Skip to main content

Full text of "The North Carolina historical review"

See other formats


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/northcarolinahis1967nort 


'Zfiatonical   'Review 

Issued  Quarterly 

Volume  XLIV  Numbers  1-4 


1967 


\j 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


Christopher  Crittenden,  Editor  in  Chief 

Mrs.  Memory  F.  Mitchell,  Editor 
Miss  Marie  D.  Moore,  Editorial  Associate 


ADVISORY  editorial  BOARD 
John  Fries  Blair  William  S.  Powell 

Miss  Sarah  M.  Lemmon  David  Stick 

Henry  S.  Stroupe 


STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  ARCHIVES  AND  HISTORY 
EXECUTIVE  BOARD 

Josh  L.  Horne,  Chairman 

Miss  Gertrude  Sprague  Carraway  Ralph  P.  Hanes 

T.  Harry  Gatton  Hugh  T.  Lefler 

Fletcher  M.  Green  Edward  W.  Phifer 

Christopher  Crittenden,  Director 


This  review  was  established  in  January,  192U,  as  a  medium  of  publication  and  dis- 
cussion of  history  in  North  Carolina.  It  is  issued  to  other  institutions  by  exchange, 
but  to  the  general  public  by  subscription  only.  The  regular  price  is  $b.00  per  year. 
Members  of  the  North  Carolina  Literary  and  Historical  Association,  Inc.,  for  which 
the  annual  dues  are  $5.00,  receive  this  publication  without  further  payment.  Back 
numbers  still  in  print  are  available  for  $1.00  per  number.  Out-of-print  numbers  may 
be  obtained  from  Kraus  Reprint  Corporation,  16  East  b6th^Street,  New  York,  New 
York,  10017,  or  on  microfilm  from  University  Microfilms,  313  North  First  Street,  Ann 
Arbor,  Michigan.  Persons  desiring  to  quote  from  this  publication  may  do  so  without 
special  permission  from  the  editors  provided  full  credit  is  given  to  the  North  Caro- 
lina Historical  Review.  The  Review  is  published  quarterly  by  the  State  Department 
of  Archives  and  History,  Education  Building,  Corner  of  Edenton  and  Salisbury  Streets, 
Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  27601.  Mailing  address  is  Box  1881,  Raleigh,  North  Carolina, 
27602.  Second  class  postage  paid  at  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  27602. 


7^e  %wt6,  (fatolut* 
*i¥i4to>Ucat  'Review 


VOLUME  XLIV 

NUMBER  1,  WINTER,  1967 


THE  MANUFACTURE  AND  USE  OF  BRICKS  AT  THE 

RALEIGH  SETTLEMENT  ON  ROANOKE  ISLAND 

J.  C.  Harrington 


JOHN  MARE:  A  COMPOSITE  PORTRAIT 18 

Helen  Burr  Smith  and  Elizabeth  V.  Moore 

REACTION  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA  TO  THE 
EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATION    _.„ 53 

Harold  D.  Moser 


THE  DANGERS  OF  REACTION:  REPEAL  OF 

THE  REVENUE  ACT  OF  1918 72 

H.  Larry  Ingle 

BOOK  REVIEWS 89 

Masterson,  The  John  Gray  Blount  Papers,  Volume  III,  1796-1802, 

by  W.   Edwin   Hemphill    89 

Manarin,  North  Carolina  Troops,  1861-1865:  A  Roster,  Volume  I, 

Artillery,  by  James  W.  Patton 90 

Olsen,  Carpetbagger's  Crusade:  The  Life  of  Albion  Winegar  Tourgee, 

by  Fletcher  M.  Green    91 

Oatewood,  Preachers,  Pedagogues  &  Politicians:  The  Evolution 

Controversy  in  North  Carolina,  by  Joseph  F.  Steelman   92 


Linder,  William  Louis  Poteat:  Prophet  of  Progress,  by  Willard  B.  Gatewood 94 

Whedbee,  Legends  of  the  Outer  Banks  and  Tar  Heel  Tidewater, 

by  Richard  Walser 96 

Brown,  The  Catawba  Indians:  The  People  of  the  River,  by  Fred  W.  Voget 97 

Conway,  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia,  by  Joe  M.  Richardson  99 

Scarborough,  The  Overseer:  Plantation  Management  in  the  Old  South, 

by  Blanche  Henry  Clark  Weaver    .    100 

Swint,  Dear  Ones  at  Home:  Letters  from  Contraband  Camps, 

by   Richard    L.    Zuber    101 

Posey,  Frontier  Mission:  A  History  of  Religion  West  of  the  Southern 

Appalachians  to  1861,  by  W.  Harrison  Daniel    102 

Gillette,  The  Right  to  Vote:  Politics  and  the  Passage  of  the  Fifteenth 

Amendment,  by  John  Hope  Franklin    103 

Link,  Davidson,  and  Hurst,  The  Papers  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  Volume  I, 

1856-1880,  by  Robert  F.   Durden    105 

Other  Recent  Publications    106 


NUMBER  2,  SPRING,  1967 

FACTORS  IN  THE  ECONOMY  OF 
COLONIAL  BEAUFORT  111 

Charles  L.  Paul 


papers  from  the  sixty-sixth  annual 
session  of  the  north  carolina  literary 

AND  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION,  Winston-Salem, 
December  2,  1966 
INTRODUCTION    135 


REVIEW  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  FICTION,  1965-1966 136 

Ralph  Hardee  Rives 


THE  MORAVIANS  AND  WACHOVIA  144 

Kenneth  G.  Hamilton 


REVIEW  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA 
NONFICTION,  1965-1966  154 

Herbert  R.  Paschal 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES: 
A  NONEXCLUSIVE  PARTNERSHIP  DEDICATED 
TO  THE  ATTAINMENT  OF  INTERNATIONAL 
PEACE,  SECURITY,  AND  STABILITY 
THROUGH  PEACEFUL  MEANS  161 

Sir  Patrick  Dean 


FURNIFOLD  M.  SIMMONS: 
"JEHOVAH  OF  THE  TAR  HEELS"? 166 

Richard  L.  Watson,  Jr. 


MY  BROTHER'S  KEEPER: 
WILLIAM  H.  POLK  GOES  TO  SCHOOL 188 

Paul  H.  Bergeron 


NORTH  CAROLINA  BIBLIOGRAPHY,  1965-1966 205 

William  S.  Powell 


BOOK  REVIEWS  214 

Cumming,  North  Carolina  in  Maps,  by  Louis  De  Vorsey,  Jr.   214 

Morrison,  Josephus  Daniels:  The  Small-d  Democrat,  by  I.  B.  Holley,  Jr.   215 

SlRMANS,  Colonial  South  Carolina:  A  Political  History,  1663-1763, 

by  Daniel  M.  McFarland 216 

Johnson,  The  Nat  Turner  Slave  Insurrection  (Together  with  Thomas  R. 
Gray's   The   Confession,   Trial   and  Execution  of  Nat   Turner  as   a 
Supplement,  by  James  W.  Patton    217 

Jones,  Henry  Newman's  Salzburger  Letterbooks,  by  Spencer  King   218 

King,  Georgia  Voices:  A  Documentary  History  to  1872,  by  Phinizy  Spalding 219 

De  Vorsey,  The  Indian  Boundary  in  the  Southern  Colonies,  1763-1775, 

by  William   P.    Cumming    220 

Eaton,  A  History  of  the  Old  South,  by  Herbert  J.  Doherty,  Jr.   222 

Sellers,  James  K.  Polk,  Continentalist,  1843-184-6,  by  Charlton  W.  Tebeau  223 

Galambos,  Competition  and  Cooperation:   The  Emergence  of  a  National 

Trade  Association,  by  Robert  W.  Work ...  224 

Other  Recent  Publications    225 


NUMBER  3,  SUMMER,  1967 


SOUTHERN  PRESBYTERIANS  IN  THE  CONFEDERACY 231 

W.  Harrison  Daniel 


REVOLUTIONARY  ORIGINS  OF  THE 

SOUTH'S  CONSTITUTIONAL  DEFENSES  256 

David  L.  Smiley 


THE  "TAR  HEEL  EDITOR"  IN 

NORTH  CAROLINA'S  CRISIS,  1929-1932  ____270 

Joseph  L.  Morrison 


INDIAN  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE 

SOUTHERN  COLONIES  283 

G.  Melvin  Herndon 


ROOK  REVIEWS  298 

Jones,  For  History's  Sake:  The  Preservation  and  Publication  of 

North  Carolina  History,  1663-1903,  by  Hugh  T.  Lefler   298 

Roberts  and  Griffin,  Old  Salem  in  Pictures,  by  Mary  Claire  Engstrom 299 

Blythe,  38th  Evac:  The  Story  of  the  Men  and  Women  Who  Served  in 
World  War  II  with  the  38th  Evacuation  Hospital  in  North  Africa 
and  Italy,  by  Sarah  McCulloh  Lemmon    300 

Edmunds,  Tar  Heels  Track  the  Century,  by  Blackwell  P.  Robinson  301 

Rouse,  North  Carolina  Picadillo,  by  Charles  R.  Holloman   302 

Manarin,  Richmond  at  War:  The  Minutes  of  the  City  Council,  1861-1865, 

by   Haskell   Monroe    303 

Thompson,  Robert  Toombs  of  Georgia,  by  Horace  H.  Cunningham 305 

Rosenberger,  Records  of  the  Columbia  Historical  Society  of 

Washington,  D.  C,  by  Mattie  Russell   306 

Brandfon,  Cotton  Kingdom  of  the  New  South:  A  History  of  the  Yazoo 
Mississippi  Delta  from  Reconstruction  to  the  Twentieth  Century, 
by  John   Edmond   Gonzales    307 

Clark,  The  South  Since  Appomattox:  A  Century  of  Regional  Change, 

by  Vincent  P.  De  Santis    309 

Hindle,  Technology  in  Early  America:  Needs  and  Opportunities  for 

Study,  by  James  F.  Doster    310 

Clark,  Naval  Documents  of  the  Revolution,  Volume  2,  by  A.  M.  Patterson 311 

Herrick,  The  American  Naval  Revolution,  by  Thornton  W.  Mitchell  312 

Public  Papers  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States:  Lyndon  B.  Johnson, 
Containing  the  Public  Messages,  Speeches,  and  Statements  of  the 
President,  1965,  by  Robert  Moats  Miller   313 

Other  Recent  Publications    314 


NUMBER  4,  AUTUMN,  1967 

THE  END  OF  THE  REBELLION  321 

Robert  B.  Murray 

THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1852:  DEATH 

KNELL  OF  THE  WHIG  PARTY  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  ____342 

James  R.  Morrill 


RUSSELLBOROUGH":  TWO  ROYAL  GOVERNORS' 
MANSION  AT  BRUNSWICK  TOWN  360 

Stanley  A.  South 


HENRY  PATTILLO  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA  373 

Durward  T.  Stokes 

ABOARD  A  BLOCKADE  RUNNER:  SOME  CIVIL  WAR 

EXPERIENCES  OF  JEROME  DuSHANE  392 

Hugh  G.  Earnhart 


BOOK  REVIEWS  ,. 400 

Lonsdale  and  Others,  Atlas  of  North  Carolina,  by  Christopher  Crittenden   400 

Mitchell,  Messages,  Addresses,  and  Public  Papers  of  Terry  Sanford, 

Governor  of  North  Carolina,  1961-1965,  by  Oliver  H.  Orr,  Jr 401 

Evans,  Ballots  and  Fence  Rails:  Reconstruction  on  the  Lower  Cape 

Fear,  by   Herbert   O'Keef    402 

Malvin,  North  Into  Freedom:  The  Autobiography  of  John  Malvin,  Free 

Negro,  1775-1880;  and 
Walser,  The  Black  Poet,  being  the  remarkable  story  (partly  told  my   [sic] 

himself)  of  George  Moses  Horton,  a  North  Carolina  slave, 

by  Thomas  D.  Clark    403 

Bowles,  A  Good  Beginning:  The  First  Four  Decades  of  the  University  of 

North  Carolina  at  Greensboro,  by  Mary  Lynch  Johnson    405 

Walsh,  The  Writings  of  Christopher  Gadsden,  1746-1S05,  by  J.  Edwin  Hendricks  .   407 


Sherman,  Robert  Johnson:  Proprietary  &  Royal  Governor  of  South  Carolina, 

by  James  K.   Huhta    408 

Middleton,  Henrietta  Johnston  of  Charles  Town,  South  Carolina:  America's 

First  Pastellist,  by  Ben  F.  Williams    409 

Samford  and  Hemphill,  Bookbinding  in  Colonial  Virginia,  by  William  S.  Powell  .  .410 

Isaac,  Jefferson  at  Monticello:  Memoirs  of  a  Monticello  Slave;  and 
PlERSON,  Jefferson  at  Monticello:  The  Private  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson, 

by  Noble  E.   Cunningham,  Jr. 411 

Boney,  John  Letcher  of  Virginia:  The  Story  of  Virginia's  Civil  War 

Governor,   by   Richard    D.    Younger    412 

White,  Messages  of  the  Governors  of  Tennessee,  Volume  II,  1883-1899, 

by  James   W.   Patton    413 

Coulter,  The  Toombs  Oak,  The  Tree  That  Owned  Itself,  and  Other  Chapters 

of  Georgia,  by   Sarah   MeCulloh   Lemmon    415 

Bertelson,  The  Lazy  South,  by  Edwin  A.  Miles    . 416 

Crowe,  The  Age  of  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction,  1830-1900:  A  Book  of 

Interpretative  Essays,  by  Richard  N.  Current 418 

Spain,  At  Ease  in  Zion,  by  Roger  H.  Crook   419 

Wynes,  Forgotten  Voices:  Dissenting  Southerners  in  an  Age  of  Conformity, 

by  Allen  J.   Going    420 

Anderson,  With  the  Bark  On:  Popular  Humor  of  the  Old  South, 

by  David  L.  Smiley    421 

Dillon,  Benjamin  Lundy  and  the  Struggle  for  Negro  Freedom, 

by  Philip  Davidson   422 

Ludlum,  Early  American  Winters,  1604-1820,  by  Beth  Crabtree 423 

Steinberg,  The  First  Ten:  The  Founding  Presidents  and  Their 

Administrations,  by  Gilbert  L.   Lycan    424 

Langley,  Social  Reform  in  the  United  States  Navy,  1789-1862, 

by  Alvin  A.   Fahrner 425 

Shannon,  The  Centennial  Years:  A  Political  and  Economic  History  of 

America  from  the  Late  1870's  to  the  Early  1890's,  by  James  A.  Tinsley   426 

Link,  Davidson,  and  Hurst,  The  Papers  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  Volume  II, 

1881-1884,  by  Robert  F.  Durden   427 

Kirkendall,  Social  Scientists  and  Farm  Politics  in  the  Age  of  Roosevelt, 

by   Stuart  Noblin    429 

Pine,  The  Story  of  Surnames  and  The  Story  of  Heraldry,  by  C.  F.  W.  Coker  .430 

Other    Recent    Publications     432 


INDEX  TO  VOLUME  XLIV-1967  -437 


**/l 


North  Carolina  State  Library 
Raleigh 


*i¥i4twUc4l  Review 


■ 


TVtttt&i  1967 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


Christopher  Crittenden,  Editor  in  Chief 

Mrs.  Memory  F.  Mitchell,  Editor 
Miss  Marie  D.  Moore,  Editorial  Associate 

advisory  editorial  board 

John  Fries  Blair  William  S.  Powell 

Miss  Sarah  M.  Lemmon  David  Stick 

Henry  S.  Stroupe 


STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  ARCHIVES  AND  HISTORY 
EXECUTIVE  BOARD 

Josh  L.  Horne,  Chairman 

Miss  Gertrude  Sprague  Carraway  Ralph  P.  Hanes 

T.  Harry  Gatton  Hugh  T.  Lefler 

Fletcher  M.  Green  Edward  W.  Phifer 

Christopher  Crittenden,  Director 


This  review  was  established  in  January,  1924,  as  a  medium  of  publication  and  dis- 
cussion of  history  in  North  Carolina.  It  is  issued  to  other  institutions  by  exchange, 
but  to  the  general  public  by  subscription  only.  The  regular  price  is  $4.00  per  year. 
Members  of  the  North  Carolina  Literary  and  Historical  Association,  Inc.,  for  which 
the  annual  dues  are  $5.00,  receive  this  publication  without  further  payment.  Back 
numbers  still  in  print  are  available  for  $1.00  per  number.  Out-of-print  numbers  may 
be  obtained  from  Kraus  Reprint  Corporation,  16  East  46th  Street,  New  York,  New 
York,  10017,  or  on  microfilm  from  University  Microfilms,  313  North  First  Street,  Ann 
Arbor,  Michigan.  Persons  desiring  to  quote  from  this  publication  may  do  so  without 
special  permission  from  the  editors  provided  full  credit  is  given  to  the  North  Caro- 
lina Historical  Review.  The  Review  is  published  quarterly  by  the  State  Department 
of  Archives  and  History,  Education  Building,  Corner  of  Edenton  and  Salisbury  Streets, 
Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  27601.  Mailing  address  is  Box  1881,  Raleigh,  North  Carolina, 
27602.  Second  class  postage  paid  at  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  27602. 


COVER — Mary  Mare  Bissell,  daughter  of  John  Mare,  was  born  in 
Edenton  in  February,  1785,  and  died  there  in  November,  1836.  She  and 
her  husband,  Captain  Nathaniel  C.  Bissell,  are  buried  in  St.  Paul's 
churchyard.  Photograph  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  Colonel  John  F. 
Williams,  Jr.  For  an  article  on  John  Mare  and  his  family,  see  pages  18 
to  52. 


North  Carolina  S^ate  Library 
Raleigh 


7^e   %vtt&  &vwU*ta 
'Zi&tonical  Review 

Volume  XLIV  Published  in  January,  1967  Number  1 


CONTENTS 

THE  MANUFACTURE  AND  USE  OF  BRICKS  AT  THE 

RALEIGH  SETTLEMENT  ON  ROANOKE  ISLAND  1 

J.  C.  Harrington 

JOHN  MARE:  A  COMPOSITE  PORTRAIT  18 

Helen  Burr  Smith  and  Elizabeth  V.  Moore 

REACTION  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA  TO  THE 
EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATION  53 

Harold  D.  Moser 

THE  DANGERS  OF  REACTION:  REPEAL  OF  THE 
REVENUE  ACT  OF  1918 72 

H.  Larry  Ingle 

BOOK  REVIEWS  89 


BOOK  REVIEWS 

Masterson,  The  John  Gray  Blount  Papers,  Volume  III,  1796-1802, 

by  W.  Edwin  Hemphill   89 

Manarin,  North  Carolina  Troops,  1861-1865:  A  Roster,  Volume  I, 

Artillery,  by  James  W.  Patton 90 

Olsen,  Carpetbagger's  Crusade:  The  Life  of  Albion  Winegar 

Tourgee,  by  Fletcher  M.  Green   91 

Gatewood,  Preachers,  Pedagogues  &  Politicians:  The  Evolution 

Controversy  in  North  Carolina,  by  Joseph  F.  Steelman  92 

LlNDER,  William  Louis  Poteat:  Prophet  of  Progress, 

by  Willard  B.  Gatewood         ' 94 

Whedbee,  Legends  of  the  Outer  Banks  and  Tar  Heel  Tidewater, 

by  Richard  Walser    96 

BROWN,  The  Catawba  Indians:  The  People  of  the  River, 

by  Fred  W.  Voget   97 

Conway,  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia,  by  Joe  M.  Richardson  99 

Scarborough,  The  Overseer:  Plantation  Management  in  the  Old 

South,  by  Blanche  Henry  Clark  Weaver   100 

SwiNT,  Dear  Ones  at  Home:  Letters  from  Contraband  Camps, 

by  Richard  L.  Zuber   101 

POSEY,  Frontier  Mission:  A  History  of  Religion  West  of  the 

Southern  Appalachians  to  1861,  by  W.  Harrison  Daniel 102 

Gillette,  The  Right  to  Vote:  Politics  and  the  Passage  of  the 

Fifteenth  Amendment,  by  John  Hope  Franklin   103 

Link,  Davidson,  and  Hurst,  The  Papers  of  Woodroiv  Wilson, 

Volume  I,  1856-1880,  by  Robert  F.  Durden  105 

Other  Recent  Publications      106 


' 


THE  MANUFACTURE  AND  USE  OF  BRICKS 

AT  THE  RALEIGH  SETTLEMENT 

ON  ROANOKE  ISLAND 


By  J.  C.  Harrington* 


Archaeological  excavations  in  1965  at  Fort  Raleigh  National  His- 
toric Site  on  Roanoke  Island  contributed  important  information  rela- 
tive to  the  two  questions:  ( 1 )  Were  brick  and  tile  used  by  the  Raleigh 
colonists?  (2)  If  so,  were  they  brought  from  England  or  made 
locally? 

The  Archivo  General  de  Indias  in  Seville  contains  a  deposition 
made  under  oath  to  the  Spanish  governor  at  Saint  Augustine  in 
1600  by  one  "David  Glavin,  Irish  soldier."1  This  was,  in  all  prob- 
ability, the  Darby  Glande  listed  as  one  of  the  members  of  the  1585 
voyage,  as  was  also  the  Darbie  Glaven  mentioned  in  John  White's 
narrative  of  the  1587  voyage.2  Glande's  testimony  dealt  with  his  par- 
ticipation in  the  two  colonizing  ventures  and  provides  information 
about  the  1585  settlement  not  recorded  elsewhere.  One  of  the  most 
intriguing  of  his  claims  has  been  translated  as  follows:  "There,  as 
soon  as  they  had  disembarked,  they  began  to  make  brick  and  tiles 
for  a  fort  and  houses."3 

Not  all  of  Glande's  deposition  can  be  accepted  at  face  value,4  but 
there  seems  to  be  no  sound  basis  for  questioning  the  alleged  alacrity 
of  the  settlers  in  starting  to  make  bricks  and  tiles.  Even  so,  historians 
have  been  cautious  about  accepting  this  single  bit  of  evidence,  ex- 
plicit and  reliable  as  it  appears  to  be.  In  referring  to  the  above 
assertion  by  Glande,  the  historian  David  Quinn  states:  "This  would 

*  Mr.  Harrington,  formerly  resource  studies  advisor,  National  Park  Service,  United 
States  Department  of  the  Interior,  is  now  retired  and  living  at  Richmond,  Virginia. 
This  paper  was  read  in  Raleigh  on  December  2,  1965,  at  the  luncheon  meeting  of  the 
North  Carolina  Society  for  the  Preservation  of  Antiquities. 

1  David  Beers  Quinn  (ed.),  The  Roanoke  Voyages,  1584-1590:  Documents  to  Illus- 
trate the  English  Voyages  to  North  America  Under  the  Patent  Granted  to  Walter 
Raleigh  in  1584  (London:  Hakluyt  Society  [Second  Series,  No.  CIV],  2  volumes, 
1955),  II,  834-838,  hereinafter  cited  as  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages.  The  deposition  is 
signed  "David  Glavid." 

3  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  II,  519. 

3  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  II,  835. 

4  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  II,  519,  835. 


2  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

suggest  that  at  least  some  of  the  buildings  of  Roanoke  Island  had 
brick  bases.  ..." 5  In  another  place  he  writes:  "...  it  is  probable  that 
brick  was  made  during  the  1585-6  settlement,  but  the  evidence  is 
not  conclusive.  .  .  ." 6  Dr.  Charles  W.  Porter  III  is  a  little  more  posi- 
tive, writing  that  "The  chimney  and  foundations  [of  the  settlers' 
houses]  were  presumably  of  brick  because  the  Irishman  Darby 
Glande,  later  testified.  .  .  ." 7 

Only  one  reference,  other  than  Glande's  deposition,  gives  any 
hint  of  how  the  colonists  built  their  houses,  and  that  tells  only  that 
the  roofs  of  at  least  some  of  the  buildings  were  thatched.8  Lacking 
more  specific  information,  building  practices  of  the  period  are  the 
best,  and  only,  source.  Even  this  source  must  be  considered  in  refer- 
ence to  several  factors,  such  as  the  customary  building  practices  of 
the  colonists,  size  and  intended  permanency  of  the  new  structures, 
and  available  building  materials.  Thomas  Hariot's  Brief e  and  true 
report  of  the  new  found  land  of  Virginia,  although  written  primarily 
to  recruit  settlers,  told  of  "divers  sortes  of  trees,"  including  oak,  wal- 
nut, and  "firre"  [pine],  suitable  for  "house  and  shiptimber." 9  Even 
with  an  abundance  of  good  timber,  however,  the  colonists  would  have 
felt  quite  strongly  the  need  for  brick  or  stone  for  footings  and  fire- 
places. Chimneys  could  be  built  of  wattle-and-daub,  but  it  would 
have  been  a  difficult  adjustment  for  an  English  builder  of  Raleigh's 
day  to  have  laid  wooden  members  directly  on  the  ground. 

Hariot  noted  the  absence  of  suitable  building  stone  in  the  vicinity 
of  Roanoke  Island,  but  until  a  source  could  be  located  he  seemed 
confident  that  brick  made  from  local  clays  was  a  feasible  and  accept- 
able substitute.10  The  local  clay  appeared  to  be  satisfactory  for 
brickmaking,  and  there  was  no  shortage  of  fuel  to  fire  the  kilns. 
The  time  required  to  make  bricks  would  have  been  the  main  problem, 
since  brickmaking  could  not  be  hurried  without  sacrifice  to  the 
quality  of  the  product.  If  work  had  started  on  arrival  of  the  colonists 
in  August,  as  Glande  stated,  summer  weather  would  have  speeded 
up  the  operation,  and  it  is  conceivable  that  the  first  kiln  could  have 
been  fired  within  a  month.  Normally,  however,  six  months  to  a  year 
would  have  been  required. 

5  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  II,  835. 
8  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  I,  367. 

7  Charles  W.  Porter  III,  "Fort  Raleigh  National  Historic  Site,  North  Carolina: 
Part  of  the  Settlement  Sites  of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh's  Colonies  of  1585-1586  and  1587," 
North  Carolina  Historical  Review,  XX  (January,  1943),  29. 

8  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  I,  282. 
G  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  I,  363. 
10  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  I,  363. 


Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  3 

Hariot  also  commented  on  the  abundance  of  shells  for  making 
lime,  referring  to  the  use  of  shell  lime  in  the  ".  .  .  lies  of  Tenet  and 
Shepy  [in  Kent],  and  also  in  divers  other  places  in  England:  Which 
kinde  of  lime  is  well  knowne  to  bee  as  good  as  any  other."  n 

The  colonists  apparently  set  to  work  at  once  erecting  permanent 
houses,  most  of  which  were  probably  one-room  cottages  with  sleep- 
ing space  in  the  loft.  Of  concern  here  is  the  type  of  construction  as  a 
clue  to  the  extent  to  which  bricks  might  have  been  used.  Having 
familiar  building  materials  at  hand,  one  can  assume  that  traditional 
construction  methods  were  followed.  A  review  of  building  practices 
in  rural  Elizabethan  England,  therefore,  should  provide  the  best 
guide  for  the  basic  methods  used  in  the  Raleigh  colony.  Reference  as 
to  how  the  houses  were  built  in  other  early  colonies,  particularly  at 
Jamestown,  should  also  be  helpful. 

Post-and-truss  construction  was  the  common  method  of  building 
small  houses  and  cottages  in  England  at  the  time  of  the  Raleigh 
settlement.  C.  F.  Innocent  in  his  book  The  Development  of  English 
Building  Construction  states  that  "this  kind  of  construction  reached 
its  height  in  the  sixteenth  century.  The  buildings  then  erected  are  of 
this  kind  wherever  the  necessary  timber  was  obtainable.  .  .  ." 12  It 
consisted  of  a  rigid  skeleton  of  timbers  supporting  a  roof  truss.  The 
roofing  material  was  commonly  thatch,  although  tile  and  stone-slates 
were  used  in  some  sections.  Usually  the  spaces  between  the  wooden 
wall  members  were  filled  with  interwoven  withes  or  laths  and  plastered 
with  clay  mixed  with  straw,  a  method  called  "wattle-and-daub." 
Post-and-truss  frames  with  wall  spaces  filled  with  wattle-and-daub 
is  commonly  referred  to  as  "half-timbered"  construction.13  The  first 
step  in  constructing  a  building  of  this  type,  and  the  one  relating 
directly  to  the  present  discussion,  was  to  build  a  low,  continuous 
foundation  of  brick  or  stone.  On  this  base  was  placed  a  heavy  timber 
sill,  into  which  upright  posts  were  inserted  at  intervals. 

