© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-CH
digitization project, Documenting the American South.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved. Encountered typographical errors have been preserved, and appear in red type.
All footnotes are moved to the end of paragraphs in which the reference occurs.
Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as ” and “ respectively.
All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as ’ and ‘ respectively.
All em dashes are encoded as —
Indentation in lines has not been preserved.
Running titles have not been preserved.
Spell-check and verification made against printed text using Author/Editor (SoftQuad) and Microsoft Word spell check programs.
1 The Regulation is one of the best written about subjects of North Carolina history. Caruthers treats it extensively in his Life of Dr. David Caldwell (1842). He went carefully over the ground and obtained a great deal of his material from old men who had once been Regulators. He is entirely on the side of the Regulators. Caruthers also treats of the subject, but not extensively, in his Revolutionary Incidents (first series), pages 24 et seq. Dr. F. L. Hawkes has a sketch in Cooke's Revolutionary History of North Carolina (1853), pages 13 et seq. It deals chiefly with Husband's Sermons to Asses. Jones treats the matter in his Defence of North Carolina (1834), pages 34-56. Wheeler publishes Husband's book under the heading of Orange County (see his History of North Carolina, Vol. II, pp. 301-331), and Martin and Williamson, in their histories, have treated it as fully as the nature of their works would admit.
Dr. T. B. Kingsbury published several short articles on the subject in Our Living and Our Dead (see Vol. II, p. 434; Vol. III, pp. 39, 314, and 629). The subject is also treated in the North Carolina Journal of Education, October and November, 1859, and in Wiley's Sketch of North Carolina.
All the above, except Martin and Williamson, are apologists of the Regulation. At first in the history of the State everyone seems to have followed the accounts of Tryon and his followers as set forth in these two histories. It was about the time that Jones's Defence was published that there came a change in sentiment. Since that time nearly everything written has discovered in the Regulation a worthy struggle for liberty.
One book recently published, Colonel Waddell's Colonial Officer and His Times, is an exception to this rule. Writing from the standpoint of the biographer of one of the chief men who joined in suppressing the Regulators, Colonel Waddell has been led to form an opinion unfavorable to them. Many of his points are well taken.
There are two contemporary accounts of the movement. The more important of these two is An Impartial Relation of the First Rise and Cause of the Recent Differences in Public Affairs in the Province of North Carolina, 1770, pages 104. This work, on what seems very good grounds, is usually attributed to Hermon Husband. It is a well-written statement of the first part of the struggle. It contains many documents and is usually reliable. It is reprinted in Wheeler's History of North Carolina, II, 301-331. The other book is A Fan for Fanning and a Touchstone for Tryon, by Regulus, Boston, 1771. The author of this work is unknown. It has been ascribed to Husband, but the internal evidence is against such a view. Governor Swain thought it was written by Shubal Stearns, a Baptist preacher from New England, who was living in Orange in 1771. It is not nearly so exact a statement of facts as the Impartial Relation, being characterized by wordy complaints against Tryon and the other officers. It was reprinted in the North Carolina University Magazine, Vol. VIII, 193 and 289. The most valuable of all sources is The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Vols. VII and VIII. They contain the documents of the Regulators, the records of the courts and of the assembly, the reports of Tryon to the home government, and many other documents bearing on the subject. They have been freely used in this paper.
The recent publication of The Colonial Records of North Carolina must lead to the rewriting of much of the State's colonial history. The several writers who, before the appearance of these volumes, have written on The War of the Regulation have been handicapped by having to use as sources of information narratives that have been prepared by one or the other of the parties to the struggle. They have not had access to the now published mass of documents, which, as might have been expected, throw new light on many features of the movement. The desire to use this light has inspired the present paper. It
(1) The Regulation was not attempted as a revolution. It was rather a peasants' rising, a popular upheaval. This is a chief new point which, it seems, a study of the records should reveal. A revolution involves a change of the form or principles of government. It is constitutional in its significance. A peasants' rising aims at a change of agents who administer, or of the manner of administering, affairs under principles or forms that remain intact. It is a matter of party, chiefly. A revolution may embrace a popular rising, and a popular rising may run into, or in a manner partake of the nature of, a revolution; but we may always find the general difference just mentioned. Could it have had any other fate than it did have, the Regulation might possibly have run into revolution; but at the time when it was crushed it had not reached that stage.
(2) Another fact that the records emphasize is this: The Regulation was not a religious movement. It was rather of an economic and political nature. It was not only not religious, but it had the opposition of at least four of the five leading denominations in the disaffected district. The Established
1 Colonial Records of North Carolina, VII, 813-816.
2 Ib., VII, 822 and 886.
3 Ib., VIII, 655-656.
4 Ib., VII, 821.
5 Dr. S. B. Weeks, whose forthcoming work on Southern Quakers and Slavery is announced as this monograph goes to the press, is authority for this statement. With such excellent verbal authority, the writer does not hesitate to print the above assertion in advance of the published work.
It is not to be thought, however, that members of these separate churches did not join the Regulation. They joined freely, but all the evidence goes to show that it was not from religious motives. Hermon Husband declared that they were of all sects, and that the leaders were of the Established Church.6
6 Wheeler: History of North Carolina, II, 315. See, also, Purefoy's History of Sandy Creek Association, pages 69-73, where Morgan Edwards is freely quoted.
To understand properly the struggle which we are about to investigate, we must first acquaint ourselves with the physical
The topography of North Carolina reveals on the east a broad alluvial plain. This is intersected by numerous rivers, along whose banks lies much rich low ground. West of this section is a broken region of red clay soil thickly netted by small streams, which makes the head waters of the larger rivers of the plain. Farther west are high, mountain-studded plateaus, which modern railroad facilities are showing to be perhaps the grandest scenery on our eastern Atlantic Slope.
It was in the second of these divisions that the Regulation had its home. At the time of which we write this region was usually known as “the back counties” or “the back country.” It is hilly upland, and its fertile soil is well suited to the growth of grains, grass, and fruit. At the middle of the eighteenth century it was covered by large forests of oak and hickory, broken here and there by open prairie-like tracts of good grass. To a passing observer the country is much like that of eastern Pennsylvania or central Maryland. Indeed, it is part of a continuous geological formation which lies just east of the Appalachian foothills and extends in a southwest direction from Pennsylvania to northern Georgia.
As the Keystone State marked the beginning of this formation, it was also the gateway through which came most of its population. The fertile soil and the liberal government of the Quaker drew to his colony at an early day a strong tide of immigration. So great was the stream that there was soon an overflow. Newcomers willing to pay good prices for land induced the former owners to sell their holdings and seek others from the cheaper lands of the wilderness. Thus began a stream of humanity very much as the water in a natural depression rises till at last it breaks over the hills and cuts a channel through the plain. The course taken was to the southwest. The Virginia valleys were filled. Across the boundary into North Carolina1 poured the tide. But here there was a halt.
1 Mr. Woodmason, who seems to have visited North Carolina in 1766, writes: “Africk never more abounded with new monsters than Pennsylvania with new sects, who are continually sending out their emissaries around.” His narrative, though utterly untrustworthy in regard to most that he says, shows that it was generally understood that the newcomers, especially the Baptists, were from Pennsylvania. (Colonial Records, VII, 286, 287.)
The people who led this movement were of pioneer lineage. While still in Europe they had behind them a century of frontier life. Early in the seventeenth century James I moved many Scotchmen to Ireland with an idea of converting the country to Protestantism. In this he failed. The Protestants lived separate from, and often hostile to, the natives. The tide of Puritanism that swept over the country left them mostly Presbyterians. The country was not a home for them. The soil was poor, and consequently many of them turned their faces to the New World. From their association with the two countries they were called Scotch-Irish. They made ideal frontiersmen. While others came in their rear and settled close upon them, they were still usually the ones to push on to the next stop, ever restless and fearless.
