Empire”;

announcing that the Queen had birthed a princess [this transcript letter is the

only version of this numbered letter from Hillsborough to Montagu found in these

microfilmed papers]

36. January 18, 1770 [29]

Transcript of letter No. 32 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to [Lieutenant Governor

and acting governor] William Bull II, conveying a speech by the King to

Parliament [this transcript letter is the only version of this numbered letter from

Hillsborough to Bull found in these microfilmed papers]

46. July 25, 1770 [44]

Transcript of letter from Hillsborough to Lords of Treasury concerning suspending

the fine of £100 against Robert Bussard, a German; suggesting that, unless

Treasury objects, the King will offer remission of the fine

55. December 9, 1770 [55]

Transcript of journal of Privy Council meeting with the King, expressing their

opposition to a South Carolina law approving the stamping of £106,500 in paper

bills, basing its opinion on recommendations against it by both Board of Trade

and Privy Council Committee for Plantation Affairs followed by

485

December 9, 1770

Transcript of journal of Privy Council meeting with the King, expressing their

opposition to a South Carolina law establishing new parishes that illegally

increase representation in the South Carolina assembly

67. January 16, 1772 [78]

Transcript of journal of a Privy Council meeting with the King, representing their

disapproval of two South Carolina acts, one approving stamping of £70,000 of

paper bills to finance a courthouse and jail and approving two new Assembly

districts, and the other encouraging flax, linen, and thread manufacture

77. [no date; likely between June and August 1773, dates of surrounding

documents among the chronological entries] [100]

Transcript of draft by [Secretary of State for the Colonies] the Earl of Dartmouth

of a Commission for William Campbell to become Governor of South Carolina

86. July 6, 1774 [128]

Transcript of “Circular” letter from Dartmouth to Bull, concerning murders of

settlers by Creek Indians, ordering efforts to discontinue trading with the Creek

Indians until “Public Tranquility is restored and that Commerce may be again

carried on with safety to the King’s Subjects”

97. January 19, 1779 [probably actually 1780] [146]

Transcript of letter from [Secretary of State for the Colonies] Lord George

Germain to [James] Simpson, [attorney general of colonial South Carolina]

telling him and John Stuart, [Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southern

Department] to travel to South Carolina to resume their colonial governmental

duties [Charleston was besieged by British forces early in 1780 but American

forces there held out until May before surrendering and actually making it

possible for South Carolina officials to return to try to re-establish colonial rule]

98. July 6, 1780 [147]

Transcript of letter from [Undersecretary for the Colonies] William Knox to Bull,

informing him that that “The Province of South Carolina being recovered to the

King’s Obedience it is judged proper that all Persons holding Civil Offices therein

and all others to whom Allowances have been made by Government for their

Support should immediately return to that Province”

[Note: Knox exaggerated somewhat by suggesting that South Carolina had

been “recovered to the King’s Obedience.” More accurately, Charleston had

been captured by force in May 1780 and was under British military occupation.

The hinterland was controlled by neither British nor American military power, and

the frontier population may have been more partial to the rebels than the

loyalists. Nevertheless, British political and military leaders were optimistic at this

time about re-establishing British rule in colonial South Carolina.]

486

99. August 7, 1780 [148]

Transcript of letter from Knox to Bull telling him not to instruct [South Carolina

Council member William] Gregory to return to South Carolina with other colonial

officials because “Mr. [William] Gregory’s private Conduct, during his Residence

in South Carolina, as one of the judges and one of his Majesty’s Council, was

scandalous”

100. January 8, 1781 [148]

Transcript of letter [unnumbered] from Germain to Bull, introducing and

recommending Charles Goodwin to be welcomed to practice law in South

Carolina, as was his wish

101. March 29, 1781 [149]

Transcript of letter [unnumbered] from Germain to Bull, introducing and

recommending [?] Bayly, an Irish Gentleman who intended to travel to South

Carolina to reclaim his family’s estate; requesting that Bull provide whatever

assistance he could

102. April 4, 1781 [150]

Transcript of letter No. 1 from Germain to Bull [at Charleston], expressing

satisfaction that Bull had safely made the journey back to South Carolina;

optimistic that Charleston would now be much better off since a civil government

had been returned there; hoping that North Carolina and Georgia would enjoy

similar successes [this transcript letter is the only version of this numbered letter

from Germain to Bull found in these microfilmed papers]

103. April 4, 1781 [152]

Transcript of letter from Germain to Egerton Leigh thanking him for useful

information about the situation in Charleston and for accepting a position on the

Charleston Board of Police [for more on the Board of Police during the British

occupation of Charleston, see Reel 13, Volumes 513 to 526 and note at the

beginning of Volume 519]]