Although  the  post-and-truss  technique  for  framed  structures  was 
customary  in  England  in  1585,  the  "cruck"  method  had  not  died  out 
and  must  have  been  known  to  the  Raleigh  colonists.14  In  fact,  it 


11  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  I,  367-368. 

12  C.  F.  Innocent,  The  Development  of  English  Building  Construction  (Cambridge, 
England:  Cambridge  University  Press,  1916),  75,  hereinafter  cited  as  Innocent, 
English  Building  Construction. 

13  For  detailed  description  of  this  method  of  construction,  see  Innocent,  English 
Building  Construction,  125-126,  and  Harry  Batsford  and  Charles  Fry,  The  English 
Cottage  (London:  B.  T.  Batsford,  Ltd.  [Third  Edition,  Revised],  1950),  24-38,  herein- 
after cited  as  Batsford  and  Fry,  The  English  Cottage. 

14  Batsford  and  Fry,  The  English  Cottage,  25. 


4  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

appears  to  have  been  used  at  Jamestown  more  than  twenty  years 
later.15  It  refers  to  the  method  in  which  the  basic  framework  was 
composed  of  curved  or  bent  tree  trunks,  joined  at  the  top  and  sup- 
porting a  heavy  ridge  pole.  This  framing,  which  resembled  a  Gothic 
arch,  carried  the  rafters  and  bracing,  to  which  were  attached  the 
thatched  roof  and  wattle-and-daub  walls.  But  even  if  the  Raleigh 
colonists  had  been  inclined  to  use  this  outmoded  method  of  con- 
struction, they  would  still  have  needed  brick  or  stone  for  footings. 
By  Tudor  times,  it  was  the  practice  to  rest  the  slanting  posts  on  low 
masonry  walls,  although  in  earlier  times  rough  stone  plinths  were 
used.16 

Other  varieties  of  construction  of  that  general  period  included 
various  forms  of  palisaded  walls  (tree  trunks  or  timbers  placed  up- 
right in  a  trench)17  and  a  method  sometimes  used  in  the  seventeenth 
century  at  Jamestown  in  which  the  wooden  sills  of  a  timber-framed 
building  were  supported  on  a  series  of  posts  sunk  into  the  ground.18 
This  latter  technique  was  practical  when  the  first  floor  was  elevated 
above  the  ground  and  ventilation  desired  below  the  floor.  In  addition 
to  wall  construction  making  use  of  wooden  members,  English  cot- 
tages of  that  time  also  were  built  of  stone,  brick,  and  mud  without 
supporting  framework.  The  latter,  still  in  use  in  parts  of  England, 
had  various  names,  the  most  common  being  "cob."  These  methods 
were  not  likely  to  have  been  employed  at  Roanoke  Island,  and  there- 
fore are  not  relevant  to  the  present  discussion. 

The  typical  English  framed  cottage  of  Elizabeth's  day  had  only 
the  bare  ground  for  a  floor,  or  more  rarely  a  brick  paving.  One  can 
assume  that  the  former  was  the  case  at  the  Roanoke  settlement,  parti- 
cularly in  view  of  White's  account  of  finding  melons  growing  in  the 
fort  and  houses  when  he  returned  in  1587.19 

It  is  more  difficult  to  say  what  the  attitude  would  have  been  con- 
cerning the  construction  of  fireplaces.  The  earlier  rural  cottages  in 
England  often  had  no  fireplace  or  chimney,  the  fire  being  built  di- 
rectly on  the  dirt  floor  and  the  smoke  seeping  out  through  a  special 
vent  or  elsewhere  as  best  it  could.  The  typical  framed,  wattle-and- 
daub,  thatched  cottage  of  Tudor  England,  however,  had  a  large 

15  Henry  Chandlee  Forman,  Jamestown  and  St.  Mary's — Buried  Cities  of  Romance 
(Baltimore:  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  1938),  30-34,  hereinafter  cited  as  Forman,  James- 
town and  St.  Mary's. 

16  Batsford  and  Fry,  The  English  Cottage,  19. 

17  Forman,  Jamestown  and  St.  Mary's,  30-31. 

18  John  L.  Cotter,  Archaeological  Excavations  at  Jamestown,  Virginia  (Washington: 
National  Park  Service,  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Archeological  Research 
Series  Number  Four,  1958),  60-61,  84,  129-131. 

19  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  II,  524. 


Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  5 

fireplace,  usually  lined  with  brick  or  stone,  with  a  huge  wooden 
lintel.  The  chimney,  too,  would  normally  have  been  of  brick  or  stone. 
An  Englishman  of  that  day,  however,  not  having  stone  or  brick  at 
hand,  would  have  been  perfectly  capable  of  building  the  fireplace 
and  chimney  of  the  same  wattle-and-daub  construction  used  for  fill- 
ing the  spaces  between  the  wall  framing  of  his  house.  Or,  if  bricks 
were  scarce,  he  would  probably  have  used  them  for  the  fireplace 
and  resorted  to  sticks  and  mud  for  the  chimney. 

Prior  to  recent  archaeological  discoveries,  the  possibility  of  the 
cottages  having  had  tile  roofs  would  have  seemed  almost  too  absurd 
to  warrant  discussion,  even  in  the  light  of  Glande's  testimony.  In 
spite  of  the  fire  hazard  of  thatched  roofs  and  laws  requiring  the  sub- 
stitution of  tile  or  slate,  thatch  persisted  as  the  most  common  roof 
covering  in  England  for  many  years  after  the  Roanoke  voyages, 
particularly  on  smaller  nonurban  houses.  Nearly  a  century  later 
at  Jamestown,  thatched  roofs  were  common,  and  laws  calling  for 
the  use  of  tile  or  slate  were  still  being  ignored.  One  problem  was  the 
difficulty  in  making  satisfactory  tiles.  As  late  as  1649  it  was  claimed 
that  the  local  brickmakers  did  not  know  how  to  make  tiles.20  One 
would  have  to  assume,  therefore,  that  practical  considerations,  as 
well  as  building  precedent  and  experience,  would  have  dictated  the 
use  of  thatch  by  the  Raleigh  colonists. 

Of  interest,  too,  is  the  fact  that  Hariot,  in  discussing  building 
needs  and  resources  in  the  new  land,  referred  to  stone,  bricks,  and 
lime,  but  made  no  mention  of  tiles.  Then  there  is  the  inference  of 
thatch  on  even  the  better  houses  in  Lane's  account  of  the  Indian 
plot,  in  which  he  wrote  that  the  Indians  planned  to  "beset  my  house, 
and  put  fire  in  the  reedes,  that  the  same  was  covered  with.  .  .  ."21 
This  documentary  evidence  supports  the  common-sense  conclusion 
that  Glande  could  have  been  correct  in  respect  to  brickmaking,  but 
certainly  not  on  the  matter  of  making  tiles. 

The  foregoing  information  was  known  in  1947  when  the  National 
Park  Service  began  archaeological  explorations  at  Fort  Raleigh  Na- 
tional Historic  Site.  The  possibility  of  bricks  and  tiles  having  been 
made  and  used  by  the  colonists  was  not  taken  too  seriously,  and  the 
prospect  of  finding  a  brick  foundation,  or  even  the  remnants  of  a 


20  J.  C.  Harrington,  "Seventeenth  Century  Brickmaking  and  Tilemaking  at  James- 
town, Virginia,"  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  LXIII  (January,  1950), 
18,  hereinafter  cited  as  Harrington,  "Brickmaking  at  Jamestown." 

21  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  I,  282. 


6  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

fireplace,  was  considered  unlikely.22  Archaeologists  have  a  tendency 
to  mistrust  such  uncorroborated  evidence  as  Darby  Glande's  testi- 
mony. Nevertheless,  a  sharp  watch  was  kept  for  fragments  of  brick 
or  tile.  Even  if  none  of  the  test  trenches  crossed  directly  over  a  house 
site,  it  was  considered  likely  that  bricks  from  such  a  site  would  more 
likely  be  scattered  and  more  readily  found  than  other  building  refuse, 
such  as  mortar,  nails,  charcoal,  and  ashes. 

During  the  earlier  explorations  in  the  Fort  Raleigh  area  beginning 
in  1947,  only  six  fragments  of  old  bricks  were  found.  By  "old"  is 
meant  handmade,  sand-struck  bricks,  rather  than  the  later  wire-cut 
type.  Five  of  the  six  fragments  are  from  conventional  bricks;  the 
sixth  is  from  a  thin  "Dutch"  brick  and  not  of  concern  to  the  present 
study.  Even  with  whole  bricks  it  is  impossible  to  determine  more 
than  the  general  period  of  their  manufacture,  while  small  fragments 
tell  very  little.  One  of  the  pieces  from  the  earlier  excavations  is  2% 
inches  thick,  which  conforms  to  brick  of  the  Tudor  period,  and  thus 
does  not  eliminate  the  possibility  of  its  association  with  the  settle- 
ment.23 It  was  found  at  the  same  level  and  near  one  of  the  Indian 
campfires  uncovered  in  the  partially  filled  fort  ditch.  Another  similar 
fragment  was  found  in  the  fort  ditch  at  a  depth  of  3  feet,  but  is  too 
badly  eroded  to  provide  even  an  approximate  measurement.  It  must 
have  been  picked  up  along  the  nearby  shore,  as  it  is  quite  clearly 
water  worn.  The  other  three  fragments  look  old,  but  were  found 
near  the  surface,  which  precludes  any  conclusion  as  to  when  they 
were  deposited. 

Only  one  fragment  of  roofing  tile  was  found  in  all  the  archaeologi- 
cal excavating  at  Fort  Raleigh  prior  to  1965.  It  came  from  the  very 
bottom  of  the  fort  ditch  and  must  have  been  dropped  there  soon  after 
the  fort  was  abandoned.24  On  the  basis  of  this  single  fragment,  its 
location  notwithstanding,  tilemaking  by  the  colonists,  or  even  the 
importation  of  tiles  from  England,  could  not  be  considered  proven. 
Just  as  with  the  five  brick  fragments,  it  was  highly  suggestive,  but 
needed  corroboration,  even  when  viewed  in  conjunction  with  Glande's 
statement. 

The  earlier  explorations  failed  to  locate  the  settlement  site,  and 
no  further  testing  was  undertaken  until  major  construction  was  started 

22  Jean  Carl  Harrington,  Search  for  the  Cittie  of  Ralegh,  Archeological  Excavations 
at  Fort  Raleigh  National  Historic  Site,  North  Carolina  (Washington:  National  Park 
Service,  U.S.  Department  of  the  Interior,  Archeological  Research  Series  Number  Six, 
1962),  34,  hereinafter  cited  as  Harrington,  Cittie  of  Ralegh. 

23  Harrington,  Cittie  of  Ralegh,  23. 

24  Harrington,  Cittie  of  Ralegh,  23. 


Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  7 

in  1963.  At  that  time,  certain  areas  were  checked  by  trenching  with 
power  equipment,  both  prior  to  and  during  construction  of  roads, 
parking  areas,  and  buildings.  Much  of  the  area  in  the  general  vicinity 
of  the  fort  was  tested,  but  no  additional  archaeological  work  was 
carried  out  in  the  more  likely  section  just  west  of  the  fort.  Sand  dunes 
and  heavy  vegetative  cover  make  this  location  difficult  to  explore.  In 
fact,  even  narrow  trenches,  if  carried  to  the  necessary  depth,  would 
injure  the  trees  and  seriously  alter  the  terrain  of  this  attractive  part  of 
the  site.  It  has  been  accepted  that  the  best  chance  of  finding  signifi- 
cant remains  in  this  critical  area  would  be  by  pure  accident— possi- 
bly under  a  blown-down  tree,  in  the  eroding  bank  along  the  shore,  01 
in  a  trench  being  dug  for  utility  lines.  The  last  is  exactly  what  hap- 
pened. 

In  1959  a  trench  was  being  dug  to  carry  power  and  water  lines 
across  the  road  to  the  restored  fort.  A  foot  below  the  pavement  and 
about  35  feet  from  the  outer  edge  of  the  fort  ditch,  the  workmen 
encountered  what  they  thought  to  be  a  brick  floor.  Work  was  stopped, 
the  utility  trench  relocated,  and  the  feature  covered  and  marked  for 
future  investigation.  Opportunity  to  check  this  discovery  did  not 
come  until  the  spring  of  1965.  Excavation  of  the  "brick  floor"  turned 
out  to  be  much  more  of  an  undertaking  than  anticipated.  A  detailed 
archaeological  report  on  the  excavation  of  these  remains  has  just 
been  published.25  The  present  article,  therefore,  will  deal  primarily 
with  the  implication  of  the  discovery  of  bricks  and  tiles  found  in  asso- 
ciation with  a  sixteenth-century  feature  on  Roanoke  Island. 

The  feature  referred  to  above  has  not  been  identified  with  cer- 
tainty, but  would  appear  to  have  had  some  military  function,  and 
may  be  related  to  the  nearby  earthen  fort  restored  in  1950.  A  portion 
of  it  forms  a  nine-foot  square,  sunk  one  and  a  half  feet  below  the 
original  ground  line.  The  "brick  floor,"  accidentally  uncovered  in 
1959,  turned  out  to  be  a  circular  fire  pit  about  two  feet  in  diameter. 
Two  other  similar  fire  areas  were  found  immediately  adjacent  to  the 
first  one,  and  all  within  the  sunken  square.  They  contained  quantities 
of  charcoal  and  ashes,  but  more  interestingly,  a  number  of  bricks 
and  brickbats.  There  were  also  a  great  many  Indian  pottery  sherds, 
the  neck  of  a  ceramic  bottle  of  European  origin,  and  a  few  fragments 
of  roofing  tiles.  This  miscellaneous  material  was  imbedded  in  clay, 
which  had  been  hardened  from  the  heat  of  the  fires.  It  was  not  as 


25  Jean  Carl  Harrington,  An  Outwork  at  Fort  Raleigh:  Further  Archeological  Ex- 
cavations at  Fort  Raleigh  National  Historic  Site,  North  Carolina  (Richmond:  Eastern 
National  Park  and  Monument  Association,  1966). 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


O  INCHES  4 

Figure  1.  Examples  of  abraded  bricks  and  two  of  the  whole  bricks.  What  appears  to 
be  remnants  of  mortar  on  some  of  the  bricks  is  the  clay  in  which  they  were  embedded 
in  the  fire  pits. 


Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  9 

hard  as  the  bricks,  but  sufficiently  similar  to  explain  the  initial  identifi- 
cation of  the  1959  discovery  as  a  brick  floor.  Laboratory  tests  showed 
this  cementing  material  to  be  identical,  physically  and  chemically,  to 
the  natural  clayey  sand  lying  below  the  humus  zone  in  this  locality.?6 

One  interpretation  of  these  finds  is  that  Indians  used  the  structure 
after  the  colonists  had  left,  just  as  they  had  the  fort  where  they  had 
built  campfires  in  the  partially  filled  fort  ditch.  No  bricks  were  found 
in  these  hearths  at  the  fort,  but  an  earlier  Indian  campfire  under  the 
fort  parapet  contained  fire-fractured  stones,  presumably  used  for  sup- 
porting the  typical  pointed  pottery  vessels.27 

Indian  origin  of  the  firepits  excavated  in  1965  is  also  suggested  by 
the  large  number  of  Indian  pottery  fragments  found  in  and  near  the 
features.  Several  separate  vessels  are  represented,  many  fragments 
having  been  imbedded  in  the  cementing  clay,  along  with  bricks  and 
brickbats.  The  concentration  of  Indian  pottery  in  these  small  hearths, 
compared  with  its  infrequent  occurrence  in  other  excavations  nearby, 
points  to  rather  extensive  use  of  the  abandoned  structure  by  Indians. 
Another  point  in  favor  of  the  Indian  theory  is  the  complete  absence 
of  European  objects  in  the  charcoal  and  ashes  outside  the  firepits, 
whereas  broken  Indian  pottery  was  found  scattered  throughout  the 
sunken  structure.  Whatever  the  origin  of  these  hearths,  the  point  of 
concern  here  is  that  someone  salvaged  the  brick  and  tile  fragments 
from  a  Colonial  site,  presumably  nearby. 

Except  for  six  or  seven  whole,  or  restorable,  bricks  and  a  few  siz- 
able brickbats,  most  of  the  pieces  of  brick  had  been  worn  down  in- 
tentionally on  one  or  more  surfaces.  A  few  examples  are  shown  in 
Figure  1.  Most  of  the  abraded  faces  are  perfectly  flat,  obviously  re- 
sulting from  being  rubbed  against  a  flat  surface,  although  the  faces 
of  some  are  rounded.  Two  specimens  are  most  unusual,  displaying 
concave  surfaces  (Figure  2). 

Clearly  these  bricks  had  been  used  for  other  than  construction 
purposes  prior  to  being  deposited  in  the  hearths.  One  can  only 
speculate  on  what  this  use  had  been.  Possibly  the  concave  specimens 
served  for  smoothing  wooden  objects,  such  as  shafts  for  pikes,  or 
handles  for  tools.  The  flat  one  might  have  been  used  for  polishing 
armor  or  sharpening  swords,  axes,  or  other  implements.  It  does  not 

28  Sam  H.  Patterson,  "Investigation  of  brick,  tile,  and  'mortar'  and  their  possible 
raw  materials  from  archeological  excavations,  Fort  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,"  (un- 
published report  released  in  open  files  by  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  Septem- 
ber 20,  1965;  copies  available  for  consultation  in  the  Geological  Survey  Library, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  and  in  the  office  of  the  superintendent,  Cape  Hatteras  National 
Seashore,  Manteo),  7,  hereinafter  cited  as  Patterson,  USGS  report. 

27  Harrington,  Cittie  of  Ralegh,  40. 


^ijiriiili^ 

: -k  .. ■   •                 -    '  \<^\*. 

il  * " 

■     -'     -         - 

'     !                       *                  *   -  ':i 

Hr      "' 

lr- 

t         ■".ix»                             \'.«-.^OMlfl 

^'W-     <g^. 

^|§»§ 

1         I 


-I     .      -4 


INCHES 


Figure  2.  Top  and  side  views  of  the  two  concave  specimens.  The  illustrations  used  in 
this  article  were  supplied  by  the  author. 


Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  11 

seem  likely  that  they  were  employed  by  housewives— Indian  or 
white— for  grinding  corn  or  in  other  domestic  pursuits.  The  flat  sur- 
faces and  the  small  size  of  some  of  the  specimens  seem  to  preclude 
any  such  use.  One  specimen,  for  example,  was  abraded  on  all  six 
sides  until  it  was  reduced  to  only  1%  x  1%  x  2M  inches  (smallest  ex- 
ample in  Figure  1). 

Brick  size  is  of  interest,  but  not  too  helpful  for  dating  purposes. 
Complete  measurements  can  be  secured  on  only  four  bricks  but  width 
and  thickness  are  available  on  several  fragments.  The  whole  bricks 
are  identical  in  size:  8%  x  4/8  x  23s  inches.  Following  are  measurements 
on  a  total  of  seventeen  specimens,  including  the  four  whole  bricks: 

Length 
Inches    Number 


Width 

Thickness 

Inches     Number 

Inches    Number 

4%             1 
4i/8           10 
4                5 

2%              5 
2%             7 
2                3 

37/8             1 

17/8                  1 
1%                  1 

The  range  reflected  in  the  above  table  is  no  greater  than  expected 
in  bricks  fired  in  the  same  kiln  and  formed  in  the  same  set  of  molds. 
Bricks  found  stacked  in  a  kiln  excavated  at  Jamestown  varied  by  1 
inch  in  length,  %  of  an  inch  in  width,  and  %  inch  in  thickness.28  Such 
variation  may  be  due  to  the  character  of  the  clay,  extent  of  puddling 
and  curing,  and  conditions  of  firing.  In  discussing  bricks  in  six- 
teenth-century English  buildings,  Nathaniel  Lloyd  points  out  that 
in  a  single  course  any  of  the  three  dimensions  may  vary  half  an  inch 
or  more,  which  he  attributes,  in  part,  to  lack  of  care  in  making  the 
wooden  molds.29 

Even  so,  the  dimensions  of  the  general  run  of  brick  of  any  given 
period  fall  within  a  relatively  close  range.  Bricks  in  English  buildings 
dating  from  1550  to  1600  are  generally  9  to  9M  inches  in  length, 
4  to  4/2  inches  in  width,  and  23s  to  2%  inches  in  thickness.  In  his  rather 
lengthy  table  of  brick  sizes  for  English  buildings,  Lloyd  records  none 
as  small  in  all  dimensions  as  the  ones  from  Fort  Raleigh.30  Their 
counterparts  are  found,  however,  in  some  of  the  buildings  in  Virginia 
dating  from  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Those  in  the 
church  tower  at  Jamestown,  for  example,  which  date  from  about 
1640,  are  8%  x  4%  x  2%.  But  the  majority  of  seventeenth-century  bricks 

28  Harrington,   "Brickmaking   at  Jamestown,"   35. 

29  Nathaniel  Lloyd,  A  History  of  English  Brickwork   (London:   H.  G.  Montgomery; 
New  York:  W.  Helburn,  1925),  11-12,  hereinafter  cited  as  Lloyd,  English  Brickwork. 

30  Lloyd,  English  Brickwork,  89-100. 


12  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

in  the  Virginia  colony  are  closer  to  those  in  sixteenth-century  English 
buildings. 

The  1571  charter  of  the  Tylers'  and  Bricklayers'  Company  es- 
tablished the  regulation  brick  size  at  9  x  4/4  x  2M.31  The  next  attempt 
to  provide  uniformity  in  bricks  was  the  1625  proclamation,  which  set 
the  size  at  9  x  4%  x  2M.32  A  casual  glance  at  tabulations  of  brick  sizes 
for  buildings  of  that  period  in  England  suggests  that  these  regulations 
were  ignored,  but  actually  the  variation  may  have  been  due  to  tech- 
nical factors  and  carelessness,  and  not  to  intentional  flaunting  of  the 
law.  It  would  be  unsafe  to  draw  any  conclusion  as  to  period  of  manu- 
facture of  the  Fort  Raleigh  bricks  from  size  alone.  The  sample  is 
too  small  to  be  of  real  statistical  value,  and  other  considerations  are 
of  greater  importance  than  size  in  determining  the  age  and  pro- 
venience of  these  bricks. 

Although  the  Fort  Raleigh  bricks  are  relatively  uniform  in  overall 
dimensions,  they  are  more  irregular  individually  than  others  the 
writer  has  observed  from  sixteenth-  and  seventeenth-century  struc- 
tures. For  example,  the  thickness  measured  at  opposite  ends  of  a 
given  brick  may  vary  as  much  as  half  an  inch.  This  could  have  been 
caused  by  improper  treatment  while  drying,  or  by  stacking  the  bricks 
in  the  kiln  before  they  were  cured  adequately.  Other  evidences  of 
hurrying  the  manufacturing  process  can  be  seen,  such  as  large  in- 
terior voids  and  pitted  exterior  surfaces.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  that 
we  are  dealing  with  discards,  although  some  of  the  bricks  in  the 
group  are  quite  uniform  in  shape  and  texture. 

The  tile  fragments  recovered  from  the  1965  excavations  and  the 
one  found  earlier  in  the  fort  ditch  are  typical  of  the  flat,  shingle 
tiles  of  the  period.  They  were  also  called  "pin  tiles,"  derived  from 
the  method  of  attachment.  Two  holes  near  one  end  were  punched 
in  the  tile  while  still  in  the  mold.  This  sometimes  resulted  in  a  thin 
layer  of  clay  completely  or  partially  covering  the  bottom  of  the  hole, 
which  was  easily  punched  out  when  a  wooden  pin  was  inserted.  With 
short  pins,  or  pegs,  having  been  driven  into  the  holes,  the  tiles  were 
hung  over  laths,  spaced  at  proper  intervals  across  the  rafters. 

The  tiles  found  at  Fort  Raleigh  are  especially  hard  and  dense,  and 
of  uniform  texture.  They  appear  to  be  a  better  quality  than  many  of 
the  tiles  found  at  Jamestown,  particularly  those  known  to  have  been 
made  in  the  Virginia  colony.  Enough  fragments  were  recovered  to 

31  Lloyd,  English  Brickwork,  12,  46. 

32  Lloyd,  English  Brickwork,  12,  46-47. 


Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  13 

account  for  about  three  whole  tiles.  They  probably  represent  more 
than  that  number,  however,  since  very  few  pieces  could  be  joined. 
It  is  quite  evident  that  these  fragments  were  brought  in  a  broken 
state  to  the  area  where  they  were  excavated,  and  not  as  whole  tiles. 
Overall  size  of  the  tiles  cannot  be  determined,  but  they  are  con- 
sistently /2  inch  thick.  This  conforms  with  the  majority  of  tiles  found 
at  Jamestown,  although  their  thickness  varies  from  %  to  %  of  an  inch. 
Those  from  the  kiln  excavated  at  Jamestown  are  nearer  %  inch,  which 
was  also  the  thickness  prescribed  in  an  earlier  English  statute.33 

The  next  matter  to  consider  is  where  these  brick  and  tile  were 
made  and  how  they  got  to  the  north  end  of  Roanoke  Island.  Un- 
doubtedly, the  bricks  were  manufactured  for  normal  construction 
purposes,  presumably  for  foundations,  fireplaces,  and  chimneys.  It  is 
hard  to  conceive  of  the  colonists  making  bricks  just  for  use  as  tool 
sharpeners  or  armor  polishers.  If  we  can  trust  Glande,  it  was  also 
planned  to  use  bricks  in  the  fort  construction,  as  well  as  the  houses. 
We  can  be  reasonably  certain  that  this  objective  was  never  achieved, 
since  the  fort's  excavation  yielded  only  two  brick  fragments.  This 
assumes,  of  course,  that  the  restored  earthwork  is,  in  fact,  Ralph 
Lane's  "new  fort." 

If  the  bricks  in  question  had  been  salvaged  from  a  house  ruin,  some 
evidence  of  lime  mortar  might  have  been  left  on  the  whole  bricks 
and  the  several  brickbats  that  had  not  been  reused  as  abraders.  How- 
ever, this  is  not  the  case.  What  at  first  appeared  to  be  a  thin  layer  of 
mortar  on  some  of  the  bricks,  was  later  determined  to  be  the  fire- 
hardened  clay  in  which  the  bricks,  tile,  and  other  refuse  were  im- 
bedded in  the  hearths.  In  any  event,  it  could  not  be  mortar  from 
laid  bricks,  since  it  occurs  on  the  abraded  surfaces  of  some  of  the 
smallest  specimens. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how,  or  when,  the  colonists  could  have  salvaged 
bricks  from  a  structure.  Assuming  Glande's  testimony  was  correct 
and  the  colonists  actually  made  bricks  and  used  them  in  their  first 
houses,  these  buildings  would  not  have  been  in  such  ruinous  con- 
dition that  bricks  would  have  been  salvaged  from  them,  even  by  the 
settlers  who  came  two  years  later.  We  know  that  when  the  second 
group  arrived  in  1587  they  found  the  houses  still  standing,  and  that 
they  set  about  to  repair  them.34  The  evidence,  therefore,  is  fairly 
strong  that  the  bricks  in  question  were  never  used  in  the  construc- 
tion of  a  building.  This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  the  colonists 

33  Harrington,  "Brickmaking  at  Jamestown,"  37. 

34  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages,  II,  524. 


14  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

did  not  use  bricks  in  their  houses;  only  that  these  particular  bricks 
were  not  so  used. 

The  second  major  question  is  whether  bricks  were  actually  made 
by  the  colonists,  as  claimed  by  Darby  Glande.  Laboratory  tests 
helped  in  this  instance.  Samples  of  sub-surface  clay,  which  is  actually 
a  clayey  sand,  were  tested  by  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  as 
were  also  several  of  the  brick  fragments,  as  well  as  samples  of  the 
hardened  clay  from  the  hearths.  The  following  is  quoted  from  the 
report  on  these  tests: 

The  archeological  specimens  and  clayey  sands  were  investigated  by  sev- 
eral methods.  All  samples  and  specimens  were  examined  by  a  binocular 
microscope.  .  .  .  Test  pieces  of  the  "local  clay"  were  made  and  fired  along 
with  chips  of  brick  fragments.  The  mineralogy  of  a  "local  clay"  and 
several  archeological  specimens  was  determined  by  optical  and  X-ray 
methods.35 

Technical  details  of  the  laboratory  tests  need  not  be  included  here; 
conclusions  as  to  the  probable  origin  of  the  bricks  will  suffice. 