It was shortly before 1740 that this tide reached North Carolina. Coming down from Virginia, it ran along the head waters of the Yadkin, Haw, Neuse, Tar, Catawba, and Deep rivers, until the whole country from what is now the vicinity of Raleigh on the east to the neighborhood of Morganton on the west was taken up. So rapid was the movement that Governor Tryon reports that in the summer and winter of 1765 more than 1,000 immigrants' wagons passed through Salisbury, most of which were bound for parts of North Carolina.1 Among those who came one can easily distinguish Scotch-Irish, Germans, Moravians, Welsh, and many Englishmen.
1 Those that went on were for Georgia and Florida. Some of these came back to North Carolina. (Colonial Records, VII, 248.)
The eastern plain had been the first part of the colony to be settled. Convenience of transportation and the desire for fertile river shores operated to group the earliest settlers along the water courses. In the extreme east streams were so numerous that the whole country was practically on water routes. This region was soon settled. Conditions here were favorable to slave labor,1 and by the end of a century's growth the coast region was fairly full of fine estates and wealthy families. Although there were many of the middle class settled around them, these older families were the influential factors in the State and in society. Old settlers, with traditions of their own, and connected chiefly with the State religion, they had no sympathy for the new men of the hills.
1 There were very many more slaves in the east than in the west. In 1766 in Orange there were 33 whites to every 6 blacks. In Johnston there were 10 to 5. In Perquimans there were 5 to 10, and in Brunswick there were 2 to 11. (Colonial Records, VII, 288, 289.)
There was also a natural barrier between the two sections. This was a sparsely settled region of pine forest, stretching monotonously from the valley of the Roanoke on the north to that of the Cape Fear on the south. It was so far from the coast that it was traversed by few rivers, and those were hardly navigable. It contained but little “bottom” land and had to wait for the day of railroads and cotton cultivation before it was developed.
Cut off thus from the men of the east, the men of the “back counties” felt no more sympathy for the former than they received from them. The merchants to whom they hauled
1 Now Fayetteville.
2 This same author shows his feeling for the east as follows: “And such has been the fate of Newbern and other places in North Carolina that for many years they were erected an asylum for all such as fled from their creditors and from the hand of justice, and such as would not live by working elsewhere, men regardless of religion and all moral obligation. Hence it was refugees from the western governments and from Connecticut, found a safe retreat in North Carolina, particularly on the seacoast and places adjacent.” (Quoted by Swain in Univ. Magazine, Vol. IX, p. 465.)
The life of the people was that of the pioneer. The necessaries of subsistence were plentiful, but luxuries were few. Some old men who had been Regulators told Caruthers that about the time of the Regulation there was not a plank floor, a feather bed, a riding carriage, or a side saddle within the bounds of their acquaintance.3 Yet at this time considerable advance had been made toward the cultivated habits of older communities. Many churches had been built, though they were often but rude structures. In Orange there was a regularly settled parish clergyman who had his church in Hillsboro. Farther out in the county were several chapels which were served by readers.4 In Rowan a clergyman had been provided, but the Dissenters were making it difficult for him to enter into his living.5 Within this district the Presbyterians had four pastors, each of whom had more than one charge. The Germans had pastors there also.6
3 Life of Caldwell, pp. 139, 140.
4 The site of one of these chapels was selected afterwards for the seat of the University of North Carolina.
5 Colonial Records, VIII, 202-210, and 502-507.
6 Ib., VIII, 727-757.
The Baptists had been organized for some years. In 1758 the Sandy Creek7 Association was formed. Only two of the churches in it were within the district of the Regulators, but
7 Sandy Creek was in what is now Randolph County. It was the central field of the Regulation.
1 See Purefoy's History of Sandy Creek Association, 62-65.
The political institutions were not of a nature to suit a people like these. The constitution left them a very small share in government. The exercise of the executive, the judicial, and, to a large extent, the legislative functions was in the hands of the central royal officeholders.
The governor was appointed by the King, and represented the royal prerogative. With the council, he was the chief executive agent. The councilors were appointed by the Crown, usually on the recommendation of the governor, and they could be relied on to take the side of the prerogative. The chief justice was regularly named by the Crown. The governor in council appointed the county justices and the chief justice, temporarily, when there was a vacancy, and the two associates.2 Out of council he appointed the officers of the militia, and selected the sheriff from three freeholders whose names had been submitted by the county court. He must also approve a bill before it became a law, and he was commander of the militia. It was thus that his influence was paramount. Not being paid by the people's assembly, he was not afraid of it.
2 Colonial Records, VII, 690, 691.
There were two systems of courts, the superior and the inferior. The former was divided into six circuits, which were traveled twice a year. The chief justice and the two associates
1 Colonial Records, IX, 264-266.
The assembly was bicameral. The upper house was the council. The lower house was elected by the freeholders. Elections were held by the sheriff, but there seems to have been no strict oversight of the polls. Furthermore, there were no party lines. The influential men brought out a man as candidate, and he usually received the election. When a bill had been passed in both houses and signed by the governor, it must be approved by the board of trade before it was a permanent law.
The result of all this was that in each county there were a certain number of men who were likely to have in control all the offices. This is suggestive of what we to-day are accustomed to call “court-house rings.” The disadvantage was that the continued effectiveness of government depended too much on the personal honesty of these officeholders. In many of the eastern counties this state of affairs seems to have worked well. But in the remote sections there is much evidence that the officers were selfish and mercenary, and that they were mutually leagued together to forward their own selfish ends. It was to try to clean out this Augean stable that Regulation had its existence.
The grievances of the Regulators were excessive taxes, dishonest sheriffs, and extortionate fees.1 Each of these was made more intense by the scarcity of money. The stamp-act trouble does not seem to have had any immediate influence on this movement. That the people of the back country sympathized with the Sons of Liberty and could have been aroused to help them had the discontent-spread from the Cape Fear inward is undoubtedly true, but this whole movement passed over before the Regulation came into existence.2
1 In 1771 Governor Martin said that he was told on every side that a chief cause of these troubles was the fact that Earl Granville had no agent in the colony who would give deeds for his lands. The settlers accordingly took possession of the lands, but refused to pay taxes for the same. This caused trouble with the sheriffs. (Colonial Records, IX, 49.) Granville's land office was closed from 1765 (Ib., VIII, 195), and it is likely enough that the result was as just stated, but the fact that in the many statements of the questions at issue no prominence is given by either side to this cause is the author's justification for not putting it into the body of his text.
2 It is well to remember, also, that the leaders of the resistance to the stamp act were among those who afterwards were most active to suppress the Regulation.
The charge of excessive taxation was only relatively true. Taxes were apportioned by the poll. A taxable was an adult white man or an adult black man or woman. A rich man thus paid no more than a poor man in actual money. This injustice was emphasized as between the east and the west by the fact that the wealthy gentlemen of the former section relied on slave labor, while slaves were comparatively few in the west.
The manner of collecting taxes made the burden still heavier. The tax bills, although questioned by the Regulators, seem to have been correct.3 In a frontier region, where money was scarce and local trading was confined almost entirely to barter, it was not always convenient for the farmers to keep money in their homes. But throughout the country there were men who lent small sums to the countrymen when there was a sudden demand for cash. Consequently, when the
3 The tax bill for 1767 was 7s., besides county and parish dues. This is what Tryon told the Regulators (Colonial Records, VII, 794), and from the items in the bill for 1768 it foots up the same amount. (Ib., VII, 772, 773.) Here it seems there are two bills, the latter of which is that for 1768. The items in the bills were referred to the laws authorizing them.
