It almost seemed as if the proprietary government was doing all in its power to irritate the mind and alienate the affections of the colony; accordingly, in 1719, a general combination was formed for its subversion. The inhabitants bound themselves “to stand by each other for their rights and privileges, and have nothing more to do with the proprietaries.” All was done with the utmost secrecy and despatch. A deputation of the people waited on Robert Johnson, their governor, begging him “to hold the reins of government for the king.” Johnson, true to his employers, firmly rejected their offer; on which, choosing Arthur Middleton as president, they voted themselves “a convention delegated by the people,” and selected James Moore, a very popular man, as “the fittest person” for the government of the province.
These summary measures were not found to be displeasing to the English crown. It was decided in London that the proprietaries had forfeited their charter, and that both North and South Carolina should be taken under the royal protection.
“In 1720, Francis Nicholson, known in the history of the northern provinces, was appointed governor; and early the following year he arrived at Charleston, where he was received with every demonstration of joy. Peace being now made between England and Spain, Nicholson was instructed to cultivate the friendship of the Indians, and also of the Spaniards of Florida. He accordingly made treaties with the Cherokees and Creeks, in which boundaries were settled, and other necessary regulations made. Having thus secured the province from without, Governor Nicholson, by the encouragement and support which he gave to literary and religious institutions, soon caused its internal affairs to assume a new aspect.”[[29]]
But though South Carolina had thus changed the conditions of its own government, the change was not recognised in North Carolina till 1729, when seven-eighths of the proprietaries sold their shares to the crown for £22,000, Lord Carteret alone retaining his eighth share. At this period the two Carolinas became separate royal governments, and so remained till the Revolution.
Before leaving the subject of South Carolina, we must mention that which Hildreth very justly calls her “bad pre-eminence on the subject of slave-legislation,” and which remains a distinctive characteristic to the present time.
At the commencement of the eighteenth century, Carolina received a remonstrance from Pennsylvania on the subject of the importation of Indian slaves into that province; and in 1712, Massachusetts enacted that no further importation of Indian slaves into her province should take place under pain of forfeiture to the crown. South Carolina had a vast propensity for dealing in slaves, whether Indian or African; and the same year that Massachusetts passed her prohibitory law, South Carolina enacted her first slave-law, which premising that all her estates and plantations could only be cultivated by the labour of negro and other slaves, and that all such negroes and slaves “are of such barbarous, wild, and savage natures, as unfit them to be governed by the laws, customs, and practices of the province,” other laws shall be enacted for the good regulation of them, and “the restraining of the disorders, rapine, and inhumanity to which they are naturally prone and inclined.”
As a specimen of these enactments, which were instituted for the “good regulation” of these unhappy negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes, or Indians, we will give the following:—“Every person,” says Hildreth, “finding a slave abroad without a pass, was to arrest him and punish him on the spot ‘by moderate chastisement,’ under a penalty of 20s. for neglecting it. All negro houses were to be searched once a fortnight for arms and stolen goods. A slave guilty of petty larceny was, for the first offence, to be ‘publicly and severely whipped; the second, to have one of his ears cut off,’ or ‘branded on the forehead with a hot iron, so that the mark should remain,’ for the third offence, to ‘have his nose slit;’ for the fourth, to ‘suffer death or other punishment,’ at the discretion of the court. Any justice of peace, on complaint against any slave for any crime—from ‘chicken-stealing’ up to insurrection and murder—was to issue his warrant for the slave’s arrest; and the case was to be judged by himself, another justice, and three freeholders, whom they should summon; and if satisfactory evidence of guilt appeared, they were to sentence the culprit to death or other punishment as the case might be. If the punishment were death, the ‘kind of death’ was left to the judgment and discretion of the court; execution to be done forthwith on their warrant; the crown to be indemnified at the public charge. This summary form of procedure in the trial of slaves remains in force in South Carolina to this day; and a very similar form was also adopted, and still prevails, in North Carolina.”
Death was the punishment of any person who, by “promising freedom in another country,” induced a slave to leave the province, and the punishment also of the slave himself if taken. Any slave running away for twenty days was, for the first offence, “publicly and severely whipped;” for the second offence, the runaway was to be branded with the letter R on the right cheek; if the master omitted to do this he was fined £10. For the third offence, if absent thirty days, to be whipped, and have one of his ears cut off; the master, for omission, to be fined £20, and so on, the punishment still increasing in atrocity; whilst any captain or commander pursuing, apprehending and seizing runaway slaves, and bringing them back, dead or alive, was entitled to a premium of from £2 to £4 for each slave, and all persons wounded or disabled in such service to be compensated by the public; but if the unfortunate slave “should suffer in life or member, no person whatever shall be liable to any penalty therefor.” Any person killing his slave out of “wantonness,” “bloody-mindedness,” or “cruel intention,” to forfeit £50. No master was to allow his slaves to have their own time, nor “to plant for themselves any corn, peas, or rice, or to keep any stock of hogs, cattle, or horses.”
Furthermore, this remarkable act, not contented with outraging humanity in the person of the slaves, proceeds to insult and blaspheme Christianity also; and “since charity and the Christian religion we profess,” says the document, “obliges us to wish well to the souls of men, and that religion may not be made a pretence to alter any man’s property and right, and that no person may neglect to baptize their negroes or slaves for fear that thereby they should be manumitted and set free, it shall be, and is hereby declared, lawful for any negro, or Indian slave, or any other slave or slaves whatsoever, to receive and profess the Christian faith, and to be thereunto baptized; but notwithstanding such slave or slaves shall receive or possess the Christian religion and be baptized, he or they shall not thereby be manumitted or set free.”[[30]]
“The treaty of Utrecht, 1713,” says the same able author, “happily put an end to the war between the French and the North American colonies; and by this treaty, the fur trade of Hudson’s Bay; the whole of Newfoundland, reserving to the French some share of the fisheries; and that portion of the island of St. Kitts in the West Indies belonging to France, together with Acadia according to its ancient limits, were ceded to the English,” whose sovereignty over the Five Nations was incidentally acknowledged. But that which the English merchants esteemed a far more valuable concession was the transfer to the English South Sea Company of a contract for the annual transportation to Spanish America of not less than 4,800 negroes, or, in trade language, “Indian pieces,” originally entered into, shortly after the accession of the Bourbon dynasty, with a company of French merchants, and known as the Assiento. It being expected that immense profits would accrue from this trade, Philip V. of Spain, and Queen Anne of England, each reserved to themselves one-quarter of the stock of the company. Thus were the sovereigns of England and Spain the largest slave-merchants in the world. Harley, however, who had the good sense and the uprightness to distinguish between a base undertaking and commercial advantage, advised Queen Anne to assign her stock to the South Sea Company, and it was done.