The  mineral  content  of  all  the  archeological  specimens  from  Fort  Ra- 
leigh, North  Carolina,  except  the  tile,  is  virtually  the  same  as  that  of 
clayey  sand,  referred  to  in  the  sample  descriptions  submitted  as  "local 
clay" ;  and  the  brick  fragments  and  "local  clay"  have  essentially  identical 
physical  properties  when  fired.  The  conclusion  that  all  the  Fort  Raleigh 
specimens,  except  the  tile,  were  made  from  local  materials,  therefore,  is 
reasonably  certain.36 

Accepting  this  evidence  that  bricks  were  made  locally,  one  can 
properly  ask  if  they  necessarily  were  made  by  the  Raleigh  colonists. 
The  natural  response  to  this  question  is,  "If  not  by  the  colonists,  who 
else?"  Although  two  parties  were  sent  from  Jamestown  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  to  look  for  the  settlement,  and  Lawson  visited  the  site 
in  1701,37  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  attempt  by  Europeans  again 
to  settle  on  Roanoke  Island  was  made  until  the  early  eighteenth  cen- 
tury. Even  that  was  unsuccessful.  The  Outer  Banks  did  not  benefit 
immediately  from  new  legislation  and  other  stimuli  to  the  establish- 
ment of  towns  in  the  Carolina  colony.  In  fact,  a  century  passed  before 
there  were  more  than  a  few  isolated  land  owners  living  on  the  island. 
Land  records  covering  property  in  the  general  vicinity  of  the  fort 
can  be  traced  back  only  to  1803.38  It  is  not  known  when  Indians  last 


35  Patterson,  USGS  report,  3. 

36  Patterson,  USGS  report,  8. 

37  Frances  Latham  Harriss   (ed.),  Lawson' s  History  of  North  Carolina   (Richmond: 
Garrett  and  Massie,  Second  Edition,  1952),  61. 

38  Harrington,  Cittie  of  Ralegh,  48. 


Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  15 

lived  or  hunted  on  Roanoke  Island,  but  they  almost  certainly  were 
not  building  campfires  in  the  fort  ditch  or  in  any  remnant  of  the 
original  settlement  by  the  time  there  was  sufficient  white  population 
to  have  started  the  manufacture  of  brick. 

The  tests  made  by  the  Geological  Survey  show  that  the  bricks  were 
not  fired  to  a  temperature  above  1,575°  F.,  since  the  chemical  illite, 
which  is  destroyed  at  about  this  temperature,  is  still  present.  The 
report  concludes  that  these  bricks  are  so  weak  and  friable  "it  seems 
improbable  that  such  poor  brick  would  have  been  shipped  from 
Europe.  .  .  ,"39  Brick  kilns,  however,  do  not  yield  uniformly  good 
bricks,  and  it  is  conceivable  that  the  first  hurried  attempt  to  make 
bricks  in  1585  was  not  overly  efficient.  The  better  bricks  might  have 
been  used  for  construction,  while  the  underfired,  softer  ones  were 
thrown  out.  Could  not  these  discards  have  been  the  ones  subsequently 
used  for  a  purpose  other  than  construction? 

Laboratory  analysis  helps  here,  too.  Test  pieces  made  from  the 
local  clay  and  fired  to  2,000°  F.  showed  the  same  physical  charac- 
teristics as  the  bricks.  So  even  the  best  specimens  from  the  kiln  would 
not  have  been  good  bricks.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  colonists 
would  have  refused  to  use  the  results  of  their  brickmaking  efforts 
for  construction  purposes.  It  might  be  hazardous  to  build  a  wall  with 
such  poor  bricks,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  that  would  have  deterred  a 
desperate  and  determined  settler  from  putting  them  in  house  footings 
and  fireplaces.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  poor  results  of  the  first 
effort  discouraged  further  attempts  at  brickmaking  and  that  relatively 
few  were  ever  made.  After  the  initial  effort,  it  must  have  been  ap- 
parent to  an  experienced  brickmaker  that  Hariot's  appraisal  of  the 
native  resources  was  inaccurate  in  respect  to  the  clay  being  "excellent 
good"  for  bricks. 

Archaeology  and  modern  laboratory  technology  have  thus  joined 
hands  in  the  vindication  of  Darby  Glande— at  least  in  respect  to 
one  of  his  allegations.  But  what  about  tilemaking,  which  Glande  also 
claimed  was  started  as  soon  as  the  settlers  landed? 

Unlike  bricks,  laboratory  tests  show  quite  clearly  that  the  tiles 
found  in  the  excavations  were  not  made  locally.  The  report  on  these 
tests  reads  in  part  as  follows: 

The  tile  fragments  .  .  .  ,  as  observed  under  the  microscope,  contain 
much  more  fine-grained  material  and  are  appreciably  redder  than  either 
the  other  archeological  specimens  or  the  fired  "local  clay."  .  .  .  That  the 
tile  could  not  have  been  made  from  a  raw  material  such  as  "local  clay" 


Patterson,  USGS  report,  8. 


16  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

sample  2  is  indicated  by  the  abundance  of  fine-grained  material  and  the 
presence  of  hematite  which  is  not  abundant  in  the  "local  clay"  or  in  the 
test  pieces  fired  at  high  temperatures.  Also,  chips  of  the  tile  fired  at 
2,000  °F  are  much  harder,  more  dense,  and  redder  than  the  "local  clay" 
fired  at  the  same  temperature.40 

Not  only  were  the  tiles  in  question  not  made  from  the  same  material 
as  the  bricks,  but  usable  tiles  could  not  possibly  have  been  made  from 
this  earth. 

The  above  results  do  not,  by  themselves,  rule  out  local  manu- 
facture, since  earth  of  the  type  used  in  the  tiles  may  occur  elsewhere 
in  eastern  North  Carolina.  It  seems  highly  unlikely,  however,  that 
the  colonists  would  have  brought  in  material  for  tiles  at  the  same 
time  that  they  were  making  bricks  from  local  clay.  There  is  an 
additional  argument  in  support  of  this  deduction.  These  were  well- 
made  tiles  and  must  have  been  produced  in  an  established  plant, 
rather  than  in  a  makeshift  operation  suggested  by  the  poorly  made 
bricks.  The  only  reasonable  conclusion,  therefore,  is  that  they  arrived 
by  ship  from  Europe. 

The  association  of  the  tile  with  the  bricks  in  the  firepits,  and  the 
presence  of  a  tile  fragment  of  identical  thickness  and  appearance 
at  the  bottom  of  the  fort  ditch,  make  it  reasonably  certain  that  the 
tile  is  of  the  same  period  as  the  brick.  This  type  of  tile  would  have 
no  practical  use  except  to  cover  a  building,  and  it  does  not  seem 
likely  that  fewer  than  enough  to  roof  at  least  one  cottage  would 
have  been  brought  to  the  colony.  This  would  mean  that  as  many  as 
2,000  tiles,  as  well  as  possibly  a  kiln-load  of  bricks,  are  waiting  to  be 
discovered  by  some  future  archaeologist. 

Since  Lane  himself  lived  in  a  thatched  cottage,  what  could  have 
been  the  intended  use  of  roofing  tiles?  Perhaps  it  was  planned  to  roof 
the  chapel  with  something  more  fitting,  which  suggests  the  possi- 
bility that  the  tiles  were  associated  with  the  second  venture  of  1587, 
when  colonizing  plans  were  on  a  more  permanent  basis. 

Evidence  for  the  kiln  having  been  in  the  general  vicinity  of  the  fort, 
although  not  conclusive,  is  suggested  by  the  results  of  the  labora- 
tory testing.  A  second  sample  of  earth,  which  superficially  resembled 
the  one  from  the  archaeological  trench,  was  secured  half  a  mile  west 
of  the  fort.  Tests  showed  it  to  be  "much  lower  in  silt  and  clay,  and 
when  wet  probably  would  not  develop  sufficient  plasticity  to  be 
workable."41  Although  only  suggestive  at  this  point,   these  results 

40  Patterson,  USGS  report,  6. 

41  Patterson,  USGS  report,  3. 


Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  17 

present  a  possible  approach  for  narrowing  down  the  general  area  for 
further  exploration  in  search  of  the  settlement  site. 

On  the  basis  of  present  knowledge,  the  following  conclusions  seem 
valid:  Although  bricks  were  made  by  the  Raleigh  colonists,  the 
results  were  not  too  satisfactory,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
bricks  were  used  for  construction  purposes.  The  location  of  the  brick- 
yard and  kiln  is  not  known  but  was  probably  not  far  from  the  site 
of  the  restored  fort.  The  colonists  were  in  possession  of  roofing  tiles, 
which  presumably  were  brought  from  England.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  the  colonists  attempted  to  make  roofing  tile  or  that  tiles  were 
used  on  a  structure  at  the  Raleigh  settlement.  The  new  evidence  does 
not  add  any  clue  to  the  settlement's  location,  although  the  possibility 
of  its  being  in  the  vicinity  of  the  fort  is  enhanced.  In  addition  to 
limiting  the  area  of  search  for  the  settlement  site,  there  is  a  greater 
possibility  than  previously  thought  that  durable  construction  remains 
may  be  found.  And  even  if  bricks  and  tiles  were  never  incorporated 
into  a  structure,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  there  exists  a  con- 
centration of  these  materials. 


North  Carolina  State  Library 


JOHN  MARE:  A  COMPOSITE  PORTRAIT 


By  Helen  Burr  Smith  and  Elizabeth  V.  Moore  * 


[Authors'  Note:  John  Mare  came  near  having  two  portraits,  two  bio- 
graphical studies  so  unlike  that  the  subjects  might  easily  have  been  two 
different  men.  The  details  concerning  one  of  this  dissimilar  pair  were 
assembled  in  New  York  and  for  the  other  in  North  Carolina  by  compilers 
who  had  never  heard  of  each  other  or,  more  to  the  point,  of  each  other's 
interest  in  John  Mare.  It  was  only  by  accident  that  the  two  widely  differ- 
ing preliminary  sketches  could  be  put  together  as  a  portrait  of  one  man. 
.Neither  sketch  was  complete  when  collaboration  began.  All  of  the  avail- 
able details  of  Mare's  life  through  1774  were  assembled  by  Helen  Burr 
Smith  in  New  York  and  of  his  later  life,  with  certain  exceptions  which 
will  be  pointed  out,  were  assembled  by  Elizabeth  V.  Moore  in  Edenton. 

The  late  Edward  W.  Spires  of  Edenton,  clerk  of  court  in  Chowan  County 
for  many  years  and  secretary  of  Unanimity  Lodge  in  Edenton,  once  idly 
remarked  that  John  Mare,  a  well-documented  merchant  and  politician,  of 
Edenton  was  an  artist,  though  he  could  not  recall  how  he  got  that  idea.1 
Coming  from  someone  so  accustomed  to  weighing  facts,  the  statement 
deserved  careful  consideration.  Diligent  inquiry  into  the  origin  of  locally- 
owned  portraits  dating  from  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century 
failed  to  reveal  any  signed  by  John  Mare.  A  further  check  on  the  very 
few  mentioned  in  wills,  inventories,  or  letters  was  equally  unsuccessful. 
None  was  known  to  be  in  North  Carolina  museums  or  collections  of  paint- 
ings. There  was  no  visible  evidence  that  the  busy  John  Mare  of  Edenton 
ever  picked  up  a  brush  and  palette.  As  a  last  resort  the  records  of 
Unanimity  Lodge  were  rechecked  by  William  P.  Goodwin,  who  succeeded 
Spires  as  secretary,  to  see  whether  any  clue  could  be  drawn  from  them. 
There  was  nothing,  not  even  a  hint.  Only  one  other  source  of  information 
remained,  the  Masonic  lodge  from  which  Mare  had  transferred  to  Un- 
animity Lodge,  and  it  seemed  presumptuous  to  ask  for  such  a  search  of  its 
records  as  had  proved  futile  in  Edenton. 


*  Miss  Smith,  of  New  York  City,  is  a  frequent  contributor  to  the  New-York  His- 
torical Society  Quarterly,  the  New  York  Genealogical  and  Biographical  Society 
Record,  American  Collector,  and  Antiques;  Miss  Moore,  of  Edenton,  pursues  the  study 
of  local  history  as  an  avocation. 

1  Helen  Burr  Smith  to  Elizabeth  V.  Moore,  September  8,  1964.  "One  of  the  William 
(Joseph)  Williams  descendants  [Colonel  John  F.  Williams,  Jr.]  who  lives  in  Cali- 
fornia .  .  .  told  me  he  made  a  trip  to  Edenton  years  ago  to  search  for  data  on  John 
Mare  and  William  (Joseph)  Williams.  He  saw  Mr.  E.  W.  Spires,  clerk  of  the  court, 
so,  of  course,  he  told  Mr.  Spires  that  John  Mare  was  an  artist." 


John  Mare  19 

At  that  discouraging  point  the  Book-of-the-Month  Club  News  for 
February,  1958,  used  for  a  cover  illustration  a  painting  owned  by  the 
Metropolitan  Museum  in  New  York,  the  "Portrait  of  a  Man"  painted  by 
John  Mare.  Here  was  proof  that  at  least  a  man  with  that  name  had  been 
painting  in  New  York  before  a  man  with  the  same  name  had  moved  from 
New  York  to  Edenton.  The  art  editor  of  the  bulletin  put  the  writers 
in  touch  with  each  other,  and  this  article  is  the  result.2] 


"John  Mare  Junr.,  Limner,"  3  was  born  in  New  York  in  1739,  the 
eldest  of  the  three  children4  of  John  Mare  and  his  wife  Mary  Bes,  who 
were  married  in  the  Dutch  Church  in  New  York,  April  26,  1738.5 
The  father  was  English,  from  Devonshire,6  the  mother  presumably 
of  Dutch  origin.  The  second  child,  Mary,  must  have  been  only  a  year 
or  two  younger  than  her  brother,  and  had  two  small  children  by  the 
time  her  father  made  his  will  in  the  early  fall  of  1761.  The  third  child, 
Henry,  much  younger,  was  baptized  November  5,  1749.7 

The  Mares  were  evidently  Anglicans,  members  of  Trinity  parish  in 
New  York  City.  The  entry  concerning  the  parents'  marriage  is  the  only 
time  the  name  appears  in  the  records  of  the  Dutch  Church,  while  at 
least  one  child  and  one  grandchild  were  baptized  in  the  Anglican 
church.  Most  of  the  records  of  Trinity  Church  for  the  third  quarter 


2  Permission  granted  by  the  editors  to  use  material  from  Helen  Burr  Smith,  "John 
Mare  (1739-C.1795),  New  York  Portrait  Painter,  with  Notes  on  the  Two  William 
Williams,"  New-York  Historical  Society  Quarterly,  XXXV  (October,  1951),  355-399, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Smith,  "John  Mare";  William  P.  Goodwin,  secretary  of  Unanimity 
Lodge  No.  7,  A.  F.  and  A.  M.,  Edenton,  Charles  A.  Harris,  grand  secretary  of  the 
Grand  Lodge  of  North  Carolina,  and  Wendell  K.  Walker,  director  of  the  library  and 
museum  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of  the  state  of  New  York,  searched  Masonic  records  not 
open  to  the  public  and  furnished  needed  information  to  the  authors. 

3  New-York  Historical  Society  Collection  1885,  206,  hereinafter  cited  as  NYHS  Coll. 
1885.  Other  collections  of  the  New-York  Historical  Society  will  be  similarly  cited. 

4  In  a  time  when  a  man  was  expected  not  to  marry  until  he  could  support  a  wife 
(about  nineteen  or  twenty  years  of  age),  girls  usually  married  at  sixteen  or  seventeen. 
The  birth  of  Mary  Mare's  son  a  good  year  before  John's  points  to  the  probability  that 
her  brother  was  older  than  she.  If  John  Mare  had  been  younger,  there  would  normally 
have  been  a  greater  interval  between  the  two  babies.  As  for  Henry  Mare,  his  parents 
had  been  married  more  than  eleven  years  when  he  was  baptized,  clear  evidence  that 
he  was  considerably  younger  than  John  and  Mary. 

5  "Marriages  from  1639  to  1801  in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church — New  Amsterdam 
and  New  York  City,"  Collection  of  the  New  York  Genealogical  and  Biographical  So- 
ciety, IX,  162,  hereinafter  cited  as  "Dutch  Church  Marriages." 

e'NYHS  Coll.  1898,  36;  "Dutch  Church  Marriages,"  IX,  162. 

7  "A  Registry  of  Christenings  Kept  by  the  Rev.  John  Ogilvie  Began  June  ye  9th 
1749,"  manuscript  in  the  parish  office  of  Trinity  Episcopal  Church,  New  York  City, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Ogilvie  Registry.  Henry  Mare's  baptism  was  the  third  performed 
by  Ogilvie  after  he  returned  from  his  ordination  in  England.  The  entry  reads:  uNew 
York  November  5,  1749,  Henry,  son  of  John  &  Mary  Mairs." 


20  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

of  the  eighteenth  century  were  destroyed  by  fire,8  but  the  Reverend 
John  Ogilvie's  personal  "Registry"  of  the  baptisms  he  performed  par- 
tially replaces  the  lost  parish  registers. 

John  Mare,  Sr.,  described  himself  at  least  once  as  a  "Mariner,"9 
though  when  he  was  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
January  9,  1754,  he  was  listed  as  a  "Labourer."10  His  possible  illiter- 
acy11 did  not  keep  him  from  prospering.  At  a  time  when  hardly  one 
man  in  four  in  New  York  City  had  property  worth  £60,12  he  acquired 
personal  property  and  real  estate  of  sufficient  value  for  one  lot  to  be 
mortgaged  for  at  least  £150.  It  was  that  lot,  described  in  a  1761 
mortgage  and  devised  by  the  father  to  the  son,  which  identified  the 
latter  as  an  artist,  for  when  he  in  his  turn  mortgaged  it  ten  years  later, 
he  described  himself  as  a  "Portrait-Painter."13 

John  Mare,  Sr.,  died  before  December  5,  1766,14  and  his  widow  pre- 
sumably before  December  4,  1771. 15  Of  his  son  Henry  Mare's  history 
nothing  is  known,  and  not  much  more  of  his  daughter  Mary's.  Her 
father's  will,  dated  October  6,  1761,  referred  to  her  as  "my  daughter 
Mary  Williams"  and  to  her  children  as  "my  Grandson  William  Wil- 
liams" and  "my  little  Granddaughter  named  Mary  Williams."16  The 
grandson,  William  Williams,  will  be  the  subject  of  study  later  in  this 
article. 

In  1759  John  Mare,  Jr.,  was  confident  enough  of  his  skill  to  go  to 
Albany  seeking  commissions.  He  did  not  go  alone.  The  next  spring  the 

8  In  1751  and  again  in  1776,  "Records  of  Trinity  Church  Parish,  New  York  City," 
New  York  Genealogical  and  Biographical  Society  Record,  LXVII    (July,  1936),  201. 

9  New  York  County  Will  Books,  Surrogate's  office,  New  York  City,  Liber  25,  414, 
hereinafter  cited  as  New  York  County  Will  Books;  see  also  NYHS  Coll.  1908,  280. 

10  NYHS  Coll.  1885,  179.  Becoming  a  free  man  of  the  city  of  New  York  meant  swear- 
ing to  obey  the  laws  and  pay  one's  taxes.  See  Herbert  L.  Osgood  and  Others,  (eds.), 
Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York,  1675-1776  (New  York:  Dodd, 
Mead  &  Co.,  First  Series,  8  volumes,  1905),  III,  392-393,  hereinafter  cited  as  Minutes  of 
the  Common  Council. 

u  It  may  have  been  illness  rather  than  illiteracy  which  made  it  necessary  for  him  to 
sign  by  mark  his  will  and  a  mortgage  to  Andrew  Marcellus,  both  dated  October  6, 
1761.  His  will  mentions  his  "low  state  of  health."  See  Mortgages  Liber  1,  252,  in 
Surrogate's  Office,  New  York  City,  hereinafter  cited  as  Mortgages  Liber. 

™NYHS  Coll.  19U5,  Chapter  VI,  Note  101,  and  the  text  to  which  it  pertains,  show- 
ing the  relative  economic  status  of  adult  white  male  freeholders  of  New  York  County. 

13  John  Mare,  Jr.,  to  Ennis  Graham,  merchant,  mortgage  dated  December  4,  1771, 
registered  March  10,  1772,  Mortgages  Liber  2,  503. 

uHis  will  was  proved  that  day. 

lo  By  the  terms  of  his  father's  will,  John  Mare,  Jr.,  was  not  to  come  into  possession 
of  Lot  38  until  after  his  mother's  death  or  remarriage,  and  there  is  no  hint  of  the 
latter. 

1H  The  order  in  which  they  are  named,  and  the  word  "little"  applied  to  the  grand- 
daughter, suggests  that  the  grandson,  less  than  two  years  old,  was  the  older  of  the 
two  children. 


John  Mare  21 

Reverend  John  Ogilvie,  then  rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  Albany,17 
was  called  upon  to  baptize  the  child  of  former  parishioners  at 
Trinity.  He  noted  it  in  his  "Registry":  "Albany  April  15,  1760— John 
son  of  John  and  Ann  Mairs  Mother's  Maiden  Name  Ann  Morris."18  It 
has  not  proved  possible  to  discover  Ann  Morris'  background  or  any 
further  mention  of  her  or  her  child.  The  baby  was  not  mentioned  in 
his  grandfather's  will  made  eighteen  months  after  his  birth,  as  Mary's 
children  were;  and  Ann  Mare  did  not  sign  the  mortgage  of  her  hus- 
band's lot  in  1771  or  give  her  consent  to  the  disposal  of  property  in 
which  she  had  a  dower  right,  as  was  required  by  English  law.  Ap- 
parently she  and  the  child  had  both  died. 

The  earliest  portrait  ever  attributed  to  John  Mare  is  that  of  Henry 
Livingston,19  a  member  of  the  great  Hudson  Valley  family,  signed  and 
dated:  "Jn°  Mare/PinxVl760."  It  could  have  been  painted  at  Livings- 
ton Manor  during  Mare's  return  trip  to  New  York,  or  later  in  the  city, 
where  Livingston  represented  Dutchess  County  in  the  Provincial  As- 
sembly. The  portrait,  however,  is  now  considered  to  be  of  questionable 
authenticity.  There  is  a  family  tradition  that  an  unsigned,  undated 
portrait  of  Henry's  brother  Robert  Gilbert  Livingston20  was  also 
painted  by  Mare.  The  slant  of  the  eyes,  though,  the  use  of  landscape 
background,  the  comparative  youthfulness  of  the  sitter,  and  his  mark- 
ed resemblance  to  the  subject  of  John  Wollaston's  portrait  of  Robert 


17  Milton  W.  Hamilton,  "John  Mare's  Portrait  of  Sir  John  Johnson,"  New-York 
Historical  Society  Quarterly,  XLIII  (October,  1959),  450,  hereinafter  cited  as  Hamil- 
ton, "Portrait  of  Sir  John  Johnson."  Ogilvie  had  returned  to  Albany  after  the  capture 
of  Fort  Niagara  by  troops  with  whom  he  served  as  chaplain.  See  Smith,  "John  Mare," 
359. 

w  Ogilvie  Registry,  in  which  the  name  Mare  is  consistently  misspelled  Mairs.  The 
marriage  record  of  John  Mare  and  Ann  Morris  has  not  been  found;  it  was  probably 
destroyed  with  the  other  records  of  Trinity  Church  in  1776. 

10  Dutchess  County  [N.Y.]  Historical  Society  Year  Book  1939,  26,  29;  New-York 
Historical  Society  Annual  Report  for  the  Year  19^2,  18-21,  hereinafter  cited  as 
NYHS  Annual  Report;  also  information  from  Willis  L.  M.  Reese,  a  descendant,  who 
owned  the  portrait  in  1951.  Henry  Livingston,  born  at  Kingston,  N.Y.,  and  baptized 
September  8,  1714,  was  the  second  son  of  Gilbert  and  Cornelia  (Beekman)  Livingston. 
About  1741-1742  he  married  Susanna  Conklin.  From  1759  through  1768  he  was  a 
member  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  province.  He  served  as  colonel  of  a  New  York 
regiment  which  fought  at  Monmouth  Court  House.  He  died  February  10,  1799.  See 
Smith,  "John  Mare,"  387;  see  also  John  Richard  Alden  (ed.),  The  War  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, by  Christopher  Ward  (New  York:  Macmillan  Company,  2  volumes,  1952),  II, 
582. 

20  Rita  Susswein  Gottesman,  The  Arts  and  Crafts  in  New  York,  1726-1776  (New 
York:  New-York  Historical  Society,  1938),  44,  hereinafter  cited  as  Gottesman,  Arts 
and  Crafts;  Edward  Brockholst  Livingston,  The  Livingstons  of  Livingston  Manor 
(New  York:  Privately  printed,  1910)  ;  Florence  Van  Rensselaer,  The  Livingston 
Family  in  America  (New  York:  Privately  printed,  1949)  ;  Mrs.  Philip  K.  Condict  to 
Helen  Burr  Smith,  letter  dated  August  1,  1951.  Robert  Gilbert  Livingston,  born  at 
Kingston,  N.  Y.,  January  11,  1713,  was  the  eldest  son  of  Gilbert  and  Cornelia  (Beek- 
man) Livingston.  On  November  3,  1740,  he  married  Catherine  McPhaedres.  He  died 
in  New  York  City  before  September  4,  1789.  See  Smith,  "John  Mare,"  389. 


22  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

R.  Livingston  (cousin  of  the  other  two),  all  suggest  that  the  Robert 
Gilbert  Livingston  portrait  is  a  copy  by  Mare  of  an  original  painted 
by  Wollaston  some  ten  years  earlier. 

By  the  fall  of  1761,  when  his  father  made  his  will,  Mare  was  ap- 
parently settled  in  New  York,21  although  the  first  official  record  of  his 
activity  as  an  artist  was  that  of  his  admittance  to  the  freedom  of  the 
city  as  "John  Mare  Junr.,  Limner,"  October  1,  1765.22  An  incident 
which  occurred  during  the  following  summer  proved  that  he  had 
established  a  reputation  for  satisfactory  work.  In  March,  1766,  the 
Sons  of  Liberty  advanced  the  idea  that  the  province  of  New  York 
should  erect  a  statue  of  William  Pitt  in  appreciation  of  his  efforts  in 
getting  the  Stamp  Act  repealed.  In  June  the  Assembly  accepted  and 
acted  on  this  suggestion,  commissioning  a  London  sculptor  to  execute 
not  only  the  statue  of  Pitt  but  also  a  statue  of  his  jealous  sovereign, 
King  George  III,  to  be  erected  in  New  York  at  the  same  time.23  The 
members  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  city,  equally  enthusiastic 
about  Pitt  and  equally  wary  of  King  George's  temper,  had  taken  even 
earlier  action,  most  of  it  prudently  omitted  from  their  minutes.  Wheth- 
er they  commissioned  an  English  artist  to  paint  a  portrait  of  Pitt,  or  em- 
ployed William  Davis  to  buy  one  abroad,  or  simply  accepted  one  from 
him  as  a  gift  is  not  surely  known.  Neither  is  it  known  whether  they 
commissioned  Mare  to  paint  a  portrait  of  the  King  (there  were  nu- 
merous engravings  to  work  from )  or  simply  let  it  be  known  that  they 
needed  one  and  would  buy  the  most  acceptable  one  offered  to  them. 
The  minutes  of  their  meeting  on  June  10,  1766,  recorded  the  follow- 
ing: 

Mr.  Mayor  Informed  this  Board  that  William  Davis  of  this  City  Mar- 
riner  hath  lately  Delivered  to  him  to  be  Presented  to  this  Board  the  picture 
of  the  Right  Honourable  William  Pitt,  Sat  in  an  Elegant  and  Genteel 
frame,  and  this  Board  in  order  to  Demonstrate  the  Great  value  and  esteem 
they  have  for  the  person  of  so  great  a  Patriot  &  friend  to  America  as  the 
said  William  Pitt,  do  hereby  in  turn  for  the  Compliment  of  the  said 
William  Davis,  ORDER  that  the  Freedom  of  this  Corporation  be  prepared 
&  presented  to  him,  &  that  the  Clerk  prepare  one  accordingly  &  deliver 
the  same  to  Mr.  Mayor  who  is  desired  to  present  it  to  the  said  William 
Davis  with  the  thanks  of  this  Board.24 


21  This  inference  is  based  on  the  fact  that  his  father's  will  should  have  referred  to 
him  as  "my  son  John  Mare  of  Albany"  if  he  were  still  living  there. 