The sheriffs were thought to have taken another step in defiance of popular justice when the assembly in 1768 passed a law requiring the sheriffs to attend five different places in each county, at least two days in each place, during January and February of each year, in order to collect the taxes. If the officer found it necessary to call at the home of the rate-payer for his due, he took an extra fee for doing it. The people of Orange regarded this law as passed at the instigation of the sheriffs. Husband declared1 that the sheriff insulted the people in it, and added that the officer “might have said the asses were obliged to bring their burdens to him in order that one of his deputies might collect the whole in ten days, sitting on his breech, at ease, in five places only.”2
1 Wheeler, History of North Carolina, II, 305, and Colonial Records, VII, 771, 772.
2 It has been stated that the tax for the governor's palace, which was erected in Newbern in 1765-1770 at a cost of £15,000, had much to do with working up the discontent that culminated in the Regulation. There is, however, no evidence that the palace deserves so much distinction. Among all of their complaints the Regulators refer to it only rarely. They seem to have considered this a slight abuse as compared with other matters. (Cf. also Caruthers: Life of Caldwell, p. 106.) It is also stated at times that the expense of running the Cherokee boundary line was a cause of the Regulation; but there is very slight reference to it in the published complaints of the Regulators. The fact that Maurice Moore in his “Atticus” letter arraigned Tryon for these two pieces of extravagance seems to have led most writers to assume that these were important causes of the troubles that came later. Moore served against the Regulators, and his letter indicates that he hardly understood the movement. He certainly does not say that the Regulators considered the two occurrences just cited as efficient causes of their oppression. (Colonial Records, VIII, 718.)
Another very prominent grievance was the dishonesty of the sheriffs, who failed to pay into the hands of the public treasury the money they had collected. The public accounts were most inefficiently kept. There was a prevalent opinion among all classes that there was fraud just here. In 1767 Governor Tryon declared it as his opinion that “the sheriffs have embezzled more than one-half of the public money ordered to be raised and collected by them.”1 This, he said, was due to the remissness of the treasurers, who feared to sue the sheriffs, lest the friends of these latter should combine to defeat the treasurers of re-election. He made several attempts to secure a statement of all such arrears, and finally in 1769 John Burgwin was appointed to prepare a statement of the condition of the public accounts.2 In the following year he made his report,3 when it appeared that the several sheriffs were in arrears to the extent of £49,000.4 Many counties were in arrears for ten years, and some accounts reached back to 1754. A good deal of this was reported as worthless. In some instances neither principal nor securities were worth anything, and at times they had all run away. More than half of the amount in arrears, however, was reported good. This was especially true of the eastern counties, which were generally paid up until 1765. The bad debts and the long arrears were mostly in the frontier counties—that is to say, in Anson, Orange, Johnston, Rowan, Cumberland, and Dobbs.
1 Colonial Records, VII, 497; also, VIII, 105.
2 Ib., VII, 984.
3 Ib., VIII, 278-281.
4 This is the amount due for years preceding 1770. There was about £15,000 due for that year, but the report being made out in that year many sheriffs, especially those inclined to pay slowly, had perhaps not had full opportunity to settle with the treasurers when the report was gotten up. To include the amount for this year is therefore hardly fair to the sheriffs. The assembly of 1771, second session, decided to distribute in the counties printed copies of Burgwin's report. (Ib., IX, 124.) At the same time they ordered the treasurers to prosecute the delinquents. (Ib., IX, 217.) As a result a fair proportion of the arrears was collected. (Ib., IX, 572-576.)
The failure to pay into the treasury the amount collected led to an irritating misunderstanding between the governor and the assembly. In 1760 the provincial government issued £12,000 in currency, to be redeemed by a poll tax of 1s. levied each year till the whole amount was sunk. The following year £20,000 was issued, to be redeemed by a poll tax of 2s. In 1768 the assembly, after trying in vain to get a new issue of
1 Colonial Records, VII, 922, 923.
2 Ib., VII, 986.
3 Ib., VIII, 213-215.
4 The sinking fund received money as follows: 1s. to sink two issues in 1748 and 1754; 1s. for the issue of 1760; 2s. for that of 1761, and 4d. a gallon on imported liquors. Perhaps not more than one-half of this fund should have been devoted to the sinking of the two issues in question.
5 See Husband's account, Wheeler, II, 311.
Extortionate fees was perhaps the greatest grievance of all. Nearly all the officers were paid in fees. The people of the back counties complained heavily of their officers, and in support of their complaint the Orange County Regulators produced affidavits sufficient to satisfy the most skeptical that they were right.6 As soon as counties were organized on the frontier sheriffs, clerks, registers, and lawyers swooped down upon the defenseless inhabitants like wolves. Further than this, the people charged that the superior and county courts conspired to aid the officers in escaping punishment. The fee of a lawyer was fixed by law, but, like usury laws of our own day, it was difficult to enforce this law. The officers would manage to resolve a service for which a fixed fee was due into two or more services, and for each they would demand a fee. Both lawyers and court officials were thought to be in collusion to postpone cases in order that they might get more fees.7 The court business was sadly behind, much to the inconvenience
6 Colonial Records, VII, 771-782. 7 Governor Martin, in 1772, supports the charge of malpractices by the lawyers. (Ib., IX, 340.)
1 Colonial Records, VII, 200, 201.
Connected with and influencing each of these grievances was that of the general scarcity of money. The English colonial policy had the effect of withdrawing from the colonies as much gold and silver as possible. So scarce did this money become that in 1765 Governor Tryon said that there was only enough of it in the colony to pay for the stamps which under the Stamp Act would be required on the instruments of writing used in one year in the superior courts of the province.2 The people desired to issue a paper currency sufficient in amount for the demands, but were restrained by an act of Parliament made for the protection of British merchants, which forbade the colonies to issue legal-tender paper. The assembly petitioned the King for a relaxation of this injunction, but was unsuccessful. Distress was everywhere; but in the east, where there were public warehouses for receiving commodities, it was less than in the west, where there were none; because the people used the warehouse certificates as a medium of exchange among themselves. An inhabitant of Orange related that at this time he had accompanied his father with a load of wheat to Cross Creek, now Fayetteville, where they received 5s. a bushel for the grain, but could get only one-fifth of the price in cash. His father returned home with 40s. and was able to pay his tax, which was more than his neighbors could do.3
2 Ib., VII, 144.
3 Caruthers's Life of Caldwell, page 113. Colonel Saunders, with a singular lack of insight, says that this wheat was sold for a shilling a bushel. Why he should have said nothing of the 4 shillings in barter given also for each bushel is incomprehensible. (Cf. Colonial Records, VII, p. xix.)
All this was caused chiefly by a most shortsighted financial policy on the part of the provincial government. During the times of the French and Indian war the colony had made repeated issues of currency. After peace was declared in 1763 this began rapidly to be redeemed. So sudden and wide an extension of the money medium was bad in itself; but when in the face of an immense tide of immigration the currency began rapidly to contract the effect was calamitous. An idea of this
1 Cf. Colonial Records, VII, 145, 288, 289, and 539, with VIII, 215.
The inhabitants of the back counties, isolated from, and out of sympathy with, the dominant class in the province, were thus ready material to the hand of the political agitator. Weighed down by improperly adjusted taxes, dishonest officers, excessive fees, and an insufficient currency, the people only awaited the appearance of a leader under whom they might range themselves in opposition to their oppressors. The first man to appear in this capacity was Hermon Husband.2
2 This spelling is used advisedly. Mr. Jacob L. Husband, of Baltimore, a relative of Hermon Husband, has a deed written and signed by Hermon Husband on January 7, 1769, in which the spelling is as here given.
Husband was born in Cecil County, Md., October 3, 1724.3 His family were Episcopalians, but Hermon with some other members of the family became Quakers.4 He moved to North Carolina and settled at Sandy Creek, then in Orange County, but now in the northeastern part of Randolph. Here he accumulated considerable property. Our knowledge of him indicates that he was industrious, shrewd, honest, and much more intelligent than the average man of his neighborhood.5 By his neighbors he was reported to have been either related to, or connected with, Dr. Benjamin Franklin. It is in evidence that he kept up a correspondence with this patriotic Quaker through John Wilcox, a merchant of Cross Creek, who went to Philadelphia twice a year to buy goods. In this way he received many political pamphlets of a patriotic character which he reprinted and circulated among the people. He got the credit of writing some of these, but it does not appear that he claimed the authorship of any of them.6 The only one of these of which we have any definite account is a collection
3 Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog., April, 1886, p. 119. 4 Dr. S. B. Weeks, who has examined the records of the Quakers, has informed the writer that Husband was expelled from that organization, not because he was immoral, but because of divergence of views. This statement is also in advance of Dr. Weeks's forthcoming book. 5 The deed referred to in note 1 was written by himself and is in good form, showing some legal knowledge. 6 Caruthers's Life of Caldwell, pp. 119, 120.