104. June 4, 1781 [152]

Transcript of letter No. 2 from Germain to Bull, rejoicing at the British victory at

the Battle of Guilford [Courthouse, in interior North Carolina; actually the military

result was a bloody standoff, which British forces could ill afford as their offensive

campaign had stalled and the remaining troops were low on supplies]; expecting

that “all the Country to the South of James River is by this Time recovered to His

Majesty”, and hoping that this means a return of peace to South Carolina [in

reality, recovering the country south of the James River backfired as the British

army got cornered on the Yorktown peninsula while waiting for British supply

ships to arrive but instead finding themselves surrounded by an American army

on land and a French fleet on the water.] [this transcript letter is the only version

of this numbered letter from Germain to Bull found in these microfilmed papers]

487

105. September 1, 1781 [154]

Transcript of letter No. 3 from Germain to Bull, hoping for a “speedy Restoration

of the Province of South Carolina to the Blessings of Civil Government”, with

Bull’s assistance and leadership; expressing sorrow that Bull had suffered so

much “in your private Fortune by the late insurrection”; hoping that Bull would

soon regain his losses [this transcript letter is the only version of this numbered

letter from Germain to Bull found in these microfilmed papers]

106. February 6, 1782 [156]

Transcript of letter No. 4 from Germain to Bull, referring to the “great and

calamatous Change of Circumstances in South Carolina”; despite these

setbacks, expressing optimism sill for the final outcome [this transcript letter is

the only version of this numbered letter from Germain to Bull found in these

microfilmed papers]

[Note: The real dual calamities for the British cause at this time were Cornwallis’

surrender at Yorktown, Virginia in October 1781 and the February-March 1782

fall in London of the British “war government,” in which Germain had been a

major leader. The first signaled the coming end of the military conflict, while the

second signaled the crumbling of British political support for the war effort.]

Volume 409—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Abstracts of letters to Secretary of State (incoming), begin

December 8, 1766 to June 1, 1772 101 Documents [Frames 1 to 254]

Note: A summary table of contents (Table 10) for the South Carolina Colonial Papers

is found in the Introduction which differentiates locations of “actual documents” and

“abstract documents” for incoming and outgoing correspondence separately. Also

found there is a note on definitions and differences between abstracts, extracts,

summaries, and transcripts.

Note: Volume 409 begins a two-Volume set of abstracts of incoming official Secretary

of State correspondence, including summaries but mostly full transcripts of documents

dated between December 8, 1766 and December 28, 1781. During this period, one

Governor of South Carolina, Charles Greville Montagu (June 1766 to March 1773 with

two leaves of absence) and Lieutenant Governor William Bull II (acting governor during

Montagu’s absences from May 1768 to October 1768 and from July 1769 to September

1771) corresponded with two Secretaries of State, the Earl of Shelburne (July 1766 to

February 1768) and the Earl of Hillsborough (February 1768 to August 1772).

The 101 documents in this Volume were written into a letter book. They consist mostly

of numbered letters from Governors of South Carolina, and acting governor William Bull

II during absences of or transitions between governors, to Secretaries of State for the

Colonies. Also included are several unnumbered letters from a governor or acting

governor to a Secretary of State, plus a few letters from Treasury officials and from

South Carolina’s royal agent in London, Charles Garth.

488

Note: Between sometime in 1766 and sometime in 1768, the Secretary of State office’s

abstracting process went through a transition from entering summaries to writing out full

transcripts of actual documents. For most researchers, transcripts are better than

summaries, and actual documents are better than transcripts. In this Finding Aid, only

documents that are full transcripts and that are not found among the actual documents

among these microfilmed documents have separate entries. Since all of the transcript

documents are found also as actual documents, no documents in Volume 409 have

separate entries in this Finding Aid.

Volume 410—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Abstracts of letters to Secretary of State (incoming), end

April 27, 1772 to December 28, 1781 79 Documents [Handwritten Frames 1 to 313

Stamped Frames 1 to 158]

Note: Volume 410 follows Volume 409 as the second of two Volumes containing

“abstracts” of incoming Secretary of State correspondence. Volume 410’s

correspondence covers the period from April 1772 to December 1781. During this

period, two royal governors of South Carolina, Charles Greville Montagu (June 1766 to

March 1773 with two leaves of absence) and William Campbell (June 1775 to

September 1775, when the South Carolina colonial government collapsed under rebel

pressure), plus Lieutenant Governor William Bull II (acting governor between governors

from March 1773 to June 1775 and as a leader to re-establish South Carolina colonial

rule in 1781) corresponded with three Secretaries of State, the Earl of Hillsborough

(February 1768 to August 1772), the Earl of Dartmouth (August 1772 to November

1775), and Lord Germain (November 1775 to March 1782).