22  NYHS  Co  11.  1 885,  206. 

23  Alexander  J.  Wall,  "The  Statues  of  King  George  III  and  the  Honorable  William 
Pitt  Erected  in  New  York  City,  1770,"  New-York  Historical  Society  Quarterly  Bulle- 
tin, IV  (July,  1920),  37. 

24  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council,  VII,  20;  NYHS  Coll.  1885,  538-539. 


John  Mare  23 

There  was  no  perceptible  fervor  in  the  businesslike  entry  immediate- 
ly preceding  that,  which 

ORDERED  the  mayor  Issue  his  warrant  to  the  Treasurer  of  this  City 
to  pay  to  John  Mare  Junr.  or  order  the  sum  of  £24  for  the  Painting  of  his 
present  Majesty  which  he  presented  to  this  Corporation.25 

The  minutes  made  the  Common  Council  appear  merely  to  have  ac- 
cepted with  grace  two  portraits  which  happened  to  have  been  given 
to  them  at  the  same  time.  It  is  more  likely  that  they  kept  the  portrait 
of  Pitt,  which  they  really  wanted,  out  of  sight  until  the  best  New  York 
artist  available  could  "present"  them  with  a  portrait  of  King  George. 
The  freedom  of  the  city  for  one  and  £24  for  the  other  were  rather 
generous  expressions  of  gratitude,  if  that  is  all  they  were.  There  is  no 
record  of  the  fate  of  the  King's  portrait  and  no  trace  of  it  has  ever  been 
found. 

Three  paintings,  however,  have  survived  from  the  following  year.  A 
portrait  of  John  Keteltas26  of  New  York  City,  signed  and  dated  "Jn.° 
Mare./  Pinxt./1767,"  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  examples  of 
Mare's  work  but  is  more  famous  as  "the  first,  widely  known  trompe 
Voeil  in  American  Art  history."27  On  the  pleated  ruffle  of  the  sitter's 
wristband  is  a  common  housefly,  "the  only  case  ...  in  American  paint- 
ing where  an  insect  was  put  into  a  portrait."28 

For  certain  minds  it  is  still  a  temptation  to  try  brushing  the  insect 
away ;  and  if  such  an  impulse  is  a  tribute  to  artistic  quality,  Mare  should 
be  acknowledged  as  a  master.  His  technical  feat  is  amazing  even  to  the 
sophisticated  eye.  .  .  .29 

A  portrait  of  an  unknown  young  man,  signed  and  dated  "Jn°  Mare./ 
Pinx.Vl767.,"  is  the  only  original  portrait  by  Mare  which  is  more 
than  waist  length,  the  only  one  which  shows  both  hands,  the  only 
one  which  includes  any  background  (a  chair  and  drapery).  Perhaps 
the  artist  was  not  pleased  with  this  experiment;  perhaps  the  back- 
ground took  too  long  to  paint.  At  any  rate,  he  never  tried  this  again. 

25  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council,  VII,  20. 

26  Life  in  America,  A  Special  Loan  Exhibition  of  Paintings  Held  During  the  Period 
of  the  New  York  World's  Fair  (New  York:  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  1939),  14. 
John  Keteltas,  born  October  26,  1739,  was  a  brother  of  Abraham  Keteltas  and  a  mem- 
ber of  one  of  the  oldest  families  in  New  York.  He  died  February  28,  1768.  See  Smith, 
"John  Mare,"  368,  393.  The  portrait  of  John  Keteltas  is  now  owned  by  the  New-York 
Historical  Society  by  bequest  of  the  late  Edith  M.  K.  Wetmore.  Carolyn  Scoon,  assist- 
ant curator,  Museum  of  New- York  Historical  Society,  to  the  editor,  May  3,  1966, 
letter  in  files  of  North  Carolina  Historical  Review. 

^William  Sawitsky,  lecture  at  the  New-York  Historical  Society,  January  27,  1942, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Sawitsky  lecture,  January  27,  1942. 
28  Sawitsky  lecture,  January  27,  1942. 
"Virgil  Barker,  American  Painting    (New  York:   Macmillan  Company,   1950),  83. 


24  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  third  painting  is  a  copy  of  another  Wollaston  portrait,  that  of 
Henry  Lloyd30  of  Lloyd's  Neck,  Long  Island.  It  is  signed  and  dated 
"Jn.°  Mare  fecit/ 1767/  —not  pinxit,  the  term  an  artist  used  to  sign  an 
original  work,  but  fecit,  the  term  an  engraver  used  to  sign  his  copy  of 
an  original.  John  Mare  was  as  honest  as  his  work.  The  Mare  copy  so 
perfectly  reproduced  Wollaston's  typical  mannerisms31  that  the  picture 
was  believed  to  be  a  Wollaston  original  until  minute  examination  re- 
vealed the  signature.  The  circumstances  in  which  both  pictures  were 
painted  are  known.  On  May  22,  1750,  Henry  Lloyd,  Jr.,  wrote  to  his 
father: 

...  if  it  pleases  God  to  give  you  so  much  health  as  to  visit  New  York 
again  pray  let  me  begg  it  as  a  favour  that  you  sett  for  your  Picture  and 
let  it  be  at  my  Expence.32 

The  "Expence"  for  the  Wollaston  portrait  may  have  been  somewhat 
greater  than  the  son  had  anticipated,  for  he  wrote  his  father  again  on 
June  17,  1751,  to  say,  "I  send  8  Bundles  Hay  more  which  hope  will  be 
sufficient  to  complete  the  charge  of  your  picture  [.  I]  have  ordered 
Conkling  to  pay  you  the  ballance."33  By  1767  Henry  Lloyd,  Jr.,  and 
his  brother,  Dr.  James  Lloyd,  were  living  in  Boston,  and  a  third  broth- 
er Joseph  Lloyd  was  living  in  their  old  home,  where  the  Wollaston 
portrait  still  hung.  Dr.  James  Lloyd  secured  Henry's  permission  to 
have  a  copy  made  of  it  for  himself  and  wrote  to  Joseph,  August  15, 
1767: 

I  have  got  Mr.  Mare  to  take  a  copy  of  my  father's  picture  and  brother 
[Henry]  Lloyd  has  consented  that  he  should  take  the  picture  to  New  York 
with  him.  I  hope  you  will  let  him  have  it  but  see  that  it  is  carefully  packed 
in  a  box  fit  for  the  purpose.34 

That  letter  may  indicate  that  John  Mare  visited  Boston  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1767.  He  may  have  gone  there  again  in  1768,  for  a  portrait  be- 

30  Dorothy  Barck  (ed.),  Papers  of  the  Lloyd  Family  of  the  Manor  of  Queens  Village, 
Lloyd's  Neck,  Long  Island,  New  York,  1654-1826  (New  York:  New-York  Historical 
Society,  2  volumes,  1927) ;  the  Rev.  Melancthon  Lloyd  Woolsey,  The  Lloyd  Manor  of 
Queens  Village  (Baltimore:  [The  Order  of  Colonial  Lords  of  Manors  in  America], 
1925)  ;  also  information  from  Mrs.  J.  Nelson  Borland,  who  owned  the  portrait  in  1951 
and  whose  husband  was  a  descendant  of  Dr.  James  Lloyd,  the  original  owner.  Henry 
Lloyd  was  born  in  Boston,  November  28,  1685.  In  1708  he  married  Rebecca,  daughter 
of  John  Nelson,  of  Boston.  In  1711  he  moved  to  his  manor  of  Queens  Village,  Lloyd's 
Neck,  Long  Island,  where  he  died  March  18,  1763.  See  Smith,  "John  Mare,"  394. 

31  George  C.  Groce,  "John  Wollaston's  Portrait  of  Thomas  Appleford,  Dated  1746," 
New-York  Historical  Society  Quarterly,  XXXIV  (October,  1950),  261;  John  Hill 
Morgan,  Early  American  Painters  Illustrated  by  Examples  in  the  Collection  of  the4 
New-York  Historical  Society  (New  York:  New  York  Historical  Society,  1921),  48- 
53. 

"NYHS  Coll.  1926,  453. 
"NYHS  Coll.  1926,  484. 
Zi  Smith,  "John  Mare,"  367. 


John  Mare  25 

lieved  to  be  of  John  Torrey35  of  Boston  is  signed  and  dated:  "Jn°. 
Mare/Pinx.'  1768."  It  could  equally  well  have  been  painted  in  New 
York  for  there  would  have  been  nothing  unusual  about  a  visit  there  by 
John  Torrey  and  his  brother  William,  who  were  merchants.  A  Torrey 
family  history  reproduces  the  photograph36  of  a  strikingly  similar  por- 
trait known  to  be  that  of  William  Torrey,37  already  in  poor  condition 
when  it  was  photographed,  and  not  yet  located.  The  reproduction 
does  not  show  any  signature;  the  photograph  appears  to  have  been 
cropped  to  fit  the  page.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  not  cropped  (and 
therefore  shows  the  whole  portrait),  and  if  this  is  a  Mare  portrait, 
as  it  seems  to  be,  it  is  the  only  one  in  which  the  subject  is  shown 
in  less  than  waist  length  except  one  later  pastel. 

During  the  1760's  John  Mare  undoubtedly  painted  other  members 
of  the  prominent  families  of  New  York  and  the  Hudson  Valley.  His 
known  portraits  are  sufficient  proof  that  he  had  contacts  with  many 
of  them.  One  of  John  Keteltas'  kinsmen  was  Gerard  G.  Beekman38  of 
New  York  City,  who  later  added  the  Beekman  wing  to  Philipse  Castle. 
His  unsigned  portrait,  so  closely  resembling  that  of  Keteltas  (except 
for  the  fly)  that  it  is  attributed  almost  without  question  to  Mare,  was 
probably  painted  in  1769,  the  year  of  Beekman's  marriage.39  Another 
unsigned  portrait,  markedly  like  those  of  Keteltas  and  Beekman,  is 


35  Frederic  C.  Torrey,  The  Torrey  Families  and  Their  Children  in  America  (Lake- 
hurst,  N.  J.:  Privately  printed,  1924),  I,  141-145,  hereinafter  cited  as  Torrey,  The 
Torrey  Families;  Frederick  Holbrook  Metcalf,  a  descendant  who  owned  the  portrait  in 
1951,  to  Helen  Burr  Smith,  August  3,  September  10,  1951.  John  Torrey  was  baptized 
in  the  First  Church,  Boston,  October  18,  1734.  A  baker  and  merchant,  he  married 
first  Susannah  Bowditch,  on  January  12,  1758;  their  son  William  was  one  of  the 
original  members  of  the  Society  of  the  Cincinnati.  John  Torrey  then  married  Hannah 
Bean  on  October  1,  1766.  He  died  in  Boston,  February  .9,  1808.  His  identification  as 
the  subject  of  this  portrait  is  based  on  family  tradition  and  the  marked  likeness  of 
the  subject  to  that  of  a  portrait  known  to  be  a  painting  of  John  Torrey's  brother 
William.  See  Smith,  "John  Mare,"  395. 

38  Torrey,  The  Torrey  Families,  I,  144. 

37  Torrey,  The  Torrey  Families,  I,  143;  reproduction,  I,  144.  William  Torrey,  born 
June  7,  1729,  was  a  brother  of  John  Torrey  and,  like  him,  a  merchant.  On  November 
1,  1750,  he  married  Abigail  Nichols  in  Boston.  The  date  of  his  death  is  unknown.  The 
location  and  ownership  of  the  portrait  are  not  known.  See  Smith  "John  Mare,"  395. 

38  William  B.  Aitken,  Distinguished  Families  in  America  Descended  from  Wilhelmus 
Beekman  and  Jan  Thomasse  Van  Dyke  (New  York:  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  1912),  21, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Aitken,  Distinguished  Families;  William  F.  Davidson,  "Portraits 
and  Landscapes  at  Philipse  Castle,"  American  Collector,  XIII  (May,  1944),  14;  Hugh 
Grant  Rowell,  "Philipse  Castle,  1683  to  1944,"  American  Collector,  XIII  (May,  1944), 
6.  Gerard  Beekman,  born  in  1746,  was  married  in  1769  to  Cornelia  Van  Cortlandt. 
During  the  Revolution  they  fled  from  New  York  to  the  Van  Cortlandt  mansion  in 
Peekskill.  On  May  23,  1785,  Beekman  acquired  the  part  of  Philipse  Manor  which 
included  the  mill  and  the  castle,  where  he  died  in  1822.  Known  from  then  until  1850 
as  the  Widow  Beekman,  his  remarkable  wife  was  the  dominant  influence  at  Philipse 
Castle  for  the  sixty-five  years  she  lived  there.  The  portrait  now  hangs  at  the  Philipse 
Castle  Restoration.  See  Smith,  "John  Mare,"  369.  396. 

39  Aitken,  Distinguished  Families,  133. 


26  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

that  of  an  unidentified  gentleman  of  the  Werden-Wilcocks  family,40 
friends  of  the  Livingstons. 

Three  other  portraits,  two  of  them  dated  within  the  decade  and 
signed  with  John  Mare's  name,  should  be  mentioned.  That  of  Gover- 
nor Robert  Monckton  of  New  York,  marked  "Jn°  Mare/PinxVl761," 
resembles  the  questionable  portrait  of  Henry  Livingston.  That  of  Gov- 
ernor Sir  Henry  Moore,  Monckton's  successor,  though  marked  "Jn 
Mare/PinxV1766,"  is  so  different  in  style  and  size  from  his  usual  work 
that  its  authenticity  was  long  in  question.  That  of  Dirck  Brinckerhoff, 
a  member  of  the  Common  Council  which  had  bought  Mare's  portrait 
of  King  George  III,  was  once  tentatively  attributed  to  Mare.  After 
careful  investigation,  the  two  signatures  are  considered  unconvincing 
and  all  three  paintings  by  some  hand  other  than  Mare's. 

Through  most  of  the  1760's,  John  Mare  had  very  little  competition 
in  New  York  City.  Benjamin  West  had  left  for  Italy  by  1760.41  West's 
teacher,  William  Williams,  after  a  year  or  two  in  the  West  Indies, 
settled  in  Philadelphia42  for  about  six  years.  Thomas  Mcllworth43 
moved  to  Albany  in  1762.  Mare's  only  rival  seems  to  have  been  Law- 
rence Kilburn,  who  had  come  from  London  in  1754  and  in  1765  com- 


i0NYHS  Coll.  1905,  162-163;  NYHS  Coll.  1915,  504.  The  New  York  firm  of  Gins- 
burg  &  Levy,  art  dealers,  acquired  the  portrait  through  an  intermediary  from  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Werden-Wilcocks  family,  along  with  a  family  coat  of  arms  which,  according 
to  family  tradition,  had  always  accompanied  the  portrait.  The  portrait  is  now  owned 
by  Mr.  Henry  Flynt  and  is  hung  in  Deerfield,  Mass.  See  Antiques,  LXX  (September, 
1956),  261. 

41  James  Thomas  Flexner,  America's  Old  Masters  (New  York:  Viking  Press,  1939), 
40-41,  hereinafter  cited  as  Flexner,  America's  Old  Masters. 

42  For  William  Williams'  history,  see  F.  W.  Bayley  and  C.  E.  Goodspeed  (eds.), 
History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Arts  of  Design  in  the  United  States,  by  Wil- 
liam Dunlap  (New  Edition,  3  volumes,  1918),  I,  30,  32,  39,  44-46,  hereinafter  cited 
as  Bayley  and  Goodspeed,  Arts  of  Design;  Oral  S.  Coad  and  Edwin  Mims,  Jr.,  The 
American  Stage,  Volume  XIV  of  Pageant  of  America:  A  Pictorial  History  of  the 
United  States,  edited  by  R.  H.  Gabriel  and  Others  (New  Haven:  Yale  University 
Press  [Independence  Edition,  15  volumes],  1925-1929),  24;  William  Dunlap,  History 
of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Arts  of  Design  in  the  United  States  (New  York: 
G.  P.  Scott  &  Co.,  1834),  I,  32;  Flexner,  America's  Old  Masters,  30-32,  36;  James 
Thomas  Flexner,  First  Flowers  of  Our  Wilderness  (Boston:  Houghton-Mifflin,  1947), 
188;  James  Thomas  Flexner,  "The  Amazing  William  Williams,"  Magazine  of  Art, 
XXXVII  (November,  1944),  243-246,  276-278;  John  Gait,  The  Life  and  Studies  of 
Benjamin  West  (Philadelphia:  Algernon  Graves,  1816),  39-40,  60-65;  Algernon 
Graves,  Dictionary  of  Artists  (London:  George  Bell  &  Sons,  1884),  140,  182;  Allen 
Johnson,  Dumas  Malone,  and  Others  (eds.),  Dictionary  of  American  Biography  (New 
York:  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  22  volumes  and  index,  1928 — ),  "Henry  Dawkins," 
V,  150-151,  and  "Benjamin  West,"  XX,  6-9;  William  Sawitsky,  "Further  Light  on  the 
Work  of  William  Williams,"  New-York  Historical  Society  Quarterly,  XXV  (July, 
1941),  101-112;  John  F.  Williams,  William  Joseph  Williams,  Portrait  Painter  and  His 
Descendants  (Buffalo:  Privately  printed,  1933),  passim,  hereinafter  cited  as  Williams, 
William  Joseph  Williams;  G.  C.  Williamson  (ed.),  Dictionary  of  Painters  and  Engrav- 
ers, by  Michael  Bryan  (London:  George  Bell  &  Sons,  Ltd.,  New  Edition,  Revised  and 
Enlarged,  1939),  567. 

43  Susan  Sawitsky,  "Thomas  Mcllworth,"  New-York  Historical  Society  Quarterly, 
XXXV   (April,  1951),  117-139. 


John  Mare  27 

placently  advertised  that  "at  present  there  is  no  other  Portrait  painter 
in  the  city  but  himself."44  Then  in  1767  John  Durand  and  Abraham 
Delanoy  arrived,  in  1768  Cosmo  Alexander  (for  a  brief  stay),  in  1769 
Pierre  Eugene  Du  Simitiere  (advertising  as  a  "minature  painter") 
and  William  Williams,  in  1771  John  Singleton  Copley,  and  in  1772 
Matthew  Pratt.45  There  simply  was  not  enough  work  to  go  around. 
Copley  prospered,  but  the  others  had  to  supplement  their  earnings  in 
other  ways  or  look  for  commissions  elsewhere.  Kilburn,  for  example, 
ran  a  paint  store  and  seems  to  have  died  in  poverty.  Delanoy,  who 
had  been  West's  pupil,  had  to  waste  his  delicate  craftsmanship  on  sign 
painting;46  Williams  returned  to  his  native  England;  Simitiere  and 
Pratt  left  the  province;  Mare  decided  to  go  back  to  Albany. 

To  raise  funds  for  the  venture,  "John  Mare  of  the  City  of  New 
York  Portrait-Painter"  on  December  4,  1771,  mortgaged  to  Ennis 
Graham  of  New  York,  merchant,  for  £150,  the  lot  he  had  inherited 
from  his  father47  in  what  the  latter  had  considered  the  suburbs  or 
"Outward  of  this  City  nigh  fresh  water."  Lot  38  was  a  very  narrow 
lot,  only  twenty-seven  feet  wide,  lying  on  the  east  side  of  Mulberry 
Street  and  running  back  eighty-seven  feet  toward  the  lots  adjoining 
Mott  Street.48  The  mortgage  called  for  repayment  of  the  loan  with  in- 
terest on  or  before  May  1,  1772.  The  Albany  Gazette  carried  his  ad- 
vertisement: 

Albany,  the  13th  January,  1772. 

Mr.  Mare,  Portrait  Painter,  purposing  to  reside  part  of  this  Winter  in 

Town;  has  taken  Lodgings  at  the  House  of  Mr.  John  Prince,  and  will 

be  much  obliged  to  such  Gentlemen  and  Ladies,  as  may  choose  to  favour 

him  with  their  Commands.49 

Among  the  gentlemen  who  did  so  choose— there  is  no  evidence  that 
Mare  ever  painted  a  portrait  of  a  woman— was  Sir  John  Johnson,50  son 
of  Sir  William  Johnson,  superintendent  of  Indian  affairs  for  the  area 

44  Gottesman,  Arts  and  Crafts,  3-5. 

45  Gottesman,  Arts  and  Crafts,  3-7 ;  George  C.  Groce,  "New  York  Painting  Before 
1800,"  New  York  History,  (January,  1938),  54-57,  hereinafter  cited  as  Groce,  "New 
York  Painting";  William  Kelby,  Notes  on  American  Artists,  1754-1820  (New  York: 
New- York  Historical  Society,  1922),  1-9,  hereinafter  cited  as  Kelby,  American 
Artists;  William  Sawitsky,  Matthew  Pratt,  1734-1805  (New  York:  New-York  His- 
torical Society,  1942),  6,  16. 

48  Groce,  "New  York  Painting,"  51;  Kelby,  American  Artists,  3,  8. 

47  Mortgages  Liber  2,  503. 

48  The  description  comes  from  the  1761  mortgage  by  John  Mare,  Sr.,  to  Andrew 
Marcellus,  merchant.  Mortgages  Liber  1,  252. 

49 Albany  Gazette  (New  York),  January  27,  1772,  transcription  furnished  by  George 
C.  Groce. 

50  William  Bridgwater  and  Elizabeth  J.  Sherwood  (eds.),  Columbia  Encyclopedia 
(New  York:  Columbia  University  Press  [Second  Edition],  1950),  1017-1018;  Hamil- 
ton, "Portrait  of  Sir  John  Johnson,"  441-451. 


28 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


John  Mare's  portrait  of  Sir  John  Johnson,  executed  in  1772,  is  owned  by  the  State 
of  New  York  and  is  hung  in  Johnson  Hall,  Johnstown,  New  York.  Photograph  repro- 
duced by  courtesy  of  the  Division  of  Archives  and  History,  New  York  State  Education 
Department,  Albany,  New  York. 


north  of  the  Ohio  River.  Like  his  father,  Sir  John  was  a  good  soldier 
and  had  great  influence  among  the  Indians,  especially  those  of  the 
Mohawk  Valley.  During  the  Revolution  he  became  one  of  the  most 
active  Tory  leaders  and  was  later  rewarded  with  the  post  of  superin- 
tendent of  Indian  affairs  in  Canada.  His  portrait,51  painted  before  his 
marriage,  is  signed  with  a  curious  monogram  which  Mare  was  to  use 
again.  The  left  vertical  stroke  of  the  letter  M,  with  a  dot  above  it, 
is  curled  to  the  left  and  upward  from  the  bottom  to  form  a  /;  the  right 
half  of  the  M  is  crossed  by  a  horizontal  stroke  to  form  an  A;  and  the 
right  vertical  stroke  of  the  M  is  also  the  vertical  stroke  of  an  R  and  an 
E,  with  the  top  and  bottom  horizontal  strokes  of  the  E  extended  a 
little  to  the  right  of  the  curves  of  the  R.52  This  extraordinary  signature 

B1NYHS  Annual  Report,  1953,  82.  The  portrait  is  owned  by  the  state  of  New  York 
and  is  hung  in  Johnson  Hall,  Johnstown,  New  York. 

52  Hamilton,  "Portrait  of  Sir  John  Johnson,"  449,  note  1:  "An  accurate  drawing 
of  the  monogram  [from  an  identical  one  on  a  later  portrait]  is  reproduced  herewith 
(actual  size)  by  courtesy  of  Mrs.  Ingrid-Maerta  Held,  Painting  Restorer  of  the 
[New-York  Historical]   Society." 


John  Mare  29 

is  followed  by  the  date  1772. 

There  are  two  indications  that  John  Mare  found  Albany  a  profitable 
field  for  a  painter;  the  mortgaged  lot  remained  in  his  possession  for 
many  years,  and  he  himself  evidently  felt  that  his  residence  there 
was  "permanent"  enough  for  him  to  join  an  Albany  Masonic  lodge 
(Masters  Lodge  No.  2,  now  No.  5).53  The  contact  with  Sir  John  John- 
son may  have  been  either  a  cause  or  a  result  of  Mare's  interest  in 
Masonry,  for  Johnson  was  provincial  grand  master,  having  been  passed 
and  raised  in  Royal  Lodge  of  St.  James  in  London  before  his  return 
to  New  York  in  1767.54  In  the  winter  of  1772-1773  both  Mare  and 
Johnson  were  visiting  brothers  of  Ineffable  Lodge,  Albany.55  Exactly 
how  long  Mare  remained  in  Albany  is  unknown,  though  it  seems  most 


1774 


pin 


This  copy  of  the  monogram  signature  used  by  John  Mare  on  his  portraits  of  Sir  John 
Johnson  and  Dr.  Benjamin  Young  Prime  was  reproduced  by  Mrs.  Ingrid-Maerta  Held, 
painting  restorer  for  the  New-York  Historical  Society,  New  York  City,  and  is  used 
by  courtesy  of  the  society. 


likely  that  he  returned  to  New  York  within  the  next  year  and  trans- 
ferred his  Masonic  membership  to  St.  John's  Lodge  No.  2.56 

At  any  rate,  he  was  living  in  New  York  in  1774,  for  in  that  year  he 
painted  portraits  of  Dr.  Benjamin  Young  Prime57  and  John  Coven- 

53  Wendell  K.  Walker  to  Charles  A.  Harris,  January  23,  1961,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Walker  to  Harris,  January  23,  1961.  Copy  of  letter  in  possession  of  H.  B.  Smith. 

"Hamilton,  "Portrait  of  Sir  John  Johnson,"  442. 

55  Milton  W.  Hamilton  to  Helen  Burr  Smith,  November  9,  1962,  letter  in  possession 
of  H.  B.  Smith. 

66  Information  from  records  of  Unanimity  Lodge,  Edenton,  supplied  by  William  P. 
Goodwin,  hereinafter  cited  as  Records  of  Unanimity  Lodge. 

57  Benjamin  Young  Prime,  born  December  20,  1733,  died  in  1791.  His  portrait  was 
presented  by  a  descendant  to  the  New-York  Historical  Society  in  1953.  See  NYHS 
Annual  Report,  1953,  82. 


L 


30 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


y&mtnm  m  **£*  -  ***=  ^mmr^;-^ 


kA>i, 


:l 


An  oil  on  canvas  portrait  of  Dr.  Benjamin 
Young  Prime  made  by  John  Mare  in  1774. 
Photograph  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  the 
New- York  Historical  Society. 


'V 


This  portrait  of  John  Covenhoven  is  the 
only  pastel  known  to  have  been  executed 
by  John  Mare.  Photograph  by  Einars  J. 
Mengis,  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  Shel- 
burne  Museum,  Inc.,  Shelburne,  Vermont. 


hoven,58  both  of  New  York.  Since  both  were  married  that  year,  it  is 
likely  that  these  were  wedding  portraits  like  those  of  Gerard  Beekman 
and  Sir  John  Johnson.  The  Prime  portrait  is  signed  with  the  same  re- 
markable monogram  as  Johnson's,  followed  by  an  unusual  form  of 
the  usual  formula  "pin*  1774."59  The  Covenhoven  portrait,  Mare's 
only  known  pastel  and  the  only  one  of  his  signed  paintings  showing 
nothing  more  than  the  subject's  head  is  signed  and  dated  in  the 
ordinary  way:  "John  Mare/Pinx*  1774." 


58  John  Covenhoven  is  believed  to  have  been  the  son  of  John  and  Catherine  (Remsen) 
Covenhoven,  born  February  2,  1752.  On  October  6,  1774,  he  married  Catharine, 
daughter  of  Peter  and  Elizabeth  (Lefferts)  Clopper.  The  notice  of  his  death  in 
Brooklyn,  on  February  1,  1805,  referred  to  him  as  Major  John  Covenhoven.  The 
identity  of  the  subject  of  the  portrait  is  attributed  on  the  basis  of  all  available  records, 
published  and  unpublished,  of  the  Covenhoven  family,  by  exclusion  of  all  other  John 
Covenhovens.  The  portrait  is  still  owned  by  the  Shelburne  Museum,  Shelburne, 
Vermont.  See  New  York  County  Will  Books,  Liber  31,  180;  New  York  County  Deed 
Books,  Surrogate's  Office,  Liber  23,  232,  Liber  44,  312,  Liber  45,  469,  and  Liber  59, 
272;  "Dutch  Church  Marriages,"  241;  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council,  I,  56,  157,  182, 
204,  and  VI,  146,  223,  226;  New  York  Weekly  Museum,  February  2,  1805  (obituary); 
New  York  Genealogical  and  Biographical  Society  Record,  LXX,  274,  and  LXXXII,  221 ; 
Bradley  Smith,  assistant  to  the  director,  Shelburne  Museum,  Shelburne,  Vermont,  to 
Helen  Burr  Smith,  August  24,  1960,  and  September  6,  1960,  letters  in  possession  of 
H.  B.  Smith. 