1 It was erroneously supposed to have been adapted from Dr. Franklin's tract, “State affairs.”
2 These two sermons are abridged in Revolutionary History of North Carolina (W. D. Cooke, ed.), pages 19-28.
Husband's part in the Regulation has been overestimated. He was essentially an agitator, and his plan seems to have been to effect reform by means of public sentiment. When it became evident that the movement was running into violence he held aloof from it, only exerting himself to restrain excesses and to make peace.3 His activity as a pamphleteer had given him such a reputation that it was impossible to convince the provincial government that he was not the chief leader of the popular side. The officeholders produced affidavits to show that he was in the crowd that perpetrated the Hillsboro riots;4 but whether or not he helped to administer the thrashings that some received the deponents did not say. The fact that when a short time afterwards he was expelled from the assembly for printing a libelous letter to Maurice Moore no charge was made in connection with this riot may, perhaps, be owing to lack of evidence on this subject.5 Had it been at all sure that he was concerned in the riots, he would likely have been so charged in the indictment. He was with the Regulators on the morning of the battle on the Alamance endeavoring to bring about an adjustment. When he saw that this was impossible he mounted his horse and rode away. Some have attributed this to cowardice, but it is noticeable that none of the writers who have talked with surviving Regulators have said that the Regulators accused him of deserting their
3 In 1768 the Regulators declared that he was a “gentleman that had never joined the Regulators, had never been concerned in any tumults, and whose only crime was being active in trying to bring on the intended settlement.” (Colonial Records, VII, 765.) 4 Ib., VIII, 245-247. 5 Ib., VIII, 268, 269.
1 Colonial Records, VIII, 521.
2 See Caruthers: Life of Caldwell, pages 166-168.
There is no one who can be called a preeminent leader of the Regulation. Perhaps this is one cause of its failure. On the morning of the battle, when no one was found to command the people, some asked James Hunter to take command. His answer was characteristic both of himself and of the movement: “We are all freemen, and everyone must command himself.”3 Rednap Howell, James Hunter, and William Butler were leading spirits; yet there were, perhaps, others as prominent as themselves. Hunter was spoken of as their “general.”4 Rednap Howell deserves to be mentioned as the bard of the movement. He was from New Jersey and was a school-master. With his homely songs he soon set the entire countryside singing at the expense of Fanning, Frohock, and others of their associates.5
3 Ib., p. 163.
4 Colonial Records, IX, 269.
5 The following will suffice as specimens:
Also this:
—Ib., page 130, note.
All that is known of the Regulators' rhymes is reprinted in the Raleigh Register, June 2, 1825.
The most prominent leader on the opposite side was Governor Tryon. Much has been said to this man's discredit, but perhaps not all of it has been deserved. So far as the records show he was a man of decided executive ability, great tact, broad ideas, and much firmness. Like Strafford, his public character seems to be summed up in the word “thorough.” Like most English gentlemen who were then sent to govern colonies, he expected to make money by the office, and he doubtless did it.1 He was a genuine believer in the King's prerogative, and as governor he felt bound to permit nothing that would detract from it. From his standpoint it was enough for the people if they submitted to the benign rule of the fatherly King. He came to enforce this kind of government and at the same time to build up his private fortune. He found that the officeholders in the counties were the friends on whom he might rely to accomplish both purposes. He felt drawn to them, and when the people criticised them he interfered in their behalf. As representatives of his ideas of government he felt that they must be sustained. To accomplish his object he shrewdly, and perhaps heartlessly, used the means that politicians of the day were accustomed to use. To his mind a triumph of the Regulators would have been the first step toward undermining the royal authority. He came to North Carolina with an ambition to have a tranquil administration in what had hitherto been a troublesome colony. His very ideas doomed him to failure. It was his misfortune to be the governor just at the time when quiet was impossible.
1 In 1769 Lord Hillsboro told Tryon that the reason he had not named him for the governorship of New York was that he had learned that he (Tryon) was getting more in North Carolina than the New York place paid. (Colonial Records, VIII, 190, 191.)
Edmund Fanning, the local leader of the opposition to the Regulators, was born in Connecticut and was educated at Yale College. He was a man of fine address and superior ability. For some time he was one of the leading men in the assembly, and seems to have won the confidence of such men as Ashe, Harvey, Waddell, Harnet, Caswell, and Maurice Moore, all men of the greatest reputation for patriotism, and whose parts in the Revolution have secured for them consideration as the fathers of the Republic. Unfortunately for him he
The early history of North Carolina was not a quiet one. Besides the so-called Culpepper and Carey rebellions, which occurred under proprietary rule, there had been several disputes between the people and the royal authority.1 While these difficulties have no direct connection with the Regulation, they show that the spirit of independence was abroad in the colony a long time before the day of the Regulators.
1 See Colonial Records, VIII, pages vii-x.
A notable outbreak of this spirit occurred in Mecklenburg County on the 7th of May, 1765. George Selwyn held a large tract of land in this region, on which he had settled many men who had not received deeds for their holdings. In 1764 Henry Eustace McCulloch was appointed agent for Selwyn, with instructions to survey these parcels of land, and either to close bargains for the same or to eject those who held them. McCulloch announced the price at which he would receive payment for the land, and in February, 1765, went up to have a settlement. The settlers indignantly refused to accept the proposition, offered him a smaller price, and when he refused to take it they forbade the surveyors to lay out the holdings. They also terrorized those who were willing to pay the price demanded, and declared that they would allow no sheriff to eject a settler for not paying it.2 Finally, as John Frohock, Abraham Alexander, and others were about to survey a piece of the disputed land they were beset by the enraged settlers and most severely thrashed.3 This brought
2 Ib., VII, 14-31. 3 Ib., VII, 32-34, 37.
1 Colonial Records, VII, 38.
The evidence we have in this case is all on the side of the agent, and it is accordingly unsafe to say who was in the wrong. At its face value, it indicates that McCulloch was acting entirely within his legal rights.2 The incident is of importance only as revealing the turbulent spirits of the backwoodsmen and their vigorous method of redressing grievances.
2 When the settlers petitioned to the governor and council for justice, that body decided that the affair was not cognizable before them. (Ib., VII, 34, 35.)
This same spirit was strong in Granville and Halifax counties, where it was directed against extortioning officers. On June 6, 1765, it took a long forward stride when a gentleman of the Nutbush section3 of Granville issued what has been known as “The Nutbush paper.” It contained “an account of the deplorable situation we suffer * * * and some necessary hints with respect to reformation.” The grievances of the people are stated as follows:
3 The name Nutbush is employed now to indicate a township, a Presbyterian church, and two streams—Nutbush and Little Nutbush creeks—in the northern part of what is now Vance and Warren counties. Nutbush Township was divided by the boundary line of these two counties. It was formerly in Granville. (See Schaeffer's map of North Carolina.)
A poor man is supposed to have given his judgment bond for £5, and this bond is by his creditor thrown into court. The clerk of the county has to enter it on the docket and issue execution, the work of one long minute, for which the poor man has to pay the trifling sum of 41s. 5d. The clerk, in consideration he is a poor man, takes it out in work at 18d. a day. The poor man works some more than twenty-seven days to pay for this one minute's writing. Well, the poor man reflects thus: At this rate, when shall I get to labor for my family? I have a wife and parcel of small children suffering at home, and here I have lost a whole month, and I don't know for what, for my merchant is as far from being paid yet as ever. However, I will go home now and try and do what I can. Stay, neighbor, you have not half done yet. There is a d—d lawyer's mouth to stop yet—for you empowered him to confess that you owed this £5, and you have 30s. to pay him for that, and go and work nineteen days more; and then you must work as long to pay the sheriff for his trouble; and then you may go home to see your horses and cow sold, and all your personal estate for one-tenth part of the value, to pay off your merchant. And lastly, if the debt is so great that all your personal estate will not do to raise the money—which is not to be had—then goes your lands the same way to satisfy these cursed hungry caterpillars that will eat out the very bowels of our commonwealth if they are not pulled down from their nests in a very short time.
The author called on all the gentlemen of Granville to help in changing this condition of affairs. All were cautioned that if they tried they must “be careful to keep sober, nor do anything rashly” or “against the known established laws of our land.” Who this author was is not known. He succeeded in getting up a petition to the assembly for redress of grievances, but nothing came of it. The officers retorted by suing the subscribers for libel and by having the author of the paper indicted and imprisoned. When Husband wrote, perhaps 1769, the suits were still in court.1 Of so little consequence was the whole affair that knowledge of it did not reach Orange, the adjoining county, until 1767. It is chiefly important as illustrating the political condition of the back country in the time just preceding the outbreak of the Regulation.
1 Wheeler: History of North Carolina, II, 301, 302.
This was not the only manifestation of the spirit of discontent. According to Husband, Brunswick, Cumberland, and other counties refused to pay their taxes as early as 1766. Of the results of these refusals we know nothing. From 1766 on all minor discontent is swallowed up by the events which soon called the attention chiefly to Orange and adjacent counties. It is to these events that we shall direct our attention.
What is usually spoken of as the Regulation in Orange is really two distinct movements. The one we may call the Sandy Creek Organization because it originated chiefly with Sandy Creek men; the other is the Regulation proper. The former represented a mild but firm protest against the wrongdoing of the officers and its transactions are summed up in the papers usually known as the Regulators' Advertizements I, II, and III.2 The latter replaced the former. It was first known as “The Mob,” but soon took the name “Regulation,” from a South Carolina organization. It grew up when the former had failed and was dominated by a more turbulent spirit than was countenanced by the Sandy Creek organization. It eventually ran into such excesses that the militia of the province was called out twice against it.
2 These are found in Wheeler, II, 302, 304 and Colonial Records, VII, 249, 251, 252.
The Sandy Creek movement began late in August, 1766, when at a county court there was issued a call for each neighborhood to send delegates to a meeting “at some place where
1 Colonial Records, VII, 250.
2 Husband. (See Wheeler, II, 303.)
It is of advantage to note the relation of this movement to the stamp-act resistance. The call begins:
Whereas that great good may come of this great designed evil, the stamp law, while the Sons of Liberty withstood the lords in Parliament in behalf of true liberty, let not officers under them carry on unjust oppression in our own province.
In closing, the paper says:
Take this as a maxim, that while men are men, though you should see all those Sons of Liberty (who has just now redeemed us from tyranny) set in offices and vested with power, they would soon corrupt again and oppress if they were not called upon to give an account of their stewardship.
This passage indicates the sympathy between the Sandy Creek men and the Sons of Liberty. This was possibly due to the influence of Husband, whose correspondence with Franklin made him a center of patriotic ideas of a revolutionary nature. There is no evidence of any connection between the Regulation proper and the stamp-act troubles.
The idea of giving an account of their stewardship gave the officers an excuse for not going to the meeting at Maddock's Mill; for although they had at first promised to go, yet when on October 10 twelve delegates were met there the officers sent a messenger to say that they had decided not to attend, because the meeting claimed the authority to call them (the officers) to account. The messenger further announced that Colonel Fanning considered the meeting an insurrection.
The meeting, however, proceeded to draw up a paper, the chief features of which were as follows: Since the county was so large that not more than one-tenth of the voters could know in a reliable manner the qualifications of any man, it was
1 Colonial Records, VII, 251, 252, and Wheeler, II, 304.
The claim that representatives are responsible to their constituencies was at that time an innovation in the politics of the “back counties” of North Carolina. From the point of view of the officeholders it could not be allowed. Accordingly Colonel Fanning, either at the next county or general muster, read a paper “in repugnance to our requests.” Husband did not know its contents. Fanning claimed that he had served it on the Sandy Creek men, but Husband says none of them ever saw it. It was probably but a more formal statement of Fanning's charge that the measures proposed were insurrectionary. Further than this, the officers made threats against the chief men of the movement, and when £50 had been collected to prosecute the offending officers it was found that the only lawyer on whom they could rely declined to take the case. In 1767 two men, one a justice of the county court, purchased jointly a copy of the revision of the laws of the province.2 Two others copied from it the fees for registering conveyances and went before the court to register some deeds. The fees charged they thought to be illegal. They protested, but being threatened with arrest for contempt of court, they thought best to desist. The justice who was half owner of the law book then went to his partner, who had brought the book to the court, and asked him to be cautious how he lent it out. This he did, because there were so few of these books in this section that the court would easily know who had lent one of them. To this statement Husband adds: “Thus we may see how he apprehended himself under a necessity to conceal his good
2 Davis's Revision, 1765.
1 This account follows Husband. See Wheeler, II, 302, 303.
It was not till the spring of 1768 that any further organized resistance was made to Fanning and his associates. The immediate cause of this resistance was a notice posted by the sheriff of Orange, stating that he would, according to law, receive taxes at five specified places, and for all not paid there he would distrain at a cost of 2s. 8d. for each distress.2 Many people considered this a misinterpretation or a violation of the law. Along with it came the rumor that the assembly had given the governor £15,000 for the purpose of building a residence.3 The two affairs combined to bring about a new association, at first known as “The Mob,” but later called “The Regulation.”4 The movement did not begin in the Sandy Creek neighborhood, but it spread rapidly. The Sandy Creek men refused to join, “because it was too hot and rash, and in some respects not legal.” They tried to guide the movement and to modify
2 A careful examination of the law then in force fails to show any authority for this assertion. Laws of 1768, ch. 6. 3 Affairs were further aggravated by the fact that the sheriff at first demanded 8s. 4d., which some paid. Later Fanning arrived and said that the tax should be 10s. 8d. Many paid this with much complaining. The people had lost confidence in their leaders, and not being able to find in the law books the specified tax bills, declared they were being defrauded. (Colonial Records, VII, 763, 764.) This was an error. Colonial Records, VII, 772, gives the items of this tax of 10s. 8d., and a comparison with the laws in Davis's Collections of 1765 and 1771 shows that the items as given in the posted notice were correct. (Collection of 1765, Vol. I, 146; Vol. II, 22, 192, and 222.) The tax to defray contingent expenses is cited incorrectly. Instead of being 1748 it should have been 1767-68. It was passed in 1759 for four years. In 1761 it was supplemented by 2s. tax. The original tax was continued in 1764 (chap. 8) and again in 1767-68 (chap. 18). 4 The name Regulation was taken from a South Carolina organization formed to protect the people against the depredations of a lawless band known (from their leader, Colonel Schovel) as Schofilites. The affair was settled when the province established courts in the back counties, thus allowing the Schofilites to be brought to justice. (Quoted by Governor Swain from Johnson's Traditions and Reminiscences. University Magazine, X, 134, 135.)
1 This paper read as follows: “Whereas the taxes in the county are larger, according to the number of taxables, than adjacent counties, and continues so year after year, and as the jealousy still prevails amongst us that we are wronged, and having the more reason to think so as we have been at the trouble of choosing men and sending them after the civilist manner that we could to know what we paid our levy for, but could receive no satisfaction. * * * We are obliged to seek redress by denying paying any more until we have a full settlement for what is past, and have a true regulation with our officers, as our grievances are too many to notify in a small piece of writing. We desire that you, our assembly men and vestrymen, may appoint a time before next court at the court-house and let us know by the bearer, and we will choose men to act for us. * * * We desire that the sheriffs will not come this way to collect the levy, for we will pay none before there is a settlement to our satisfaction, and as the nature of an officer is a servant to the publick, we are determined to have the officers of this county under a better and honester regulation than they have been for some time past. Think not to frighten us with rebellion in this case, for if the inhabitants of this province have not as good a right to enquire into the nature of our constitution and disbursement of our funds as those of our mother country, we think it is by arbitrary proceedings that we are debarred of that right; therefore, to be plain with you, it is our intent to have a full settlement of you in every particular point that is matter of doubt with us, so fail not to send an answer by the bearer.” (Colonial Records, VII, 699, 700.)