59  Hamilton,  "Portrait  of  Sir  John  Johnson,"  449.  Mrs.  Held's  drawing  of  the 
monogram  was  made  from  the  Prime  portrait. 


John  Mare  31 

No  later  portraits  by  John  Mare  have  been  found.  After  1777  he 
simply  disappeared  from  New  York  records.  Sometime  between  1785 
and  1795  he  acquired  Lot  39,  adjoining  his  old  lot  on  the  north,60 
but  the  deed  for  that  was  not  recorded.  Neither  was  the  deed  by 
which,  before  the  spring  of  1795,  he  conveyed  Lot  38  to  William 
Williams,61  who  for  obvious  reasons  has  always  been  assumed  to  be 
his  nephew,  Mary  (Mare)  Williams'  son.  It  is  difficult  to  understand 
why  Mare  should  have  purchased  the  property  adjoining  his  own 
except  with  the  intention  of  returning  to  New  York  City  to  live.  And 
where  was  he  living  in  the  meantime?  The  mercantile  firm  of  E. 
Dutith  &  Co.  in  Philadelphia  had  an  account  with  a  John  Mare  in 
1786  and  1790,62  but  its  books  gave  no  clue  as  to  where  he  was  or 
what  he  was  doing.  A  search  of  legal  records  in  Albany  and  New 
York,  and  even  in  Boston  and  Philadelphia  failed  to  disclose  any  more 
information,  not  even  the  probate  of  a  will  or  the  issuing  of  letters 
of  administration  on  his  estate.63 

Additional  information  did  emerge,  however,  about  the  William 
Williams  who  owned  Lot  38  in  1795.  It  strengthened  the  probability 
that  he  was  indeed  Mary  (Mare)  Williams'  son  and  John  Mare's 
nephew,  but  did  not  quite  prove  the  fact.  This  William  Williams  was 
also  an  artist,  born  in  New  York  on  November  17,  1759,  according  to 
the  entry  in  his  daughter's  Bible,  which  did  not  give  the  names  of  his 
parents.64  In  1779  the  young  man  opened  his  studio  in  New  York 

60  Obadiah  Wells,  who  owned  Lot  39  in  the  lifetime  of  John  Mare,  Sr.,  sold  it  to 
Frederick  Jay,  November  2,  1784.  See  Land  Conveyances,  Liber  51,  in  the  Surrogate's 
Office,  New  York  City.  Two  deeds  of  Peter  Stuyvesant  and  wife  Margaret,  both  dated 
March  27,  1795,  refer  to  John  Mare  as  "now  or  formerly"  the  owner  of  Lot  39.  See 
Land  Conveyances,  Liber  51,  144,  146. 

61  This  transaction  probably  occurred  before  Williams'  marriage  in  1792  and  his 
subsequent  departure  from  the  city.  Letters  of  administration  on  the  estate  of  Archi- 
bald Gatfield,  granted  January  15,  1791,  show  that  his  Lot  37  bounded  John  Mare's 
Lot  38  on  the  south  (see  NYHS  Coll.  1905,  355).  The  Stuyvesant  deed  to  James  Howie 
describes  Lot  38  as  "now  or  lately  belonging  to  William  Williams."  See  Land  Con- 
veyances, Liber  51,  146. 

63  Photostat  in  Helen  Burr  Smith's  possession  of  the  Dutith  manuscript  account, 
owned  by  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  See  also  William  Henry  Egle  (ed.), 
Pennsylvania  Archives,  Third  Series  (Harrisburg:  State  of  Pennsylvania,  30  volumes 
and  supplement,  1894),  XI,  652,  687,  XVI,  723,  and  XXII,  692;  and  Philadelphia  City 
Directory,  1791. 

83 NYHS  Coll.  1898-1908,  indexes;  George  Loesch,  clerk  of  the  Surrogate's  Court 
of  the  County  of  New  York,  to  George  C.  Groce,  December  10,  1948;  John  Ludden, 
clerk  of  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals,  to  George  C.  Groce,  December  7,  1948; 
Donald  L.  Lynch,  Albany  County  clerk,  to  George  C.  Groce,  December  1,  1948;  and 
research  by  Helen  Burr  Smith  in  the  Surrogate's  Court  records,  New  York  City,  and 
in  repositories  of  legal  records  in  Philadelphia  and  Boston.  Original  letters  in  H.  B. 
Smith's  possession. 

84  Williams,  William  Joseph  Williams,  contains  a  transcript  of  this  entire  Bible 
record  on  unnumbered  pages  inserted  between  34  and  37. 


32  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

and  inserted  his  advertisement  in  the  Royal  Gazette  for  March  6: 

William  Williams,  Portrait  Painter,  Acquaints  the  Ladies  and  Gentle- 
men, that  he  has  taken  a  room,  at  Mr.  Greswold's,  No.  163,  Queen  Street, 
next  door  to  Mr.  Joseph  Totten's,  where  he  carries  on  the  business  of 
Portrait  Painting  in  all  its  branches,  on  the  most  reasonable  terms.65 

One  of  the  branches  was  teaching,  for  which  his  terms  may  have 
been  more  reasonable  than  his  methods.  William  Dunlap,  whom  he 
took  as  a  pupil  in  1781  or  1782,  reported  that  Williams  was  only  his 
father's  third  choice  as  an  instructor  for  him,  an  estimate  unfortunately 
justified. 

I  went  to  his  rooms  in  the  suburbs,  now  Mott  Street,  and  he  placed  a 
drawing  book  before  me,  such  as  I  had  possessed  for  years :  after  a  few 
visits  the  teacher  was  not  to  be  found.  I  examined  his  portraits — tried  his 
crayons,  and  soon  procuring  a  set  ...  commenced  portrait  painter  in  the 
year  1782.66 

In  1792  William  Williams  was  married  in  New  York  City67  and  left 
it  for  fifteen  years.  He  worked  in  Virginia  (1792-1793)  and  in  Phila- 
delphia (1793-1797),  where  he  painted  the  portrait  of  George  Wash- 
ington in  Masonic  regalia  requested  by  Alexandria-Washington  Lodge 
No.  22,  in  Alexandria,  Virginia.68  Later  he  lived  in  South  Carolina 
(1798-1804),  where  he  was  married  for  the  second  and  third  times, 
and  in  New  Bern  ( 1804-1807 ).69  For  the  next  ten  years  he  was  in 
New  York,70  but  in  1817  he  returned  to  New  Bern,  where  he  spent 
the  last  six  years  of  his  life.71  In  1821,  two  years  before  his  death,  he 
was  converted  to  the  Roman  Catholic  church  and  at  confirmation 
took  the  name  Joseph,72  which  is  usually  inserted  in  parentheses  be- 
tween his  Christian  name  and  his  surname.  A  number  of  his  signed 


65  Kelby,  American  Artists,  15. 

68  Bayley  and  Goodspeed,  Arts  of  Design,  I,  295-296. 

67  On  July  5,  1792,  William  Williams  and  Jane  Smalwood  were  married  by  the 
Reverend  John  H.  Livingston  at  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  113  Fulton  Street,  New 
York  City.  "Dutch  Church  Marriages,"  I,  267. 

68  Philadelphia  City  Directory,  1797,  196,  which  lists  him  as  "Limner";  Gertrude  S. 
Carraway,  Crown  of  Life:  History  of  Christ  Church,  New  Bern,  N.  C,  17 15-19  UO 
(New  Bern:  Owen  G.  Dunn,  1940),  105-106,  hereinafter  cited  as  Carraway,  Crown  of 
Life;  Williams,  William  Joseph  Williams,  passim. 

69  Williams,  William  Joseph  Williams,  passim. 

70  Long  worth's  New  York  Almanac,  1809,  384,  which  lists  him  as  "portrait  painter"; 
baptismal  records  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York  City;  and  Williams,  William  Joseph 
Williams,  passim. 

71  Carraway,  Crown  of  Life,  105-106,  156;  Williams,  William  Joseph  Williams,  156. 

72  Williams,  William  Joseph  Williams,  24.  This  quotes  the  records  of  St.  Paul's 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  New  Bern. 


John  Mare  33 

portraits  have  survived,73  as  have  several  miniatures  attributed  to  him. 
It  is  tantalizing  to  consider  that  the  deed  for  the  conveyance  of  Lot 
38  from  Mare  to  Williams  might  have  revealed  not  only  the  relation- 
ship between  the  two  men  but  also  Mare's  whereabouts  at  that  un- 
known date  between  1785  and  1795. 

John  Mare's  total  work,  known  or  attributed  with  some  certainty, 
consists  of  twelve  paintings:  the  portraits  of  Robert  Gilbert  Livings- 
ton and  Henry  Lloyd,  copied  from  Wollaston  originals  not  yet  located; 
the  vanished  portrait  of  King  George  III;  the  portraits  of  William 
Torrey,  Gerard  Beekman,  and  the  gentleman  of  the  Werden-Wilcocks 
family,  all  attributed  to  him  on  grounds  of  style  and  provenance;  and 
the  portraits  of  John  Keteltas,  John  Torrey,  Sir  John  Johnson,  John 
Covenhoven,  Dr.  Benjamin  Young  Prime,  and  the  unknown  young 
man,  all  signed  and  dated,  all  unquestionably  authentic.  Each  one 
of  these  subjects  without  exception  was  posed  three-quarters  front. 
Six  of  them  (eight,  counting  the  copies)  had  a  hand  thrust  into  the 
waistcoat.  Details  such  as  buttons,  braid,  ruffles,  decorations,  and  the 
famous  fly  on  John  Keteltas'  cuff,  were  painted  with  meticulous  care. 
Mare's  likenesses  have  been  described  as  "stiff"  and  "hard,"74  with  the 
faces  painted  in  high  color  against  a  dark  background.  One  critic  who 
considered  Mare  a  better  painter  than  some  of  his  contemporaries- 
modest  praise,  to  say  the  least— said  that  "at  the  same  time  there  is  a 
certain  clumsiness  in  all  his  work,  a  certain  amateurishness.  Yet  the 
faces  are  fairly  well  painted."75  They  are  indeed.  No  matter  how 
dependent  he  was  on  a  set  formula  for  composition,  he  painted  faces 
with  individuality.  It  is  honest  work,  straightforward,  "sturdy  and 
careful,"76  unstained  by  flattery.  These  are  portraits  of  real  persons 
and  irrefutable  proof  of  his  professional  success.  Yet  John  Mare 
apparently  stopped  painting  at  the  age  of  thirty-five  and  dropped 
completely  out  of  his  surroundings  and  the  normal  development  of  his 
life. 


73  The  North  Carolina  Portrait  Index,  1700-1860  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North 
Carolina  Press,  1963),  179,  262,  263,  shows  examples  of  his  work  and  lists  other 
portraits  attributed  to  him  and  owned  within  the  state. 

74  Sawitsky  lecture,  January  27,  1942. 

75  Sawitsky  lecture,  January  27,  1942. 

78  Oliver  W.  Larkin,  Art  and  Life  in  America  (New  York:  Rinehart  &  Co.,  1949), 
49-50,  61. 


34  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

II 

There  were  more  than  a  hundred  names  on  Dr.  Samuel  Dickinson's 
list  of  men  in  Chowan  County  who  had  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  new  state  of  North  Carolina  by  June  23,  1778.  Among  those  he 
certified  were  Hugh  Williamson,  later  a  signer  of  the  Constitution; 
James  Iredell,  later  an  associate  justice  of  the  new  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States;  the  members  of  the  Committee  of  Safety  and  most 
of  the  other  local  patriots  whose  names  are  yet  remembered;  and  one 
who  has  been  forgotten,  John  Mare,77  a  newcomer  to  the  town  of 
Edenton  but  already  a  friend  of  the  most  influential  men  of  the  com- 
munity. The  political  career  which  lay  ahead  of  him  was  based  on  such 
associations  and  on  his  loyalty  to  the  cause  of  the  Revolution  and  the 
young  nation. 

That  loyalty  was  tested  more  than  once.  When  the  British  row  galley 
"General  Arnold"  slipped  into  Albemarle  Sound  and  "plundered  and 
burnt"  along  the  sound  and  the  Chowan  River  early  in  June,  1781,78 
the  citizens  of  Edenton  pledged  £75,500  toward  the  expenses  of  an 
expedition  to  destroy  it.  Well-to-do  businessmen  and  farmers  like 
William  Boyd  and  William  Bennett  and  a  well-to-do  physician  like 
Dr.  Dickinson  were  in  a  better  position  to  pledge  £  1,500,  as  they  did, 
than  John  Mare  to  pledge  £  1,000.79  Mare  also  supplied  to  the  North 
Carolina  troops  in  the  Continental  Line  almost  a  hundred  yards  of 
linen  valued  at  £30  9s.  2d.,  thread  valued  at  £  14  lis.,  4d.,  and  "1  Chest 
to  pack  goods  in,"  valued  at  £  1  6s.  Od.80  This  transaction  was  supposed 
to  be  a  sale,  the  bill  to  be  paid  by  the  state;  but  it  might  as  well  have 
been  an  outright  contribution,  considering  the  fact  that  the  state  took 
more  than  five  years  to  think  about  settling  the  debt.  These  were  fair- 
ly generous  contributions  from  a  man  who  had  already  suffered  a 
severe  financial  loss  as  a  direct  result  of  the  war— in  October,  1780,  the 
"Fair  American"   owned   by   William   Littlejohn,   William   Bennett, 

"J.  R.  B.  Hathaway  (ed.),  North  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  II 
(April,  1901),  206,  hereinafter  cited  as  Hathaway,  Historical  and  Genealogical 
Register. 

78 Walter  Clark  (ed.),  The  State  Records  of  North  Carolina  (Winston,  Goldsboro, 
and  Raleigh:  State  of  North  Carolina,  16  volumes  and  4-volume  index  [compiled  by 
Stephen  B.  Weeks  for  both  Colonial  Records  and  State  Records'],  1895-1914),  XVII, 
952-953,  hereinafter  cited  as  Clark,  State  Records. 

79  "List  of  Subscribers  on  the  Expedition  against  the  Row  Galley  Gen.1  Arnold," 
loose  paper  in  the  Cupola  House  Collection,  Edenton,  hereinafter  cited  as  Cupola 
House  Collection.  No  record  has  been  found  that  Mare  was  ever  in  the  Continental 
army  or  navy. 

80  Clark,  State  Records,  XVI,  485. 


John  Mare  35 

Thomas  Walker,  John  Mare,  and  George  and  William  Wynn,  had 
been  captured  by  the  British.81 

Chowan  County  tax  lists82  disclose  the  details  of  John  Mare's  early 
business  career,  showing  his  financial  status  on  April  1  of  each  year. 
In  1779  his  property,  consisting  of  cash,  notes,  and  one  horse,  was 
valued  at  £206  5s.  0d.;  the  fact  that  notes  were  included  suggests  that 
he  might  have  gone  into  business  by  himself.  A  year  later  he  was  a 
partner  in  the  firm  of  Mare  &  Cooley,  with  cash  assets  of  £3,000,  a 
one-sixteenth  interest  in  the  schooner  "Ostrich,"  which  was  valued 
at  £5,600,  and  dry  goods  on  hand  to  the  value  of  £800.  A  surprising 
amount  of  the  stock  in  trade,  besides  what  belonged  to  the  firm,  was 
Mare's  personal  property,  to  the  value  of  £525.  In  addition,  he  had 
cash  assets  of  £1,700,  "debts  due"  amounting  to  £2,500,  and  "1  2 
Year  old  Filly"  valued  at  £140.83  By  the  spring  of  1781  he  may  have 
withdrawn  from  the  partnership,  known  by  then  as  Samuel  Cooley  & 
Co.,  which  had  cash  assets  valued  at  £6,653  and  other  assets  valued 
at  £2,394,  while  Mare  himself  had  cash  assets  of  £7,000  and  other 
assets  valued  at  £3,452.  In  1782  his  stock  in  trade  was  listed  at 
£656  6s.  4d.  and  in  1783  at  £210.  The  tax  lists  thereafter  do  not  show 
any  details  of  business  firms,  but  do  show  when  Mare  began  to  em- 
ploy a  clerk  who  was  part  of  his  household.  In  1784  his  autograph  list- 
ing shows  "1  poll  tax  (M.r  Jer.h  Gallop)";  in  1789  another  autograph 
listing  shows  "1  pole  Jeremiah  Gallop."  In  1786  he  listed  one  free  poll, 
in  1787  two,  in  1788  one.  In  1790  Jeremiah  Gallop  became  a  taxable 
himself,  and  Mare  took  his  first  and  only  apprentice,  Ichabod  Samp- 
son, an  eighteen-year-old  free  mulatto,  who  was  bound  to  him  to 
learn  the  "art  &  Mistery  of  a  Seaman."84  This  boy,  the  "other  free 
person"  listed  in  Mare's  household  in  the  1790  census,85  appeared  on 

81  According  to  papers  taken  from  the  "Fair  American,"  she  was  owned  by  George 
and  William  Wynn  of  Hertford  County,  and  by  William  Bennett,  William  Littlejohn, 
Thomas  Walker,  and  John  Mare  of  Edenton.  She  was  reported  en  route  from  Edenton 
to  Bordeaux  with  a  cargo  of  160  hogsheads  of  tobacco,  deerskins,  snakeroot,  and 
other  items.  Her  letter  of  marque  described  her  as  an  18-gun  ship  with  a  crew  of 
100  men.  Prize  Papers,  Admiralty  32/330/1,  British  Public  Record  Office.  This  infor- 
mation was  supplied  to  the  authors  by  Thomas  C.  Parramore. 

83  Chowan  County  Tax  Lists,  State  Archives,  Raleigh,  hereinafter  cited  as  Chowan 
Tax  Lists.  Between  1778  and  1809,  the  lists  for  1792,  1796,  1799,  and  1801  are  missing. 

83  The  tax  list  for  1780  makes  it  clear  that  Mare  had  acquired  his  interest  in  the 
"Fair  American"  between  April  1,  1780,  and  the  date  of  its  loss. 

84  Minutes  of  the  Chowan  County  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and  Quarter  Sessions, 
March,  1788-September,  1791,  State  Archives,  hereinafter  cited  as  Chowan  Court 
Minutes.  Except  in  the  earlier  volumes,  these  minutes  have  no  page  numbers,  and 
it  is  therefore  necessary  to  refer  to  the  term  of  court,  in  this  case  March  Term,  1790. 
In  some  of  the  earlier  volumes,  the  leaves  rather  than  the  pages  are  numbered;  for 
the  sake  of  convenience,  the  letters  A  and  B  will  indicate  the  right-hand  and  left-hand 
pages  respectively. 

85  Clark,  State  Records,  XXVI,  397. 


36  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  tax  lists  in  1793  and  1794.  After  that  his  apprenticeship  ended. 
The  only  definite  information  about  Mare's  business  came  from  the 
records  of  the  Port  of  Roanoke,86  which  show  the  duty  he  paid  on  im- 
ports brought  in,  always  by  the  sloop  "Mary,"  nearly  all  of  it  from 
the  West  Indies-$78.02  in  1790,  $478.79  in  1791,  $260.81  in  1792, 
and  $170.15  in  1793. 87  His  store,  which  he  did  not  own,  was  the  "corner 
store  in  King  Street,"88  at  the  north  end  of  the  row  of  stores  called 
Cheapside,  directly  south  of  Joseph  Hewes'  old  store. 

It  took  the  young  state  of  North  Carolina  several  years  to  decide 
exactly  how  property  should  be  listed  for  taxes.  In  1782  and  1783, 
for  instance,  slaves  were  listed  by  age:  those  under  seven  and  over 
fifty  at  the  lowest  valuation,  those  from  seven  to  sixteen  and  from 
forty  to  fifty  in  a  middle  group,  and  those  from  sixteen  to  forty  at  the 
highest  valuation.  From  1784  on,  they  were  listed  only  if  their  ages 
were  between  twelve  and  fifty.  In  1782  John  Mare  listed  one  slave  in 
the  second  group  and  one  in  the  third;  in  1783,  one  in  each  of  the 
first  two  groups  and  four  in  the  third.  In  1784  he  listed  four,  in  1785 
eight;  in  1788  nine;  in  1787,  1788,  1789,  1790,  and  1791  eight.  Twenty- 
two  were  listed  in  the  1790  census;  of  those,  fourteen  were  under 
twelve  or  over  fifty.89 

On  October  21,  1782,  John  Mare  made  his  first  purchase  of  real 
estate  in  Edenton  when  he  paid  Dominick  Pembrune  750  Spanish 
milled  dollars  for  a  house  on  West  Church  Street  (New  Plan  Lot 
55 ).90  This  was  next  door  to  his  friend  William  Littlejohn,  whose  lot 
adjoined  St.  Paul's  churchyard  on  the  other  side.  In  1787  Mare  paid 
£250  specie  for  two  lots  on  East  Gale  Street  (Old  Plan  Lots  119-120), 
one  "improved"  by  a  log  cabin  measuring  twenty  by  fifteen  feet  and 
the  other  unimproved.  These  lots,  the  escheated  property  of  Thomas 
Wright,91  Mare  listed  for  taxes  in  the  summer  of  1787  as  being  his 
property  by  April  1,  but  he  did  not  succeed  in  getting  his  deed  from 
Governor  Richard  Caswell  until  November  12.  Two  months  before 
that,  he  had  bought  the  lot  just  west  of  his  home  ( New  Plan  Lot  56 ) 


88  Records  of  the  Port  of  Edenton,  Southern  Historical  Collection,  University  of 
North  Carolina,  Chapel  Hill,  1790-1795,  5,  19,  47,  65,  76,  91,  106,  126,  141,  152. 

87  Custom  duty  was  imposed  in  pounds,  shillings,  and  pence  and  paid  in  dollars.  For 
a  discussion  of  the  currency  situation  in  the  state  during  this  period,  see  Mattie  Erma 
Parker,  Money  Problems  of  Early  Tar  Heels  (Raleigh:  State  Department  of  Archives 
and  History,  fifth  printing,  I960),  10-13. 

88  State  Gazette  of  North  Carolina  (Edenton),  January  31,  1794. 

89  Chowan  Tax  Lists,  1782  through  1791. 

60  Chowan  County  Deed  Books,  Office  of  Register  of  Deeds,  Chowan  County  Court- 
house, Edenton,  Deed  Book  R-2,  358,  hereinafter  cited  as  Chowan  Deed  Book. 
91  Chowan  Deed  Book  T-l,  207,  208. 


John  Mare  37 

for  £390;92  apparently  this  was  an  investment  in  property  for  rental 
purposes  only,93  though  the  house  must  have  been  a  good  deal  hand- 
somer than  his  own.94  On  January  18,  1789,  he  made  his  final  purchase, 
for  £600  North  Carolina  currency,  of  a  lot  directly  across  Broad 
Street  from  Mrs.  Thomas  Barker's  home  (the  middle  third,  approxi- 
mately, of  New  Plan  Lots  25-26-27-28 )  .95  This,  too,  must  have  been 
an  investment  in  rental  property,  for  he  continued  to  occupy  the  house 
on  Church  Street.96 

By  the  spring  of  1784  he  had  begun  to  acquire  land  in  other  coun- 
ties. He  bought  first  425  acres  in  Tyrrell  County,97  then  200  acres  in 
"Bartie"  County,98  200  acres,99  575  acres,100  and  finally  75  acres,101  all 
in  Tyrrell,  so  that  by  the  spring  of  1788  he  owned  1,475  acres. 

John  Mare  was  in  his  mid-forties  and  Mrs.  Marion  (Boyd)  Wells 
in  her  early  thirties  when  they  were  married  in  1784.  Their  marriage 
bond  has  not  been  found,  but  the  date  can  be  approximated  with  ac- 
curacy. Marion  Boyd  was  a  daughter  of  William  Boyd  and  his  first 
wife,  Mary  Speight,102  and  a  granddaughter  of  the  Reverend  John 
Boyd,103  a  Scottish  physician  who  had  been  North  Carolina's  first 
candidate  for  Holy  Orders  and  rector  of  North- West  Parish,  Bertie 
County,  from  1732  to  1738. 104  Marion  was  still  a  minor  when  her 
father  gave  his  consent  to  her  marriage  to  Dr.  George  Wells,  February 
3,  1767. 105  Nothing  is  known  of  Dr.  Wells  except  from  his  will  and  the 
will  of  his  father-in-law;  his  name  appeared  only  once  in  court  re- 

92  Chowan  Deed  Book  T-l,  151. 

63  Chowan  Deed  Books  B-2,  25,  and  W-l,  512. 

94  When  the  two  lots  were  sold  at  the  same  time  in  1801,  the  Mare  lot  brought  less 
than  a  fifth  as  much  as  the  adjoining  lot.  Chowan  Deed  Book  R-2,  525.  Another  in- 
dication that  the  Mares  were  satisfied  with  a  rather  simple  way  of  life  is  the  fact 
that  they  never  had  a  carriage;  the  only  vehicle  shown  in  the  Chowan  tax  lists,  from 
1785  through  1791,  is  a  "Singal  Riding  Chair,"  technically  two  wheels. 

85  Chowan  Deed  Book  T-l,  308. 

"Chowan  Deed  Book  B-2,  25. 

97  Chowan  Tax  List,  1784. 

98  Chowan  Tax  List,  1785. 

99  Chowan  Tax  List,  1786. 

100  Chowan  Tax  List,  1787. 

101  Chowan  Tax  List,  1788. 

103  Hathaway,  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  II  (April,  1901),  271;  Chowan 
Court  Minutes,  1755-1761,  531B. 

103  Hathaway,  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  I  (January,  1901),  29;  Chowan 
Court  Minutes,  1730-1734  and  1740-1748  [all  in  one  volume],  123A,  131B;  Chowan 
Deed  Book  0-1,  101. 

104  Joseph  Blount  Cheshire,  Jr.,  "The  Church  in  the  Province  of  North  Carolina," 
Sketches  of  Church  History  in  North  Carolina,  edited  by  J.  B.  Cheshire,  Jr.  (Wil- 
mington: W.  L.  DeRosset,  Jr.,  1892),  67,  hereinafter  cited  as  Cheshire,  "The  Church 
in  North  Carolina";  William  L.  Saunders  (ed.),  The  Colonial  Records  of  North 
Carolina  (Raleigh:  State  of  North  Carolina,  10  volumes,  1886-1890),  III,  339,  here- 
inafter cited  as  Saunders,  Colonial  Records. 

105  Chowan  County  Marriage  Bonds,  State  Archives,  typed  by  the  Genealogical  So- 
ciety of  Utah,  Salt  Lake  City,  1943,  169,  hereinafter  cited  as  Chowan  Marriage  Bonds. 


38  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

cords  before  his  will  was  proved,106  and  he  owned  no  property  in 
Chowan  County.  His  will,  written  three  months  after  his  marriage, 
left  his  wife  everything  except  his  "silver  smitted  sword"  and  his 
tomahawk,  which  were  to  go  to  his  brother  Richard,  and  his  "medi- 
cinal" books  or  "whatever  Books  thats  belonging  to  me  that  treats 
of  Surgery  or  medicine,"  which  were  to  go  to  his  younger  half  brother 
Thomas.107  It  was  an  unfortunate  marriage.  Whether  because  of  mili- 
tary service,  financial  profit  elsewhere,  restlessness,  or  incompatibility, 
Dr.  Wells  was  evidently  away  most  of  the  time.108  As  for  his  wife,  the 
only  detail  known  of  her  personal  history  is  that  she  and  her  sister 
Lydia  (Mrs.  William  Bennett)  signed  the  resolutions  of  the  Edenton 
Tea  Party.  Marion  s  father  made  careful  provision  for  her  in  his  will, 
stipulating  that  payments  to  her  should  not  be  "Subject  to  the  Inte- 
ference,  Intermedling  order  or  Control"  of  her  husband,109  providing  a 
special  fund  of  <£  10  proclamation  per  year  for  her  "during  the  absence 
of  her  husband  Geo  Wells  and  While  they  have  no  Connection,"110 
and  appointing  four  trustees  of  unimpeachable  integrity  to  look  after 
her  share  of  his  estate:  the  future  governor  of  North  Carolina,  Samuel 
Johnston;  the  future  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
James  Iredell;  the  rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  the  Reverend  Daniel 
Earl;  and  his  own  son-in-law  and  business  partner,  William  Bennett.111 
There  is  no  suggestion  that  Marion  was  incapable  of  managing  her 
estate;  on  the  contrary,  it  was  to  be  paid  to  her  at  once  if  she  outlived 
her  husband.112  If  he  outlived  her,  it  was  to  go  to  her  sister  Lydia's 
children.113  No  matter  what  happened,  Dr.  Wells  was  not  to  get 
his  fingers  on  one  penny  of  her  property.  By  the  time  William 
Boyd  died  in  the  fall  of  1784,114  Dr.  Wells  was  dead  and  Marion 
safely  married  to  John  Mare.  She  must  have  been  married  very 
soon   after   George    Wells'    death,    or    soon    after    the    news    of    it 

106  An  eleven-year-old  girl  was  bound  to  him  on  March  20,  1770;  on  September  18, 
1770,  she  was  bound  to  someone  else.  No  explanation  is  given  for  the  sudden  termina- 
tion of  a  bond  which  would  normally  have  lasted  until  the  girl  was  eighteen  years  old. 
See  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  April,  1766-March,  1772,  513,  567. 

107  Chowan  County  Will  Books,  Office  of  Clerk  of  Court,  Chowan  County  Courthouse, 
Edenton,  Will  Book  A,  172,  hereinafter  cited  as  Chowan  Will  Books. 

108  Chowan  Will  Book  B,  122.  William  Boyd's  first  will,  dated  February  18,  1775, 
indicates  a  separation. 

109  Chowan  Will  Book  B,  139. 

110  Chowan  Will  Book  B,  122. 

111  Chowan  Will  Book  B,  122,  139. 
1U  Chowan  Will  Book  B,  122,  139. 

113  Chowan  Will  Book  B,  122,  139. 

114  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  1780-1785,  December  Term,  1784.  William  Bennett  quali- 
fied as  administrator  of  William  Boyd's  estate,  December  29,  1784,  before  Boyd's  wills 
had  been  found.  He  proceeded  to  settle  the  estate  quite  promptly  but  had  to  qualify 
as  executor  anyway  April  3,  1785,  after  the  wills  were  found. 


John  Mare  39 

arrived.  According  to  law,  wills  were  supposed  to  be  proved  within 
six  months  of  a  death,  and  Dr.  Wells'  was  proved  at  September  Term 
of  court,  1784;115  this  should  indicate  that  he  was  living  as  late  as  March 
of  that  year.  But  since  William  Boyd  was  named  as  administrator,  to 
lighten  Marion's  responsibility  as  executrix,  and  since  Boyd's  own  wills 
(he  left  two)  did  not  turn  up  for  some  months  after  his  death,  it  is 
possible  that  Dr.  Wells'  was  also  delayed  in  being  proved.  At  any  rate, 
Marion  evidently  married  John  Mare  in  the  spring  or  early  summer 
of  1784.  Their  first  child,  Mary  A.  Mare,  was  born  in  February, 
1785,116  and  their  second,  Elizabeth  Anne,  before  1790.117 

The  sort  of  family  John  Mare  married  into  is  another  indication  of 
his  standing  in  the  community.  William  Boyd,  orphaned  in  childhood, 
had  grown  up  in  the  home  of  his  stepfather  Joseph  Herron,118  sea 
captain  turned  sheriff.119  He  was  appointed  a  justice  of  the  peace  as 
early  as  1760120  and  served  several  times  on  the  grand  jury  for  the 
infrequent  sessions  of  the  superior  court.121  He  represented  Chowan 
County  in  the  General  Assembly  repeatedly,  from  the  fall  of  1762122 
through  the  fall  of  1779.123  He  was  one  of  the  few  who  had  the 
courage  to  protest  against  the  Confiscation  Act  as  injurious  to  many 
innocent  people.124  He  was  executor  of  many  wills,  administrator  of 
many  estates,  guardian  of  several  children.125  As  the  son  of  a  mis- 
sionary for  the  Society  for  the  Propagation-  of  the  Gospel,126  he  was 
greatly  concerned  about  the  parish  in  which  he  lived.  He  was  first 
elected  to  the  vestry  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  Edenton,  in  1752,127  for 
the  usual  two-year  term,  and  was  reelected  in  1772  for  a  term  pro- 
longed  indefinitely.    He   became   a   warden   in    1774   and   was    still 

115  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  1780-1785,  September  Term,  .1784. 

118  She  was  "51  years  9  mos"  old  when  she  died  in  November,  1836,  according  to  her 
tombstone  in  St.  Paul's  churchyard,  Edenton. 

117  The  1790  census  shows  three  free  white  females  in  John  Mare's  household.  Clark, 
State  Records,  XXVI,  397. 

118  Chowan  Marriage  Bonds,  72;  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  1730-1734  and  1740-1748 
[one  volume]  123A,  131B;  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  1749-1755,  279A. 

119  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  1730-1734  and  1740-1748,  157A;  Chowan  Court  Minutes, 
1749-1755,  253B,  307B;  Chowan  Deed  Book  E-l,  277;  Chowan  Will  Book  A,  50. 

120  Chowan    Court   Minutes,    1755-1761,    510A. 

121  For  example,  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  1755-1761,  542A;  Chowan  Court  Minutes, 
April,   1766-March,   1772,   328. 

122  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VI,  856,  893,  899,  923,  935. 

123  Clark,  State  Records,  XIII,  740,  784,  786,  790-791,  812,  823,  831,  845,  913,  916, 
925,    935,   966,    975,    979-980,    982-983,    988,    990,    1000. 

124  Clark,   State   Records,   XIII,   991-992. 

125  For  example,  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  1755-1761,  406B;  Chowan  Court  Minutes, 
April,  1766-March,  1772,  374,  496,  524;   Chowan  Will  Books  A,  172,  and  B,  126. 

126  Cheshire,    "The    Church    in    North    Carolina,"    67. 

127  Vestry  Minutes,  St.  Paul's  Episcopal  Church,  Edenton,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Vestry  Minutes.  Boyd  served  first  from  August  24,  1752,  to  April  15,  1754,  and  from 
April  1,  1772,  until  the  minutes  ended  in  1779.  He  served  as  warden  from  May  18, 
1774,  to  May  2,   1778,  when  the  vestry  became  the   Overseers   of  the   Poor. 


40  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

serving  in  this  office  in  1778,  when  the  vestry  was  suddenly  trans- 
formed into  the  Overseers  of  the  Poor  and  the  minutes  stopped.  The 
other  warden  was  his  son-in-law  William  Bennett,  elected  to  the 
vestry  in  the  spring  of  1776 128  and  appointed  warden  about  two 
months  later.  These  two  and  Boyd's  nephew,  Thomas  Benbury,  were 
three  of  the  vestrymen  who  signed  the  Test,  demanding  justice  for 
the  colonies  because  they  were  loyal  subjects  of  the  King.129 

John  Mare  shared  this  interest  in  the  Anglican  church.  When  the 
Reverend  Charles  Pettigrew  was  called  to  be  rector  of  St.  Paul's,  on 
November  1,  1781,  Mare's  name  was  thirteenth  on  a  long  list  of 
subscribers,  with  a  pledge  of  £5  per  year  toward  the  rector's  salary.130 
It  is  impossible  to  discover  how  active  a  part  John  Mare  may  have 
taken  in  parish  affairs  because  there  are  no  vestry  minutes  for  the 
years  that  he  lived  in  Edenton.  The  loose  papers  relating  to  the  repair 
of  the  church  after  his  death  contain  several  subscription  lists  which 
bear  the  names  of  his  family  connections.131  It  is  therefore  a  safe 
guess  that  his  family  was  among  the  small  group  who  maintained 
its  loyalty  through  very  trying  times  in  the  history  of  the  parish 
and,  indeed,  of  the  Episcopal  church.  Since  he  owned  land  only  in 
the  town,  and  St.  Paul's  churchyard  was  then  the  town  cemetery, 
John  Mare  and  his  wife  were  probably  buried  there,  as  his  daughters 
were  later. 

Like  many  other  members  of  St.  Paul's,  Mare  was  an  active  Mason. 
A  visitor  to  Unanimity  Lodge  in  Edenton  on  April  14,  1776,  and 
January  27  and  28,  1777,132  he  was  admitted  to  membership  on 
April  16,  1778,133  and  served  in  swift  succession  as  junior  warden 
pro  tern  on  August  13,  treasurer  pro  tern  on  September  1,  and  senior 


138  Vestry  Minutes.  Bennett  served  on  the  vestry  from  April  8,  1776,  until  the 
minutes  ended,  and  as  warden  from  June   19,   1776,  to  May  2,  1778. 

129  The  Test  was  a  statement  signed  by  nine  of  the  vestrymen  and  two  former 
vestrymen  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  professing  at  once  their  allegiance  to  the  King 
and  to  the  Continental  and  Provincial  Congresses.  Vestry  Minutes,  June  19,  1776. 

130  Loose   paper   now   bound    into    the   restored    Vestry   Minutes. 

131  Loose  papers  in  possession  of  St.  Paul's  Episcopal  Church,  Edenton,  hereinafter 
cited  as  1806-1809  Repairs,  St.  Paul's  Church. 

132  Records  of  Unanimity  Lodge ;  William  P.  Goodwin  to  Charles  A.  Harris,  February 
1,  1961,  copy  in  possession  of  H.  B.  Smith,  hereinafter  cited  as  Goodwin  to  Harris, 
February  1,  1961.  Goodwin  has  found  the  oldest  records  in  great  disorder,  with 
old  record  books  fallen  apart  and  some  minutes  on  loose  sheets  apparently  never 
copied  into  the  record  books  at  all.  As  he  succeeds  in  restoring  order  to  the  jumbled 
papers,   more  information    about  John    Mare   may   come    to   light. 

133  Records  of  Unanimity  Lodge;  Goodwin  to  Harris,  February  1,  1961;  Edward 
W.  Spires,  "Colonial  History  of  Unanimity  Lodge  No.  7  A.  F.  &  A.  M.,"  address 
delivered  on  the  one  hundred  fifty-fifth  anniversary  of  its  organization,  November  8, 
1930,  unnumbered  5,  mimeographed  copy  in  possession  of  E.  V.  Moore,  hereinafter 
cited    as    Spires,    "Colonial    History    of    Unanimity    Lodge." 


John  Mare  41 

warden  pro  tern  on  September  4.  Next  year  he  became  treasurer  on 
January  26;  he  served  as  senior  warden  pro  tern  on  March  25,  and  as 
junior  warden  pro  tern  on  August  17;  and  he  was  elected  senior 
warden  on  December  20  and  master  on  December  27,  presiding 
over  seventeen  communications  of  the  lodge.  From  then  until  Decem- 
ber 27,  1782,  he  served  as  master.134  The  weight  of  his  influence  may 
be  estimated  from  the  fact  that  Unanimity  Lodge  failed  when  he 
declined  to  continue  serving  as  master135  and  that  it  was  he  who 
revived  it  in  1787,  when  on  April  2  he  was  again  installed  as  master. 
He  presided  over  all  the  meetings  from  September  4,  1787,  to  June 
5,  1788,136  and  presumably  continued  active  most  of  the  time  until 
the  lodge  "became  dormant  in  November,  1799," 137  its  last  meeting 
occurring  only  five  months  after  Mare's  last  public  appearance. 

In  June,  1787,  John  Mare  notified  members  of  Unanimity  Lodge 
that  he  would  be  unable,  for  personal  reasons,  to  represent  them  at  a 
proposed  convention  to  elect  a  grand  master  for  the  state.138  The 
convention  had  to  be  delayed  six  months,139  and  he  was  one  of  the 
two  Edenton  delegates  (Stephen  Cabarrus  was  the  other)  when  it 
finally  met  in  Tarboro  in  December.  He  presided  over  the  convention, 
held  for  the  purpose  of  reviving  the  lodge,140  "is  credited  with  hav- 
ing drafted  the  Constitution  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of  North  Carolina"  141 
and  on  December  12  delivered  an  impressive  charge  to  its  new 
officers.142  His  final  exhortation  reflects  the  satisfaction  he  felt: 

As  we  have  gone  through  the  important  business  for  which  we  met 
together,  allow  me  in  the  gladness  of  my  heart  to  express  the  gratitude  I 
owe  you  in  having  the  honour  to  sit  in  this  exalted  chair;  and  as  I  am 
about  to  leave  it  to  express  the  happiness  I  feel  at  this  time  in  seeing  the 
great  work  for  which  we  convened  finished;  I  hope  the  result  of  it  will 
give  stability  to  the  Society,  which  will  reflect  honour  and  dignity  upon 
the  craft. 


134  Records  of  Unanimity  Lodge;  Goodwin  to  Harris,  February  1,  1961. 
135 Records  of  Unanimity  Lodge;  Goodwin  to  Harris,  February  1,  1961. 

136  Records   of    Unanimity    Lodge. 

137  Marshall  DeLancey  Haywood,  The  Beginnings  of  Freemasonry  in  North  Carolina 
and  Tennessee  (Raleigh:  Weaver  &  Lynch,  1906),  11,  hereinafter  cited  as  Haywood, 
Freemasonry. 

138  Records    of    Unanimity    Lodge. 

139  Haywood,   Freemasonry,    19. 

140  Haywood,  Freemasonry,  19 ;  Spires,  "Colonial  History  of  Unanimity  Lodge,"  un- 
numbered 5-6;  R.  D.  W.  Connor,  North  Carolina:  Rebuilding  an  Ancient  Common- 
wealth, 1584-1925  (Chicago:  American  Historical  Society,  Inc.,  4  volumes,  1929),  I, 
373,  refers  to  "the  most  important  social  institution  in  the  state,  the  Grand  Lodge  of 
the  Masonic  Order  [which]  had  been  extinct  since  1776." 

141  Spires,  "Colonial  History  of  Unanimity  Lodge,"  unnumbered  6. 

142  Haywood,    Freemasonry,    20. 


42  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

We  may  flatter  ourselves,  as  we  have  laid  the  foundation  and  placed 
such  exalted  characters  at  our  head,  that  Free  Masonry  will  flourish 
throughout  this  State.  I  hope  it  will  not  be  taken  amiss  if  I  charge  you 
on  this  occasion,  that  you  will  observe  a  strict  attention  to  the  rules  and 
Constitution  of  Masonry  in  your  respective  Lodges,  that  will  cement  us 
all  in  one  band  of  Brotherly  Love. 

I  am  now  taking  leave  of  you,  permit  me  to  implore  the  world's  Great 
Architect,  who  is  our  Supreme  Grand  Master,  to  help  you  with  all  those 
gifts  of  understanding,  and  all  those  calm  dispositions  of  heart,  which  will 
make  you  Ornaments  to  your  friends  and  happy  in  yourselves.143 

A  resolution  was  promptly  passed,  thanking  him  as  president  "for 
the  able  and  assiduous  manner  with  which  he  hath  discharged  the 
duties  of  that  office."  144  He  was  soon  to  serve,  though  perhaps  briefly, 
as  an  officer  of  the  grand  lodge;  the  minutes  of  June  24,  1788,  list 
him  as  junior  grand  warden.145  He  was  fourth  on  the  list  of  its  mem- 
bers on  December  16,  1797, 146  and  was  still  a  member  the  two  follow- 
ing  years. 

It  was  not  merely  John  Mare's  enthusiasm  for  Masonry  which  led 
to  his  presiding  at  the  reorganization  of  the  grand  lodge.  The 
ability  and  assiduity  commended  in  the  resolution  of  thanks  had 
been  observed  for  years  by  men  who  were  in  a  position  to  recognize 
and  value  such  qualities.  Perhaps  the  most  interesting  facet  of  Mare's 
life  was  his  political  career.  From  April,  1783,  to  July,  1786,  he  was 
postmaster  of  Edenton.148  In  March,  1785,  he  was  appointed  for  the 
first  time  to  the  grand  jury.149  From  June  8,  1786,  to  March  26,  1788, 
he  was  coroner  for  Chowan  County.150  By  the  end  of  1787  he  was  a 
justice  of  the  peace,151  a  very  conscientious  one,  presiding  during 

143  "Early  Minutes  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of  North  Carolina,"  Nocalore,  Being  the 
Transactions  of  the  North  Carolina  Lodge  of  Research  No.  666,  A.  F.  &  A.  M.  (Monroe 
[?],  11  volumes,  1931-1941),  VII,  147,  hereinafter  cited  as  "Early  Minutes  of  the 
Grand  Lodge." 

144  "Early  Minutes  of  the  Grand  Lodge,"  VII,  147. 

145  Charles  A.  Harris  to  Wendell  K.  Walker,  February  8.  1961,  copy  in  possession 
of  H.  B.  Smith,  hereinafter  cited  as  Harris  to  Walker,  February  8,  1961.  It  was 
Harris'  opinion  that  Mare  was  probably  substituting  for  the  elected  junior  grand 
warden   for   this   one   meeting. 

146  Walker  to  Harris,  January  23,  1961. 

147  Walker  to  Harris,  January  23,  1961. 

148  John  Mare's  summary  report  as  postmaster,  April  5,  1783,  to  July  26,  1786, 
National  Archives,  Washington,  D.C.,  photostat  copy  in  possession  of  E.  V.  Moore. 
This  service  has  been  confirmed  by  F.  Kent  Loomis,  Captain,  U.S.N.  (Ret.),  assis- 
tant director  of  naval  history,  Department  of  the  Navy,  Washington,  D.C.,  April 
1,  1966,  letter  in  possession  of  E.  V.   Moore. 

149  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  1780-1785. 

150  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  September,  1785-September,  1786;  Chowan  Court  Min- 
utes,   March,    1788-September,    1791. 

151  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  December,  1786-December,  1787,  and  June,  1795-March 
1796  [one  volume].  The  minutes  for  this  period  were  badly  kept,  those  for  June, 
1795,  for  instance,  appearing  in  the  volume  just  cited  and  in  the  volumes  covering 
December,  1791,  through  June  10,  1795,  and  also  June  10,  1795,  through  June,  1798. 


John  Mare 


43 


$  £w  m   : 


/  TYA, 


tfrnkutmAfi**^,*, 


.,..>■•  . 


-n. 


\t?    •:»■>  !•■««»  --.>.■■+'{ 


wpp^rM 


At  the  top  is  a  photograph  made  by  Einars  J.  Mengis  of  John  Mare's  signature  as 
it  appears  on  the  reverse  side  of  the  portrait  of  John  Covenhoven,  owned  by  the 
Shelburne  Museum,  Inc.  Below  is  a  copy  of  the  listing  of  taxable  property  as  of  "April 
the  1st.  .  1786."  filed  by  "myself  J.  Mare.  July  278t.  .  1786."  in  Chowan  County.  This 
copy  was  made  by  the  Division  of  Archives  and  Manuscripts,  State  Department  of 
Archives  and  History,  where  the  original  is  on  file.  These  samples  were  submitted  to 
James  R.  Durham,  document  examiner,  State  Bureau  of  Investigation,  for  an  opinion 
as  to  whether  the  handwriting  appeared  to  be  that  of  the  same  man.  Although  seriously 
handicapped  in  making  an  analysis  because  of  the  brief  amount  of  writing  available 
for  comparison,  Mr.  Durham  stated  that  "these  signatures  reflected  a  general  con- 
sistency within  the  normal  range  of  expected  handwriting  variations  .  .  ."  and  that 
"it  is  likely  that  both  signatures  were  written  by  the  same  person.  .  .  ."  Letter  Octo- 
ber 28,  1966,  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  editor,  North  Carolina  Historical  Review. 


44  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

three  out  of  every  four  sessions  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and 
Quarter  Sessions  for  twelve  busy  years.  As  a  justice  he  took  his  turn 
at  listing  the  taxables  of  his  district  (the  town  of  Edenton),  in  1788, 
1792,  and  1796.152  In  1793  he  was  appointed  to  assess  the  value  of 
Edenton  property  for  taxation.153  He  was  repeatedly  assigned  to 
financial  committees  to  audit  the  accounts  of  the  sheriffs,  of  the 
executors  and  administrators  of  estates,  and  of  the  guardians  of 
children.154  His  last  signature  as  an  official  appears  at  the  end  of  the 
minutes  for  the  December  term  of  court,  1798, 155  though  that  was 
not  the  last  time  he  presided.  He  found  time  to  serve  the  town  of 
Edenton  as  well.  By  the  end  of  1786  he  was  its  treasurer,156  and 
records  of  1790,  1791,  and  1792  refer  to  him  again  in  this  capacity, 
without,  however,  making  it  clear  whether  he  had  continued  in  office 
all  that  time.157  He  was  certainly  one  of  the  town  commissioners  in 
1789.158 

Those  citizens  of  the  county  who  were  personally  involved  in 
state  and  national  politics  had  more  than  sufficient  opportunities  to 
judge  John  Mare's  abilities.  Most  of  them  were  Federalists,  eager  to 
have  North  Carolina  ratify  the  Constitution.  In  November,  1787,  a 
grand  jury  for  the  Edenton  district  presented  to  the  Superior  Court 
an  appeal  (believed  to  have  been  written  by  James  Iredell)  for 
prompt  action  on  the  matter;  the  foreman  and  spokesman  was 
William  Bennett,159  Marion  Mare's  brother-in-law.  A  month  later, 
addressing  the  new  Grand  Lodge  of  North  Carolina,  John  Mare 
stressed  the  importance  of  personal  integrity  and  responsibility  in  high 
political  office.   The   grand  master  listening  was  Samuel  Johnston, 

152  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  March,  1788-September,  1791,  June  Term,  1788;  Chowan 
Court  Minutes,  December,  1791-June,  1795,  June  Term,  1792;  Chowan  Court  Minutes, 
June,  1795-June,  1798,  June  and  September  Terms,  1796. 

153  Chowan   Court  Minutes,  December,  1791-June,   1795,   December   Term,   1793. 

154  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  March,  1788-September,  1791,  June  Term,  1790,  and 
June  Term,  1791;  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  December,  1791-June,  1795,  December 
Term,  1791,  June  Term,  1792,  March  Term,  1793,  June  Term,  1794,  and  March  Term, 
1795;  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  December,  1786-December,  1787,  and  June,  1795- 
March,    1796,    September    Term,    1795. 

165  Chowan    Court    Minutes,    September,    1798-December,    1801. 

158  John  Mare's  account  of  what  he  had  spent  as  treasurer,  and  Joseph  Blount's 
account  of  the  use  of  town  taxes,  in  1786,  are  in  the  Cupola  House  Collection. 

157  Cupola  House  Collection.  Orders  dated  September  16,  1790,  September  2,  1791, 
and  December  23,  1791;  receipts  dated  December  29,  1791,  January  18,  1792,  and 
March,  1792;  Mare's  autograph  statement  of  the  commissioners'  account  with  him 
as  "their  Treasur,"  dated  April  2,  1792;  and  two  orders  dated  April  2,  1792,  one  of 
them  to  "John   Mare  Esqu   Treasurer  of  Town  of  Edenton." 

158  Certificate  dated  May  15,  1789,  stating  that  Mare  had  taken  oath  as  a  com- 
missioner is  in  the  Cupola   House  Collection. 

150  Griffith  J.  McRee  (ed.),  Life  and  Correspondence  of  James  Iredell,  One  of  the 
Associate  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  (New  York:  D.  Apple- 
ton  &  Co.,  2  volumes,  1858)   II,  181-183. 


John  Mare  45 

governor  of  North  Carolina  and  future  United  States  senator;  the 
deputy  grand  master  was  Richard  Caswell,  who  had  relinquished  the 
governorship  the  preceding  day.160  In  fact,  the  Masonic  convention 
had  met  in  Tarboro  because  the  legislature  was  meeting  there.  The 
next  day,  December  13,  1787,  John  Mare  was  nominated  to  the 
Council  of  State,161  the  group  of  seven  men  who  were  to  be  the  gov- 
ernor's closest  advisers.  If  this  was  not  planned  beforehand,  Mare's 
eloquence  and  sincerity  must  have  made  an  even  more  effective 
impression  than  he  could  reasonably  have  dared  to  hope. 

There  was,  however,  one  small,  rather  absurd  complication.  Three 
years  before,  John  Mare's  claim  for  payment  of  his  bill  for  the  goods 
supplied  to  the  army  was  one  of  many  the  legislature  ordered  paid 
but  failed  to  pay.162  On  December  2,  1787,  it  came  up  again  for 
consideration  and  was  referred  by  the  House  of  Commons  to  the 
Senate.163  With  his  nomination  to  the  Council  of  State,  this  claim  for 
£46  175.  2d.  apparently  became  a  political  liability.  On  December  20 
he  was  graciously  given  permission  to  withdraw  his  claim 164  and 
duly  appointed  to  the  council.165  On  November  10,  1788,  he  was 
nominated  again.166  He  reached  the  pinnacle  of  his  political  career  in 
November,  1789,  when  he  represented  the  borough  town  of  Eden- 
ton167  at  the  convention  which  ratified  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  He  voted  for  ratification168  and  was  nominated  for  the  third 
time  to  the  Council  of  State.169  As  a  member  of  that  convention,  he  had 
a  hand  in  chartering  the  University  of  North  Carolina. 

Respected,  influential,  successful— John  Mare  was  all  of  these— 
but  there  were  already  hints  of  impending  trouble.  He  might  have 
been  one  of  the  large  landowners  of  Chowan  County  had  he  wished, 
for  his  wife  inherited  several  thousand  acres  of  land  from  her  father; 
yet,  he  had  immediately  sold  all  his  wife's  land,  more  than  2,500 

160  "Early  Minutes  of  the  Grand  Lodge,"  VII,  145-146;  Haywood,  Freemasonry,  18-19, 
states  that  this  charge  is  preserved  in  Ahiman  Rezon  and  Masonic  Ritual  of  North 
Carolina,  Part  II,  6,  published  in  New  Bern  in  1805;  Haywood,  Freemasonry,  20,  and 
Spires,  "Colonial  History  of  Unanimity  Lodge,"  unnumbered  6,  list  the  officers :  Samuel 
Johnston,  grand  master;  Richard  Caswell,  deputy  grand  master;  Richard  Ellis,  senior 
grand  warden;  Michael  Payne,  junior  grand  warden;  Abner  Neale,  grand  treasurer; 
and  James  Glasgow,  grand  secretary.  Harris  to  Walker,  February  8,  1961,  says  "Cas- 
well received  four  of  the  nine  votes  cast  [for  deputy  grand  master],  John  Mare  re- 
ceived two,  and  three  votes  were  divided  among  two  others." 

161  Clark,  State  Records,  XX,  226. 
188  Clark,  State  Records,  XIX,  763. 

163  Clark,  State  Records,  XX,  200. 

164  Clark,  State  Records,  XX,  270. 

165  Clark,  State  Records,  XX,  455. 

166  Clark,  State  Records,  XX,  491;  XXI,  19.  He  was  not  reelected. 

167  Clark,  State  Records,  XXII,  39. 

168  Clark,  State  Records,  XXII,  49. 

169  Clark,  State  Records,  XXI,  251,  611.  Again  he  was  not  reelected  from  a  much 
larger  list  of  nominees. 