We, the subscribers, do voluntarily agree to form ourselves into an association, to assemble ourselves for conference for regulating public grievances and abuses of power, in the following particulars, with others of a like nature that may occur: (1) We will pay no more taxes until we are satisfied that they are agreeable to law, and applied to the purposes therein mentioned, unless we can not help it, or are forced. (2) We will pay no officer any more fees than the law allows, unless we are obliged to do it, and then to show our dislike and bear open testimony against it. (3) We will attend all our meetings of conferences as often as we conveniently can, etc. (4) We will contribute to collections for defraying necessary expenses attending the work, according to our abilities. (5) In case of difference in judgment we will submit to the judgment of the majority of our body.2
2 Wheeler: History of North Carolina, II, 306.
The former of these papers was received by the officers with a storm of indignation, the burden of which fell on the Sandy Creek men, who, from their association with the other affair, were never able to separate themselves, in the minds
1 It was perhaps due to this fact that the officers were not able to dissociate Husbands from the Regulation proper.
On April 4 the Regulators met again and requested the late sheriff and a vestryman to meet a committee of Regulators, on a day to be selected, with a list of the taxables for each year and a list of insolvents, together with a statement of all disbursements of the public money. They desired also that their assemblymen would be at the same time and place “to show us law for the customary fees that had been taken for deeds,” etc. Two men were appointed to convey this request to the officers, but before they could set off there occurred such a storm of popular fury that the whole matter took an entirely different aspect. A Regulator's mare, saddle, and bridle were seized and sold on account of one levy. A party of angry Regulators at once rode to Hillsboro, where they rescued the mare2 and where some of the most uncontrolled spirits fired some shots into the roof of Fanning's house, by way of venting their spite. The Regulators claimed that they were provoked to this by a gentleman who came to the door with a pistol and threatened to fire on them.3
2 Some old men, “of great respectability,” told Caruthers that the mare was sold to an officer for the amount of the levy and that the Regulators repaid this and restored the property to the former owner. (Life of Caldwell, pp. 118, 119.)
3 Colonial Records, VII, 764.
Colonel Fanning was at that time attending the superior court at Halifax. Lieutenant-Colonel Gray, who commanded the militia in his absence, reported the matter to his senior officer and was ordered to embody at once seven companies of militia to oppose the Regulators. At the same time Fanning sent a warrant from the chief justice for the arrest of William Butler, Peter Craven, and Ninian Bell Hamilton, who had been leaders of the rescuing party.4 The militia assembled at once, but it was found that of the seven companies only 120 men presented themselves with arms in their hands,5 and that
4 Ib., VII, 705-707. 5 The others gave as an excuse the bad weather and said they would rather pay the fines than attend muster. (Ib., VII, 743.)
1 Wheeler: History of North Carolina, II, 308.
2 The Regulators spell this name McEljohn. As a Scotchman he possibly had some influence over them. (See Colonial Records, VII, 764, 765.)
3 See ib., VII, 710-712, for officers' letter.
On receiving this news Fanning set off at once for Hillsboro to take command of his regiment. Arriving there he reported the condition of affairs to Tryon. His ideas of the Regulators were based entirely on the paper which they had hastily sent to the officers, but which they had afterwards modified. He accused them of swearing to pay no more taxes, to kill all officers who tried to collect taxes, to prevent the execution of the decrees of the courts, and to arraign all officers before “the bar of their shallow understanding,” as well as of desiring to become the “sovereign arbiters of right and wrong.”4 He thought, however, that he should be able to manage the situation and said that inasmuch as the succeeding week was court week he should wait till it had passed, and then on May 1 proceed to arrest the ringleaders of the opposition, sending them to Hillsboro for safety. He said that the insurgents had appointed May 3 a day on which they would surround the town, which, if their demands were not satisfied, they would burn. On this day he proposed to make a brave stand. It had been reported that they could bring large reenforcements from Anson, Mecklenburg, and Rowan counties. If these
4 Fanning said that he was informed that the movement originated in Anson County. There is no evidence to support this. Fanning was loath to have the governor think his county had been so badly managed as to originate such resistance.
1 Colonial Records, VII, 713-716.
To this letter the governor replied in the most cordial manner. He offered to go himself to aid Fanning if the latter should think it necessary. He ordered the militia of Burke [Bute], Halifax, Granville, Rowan, Mecklenburg, Anson, Cumberland, and Johnston, to be held in readiness to march at the command of the Orange colonel, and instructed that gentleman to call out his own regiment “to repel all insurrections.” He inclosed a proclamation to the people, which was to be published before decisive measures were taken.2 Along with this letter came another of the same date, but in a milder tone. It was more conciliatory and was evidently intended to be read to the people. The council approved of this action of the governor, and declared the Orange trouble an insurrection.3
2 Ib., VII, 717, 718.
3 Ib., VII, 719-722.
As to the charge of Tryon that the Regulators intended to burn the town on May 3, it is right to say that they denied it emphatically. Parson Micklejohn had induced five of their leaders to sign an agreement not to go to Hillsboro until the 11th of May unless there should be a distress for a levy.4 These five had stipulated that this paper should be void if the majority dissented from it. The majority did dissent, because, as the Regulators declared, “it insinuated a falsity as though we intended violence, whereas in fact no such thing was designed, whatever private papers might be handed about by particular persons.”5 It was perhaps these “private papers” and other individual action that rashly brought the Regulation into trouble, making it very difficult for its more cool-headed leaders to manage it.
4 Ib., VII, 716.
5 Ib., VII, 765.
On April 30 the Regulators met and elected thirteen delegates to attend the meeting on May 11. They selected men in whom they could place confidence, regardless of membership in the association. One of the men chosen was Hermon Husband, who was not a Regulator at this time. The thirteen “settlers” were instructed to procure a list of the taxables for the terms of office of the two late sheriffs, with the number of insolvents and delinquents; to procure a fair account of the
1 Colonial Records, VII, 731-732.
2 Ib., VII, 733-737.
An unfortunate event here interrupted matters. On the same day the governor's secretary, one Edwards, arrived in Hillsboro and set up the proclamation mentioned above. On the next day Fanning put his preconceived plan into operation. Collecting twenty-seven armed men, mostly from the officeholders, he set out for Sandy Creek. He arrived there on the morning of the 2d of May, when the sheriff, thus supported, arrested William Butler, one of the Regulators, and Hermon Husband, who was not a Regulator, who had not joined in any tumult, and “whose only crime was his being active in trying to bring on the intended settlement.”3 The charge was inciting to rebellion.4 The prisoners were taken to Hillsboro at once, where they were thrown into prison after a trial before a justice of the peace. Husband was ordered to be taken to the Newbern jail for safe-keeping.5
3 For Husband's own account of his arrest and trial see Wheeler, II, 316 et seq.
4 Colonial Records, VII, 742.
5 Ib., VII, 743.
This so aroused the fears as well as the indignation of the people, both Regulators and non-regulators, that next morning 700 men were on their way to the town to release the prisoners. The officers, thoroughly frightened, were glad to release the two men and to send them out to turn back the mob. This, however, was not till Husband had been terrorized into giving a promise that he would not concern himself any more in the abuses of the officers.6
6 Wheeler, II, 317.
They also sent out Secretary Edwards, who read a proclamation to the excited people, and delivered a verbal message from the governor to the intent that if the Regulators would petition the governor for redress and go to their homes he would see that entire justice was done them. This was exactly what they had decided upon as their next step in case the meeting on May 11 should fail, and they consequently gladly accepted the proposition. The officers also accepted the offer, and to the people the case was put as if the governor and council had been called in to arbitrate between the contending parties.1
1 Colonial Records, VII, 765, 766.
The Regulators called a meeting to prepare the proposed petition. This was not in keeping with the plans of their opponents. Fanning had already written to some of the most pacific of the Regulators, offering, if they would meet him in Hillsboro, to prepare a petition to the next assembly for relief, which petition he agreed to present himself as a member from Orange.2 By this it seems that he wanted to get a petition worded in a manner inoffensive to his interests, which he could present as the petition of the discontented people of his county. His plan was thwarted now that the petition was to be regularly prepared by the organization. The officers did not give up hope, however; for through Ralph McNair they sent Husband a paper of their own framing, which, it was confidentially said, was the only petition that would “go down with the governor.”3 Husband was asked to induce the people to adopt this as their petition. It was a dastardly attempt at bulldozing. The Regulators were, by this paper, to denounce their past conduct as “illegal and unwarrantable,” to declare that they had been mistaken in their charges against the officers, and to throw themselves entirely on the mercy of Tryon. McNair wrote coaxingly enough, but he did not hesitate to employ threats. He warned Husband that if the proposed petition was not adopted Fanning would represent the case to Tryon as treason. At the meeting a clergyman and a merchant4 appeared, who tried to influence the people to the same end. The very inexperience of the Regulators saved them.