46  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

acres,  for  only  £600  in  state  currency,  at  a  time  when  he  was  already 
established  in  business.170  The  price  he  paid  for  the  two  unimproved 
lots  in  Edenton171  was  ten  times  what  it  should  have  been,  judging  by 
similar  sales  that  same  year,  and  £600  for  the  Broad  Street  lot  was 
unreasonably  high.  The  first  evidence  of  financial  difficulties,  how- 
ever, was  the  tapering  off  of  the  amount  of  duty  he  paid  and  the 
disappearance  of  his  name  after  1793  from  the  records  of  the  Port  of 
Roanoke,  clear  proof  that  he  was  no  longer  importing  merchandise 
for  his  store.  By  the  spring  of  1795  he  had  lost  all  his  land  in  Tyrrell 
and  Bertie  counties.172  Personal  tragedy  befell  him,  too,  in  the  loss 
of  his  wife.173  In  September,  1797,  he  took  steps  to  secure  some 
property  for  the  children  by  conveying  to  his  daughters,  Mary  and 
Elizabeth  Anne,  "for  love  and  affection"  and  £5  apiece,  three  slaves 
each.174  The  token  payment  safeguarded  the  children's  possession  as 
a  gift  to  minors  could  not  have  done.  Six  months  later  he  was  sued 
for  debt  and  confronted  with  a  court  order  for  the  sale  of  property 
amounting  to  £375  5s.  4d.  plus  the  sheriff's  fee.  On  May  20,  1798, 
to  satisfy  that  debt,  the  Broad  Street  property  was  sold  for  £315; 
presumably  the  rest  was  paid  in  cash.175  In  April,  1799,  Mare  mort- 
gaged to  Allen  Ramsay  his  home  and  the  house  next  door,  for  £518 
5s.  6d.  to  be  paid  by  October  13.176  It  was  the  beginning  of  final 
disaster.  The  mortgage  was  not  paid,  and  by  law  John  Mare  auto- 
matically became  liable  for  twice  its  amount.  Allen  Ramsay's  untimely 
death  left  his  executors  no  choice  but  to  sue  and  made  impossible 
any  verdict  not  in  their  favor.  On  October  20,  1800,  the  court  awarded 
them  the  full  sum  of  £1,036  9s.  0d.,  plus  damages  of  £8  3s.  Od.  and 
the  sheriff's  fee,  to  be  paid  by  April  6,  1801.  On  May  4,  1801,  the 
Mare  home  was  sold  by  the  sheriff  for  £100  to  Alexander  Millen, 
and  the  house  next  door  for  £550  to  Thomas  Satterfield.177  The  two 
comparatively  worthless  "back  lots"  were  not— probably  could  not 
be— sold.   Of  the  twenty- two  slaves  listed  in  the   1790  census,   six 

170  Chowan  Deed  Book,  R-2,  429. 

171  Chowan  Deed  Book  T-l,  207,  208.  The  price  was  £250,  but  the  top  tax  valuation 
for  the  two   lots  together  never   exceeded  £10. 

172  Chowan  Tax  List,  1795. 

173  It  was  required  by  law  that  a  wife  should  give  her  consent,  in  private  examina- 
tion, to  the  sale  of  property  in  which  she  had  a  dower  right,  and  the  statement  of 
this  consent  was  recorded  in  a  postscript  after  the  deed.  No  such  postscript  appears 
with  any  of  the  deeds  disposing  of  John  Mare's  property.  The  census  of  1800,  manu- 
script in  the   State  Archives,  confirms  the  fact  that  she  was  dead  by  then. 

174  Chowan  Deed  Book  A-2,  62,  63;  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  June,  1795-June,  1798, 
December  Term,  1797. 

175  Chowan  Deed  Book  B-2,  210. 

176  Chowan  Deed  Book  B-2,  25. 

177  Chowan  Deed  Book  R-2,  525. 


John  Mare  47 

who  were  then  infants  or  young  children  had  been  given  to  the  Mare 
children  in  deeds  which  also  mentioned  six  of  the  parents;  and  one 
of  those  must  have  been  over  fifty  years  old  by  1797,  for  in  that  year 
and  the  next,  John  Mare  listed  only  five  slaves  between  twelve  and 
fifty.  No  bills  of  sale  have  been  found  to  show  what  became  of  the 
rest,  but  by  the  spring  of  1800  all  were  gone.178 

Mare  was  one  of  the  justices  presiding  for  two  of  three  days  of 
court  in  June,  1798,  three  of  four  days  in  September,  five  of  six  days 
in  December,  and  two  of  probably  five  days  in  March,  1799.  He 
presided  on  the  first  morning  of  the  next  term,  June  10,  1799,  but  he 
was  not  present  that  afternoon,  on  the  remaining  days  of  court,  or 
ever  again.179  He  failed  to  list  his  taxes  in  1800  and  did  not  take 
the  list  of  taxables  in  his  district  in  that  year,  when  it  would  have 
been  his  turn.  His  name  did  not  appear  on  the  list  of  justices  in  1800 
or  thereafter.180  At  least  one  other  suit  against  him,  fortunately  for 
a  small  sum,  was  won  by  the  plaintiff.181  The  signs  all  point  to  a 
sudden  and  disabling  illness,  perhaps  a  stroke,  a  heart  attack,  or  a 
crippling  injury,  from  which  he  never  recovered  sufficiently  to  put 
his  affairs  in  order  or  even  to  make  a  will.182 

He  was  still  living  in  June,  1802,183  but  was  dead  by  April,  1803.184 
No  mention  of  his  death  has  been  found  in  the  minutes  of  the  Grand 
Lodge  of  North  Carolina,185  and  Unanimity  Lodge  had  ceased  to 
meet  in  November,  1799,  about  five  months  after  the  probable  be- 
ginning of  his  illness.  No  obituary  notice  has  been  found  in  any 
extant  newspaper.  No  administrator  was  appointed  to  look  after  his 
estate  nor  any  guardian  to  look  after  his  daughters,186  both  still 
minors.  All  John  Mare  had  left  was  the  pair  of  "back  lots,"  which  no 
one  wanted  at  any  price;  in  effect,  there  was  no  estate  to  be  ad- 
ministered. Except  for  their  three  slaves  apiece,  the  Mare  children 
had  nothing— nothing,  that  is,  but  the  loyalty  and  love  of  their 
mother's  family. 

178  Chowan  Tax  Lists,  1797,  1798,  and  1800. 

170  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  June,  1795-June,  1798 ;  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  Sep~ 
tember,   1798-December,   1801;    Chowan   Court   Minutes,  March,    1802-March,    1808. 

180  Chowan  Court  Minutes,  September,  1798-December,  1801. 

181  David  Clark  was  awarded  damages  of  £7  15s.  Qd.  in  October,  1801.  See  summonses 
in   Cupola   House  Collection. 

182  No  will  is  recorded  in  Chowan  Will  Books  or  mentioned  in  Chowan  Court  Minutes. 

183  Chowan  Deed  Book  W-l,  512.  This  deed  refers  to  New  Plan  Lot  56  as  "late 
the  property  of  John  Mare  Esquire"  and  "lately  Occupied  by  Robert  Moody  deced." 

^Chowan  Tax  List,  1803,  "Mare  (John's,  Estate)."  Though  dated  July,  1803,  this 
shows  property  as  of  April  1,  like  the  other  tax  lists. 

^Walker  to  Harris,  February  1,  1961,  specifically  asked  for  the  date  of  Mare's 
death;  Harris  to  Walker,  February  8,  1961,  could  not  answer  the  question. 

^Neither  John  Mare,  his  children,  nor  his  property  was  mentioned  in  Chowan 
Court    Minutes    from    1800    through    1810. 


48  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Their  widowed  aunt,  Lydia  Bennett  (William  Bennett  had  died 
in  January,  1801  ),187  was  still  living  on  the  Bennett  plantation  with 
her  oldest  son  and  six  minor  children.188  The  Bennetts  assumed 
responsibility  for  the  two  girls,  so  there  was  no  need  for  the  court 
to  appoint  an  administrator  or  guardian.  John  Boyd  Bennett  struggled 
for  several  years  with  John  Mare's  estate,189  listed  taxes  for  the  girls,190 
managed  their  meager  funds,  acquired  new  slaves  for  them,191  and 
by  April,  1805,  bought  back  for  them  their  old  home  in  town,192  for 
which  he  failed  to  register  the  deed.  Then  in  October,  1807,  he  and 
his  mother  and  his  eldest  sister's  husband  all  died,193  leaving  a 
brother  who  was  still  a  minor  as  head  of  a  household  of  six  girls,  of 
whom  Mary  Mare  may  have  been  the  only  one  not  herself  a  minor. 

The  next  summer,  on  July  28,  1808,  Mary  Mare  was  married  at 
the  Bennett  home  to  Nathaniel  C.  Bissell,  a  sea  captain  of  thirty.194 
On  September  14,  1809,  Elizabeth  Anne  Mare  was  married  to  John 
Dickinson,195  a  son  of  her  father's  friend,  Dr.  Samuel  Dickinson.196 
On  March  12,  1812,  she  died  at  her  sister's  home,  leaving  no  children. 
The  rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church  preached  her  funeral  sermon,197  and 
she  was  probably  buried  in  the  churchyard  with  members  of  her 
husband's  family.  Her  husband  died  in  Rhode  Island  three  years 
later.198  The  Dickinsons  were  members  of  St.  Paul's,  as  were  Nathaniel 
Bissell's  brother  Charles  and  his  wife.199  Bissell  himself  was  not, 
though  after  his  marriage  he  subscribed  and  paid  $4.00  toward  a 
plank  fence  to  enclose  the  churchyard.200  After  Elizabeth    (Mare) 

187  Chowan  Deed  Book  B-2,  293;  Raleigh  Register,  February  10,  1801. 

188  Chowan  Will  Book  B,  289. 

189  Chowan  Tax  Lists,  1804,  1805,  1806,  and  1807. 

190  Chowan  Tax  Lists,  1805  and  1807. 

191  Elizabeth  Anne  Mare's  marriage  contract  lists  two  of  the  slaves  her  father 
had  given  her,  their  four  children,  and  five  more.  Chowan  Deed  Book  E-2,  115. 

192  Chowan  Tax  List,  1805,  shows  one  town  lot  for  Mary  and  Eliza  Mare;  Chowan  Tax 
List,  1807,  shows  one  lot  valued  at  £100  for  Mary  and  Elissa  Mare;  Chowan  Deed 
Book  E-2,  5,  shows  that  Elizabeth  Anne  Mare  sold  her  interest  in  New  Plan  Lot  55 
to  her  brother-in-law,  Nathaniel  C  Bissell,  on  April  21,  1809. 

193  Edenton  Gazette  and  North  Carolina  Advertiser,  October  8,  1807,  and  November 
5,    1807;    Raleigh   Register,    October    15,    1807. 

194  Chowan  Marriage  Bonds,  12 ;  Edenton  Gazette  and  North  Carolina  Advertiser, 
July  28,   1808;   the  Bissell  tombstone   in   St.   Paul's   churchyard,   Edenton. 

195  Chowan  Marriage  Bonds,  46;  Chowan  Deed  Book  E-2,  115;  Edenton  Gazette 
and  North  Carolina  Advertiser,  September  15,  1809;  and  Raleigh  Register,  Septem- 
ber 21,  1809,  which  gives  an  incorrect  date  for  the  wedding. 

198  Dr.  Dickinson's  family  occupied  the  Cupola  House,  Edenton,  from  1777  to  1918. 
Apparently  John  Dickinson  and   his  wife  did  not  live   there  with  his   mother. 

167  Edenton  Gazette,  March  17,  1812;  Raleigh  Register,  March  27,  1812. 

168  Raleigh  Register,  May  26,  1815. 

199 1806-1809  Repairs,  St.  Paul's  Church.  John  Boyd  Bennett  subscribed  $15.00 ; 
Charles  Bissell  and  his  wife  subscribed  $25.00  and  $12.00,  respectively,  with  her 
pledge  later  increased  to  $20.00;  John  Dickinson  subscribed  $5.00;  his  mother  sub- 
scribed  $20.00   toward   building   a   spire   and   buying   a   clock. 

200 1806-1809  Repairs,  St.  Paul's  Church. 


John  Mare  49 

Dickinson's  death,  Bissell  and  his  wife  sold  the  Church  Street  house 201 
(they  had  bought  Elizabeth's  interest  before  her  marriage)202  and 
moved  to  the  southwest  corner  of  Broad  and  Queen  Streets,203  next 
door  to  the  Broad  Street  lot  John  Mare  had  once  owned.  There  Mary 
(Mare)  Bissell  spent  the  rest  of  her  life.204 

It  must  have  been  a  lonely  life  in  some  ways,  with  no  children  and 
her  husband  away  a  great  deal.  Much  responsibility  and  much 
anxiety  fell  on  Mary.  She  had  to  take  care  of  her  husband's  property 
during  his  long  absences,  and  he  did  not  keep  it  in  particularly  good 
order.205  On  the  morning  of  July  4,  1821,  for  instance,  she  was  given 
exactly  four  hours  to  get  the  tenants  out  of  a  building  he  owned  in 
Cheapside,  because  for  two  consecutive  years  it  had  been  classed  as  a 
fire  hazard.206  His  warehouse  on  Long  Wharf  must  have  been  almost 
more  than  she  could  cope  with.207  There  were  financial  difficulties, 
too,  mortgages,208  and  suits  for  debt  which  forced  the  sale  of  some  of 
her  slaves.209  Worst  of  all  were  his  shipwrecks,  though  they  at  least 
were  over  and  he  was  safe  before  she  found  out  about  them.  In  the 
fall  of  1819  Captain  Bissell's  brig  "William"  was  plundered  by  a 
pirate  who  took  about  twenty-five  precious  bags  of  coffee  and  all 
the  Negro  members  of  the  crew.  Then,  before  they  could  complete 
the  voyage  from  St.  Thomas  to  New  Orleans,  the  "William"  foundered 
and  sank;  the  crew,  what  was  left  of  it,  was  saved  by  a  ship  bound 
for  Havana.210  They  were  saved  again,  ten  years  later,  when  the 
schooner  "Two  Brothers"  was  lost  near  Egg  Harbor,  New  Jersey,  on 
its  way  to  New  York.211  The  Bissell  family  was  in  the  shipping  busi- 
ness, literally,  and  the  ships  Nathaniel  Bissell  sailed  were  usually 
family-owned.  In  this  light,  his  financial  problems  seem  only  normal. 
On  May  23,  1833,  "being  about  to  leave  Edenton  by  sea,"  he  made  his 
will,  leaving  what  he  had  to  his  wife.212  He  returned  safely  from  his 
voyage  but  died  on  March  31,  1834,213  and  was  buried  in  St.  Paul's 
churchyard. 

201  Chowan  Deed  Book  G-2,  113. 

202  Chowan  Deed  Book  E-2,  5. 

203  Chowan  Deed  Book  D-l,  186. 

204  Chowan  Deed  Book,  L-2,  163. 

205  Cupola  House  Collection.  Order  dated  July  8,  1820,  about  a  shed  considered  a 
fire  hazard;    and   constable's   report   dated    September    13,   1821. 

206  Orders  dated  July  8,  1820,  and  July  4,  1821,  in  Cupola  House  Collection. 

207  Cupola  House  Collection.  Constable's  report  dated  September  13,  1821. 
^Chowan  Deed  Books  G-2,  459;  H-2,  336;  and  K-2,  291. 

209  Chowan  Deed  Book  K-2,  648. 

210  Edenton  Gazette,  November  22,  1819. 

211  Edenton  Gazette,  November  14,  1829. 

212  Chowan  Will  Book  C,  174. 

213  Bissell  tombstone,  St.  Paul's  churchyard,  Edenton. 


50  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

On  the  last  day  of  October,  1836,  Mary  ( Mare )  Bissell  made  her 
own  will,  one  of  the  most  interesting  documents  recorded  in  Chowan 
County.  Her  home  and  more  than  a  thousand  acres  in  Washington 
County  were  to  be  sold  to  pay  her  husband's  debts.  One  hundred 
dollars  was  to  be  given  to  the  vestry  of  St.  Paul's  Church  "to  aid  in 
the  erection  of  a  Suitable  enclosure  around  the  grave  yard  of  said 
Church,  within  which  I  wish  my  mortal  remains  to  be  entered  [sic] ." 
One  hundred  dollars  was  set  aside  for  the  care  of  her  old  nurse  Hagar, 
who  was  to  be  allowed  to  decide  for  herself  where  she  wished  to  live, 
since  she  did  not  wish  to  go  to  Africa.  The  most  unexpected  pro- 
visions of  the  will  were  those  for  the  seven  slaves  who  did  wish  to  go, 
one  of  them  the  youngest  of  the  three  her  father  had  conveyed  to  her 
almost  forty  years  before.  The  two  lots  on  East  Gale  Street  were 
to  be  sold  (they  brought  only  $30.00 )214  to  defray  their  expenses. 
The  slaves  were  to  be  sent  by  the  American  "Colozenation"  Society- 
Mary's  spelling  was  undeniably  weak— to  one  of  its  colonies  in 
Africa.  It  was  perhaps  unreasonably  optimistic  to  hope  for  a  settle- 
ment of  Nathaniel  Bissell's  claim  against  the  French  government  for 
one  of  his  ships  seized  by  French  privateers  during  the  naval  war  of 
1796-1797,  but  there  were  definite  instructions  for  the  use  of  the 
proceeds,  if  there  were  any:  The  rest  of  her  husband's  debts  were 
to  be  settled;  $100  was  to  be  paid  to  St.  Paul's  Church;  $500  was  to 
be  given  to  a  cousin  in  New  Bern;  and  the  remainder,  and  any  balance 
after  the  settlement  of  her  estate,  was  to  be  paid  to  the  American 
Colonization  Society  for  the  use  of  her  slaves  who  were  going  to 
Africa.  If  Hagar  should  die  before  her  money  was  used  up,  the 
remainder  was  to  go  toward  the  churchyard  fence.215 

Exactly  a  week  later,  on  November  7,  1836,  Mary  A.  Bissell  died.216 
She  was  buried  in  the  grave  of  her  husband,  under  the  magnolias 
south  of  the  church.  Their  broken  tombstone  is  inscribed: 

In  memory  of  /  Cap.  Nathaniel  C.  Bissell  /  Who  departed  this  life  / 
March  31,  1834  /  Aged  56  years  /  Also  /  his  Consort  /  Mary  A.  Bissell  / 
Who  departed  this  life  /  Nov.  8th  1836  /  Aged  51  years  9  mos.217 


214  Chowan  Deed  Book  L-2,  388. 

215  Chowan  Will  Book  C,  203. 

216  Mary  A.  Bissell  was  one  of  the  thirty-nine  members  of  St.  Paul's  Church  in 
1826  when  a  parish  register,  now  lost,  was  begun.  In  a  copy  of  this  register,  con- 
tained in  the  oldest  extant  parish  register,  a  note  beside  her  name  reads:  "died  Nov. 
7  1836,"  one  day  earlier  than  the  date  on  the  Bissell  tombstone. 

217  This  stone,  originally  vertical,  was  broken  in  two,  buried  in  another  location,  and 
forgotten.  It  was  discovered  accidentally  in  the  planting  of  some  shrubs,  relocated 
by  E.  V.  Moore  by  means  of  a  1912  chart  of  the  churchyard,  and  laid  horizontally  in 
concrete  to  prevent  further  damage. 


John  Mare  51 

III 

Two  minute  details  have  been  omitted  from  the  two  preceding 
sketches,  details  without  significance  in  either  sketch  considered 
apart  from  the  other:  an  office  held  by  John  Mare  in  a  Masonic 
lodge  and  the  married  name  of  William  (Joseph)  Williams'  daughter. 
Unlike  the  portrait  of  the  unknown  young  man,  which  was  only 
evidence,  these  were  proof  that  the  John  Mare  of  Edenton  was  the 
John  Mare  of  New  York  and  that  William  ( Joseph )  Williams  was  his 
nephew.  Without  them,  the  John  Mare  of  New  York  had  no  future 
and  the  John  Mare  of  Edenton  no  past.  True,  both  were  Anglicans 
and  both  Masons,  but  there  the  resemblance  apparently  stopped. 
There  was  no  indication  that  the  young  artist  of  New  York  was  ever 
in  business  or  politics,  and  no  indication,  except  for  one  man's  belief, 
that  the  older  merchant  and  politician  of  North  Carolina  ever  had 
the  slightest  interest  in  art. 

The  first  scrap  of  information  exchanged  between  the  writers  of 
this  article  locked  the  two  parts  of  the  puzzle  together.  When  John 
Mare  visited  Unanimity  Lodge  on  April  16,  1776,  and  on  January  27 
and  28,  1777,  he  was  listed  in  its  records  as  senior  warden  of  St. 
John's  Lodge,  New  York.218  There  could  be  doubt  about  what  had 
become  of  the  vanished  artist.219 

The  married  name  of  William  (Joseph)  Williams'  daughter  served 
a  double  purpose,  indirectly  identifying  the  John  Mare  of  Edenton 
with  the  John  Mare  of  New  York  and  proving  that  he  was  her 
father's  uncle.  The  record  on  which  the  history  of  the  Williams  family 
is  based  is  contained  in  the  Bible  of  William  (Joseph)  Williams' 
daughter  Ann,  who  married  John  Ingalls  of  New  Bern;  "Mrs.  Ann 
Ingalls  who  resides  in  Newbern"  was  the  cousin  named  in  Mary 
(Mare)  Bissell's  will.  The  kinship  between  Mare  and  Williams  ex- 
plains the  date  on  the  Williams  portraits  of  the  Reverend  Charles 
Pettigrew  and  his  wife,  August  20,  1785,  and  September  15,  1785 
respectively.  They  are  even  marked  "Edenton"  after  the  signature. 
The  fact  that  the  Pettigrew  portraits  were  painted  in  Edenton  at  a 

218  Goodwin  double-checked  these  entries  because  of  Spires'  statement  that  Mare 
was  junior  warden,  and  found  that  J  and  S  were  hard  to  distinguish  in  the  writing 
of  the  secretary  of  that  period;  but  the  second  letter  is  e,  not  w,  so  it  is  certain  that 
Mare  was  listed  as  senior  warden  of  St.  John's. 

219  The  account  with  John  Mare  of  E.  Dutith  &  Co.,  Philadelphia,  mentioning 
"Mr.  Cummings  the  Lawyer,"  who  had  written  and  sealed  a  deposition  for  them, 
confirms  John  Mare's  presence  in  Edenton,  where  William  Cummings  practiced  law 
for  many  years.  The  photostat  shows   Mare's  unmistakable   signature. 

220  Mrs.  Henry  W.  Howell,  Jr.,  librarian,  Frick  Art  Reference  Library,  New  York 
City,  to  Elizabeth  V.  Moore,  March  28,  1966,  letter  in  possession  of  E.  V.  Moore. 


220 


52  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

time  when  Williams  was  believed  to  have  been  working  only  in  New 
York  lends  credence  to  the  possibility  that  he  may  have  been  the 
second  free  white  male  over  sixteen  years  of  age  in  John  Mare's  house- 
hold in  the  1790  census,  whose  presence  is  otherwise  unexplained.221 
Such  intimacy  would  help  to  account  for  his  daughter's  being  re- 
membered in  Mary  (Mare)  Bissell's  will. 

There  are  important  questions  still  unanswered.  Where  was  John 
Mare  educated,  to  be  able  to  hold  his  own  among  the  leaders  of  the 
state?  Who  taught  him  to  paint,  and  where?  Why  did  he  leave  New 
York  for  a  tiny  town  like  Edenton?  If  it  was  to  seek  commissions,  he 
seems  to  have  been  notably  unsuccessful.  The  fact  that  his  nephew 
painted  the  Pettigrew  portraits  is  fairly  good  evidence  that  Mare, 
a  better  painter,  was  not  painting  professionally  at  that  time.  Strangest 
of  all,  why  did  he  stop  painting?  The  recent,  rather  thorough  can- 
vass of  pre- 1860  portraits  conducted  by  the  Colonial  Dames  in 
preparation  for  the  publication  of  the  North  Carolina  Portrait  Index 
failed  to  discover  a  single  portrait  painted  by  him222  or  attributable 
to  him.  He  cannot  have  stopped  because  of  any  incapacitating  ill- 
ness or  injury  to  his  hand  or  arm,  for  the  same  dashing  signature  that 
marked  his  portraits  in  New  York  continued  to  appear  on  legal  docu- 
ments in  North  Carolina  for  nearly  twenty-five  years.  The  greatest 
mystery  in  John  Mare's  life  is  yet  to  be  solved. 

221  William  Williams  does  not  appear  in  the  1790  census  in  New  York. 

222  Mrs.   Henry  W.   Howell,   Jr.,   to   Elizabeth   V.    Moore,   June    19,   1962,   letter   in 
possession  of  E.   V.   Moore. 


REACTION  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA  TO  THE 
EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATION 

By  Harold  D.  Moser  * 


The  central  problem  for  the  successful  formation  and  continuing 
existence  of  the  Confederacy  was  that  of  retaining  the  loyalty  of 
its  people.  According  to  legend,  all  the  white  population  and  even 
most  of  the  slaves  living  in  the  seceded  states  accepted  wholeheartedly 
the  principles  of  the  Confederacy  and  fought  courageously  for  its 
existence  until  overwhelmed  by  the  force  of  numbers  and  the  effects 
of  the  blockade.  "No  people  have  ever  poured  out  their  blood  more 
freely  in  defense  of  their  liberties  and  independence,"  said  Con- 
federate statesman  Judah  P.  Benjamin,  "nor  have  endured  with 
greater  cheerfulness  than  have  the  men  and  women  of  these  Con- 
federate States."1  There  was  truth  in  Benjamin's  statement,  at  least 
in  the  excited  early  months  of  the  war.  In  its  initial  call  for  volunteers, 
the  Davis  administration  received  more  state  militia  than  it  could 
arm  and  equip. 

Nevertheless,  there  soon  emerged  deep  divisions  among  the  people 
of  the  seceded  states,  divisions  which  contributed  to  the  ultimate 
defeat  of  the  Confederacy.  As  the  war  dragged  on  and  war-weariness 
became  a  factor  of  increasing  importance,  over  100,000  men  deserted 
from  the  Confederate  forces,2  and  in  1865  officials  wrote  "DE- 
SERTER" across  hundreds  of  discharges.  Much  of  this  disaffection 
arose  from  military  reverses  or  from  the  gradual  collapse  of  supplies, 
but  there  remained  a  basis  for  alienation  in  the  Confederacy's  raison 
d'etre. 

The  foundation  for  the  Confederacy's  existence  lay  in  the  Jeffer- 
sonian  theory  of  state  rights,  the  concept  of  a  federal  compact  of 
sovereign  states  wherein  the  states  retained  all  sovereignty  and  all 
powers  not  specifically  delegated  to  the  general  government.  In  1845 

*  Mr.  Moser  is  a  graduate  student  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison. 

Quoted  in  Paul  H.  Buck,  The  Road  to  Reunion,  1865-1900  (Boston:  Little,  Brown 
and   Company,   1937),   30. 

"Thomas  L.  Livermore,  Numbers  and  Losses  in  the  Civil  War  in  America:  1861- 
1865    (Bloomington:    Indiana   University    Press,    1957),   5-10. 


54  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Governor  William  A.  Graham  of  North  Carolina  elucidated  the 
majority  viewpoint  when  he  explained  that  "the  line  of  partition 
between  State  and  Federal  powers,  should  be  kept  distinctly  marked; 
and  while  those  yielded  by  the  States  should  be  liberally  exercised  for 
the  general  good,  those  retained  should  be  carefully  watched  over 
and  preserved."3  These  "immediate  interests"  of  the  state,  "wisely 
retained  under  State  jurisdiction,"  embodied  a  broad  program  and 
a  vast  area  of  action,  including  police  power  over  the  individual;  the 
definition  of  citizenship;  the  chartering  of  banks  and  corporations;  the 
decisions  for  such  internal  improvements  as  railroads,  roads,  and 
canals;  the  determination  of  interest  rates;  the  control  of  the  militia; 
and  the  regulation  of  slavery.  In  general  the  state  should  regulate  the 
economic,  social,  and  political  activities  within  its  boundaries. 

Contrasting  with  these  views  was  the  national  outlook  of  the  Re- 
publican party  and  its  platform  for  national  banks,  national  railways, 
national  grants  to  farmers,  a  national  economic  system,  national 
citizenship,  and  even  national  standards  for  the  labor  supply.4  In 
opposition  to  the  national  program  of  the  North,  the  majority  of  the 
South's  population  had  pledged  its  support  to  the  southern  program 
of  state  rights.  Diametric  to  this  strong  state  rights  philosophy  was 
the  southern  nationalistic  program  of  conscription  and  appropriation 
of  the  state  militia,  which  the  Confederacy's  political  leaders  found 
necessary  to  adopt  in  order  to  secure  a  vigorous  and  unified  prose- 
cution of  the  war  against  the  invading  North.  Herein  existed  the 
internal  political  problems  of  the  Confederacy,  and  the  debate 
among  southerners  concerned  state  rights  versus  southern  nationalism. 
So  long  as  the  Confederate  government  held  to  the  principle  of  state 
rights,  the  majority  of  the  nonslaveholding  populace  was  quite  will- 
ing to  support  the  war  for  the  southern  cause. 

As  the  war  progressed,  however,  the  Confederate  government 
adopted  a  national  program  of  conscription  with  class  exemptions, 
thus  impairing  the  nonslaveholders'  perception  of  a  war  waged  foi 
state  rights.  Almost  simultaneously  the  nonslaveholding  element  re- 
ceived a  second  reason  for  doubting  the  state  rights  basis  for  the 
war:  On  September  22,  1862,  and  January  1,  1863,  President  Abra- 
ham Lincoln  issued  his  Emancipation  Proclamations.  The  ensuing 
discussions  of  the  two  Emancipation  Proclamations  by  southern  poli- 

8  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  January  3,  1845. 