2 Ib., VII, 741. 3 McNair's letter and the petition referred to can be found in Colonial Records VII, 767-771. 4 The names of these two men are not given. (See Wheeler, II, 309.)
1 Colonial Records, VII, 759-766.
At the same meeting they procured affidavits to support their charges against the sheriff, clerk, and register in twenty cases of alleged illegal fees. These affidavits were most probably sent to the governor along with their other papers. They undoubtedly make out a very strong case against the officers. Moreover, we have no evidence in rebuttal of them.
The reply2 of Tryon to the Regulators was cold. He denied that he had authorized Edwards to pledge his interference to them. He frowned at their proceedings, darkly hinted at treason and its punishment, hoped that his proclamation had brought them to submission, indorsed the vigorous action of Fanning and the loyal militia, directed the dissatisfied to desist from all further meetings, and to allow the taxes to be collected. Said that he had authorized Edwards to say no more than this communication implied. He assured them that he should order the attorney general to prosecute upon due application all who were charged with taking illegal fees, and promised for himself that a proclamation should be issued against the same abuse. For their better information he told them that the poll tax, exclusive of county and parish taxes, was, for the year 1767, 7s.3 The governor read this reply in the council, where it was ratified. Then, at his suggestion, Fanning was called into the room, and the thanks of the body formally expressed to him and his men “for their prudent and splendid behavior” in the recent troubles.
2 Ib., VII, 792-794.
3 This is what it was announced by the sheriff for 1768, when there had been no change by the assembly since the previous year.
While affairs were assuming this shape in Orange they had come almost to as bad a condition in Anson. Here the office-holding influence was very strong, and the people complained of the same abuses that were charged against the Orange officers. Abundant evidence will be forthcoming in this paper to show how thoroughly county government in North Carolina was then in the hands of an office-holding oligarchy. In Anson
1 Colonial Records, VII, 806-808.
Against these the people in 1768 formed an association, the members of which agreed to unite to prevent the collection of the tax for that year, which they thought unreasonably high, to rescue any fellow-member who should be imprisoned, to retake property distrained on account of nonpayment of taxes, and to aid in repaying any member the cost in a lawsuit incurred by reason of his membership in the association. Leading this movement was Charles Robinson, whom Spencer described as a chronic candidate for the assembly, who had worked up this movement in order to aid his political fortune. Robinson had been in the assembly once, and there seems to be no reason why we should not believe him an honest champion of the cause of the people.
In April, 1768, the discontented in Anson gathered at the county court about one hundred strong and interrupted the proceedings. They drove the justices off the bench, held a meeting in the court-house at which Robinson was indorsed for the assembly, swore to an oath of their own making, and then dispersed.2 Spencer forthwith sent Mr. Hooper, possibly William Hooper, to Tryon with a letter, asking for orders in the emergency. The governor, in reply, gave Colonel Spencer the authority to call out the county militia, in order to apprehend the leaders of the insurgents. He promised that if the people would present their grievances to him or to the assembly they would be redressed, and pointed out that if they would apply to the attorney-general that officer would prosecute all persons charged with extortion. In addition to this letter the council issued a proclamation against the disturbers.3
2 This is Spencer's account of the affair. (Ib., VII, 722-726.)
3 Ib., VII, 751.
The Anson Regulators, however, wrote to their brethren in Orange, asking for information as to the methods of organizing. The latter responded with alacrity, sending a copy of their proceedings on May 21, “to prevent speedily their running into any errors,” and promising to send other papers.1 It was, perhaps, due to this advice that three months later the Anson people changed their method from violence to the friendly petition. In August they delivered to the governor a statement of their grievances. They acknowledged that they should have addressed him before their proceedings of the past April, but pleaded that oppression had made them rash. They asked that most of the justices of peace in the county might be removed and others appointed in their stead. To this paper 99 names were signed.2 Governor Tryon replied in a conciliatory tone, promising that officers charged with extortion should be prosecuted, and intimating that the insurgents had been fortunate in securing lenity by their timely submission.3 The people had not submitted to any great extent, however, as we shall see them later on aiding their brothers elsewhere. It seems very evident that Tryon was trying to divide the Regulators in Anson from those in Orange, so as to deal more successfully with the latter.
1 Colonial Records, VII, 759.
2 Ib., VII, 806-809.
3 Ib., VII, 809, 810.
When the Regulators of Orange referred their case to Tryon for arbitration they did so with full confidence in his disinterestedness. The cold reply to that appeal had destroyed much of this confidence. Just about this time a report was circulated that about £30,000 had been collected more than was necessary to sink the outstanding public currency. This was given as merely a suspicion; but in popular disturbances a suspicion is often as potent as a fact. The Regulators had been forbidden to assemble themselves in any more meetings,4 and consequently there was much private talking of no submissive nature. A proclamation against illegal fees had been set up at Hillsboro, but it had not brought relief. Husband says that it was followed by higher rather than lower fees.5
4 Governor Tryon says they did meet in spite of this injunction. (Ib., VII, 819.)
5 Wheeler: History of North Carolina, II, 311, 312.
In the meantime Tryon went to Hillsboro, arriving there on July 6. He remained until August, hoping that the country would be induced to submit. The people refused as stoutly as ever to pay taxes. On August 1 they met to consider, as Husband says, the answer to Tryon's reply to their petition. At this meeting there appeared the sheriff of the county, bearing a letter and proclamation from the governor, the import of which was that the attorney-general had been instructed to prosecute officers charged with extortion, and that the Regulators should quietly submit to the collection of taxes by the sheriff. Both the sheriff and his deputy deposed that after the public reading of this letter the people refused to pay the taxes and threatened to take the life of the said deponents if they attempted to distrain property.1 Husband says they merely told the sheriff that they had decided to refer the matter to the assembly and the whole council, and declared that no insult was offered.2 They also sent a reply to Tryon's answer to their formal petition, in which they claimed that the officers paid no attention to the proclamation against illegal fees,3 and added: “Seeing that these sons of Zeruiah are like to prove too hard for your excellency, as well as for us, * * * we have come to the resolution to petition the lower house, as the other branch of the legislature, in order to strengthen your excellency's hands.”4
1 Colonial Records, VII, 798-799.
2 Wheeler, II, 312.
3 This proclamation is found in Colonial Records, VII, 795-796.
4 Wheeler, II, 13, 14; also Colonial Records, VII, 801-803.
Immediately after this the Regulators were alarmed by rumors to the effect that runners were out arousing the militia, and that the Indians were about to be called down upon them. A great multitude of the people—over a thousand—collected about 20 miles from Hillsboro on August 11 and selected eight men to interview the governor. To these the governor replied that he had not had an intention of enlisting the Indians or of leading the militia “to break in upon any settlement, as has been falsely represented;” that he was ever ready to do them justice; that Fanning had agreed to submit his case to the next supreme [superior] court, by whose decision he would abide, and finally that the sheriff's accounts with the county had been examined and approved. Tryon
1 Colonial Records, VII, 819-821; and Wheeler, II, 312-313.
The governor seems not to have called together the militia till the town was thought to be in danger. Then he could gather only 400 men, to whom he administered an oath of allegiance to the King and to the North Carolina government before he dismissed them.2
2 Colonial Records, VII, 804.
On the 17th, the day set for the meeting, the old sheriff did not appear, but John Lea, the new sheriff, appeared with a letter from Tryon, the tone of which was unexpectedly severe. This letter had been indorsed by a council of three members which had been gotten together at Hillsboro. In it the Regulators were told that their measures were criminal and illegal; that they had made every man of property and probity in the county consider them as bent on insurrection rather than as desiring a legal process against those whom they accused. It was the governor's chief concern that they should not trust the courts of law, and in this he felt was implied the insufficiency of his power to see that justice was done them. To relieve him of the necessity of calling out the militia to protect the next term of court, at which Butler and Husband were to be tried, he demanded that by the 25th of August twelve of the prominent Regulators should meet him at Salisbury and become surety in a bond of £1,000 that at the said court no attempt should be made to rescue the two men in question.3 This letter was delivered on the 17th; on the same day Tryon set out for Salisbury.
3 Ib., VII, 805, 806.
Two days later the Regulators replied that for two reasons they could not enter into the proposed bond: (1) The most pacific of their number were their leaders, and these could govern the men and prevent outrages, whereas if they entered into such a bond it would destroy their influence over the more violent; and (2) they had never intended to rescue the prisoners, but to ask the governor to dissolve the assembly, a procedure which they thought would stop every complaint. The
1 Tryon's journal shows all of his proceedings on this trip. (Colonial Records, VII, 819-838.)
2 The spelling in the letter is McCaddon, but Foote gives it uniformly McAden. (Sketches, pp. 175-176.)
3 Colonial Records, VII, 813-814.
4 Ib., VII, 814-816.
5 See “Fan for Fanning,” Univ. Mag., IX, 465.
6 Purefoy: History of Sandy Creek Association, pages 69-73.
From Major Phifer's he proceeded to review the Mecklenburg militia on the 23d. Here also he had entertainment provided for men and officers. Nine hundred men came to the review, but when he tried to get them to take the oath that he had administered to the loyal in Orange some objection was made, so that, as night was coming on, it was not possible to call for volunteers. He accordingly ordered the captains to
1 Colonial Records, VII, 889.
2 The return of the troops is given in Colonial Records, VII, 889.
One peculiarity of this force was the number of officers in it. There were six lieutenant-generals, two major-generals, three adjutant-generals, two majors of brigades, seven colonels, five lieutenant-colonels, four majors, and thirty-one captains. Of the entire force only 1,153, about three-fourths, were privates. Another noteworthy feature was the number of politicians among the officers. Robert Palmer, a member of the council, was present as adjutant-general; John Rutherford. president of the council and receiver-general of quit-rents, was a lieutenant-general; John Sampson, Benjamin Heron, Lewis H. De Rossett, and Edmund Strudwick, all members of the council, were likewise lieutenant-generals;3 John Ashe, assemblyman from New Hanover, was a major-general, and James Moore, his colleague, commanded the artillery, with the rank of colonel; Edmund Fanning and Thomas Lloyd, representatives of Orange, held military office, the one as colonel of the Orange regiment and the other as a major-general; Robert Harris, representative from Granville, commanded that county's militia, with the rank of colonel; John Frohock, the lieutenant-colonel of Rowan's regiment, was a member of the
3 Ib., VII, 833.
1 Colonial Records, VII, 856.
2 These facts have for the most part been obtained by comparing Tryon's journal with the list of assemblymen, to be found in Colonial Records, VII, p. 342.
3 There were 72 members in the assembly at that time, it seems. (Ib., VII, 342.)
Before this array of force the simple farmers were not prepared to make a stand. They assembled on September 22, about half a mile from the town, to the number of 3,700, and sent proposals to the governor “desiring to know the terms on
1 Husband says they offered to pay levies, etc., as usual if the governor would let them come into town to testify against the officers, and if he would pardon their past breaches of the peace, the cases of Butler and Husband excepted. The minutes of the council, which we have followed, say nothing of this, although, as they do not contain the written proposal of the Regulators, it is possible that Husband is correct. (See Colonial Records, VII, 840-842, and Wheeler, II, 316.) 2 Colonial Records, VII, 850. 3 Ib., VII, 863, 864. 4 Ib., VII, 887-888.
1 While the troops were in Hillsboro, Rev. Henry Patillo, one of the leading Presbyterian ministers of the early history of that denomination in North Carolina, preached to the troops. Mr. Suther was ordered also to preach to the Germans in the army; whether he complied or not does not appear; he doubtless obeyed. At the same time Rev. Mr. Micklejohn, the parish clergyman, was “desired” to preach before the troops. The first and the last were publicly thanked for their services (Colonial Records, VII, 835, 836, and 886), and the next assembly ordered the sermon of Mr. Micklejohn to be printed at the public expense. (VII, 983.) This sermon was preached from Romans, xiii, 1 and 2, that text which has so often been made to hold up the temple of tyranny, and the preacher said in it that the governor should hang at least twenty of the rebels, and that they could not hope to escape hell. (See Foote, Sketches, p. 67.)
In the meantime the court had taken up the cases against Husband and Butler as well as the cases against the officers. Husband was indicted for a rout in four cases; the grand jury returned three of these “ignoramus;” on the other he was tried and acquitted.2 Butler was tried on two counts and found guilty on each. He was sentenced to pay a fine of £50 and to be imprisoned six months. Two others, Phillip Hartso and Samuel Devinney, were tried for the same act, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of £25 and to be imprisoned three months. Dennice Bradley, who was indicted for burning the jail of Granville, was acquitted, and three true bills that had been made out against the leading Regulators who had been arrested were ordered to be quashed because of irregularities, and the attorney-general was ordered to bring in others. Tryon's policy was now to be as lenient as possible, in order to bring the people back to submission, and it is doubtful if it was intended that these indictments should have been revived at the next court. Indeed, he wrote to Lord Hillsborough, the secretary for the colonies, that he “imagined” that “these will take their trial next March.” The three prisoners, as mentioned above, he released3 and suspended the payments of their fines for six months.4 On September 9, 1769, Tryon, acting on advice from the King, pardoned, by proclamation, all those who had been found guilty on these charges.5
2 Wheeler, II, 321, 322.
3 Husband says two of them escaped and a discharge was sent after them. The other, Butler, was discharged also. (Ib., II, 322.)
4 See Colonial Records, VII, 844-846 and 884, 885.
5 Ib., VIII, 17 and 67.
The one half of the business of the court, that is to say, to try Regulators, was easily accomplished; the other half, to try the officers, was a harder task. Husband says the troops asked the business of every man who went into the court. If any owned that they came to complain of officers they were bulldozed by the guards, so that many were scared away. Those who persisted in staying were ordered out of town. One of the prisoners, very likely Husband himself, induced several to come back, and these brought charges against Fanning and Francis Nash. The former was register, and on five counts he was found guilty. He pleaded a misconstruction of the law. For each offense he was fined 1 penny. Nash, according to Tryon, was also convicted, but if he was convicted he must have gotten a new trial, for the court records show that he gave his bond to appear at the next court.1 On being convicted Fanning at once resigned his position as register.
1 See Colonial Records, VII, 847 and 884.
The case against Fanning is worthy of a fuller statement. The fee bill allowed the register 2s. 8d. for registering a conveyance “or any other writing, or giving a copy thereof.” A deed was brought to be registered, which, besides being a mere conveyance, had indorsed on it the certificate of the examination of a feme covert, the certificate of the person examining, and the oath of execution. To the people this was one instrument of writing, but to Fanning it was four. Also, it was in evidence that it was the custom for the officers in general to consider it as more than one. Fanning claimed that for registering the paper he was entitled to 6s. and some pence, but charged only 6s. The attorney-general, on being consulted, gave it as his opinion that for recording every deed a register was, within the meaning of the statute, entitled to 8s. 7d. Fanning pleaded, also, that not being certain as to this matter he had, on assuming his office, taken the opinion of the justices of the county court, who had told him that he had a right to 6s. and some pence for every deed. This, it was claimed, removed from the defendant the imputation of a “tortious taking,” and so the court held. With such a ruling there was nothing for the jury to do but impose a merely nominal penalty. The matter was referred for an opinion to the attorney-general of England, who gave it as his opinion that the deed in question entitled the register to three fees. He also stated the question of criminal intent so that with the facts in the case as
1 Colonial Records, VIII, 27-29.