4  Avery  O.  Craven,  The  Growth  of  Southern  Nationalism,  1848-1861,  Volume  VI  of 
A  History  of  the  South,  edited  by  Wendell  Holmes  Stephenson  and  E.  Merton  Coulter 
(Baton  Rouge:  Louisiana  State  University  Press  [projected  10  volumes,  1948 — ], 
1953),  313. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  55 

ticians  and  editors  tended  to  confirm  these  rapidly  growing  doubts 
of  the  nonslaveholders.  As  a  result  of  the  more  cognizable  national 
programs  of  the  North  and  South,  the  war,  ostensibly  waged  over 
the  broad  program  of  state  rights,  devolved  into  a  defense  of  slavery 
by  the  men  too  poor  to  hire  substitutes  or  to  own  twenty  Negroes. 

As  the  Confederate  Congress  began  its  attempts  to  present  a 
united  front  against  the  North  in  the  spring  of  1862,  the  viewpoint 
of  a  war  for  state  rights  began  to  weaken  and  the  idea  of  govern- 
mental favoritism  began  to  capture  the  attention  of  some  of  the 
owners  of  few  slaves  and  the  nonslaveholders.  In  mid- April,  the 
Confederate  Congress  passed  its  first  Conscription  Act,  which  called 
into  service  all  white  men  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  thirty- 
five.  A  week  later,  the  congressmen  passed  an  act  which  established 
a  system  of  class  exemptions  from  military  service.5  This  measure 
came  to  be  one  of  the  outstanding  blunders  of  the  Congress  because 
it  led  to  the  accusation  of  governmental  discrimination. 

The  inauguration  of  a  system  of  compulsory  military  service  and 
discriminatory  exemptions  introduced  to  the  nonslaveholders  the  germ 
of  the  notion  that  they  were  prosecuting  a  war  for  the  rich.  For  the 
first  time  since  the  war  began  they  felt  that  it  was  being  waged,  not 
for  the  constitutional  principle  of  state  rights,  but  for  slavery.6  Re- 
flecting on  the  matter  in  1886,  Zebulon  Baird  Vance,  war  governor  of 
North  Carolina,  stated  that  "here  the  first  open  and  undisguised  com- 
plaints were  heard.  ...  It  did  more,"  he  added,  "than  anything  else 
to  alienate  the  affections  of  the  common  people,"  because  "it  opened 
a  wide  door  to  demagogues  to  appeal  to  the  non-slaveholding  class, 
and  make  them  believe  that  the  only  issue  was  the  protection  of 
slavery,  in  which  they  were  sacrifices  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the 
masters." 7 

The  development  of  this  idea  among  the  nonslaveholders  was  fatal 
to  the  slaveholders'  cause.  Vance  explained  that  "seven- tenths  of  our 
people  owned  no  slaves,  and,  to  say  the  least  of  it  felt  no  great  and 
enduring  enthusiasm  for  its  preservation,  especially  when  it  seemed 
to  them  that  it  was  in  no  danger."  The  idea  had  arisen,  he  added,  and 

5 Wilfred  Buck  Yearns,  The  Confederate  Congress  (Athens:  University  of  Georgia 
Press,   1960),   65-67. 

*  Georgia  Lee  Tatum,  "Disloyalty  and  Disloyal  Organizations  in  the  Confederacy" 
unpublished  doctoral  dissertation,  Vanderbilt  University,  1932),  15-16,  140-141,  here- 
inafter cited  as  Tatum,  "Disloyalty." 

7  Zebulon  Baird  Vance,  "Lecture  Delivered  Before  the  Andrew  Post,  No.  15,  of  the 
Grand  Army,  in  Boston,  Massachusetts,  December  8,  1886,"  quoted  in  Clement  Dowd, 
Life  of  Zebulon  B.  Vance  (Charlotte:  Observer  Printing  and  Publishing  House, 
1897),  447-448,  hereinafter  cited  as  Vance,  "Grand   Army   Lecture,"   Boston. 


56  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

"our  statesmen  were  not  wise  enough  to  put  the  issue  on  any  other 
ground." 8 

In  the  fall  of  1862  two  additional  factors  altered  the  war's  purpose 
in  the  eyes  of  the  nonslaveholder.  The  Confederate  Congress  passed 
the  second  Conscription  Act  and  was  debating  the  adoption  of  a 
new  exemption  act  which,  among  other  things,  would  allow  exemption 
for  the  owners  of  twenty  or  more  slaves.9  Before  Congress  ratified  the 
new  Exemption  Act,  an  external  force  entered  the  picture.  On  Septem- 
ber 22,  1862,  President  Abraham  Lincoln  issued  his  preliminary 
emancipation  proclamation  which  threatened  the  manumission  of 
slaves  within  the  rebellious  states  on  and  after  January  1,  1863,  if 
these  states  were  still  in  rebellion.10 

When  news  reached  North  Carolina  that  President  Lincoln  had 
issued  his  preliminary  emancipation  proclamation,  newspaper  editors 
predicted  that  Lincoln's  manumission  edict  would  serve  to  unify 
the  South  and  bring  external  aid  to  the  Confederacy.  Attacking  the 
proclamation  as  "brutum  fulmen— mere  sound  and  fury,  signifying 
nothing," n  as  "ridiculous  and  unconstitutional," 12  as  a  "clear  con- 
fession of  the  inability  of  the  whites  of  the  North  to  crush  out  a 
'rebellion,'"13  and  as  an  example  of  the  "fanaticism  which  has  been 
growing  upon  the  people  of  the  North  for  years," 14  editors  attempted 
to  invigorate  the  Tar  Heel  citizenry.  "Lincoln's  proclamation,"  said 
the  staunch  Confederate  John  W.  Syme,  "will  .  .  .  array  every  con- 
servative or  Union  man  in  the  Border  States  on  the  side  of  the  South- 
ern Confederacy."  And  "this  bid  for  a  servile  insurrection"  would 
convince  foreign  powers  that  the  fanaticism  of  the  North  could  not 

8  Vance,  "Grand  Army  Lecture,"  Boston,  437. 

9  "Proceedings  of  the  First  Confederate  Congress,"  Southern  Historical  Society 
Papers,  XLVI  (January,  1928),  244-245,  hereinafter  cited  as  "Proceedings  of  the 
Confederate   Congress." 

10  For  a  discussion  of  the  factors  and  developments  leading  to  President  Lincoln's 
issuance  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  see  John  Hope  Franklin,  The  Emancipa- 
tion Proclamation  (New  York:  Doubleday  and  Company,  1963),  1-57;  J.  G.  Randall, 
Constitutional  Problems  Under  Lincoln  (Urbana:  University  of  Illinois  Press 
[Revised  Edition],  1951),  343-385;  William  B.  Hesseltine,  Lincoln  and  the  War 
Governors  (New  York:  Alfred  A.  Knopf,  1948),  249-272;  William  B.  Hesseltine  and 
Hazel  C.  Wolf,  "The  Altoona  Conference  and  the  Emancipation  Proclamation," 
Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  LXXI  (July,  1947),  195-205;  Mark 
M.  Krug,  "The  Republican  Party  and  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,"  Journal  of 
Negro  History,  XLVIII  (April,  1963),  98-114;  Charles  Francis  Adams,  "John  Quincy 
Adams  and  Martial  Law,"  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings,  Second 
Series,    XV    (January,    1902),    436-478. 

n Daily  Journal  (Wilmington),  September  30,  1862,  hereinafter  cited  as  Daily 
Journal. 

u North  Carolina  Standard  (Raleigh),  October  1,  1862,  hereinafter  cited  as  North 
Carolina  Standard. 

13  Weekly   Raleigh   Register,    October    1,    1862. 

14  Carolina  Watchman  (Salisbury),  October  6,  1862,  hereinafter  cited  as  Carolina 
Watchman. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  57 

be  tolerated.15  The  Wilmington  people  learned  from  James  Fulton's 
Daily  Journal  that  "Lincoln's  proclamation  is  another  move  to  unite 
the  South." 16  The  proclamation,  claimed  Alexander  Gorman,  editor  of 
the  Raleigh  Spirit  of  the  Age,  would  "strengthen  the  unity  of  the 
South  and  embitter  its  hostility  to  the  whole  vile  Yankee  nation."17 
At  this  time,  most  editors  agreed  with  Syme  that  it  was  a  "first-rate 
edict  for  the  South."18 

The  fact  that  the  proclamation  threatened  the  liberation  of  slaves, 
however,  led  to  the  argument  among  the  nonslaveholding  citizenry 
that  the  war  had  definitely  assumed  a  new  aim— not  the  original 
intent  of  preserving  state  rights  but  a  campaign  in  support  of  slavery. 
As  a  consequence,  statement  after  statement  issued  by  North  Carolina 
editors  who  believed  that  the  proclamation  would  be  a  unifying  force 
in  the  Confederacy,  served  instead  to  intensify  disaffection  with 
the  Confederacy  among  a  large  majority  of  North  Carolinians.  "Every 
movement  of  the  tyrant,"  William  Woods  Holden,  editor  of  the 
Raleigh  Standard,  said,  "only  makes  the  fact  more  clear,  that  the 
chief  design  of  his  [Lincoln's]  party  in  the  prosecution  of  this  war, 
is  the  destruction  of  slavery." 19  Syme  added  that  "the  extreme  policy 
of  the  ultra  Abolitionists"  had  now  become  that  of  the  Lincoln 
administration.20  The  proclamation,  added  John  Joseph  Bruner,  editor 
of  the  Salisbury  Carolina  Watchman,  had  at  last  culminated  in  the 
complete  destruction  of  the  Constitution.21  Gorman  commented  that 
Lincoln  had  just  as  much  right  to  attack  slavery  "as  the  Emperor  of 
Russia  or  the  Queen  of  England  has,  and  that  is  none  at  all.  Even  if 
the  slave  states  were  under  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
the  Constitution  which  he  has  sworn  faithfully  to  administer  gives 
him  no  power  to  do  so  wicked  an  act";  futhermore,  Lincoln  had  no 
power  to  announce  even  a  constitutional  act  in  the  Confederacy,  be- 
cause "it  owes  him  no  allegiance."22  Even  the  editor  of  the  Baptist 
Biblical  Recorder,  J.  D.  Hufham,  joined  the  argument.  He  agreed  with 
the  Washington  Republican  that  "  'the  President  has  gone  beyond  the 
legislation  of  Congress,  although  not  beyond  their  known  wishes.' ' 
He  explained,  however,  that  this  was  a  confession  which  he  "hardly 

15  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  October  1,  1862. 

16  Daily  Journal,   September  30,   1862. 

17 Spirit  of  the  Age  (Raleigh),  October  6,  1862,  hereinafter  cited  as  Spirit  of  the 
Age. 

18  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,   October   1,   1862. 

19  North  Carolina  Standard,  October  1,  1862. 

20  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  October   1,   1862. 

21  Carolina   Watchman,   October   6,   1862. 

22  Spirit  of  the  Age,   October   6,   1862. 


58  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

expected  to  see  so  candidly  made"  in  a  United  States  newspaper.23 

Virtual  editorial  unity  of  sentiment  in  regard  to  the  preliminary 
proclamation  thus  existed  from  September  30  to  October  8:  The 
editors  generally  agreed  on  the  proclamation's  unconstitutionality; 
most  of  them  stated  that  the  proclamation  confirmed  their  contention 
that  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  subjugation  of  the  South  were 
the  primary  motives  of  the  North;  they  predicted  unity  within  the 
South  and  forthcoming  support  from  outside  the  Confederacy. 

The  last  of  these  predictions  proved  incorrect.  No  support  from 
either  the  border  states  or  foreign  powers  resulted.  And  consensus 
among  the  editors  that  the  Union  prosecuted  the  war  against  slavery, 
while  not  producing  complete  disunity  between  the  slaveholders  and 
the  nonslaveholders,  tended  to  lead  the  latter  nearer  to  the  conclusion 
that  they  must  be  fighting  for  slavery,  an  institution  in  which  they  had 
a  casual  interest  only.24  Therefore,  instead  of  creating  unity,  the 
editors  aided  in  the  promotion  of  disunity  among  the  populace.  In- 
stead of  invigorating  the  people,  they  helped  to  destroy  the  basis 
on  which  the  nonslaveholders  offered  their  support  to  the  civil  con- 
flict—state rights;  and  the  war  became  a  struggle  between  two 
opposing  ideologies— proslavery  sentiment  versus  abolitionism. 

With  the  issuance  of  the  proclamation  the  Confederate  Congress 
began  a  discussion  of  retaliation  measures,  and  the  southern  national- 
ist program  became  clearer.  On  September  29  Thomas  J.  Semmes, 
Confederate  senator  from  Louisiana,  advocated  before  the  Congress 
the  adoption  of  measures  to  secure  the  withdrawal  of  the  procla- 
mation or  to  arrest  the  execution  of  it.  Several  senators  did  not  think 
the  Semmes  proposal  strong  enough,  however,  and  Mississippi  Senator 
James  Phelan  proposed  fighting  under  the  black  flag.  The  members 
of  Congress  referred  the  question  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.25 

On  October  1,  1862,  the  Judiciary  Committee  brought  forward  its 
proposals.  Presented  by  Semmes,  the  majority  report  detailed  the 
earlier  atrocities  of  the  enemy  and  advocated  that  henceforth  "all 
commissioned  and  non-commissioned  officers  of  the  enemy  .  .  .  when 
captured,  shall  be  imprisoned  at  hard  labor,  or  otherwise  put  at  hard 
labor  until  the  termination  of  the  war,"  or  until  the  United  States 
government  repealed  the  proclamation.  The  resolutions  further  stated 
that   every  white  officer,   noncommissioned   or   commissioned,   who 

23  Biblical  Recorder,  October  8,  1862. 

24  Frank  L.  Owsley,  "Defeatism  in  the  Confederacy,"  North  Carolina  Historical 
Review,  III  (July,  1926),  446-447,  hereinafter  cited  as  Owsley,  "Defeatism  in  the 
Confederacy";    Tatum,   "Disloyalty,"   3,    141-142. 

25  "Proceedings    of   the    Confederate    Congress,"    XLVII,    7-8. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  59 

served  as  commander  of  Negro  forces  or  who  tried  to  incite  slaves  to 
rebel  was  to  suffer  the  death  penalty  if  captured.26 

Disagreement  within  the  committee  resulted  in  the  presentation 
of  a  minority  report  which  asked  for  a  more  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  war  by  raising  the  black  flag.  Headed  by  Phelan,  the  retaliationists 
requested  that  "all  rules  of  civilized  warfare  should  be  disregarded  .  .  . 
and  that  a  war  of  extermination  should  be  waged  against  every 
invader  whose  hostile  foot  shall  cross  the  borders  of  the  Confederate 
States."27 

The  Confederate  Senate,  however,  failed  to  adopt  either  of  the 
resolutions  and  only  requested  that  they  be  printed  for  discussion  at 
a  later  date.28  Meanwhile,  senators  from  the  Lower  South  continued 
to  introduce  resolutions  demanding  retaliation.29 

These  discussions  on  the  adoption  of  retaliatory  measures  dis- 
rupted the  harmony  of  opinion  which  previously  had  characterized 
the  North  Carolina  editors.  Immediately,  the  two  leading  editors  in 
the  state,  William  Woods  Holden  and  John  W.  Syme,  disagreed  on 
the  proposals  in  the  Confederate  Congress  for  the  adoption  of  re- 
taliatory measures.  They  slashed  at  each  other  through  their  editorials 
and  by  their  rebuttals  spread  their  viewpoints  throughout  the  state. 
Holden  captured  the  support  of  the  nonslavehoMers  and  paved  the 
road  for  future  disaffection,  while  Syme  maintained  staunch  support 
for  the  Confederacy  and  the  position  of  the  slaveholders.30 

In  the  late  summer  and  early  fall  of  1862,  even  before  his  argu- 
ments against  Syme  and  retaliation,  Holden,  through  the  North 
Carolina  Standard,  had  gained  the  confidence  of  a  substantial  majority 
of  the  citizens  of  the  state.  His  program,  which  organized  the  dis- 
contented elements  of  the  state  into  the  Conservative  party,  met  with 
success.  Through  Holden's  editorial  support,  Zebulon  Baird  Vance, 
the  Conservative  party  candidate,  won  the  gubernatorial  election 
over  William  Johnston,  the  Syme-supported,  Confederate  party  nomi- 
nee. Furthermore,  a  Conservative  majority  in  the  legislature,  also 
elected  with  Holden's  support,  had  ousted  several  appointed  officials 
and  replaced  them  with  Conservatives.31  With  the  proclamation  and 

28  "Proceedings  of  the  Confederate  Congress,"  XLVII,  25-27. 
""Proceedings   of  the   Confederate    Congress,"   XLVII,   28-31. 

28  "Proceedings  of  the  Confederate  Congress,"  XLVII,  31. 

29  "Proceedings  of  the  Confederate  Congress,"  XLVII,  33-37. 

80 Robert  Neal  Elliott,  Jr.,  The  Raleigh  Register,  1790-1863  (Chapel  Hill:  University 
of  North  Carolina  Press  [Volume  36  of  James  Sprunt  Studies  in  History  and  Political 
Science],  1955),  106-107,  hereinafter  cited  as  Elliott,  The  Raleigh  Register. 

81  Elliott,  The  Raleigh  Register,  106-107;  Horace  W.  Raper,  "William  W.  Holden 
and  the  Peace  Movement  in  North  Carolina,"  North  Carolina  Historical  Review, 
XXXI  (October,  1954),  494-495;  J.  G.  de  Roulhac  Hamilton,  Reconstruction  in 
North  Carolina  (New  York:  Columbia  University  Press,  1914),  46,  48. 


60  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  acts  of  the  Confederate  Congress,  he  was  able  to  entrench  his 
position  as  representative  of  the  common  people.32 

Holden  provided  the  setting  for  the  disagreements  on  October  3 
when  he  reported  in  his  columns  the  discussions  which  had  ensued  in 
the  Confederate  Congress  concerning  retaliation  against  Lincoln's 
preliminary  proclamation.  Though  still  opposing  and  denouncing  the 
proclamation,  he  attacked  Congress  for  its  attempts  to  raise  the  black 
flag  and  to  abandon  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare.  Southerners,  he 
argued,  "profess  to  be  Christians,  not  savages."  He  added,  however, 
that  "if  the  North  should  raise  such  a  flag,  we  should  be  compelled  to 
meet  them  in  the  same  way;  but  a  war  of  this  sort  would  promise  no 
beneficent  results  to  us  or  to  humanity."  Though  he  recognized  that 
"abolitionism  in  its  worst  form"  had  control  over  the  North,  he  found 
no  ground  which  warranted  the  adoption  of  such  a  stringent  pro- 
gram.33 

On  October  8  John  W.  Syme  replied  to  Holden's  denunciation  of 
the  retaliatory  debate  in  the  Confederate  Congress.  He  ridiculed 
Holden's  position  and,  attacking  Holden  in  sarcastic  tones  for  per- 
mitting his  "exquisite  sensibilities  and  truly  Christian  proclivities" 
to  run  away  with  him,  suggested  the  adoption  of  any  measures,  re- 
gardless of  their  nature,  which  would  restrain  the  invader  in  his 
"demoniacal  course."  He  added  that  he  greatly  favored  the  Phelan 
resolution,  the  stronger  of  the  proposals  from  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, because  "far  too  much  leniency  has  already  been  shown  to 
the  accursed  Yankees  .  .  .  [whose]  devillish  mission  is  either  to  cut 
our  throats  or  manacle  our  limbs."34 

By  October  10  Holden  had  become  thoroughly  disgusted  with 
the  question  of  "unfurling  the  black  flag"  and  lashed  back  at  both 
Syme  and  the  Confederate  Congress.  He  declared  that  if  the  "spirit 
of  the  times"  were  judged  by  the  "vaporings  of  grave  Senators  and 
gray  headed  invalids,"  the  conclusion  would  be  that  the  war  was 
"becoming  more  sanguinary  and  barbarian"  as  it  advanced.  Holden 
also  leveled  his  attack  at  slaveholders  as  well  as  political  leaders.  He 
claimed  it  to  be  a  fact  that  those 

who  are  so  extremely  anxious  that  both  armies  should  throw  down  the 
gauntlet  and  henceforth  allow  no  quarters,  are  not  in  the  war,  and  never 
expect  to  go  in.  We  have  yet  to  learn  of  the  first  intelligent  officer  or  soldier 
of  the  army  who  favors  this  wholesale  and  inhuman  butchery.  War  at  best 


32Tatum,  "Disloyalty,"   142. 

33  North   Carolina   Standard,    October    3,    1862. 

34  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  October  8,  1862. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  61 

is  butchery,  yet  those  educated  to  arms  profess  to  feel  some  of  the  prompt- 
ings of  civilization  to  guide  them  on  the  most  sanguinary  battle-field.  .  .  . 
The  case  is  becoming  too  serious  for  madness.  Give  it  a  truce,  and  let  us 
not  forget  that  the  eyes  of  the  world  and  of  God  are  upon  us.35 

When  the  debates  on  Lincoln's  proclamation  had  subsided  in  the 
Confederate  Congress,  the  legislators  once  again  directed  their  atten- 
tion to  the  exemption  measure.  Earlier,  in  September,  1862,  they  had 
passed  the  second  Conscription  Act,  which  permitted  President  Davis 
to  call  into  service  for  three  years  all  white  men  between  the  ages 
of  thirty-five  and  forty-five  who  were  not  legally  exempt  at  the  time. 
A  week  later  the  April,  1862,  Exemption  Act  was  replaced  by  the 
second  Exemption  Act,  which  excused  from  conscription  school- 
teachers, ministers,  state  and  Confederate  officials,  mail  carriers,  salt- 
makers,  druggists,  shoemakers,  pacifist  religious  groups  who  paid  a 
$500  tax  or  furnished  a  substitute,  newspaper  editors,  cotton  and 
woolen  mill  employees,  blacksmiths,  tanners,  and  many  others  en- 
gaged in  essential  occupations.36  The  provision  which  caused  the 
greatest  controversy  was  one  which  exempted  any  person  who  owned 
a  minimum  of  twenty  slaves. 

Once  again  the  accusation  of  discriminatory  legislation  erupted. 
Holden  asserted  that  the  Confederate  Congress  by  its  exemption  sys- 
tem had  "divided  our  people  into  classes  of  slaveholder  and  non- 
slaveholder,"  and  exempted  "the  former  from  service  because  he 
happens  to  own  a  certain  species  of  property  of  certain  value."  With 
this  general  attitude,  Holden  began  his  strongest  appeal  to  the  non- 
slaveholders.  He  immediately  linked  together  Lincoln's  preliminary 
emancipation  proclamation  and  the  Exemption  Act  of  the  Confederate 
Congress.  "Mr.  Lincoln  made  an  effort  recently,  in  his  emancipation 
proclamation,"  he  claimed,  "to  induce  the  non-slaveholder  of  the 
South  to  believe  that  the  war  was  waged  solely  on  account  of 
negroes."  Now,  he  said,  the  Confederate  Congress  was  aiding  Lincoln 
in  his  cause  "by  an  act  discriminating  between  the  slaveholder  and 
non-slaveholder,  [which]  gives  color,  if  not  confirmation  to  this  be- 
lief thus  attempted  to  be  produced  by  our  common  enemy."  He 
continued  his  attack  by  pointing  out  that  the  "war  is  waged,  not  alone 
for  negro  property,  but  for  Constitutional  liberty  and  in  defence  of 
our  homes." 37 


85  North  Carolina  Standard,  October  10,  1862. 

38  Clement  Eaton,  A  History  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  (New  York:  Macmillan 
Company,  1958),  86,  hereinafter  cited  as  Eaton,  A  History  of  the  Southern  Con- 
federacy. 

37North  Carolina  Standard,  October  24,  1862. 


62  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Admitting  that  the  protection  of  slavery  seemed  to  be  a  factor 
in  the  Confederate  prosecution  of  the  war,  Holden  refused  to  accept 
it  as  the  only  factor.  He  summarized  the  constitutional  argument 
which  had  received  support  from  both  slaveholders  and  nonslave- 
holders  at  the  outset  of  the  conflict.  Since  the  preliminary  emanci- 
pation proclamation,  Holden  alleged,  the  Confederate  Congress  had 
attempted  to  protect  slavery  in  the  states  through  the  Exemption 
Act,  whereas  fourteen  years  previously  southern  leaders  had  de- 
manded that  the  centralized  federal  government  not  interfere  with 
the  institution  of  slavery,  since  the  "power  to  protect  carried  with 
it  the  power  to  control  or  abolish."  Holden  went  on  to  say  that  because 
the  northern  people  had  tried  to  abolish  slavery  through  the  federal 
government  the  union  between  the  northern  and  southern  states 
had  been  severed.  Now,  he  claimed,  "the  [Confederate]  Congress, 
disregarding  the  Constitution,  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  States, 
and  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  people  .  .  .  assumes  control  of 
slavery  in  the  States." 38  Thus  Holden  contended  that  the  Confederate 
Congress  had  erred,  not  only  in  effecting  an  Exemption  Act  which 
seemed  to  support  the  viewpoint  of  a  war  fought  over  the  issue  of 
slavery,  but  also  in  its  attempts  to  protect  slavery  by  allowing  these 
exemptions,  which  were  contrary  to  Holden's  theory  of  state  rights, 
contrary  to  the  ideas  held  by  a  majority  of  North  Carolina's  citizens, 
and  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Confederacy.39 

Although  Holden's  seemed  to  be  the  leading  voice,  his  was  not  the 
only  cry  of  discontent  with  these  recent  developments  which  seemed 
to  change  the  Confederacy's  raison  d'etre;  other  voices  of  dissent  made 
themselves  heard.  On  November  4,  1862,  Holden  printed  a  letter 
from  a  citizen  of  Granville  County  which  attacked  the  Exemption 
Act  and  indicated  a  belief  that  the  poor  were  waging  a  war  for  the 
protection  of  slavery.  Pointing  out  that  the  objectives  of  the  exemp- 
tion clause  were  "'to  secure  the  proper  police  of  the  country'"  and 
to  "enable  the  owners  of  slaves  to  raise  food  for  the  sustenance  of 
those  who  are  shielding  their  necks  from  the  iron  hoof  of  Yankee 
despotism,"  he  claimed  that  utter  failure  had  resulted,  especially 
in  securing  the  second  objective.40  On  November  7  Holden  reported 
the  receipt  of  a  letter  from  a  "friend  in  one  of  the  upper  Counties." 
With  praise  for  Holden's  stand  to  protect  the  rights  of  North  Caro- 

88  North  Carolina  Standard,  October  24,  1862. 

^Tatum,  "Disloyalty,"  141-142,  points  out  that  arguments  such  as  those  Holden 
used  served  "to  convince  both  the  poor  and  the  non-slaveholders  that  the  planters 
were  a  favored  class;  that  the  only  issue  in  the  war  was  the  protection  of  slavery 
and  the  non-slaveholders  were  to  be  sacrificed  for  the  benefit  of  the  slave  owners." 

40  North  Carolina  Standard,  November  4,  1862. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  63 

linas  population,  he  explained  that  few  people  in  the  western  part  of 
the  state  owned  slaves.  "The  farms,"  he  continued,  "are  generally 
cultivated  by  white  hands.  Take  all  up  to  45,  and  the  farms  are  left 
nearly  naked  of  hands,  and  there  will  not  be  half  crops  planted 
hereafter,  which,  instead  of  strengthening  our  army,  will  endanger 
it  from  starvation."41  Attacks  were  also  leveled  at  the  planters  be- 
cause of  their  continued  cultivation  of  such  crops  as  tobacco  and 
cotton,  instead  of  the  food  crops  which  were  desperately  needed.42 

While  other  newspapers  of  the  state  harped  on  Lincoln's  procla- 
mation and  claimed  that  recognition  from  Europe  would  eventually 
result,  popular  sympathy  with  the  Confederate  cause  began  to  wane.43 
Within  the  federal  lines  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  state  many  non- 
slaveholders  were  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Union.  Accord- 
ing to  the  New  York  Times,  the  "free-labor  feeling"  grew,  and  hatred 
of  slavery  became  widespread  among  the  small  farmers,  who  felt 
that  slavery  was  the  "prime  cause  of  the  rebellion."44  At  the  same 
time  anti-Confederate  feeling  was  increasing  in  the  inland  counties. 
On  November  14,  1862,  Holden  printed  a  letter  from  a  Johnston 
County  citizen  which  attacked  the  planters.  Referring  to  a  speech 
which  Dr.  James  T.  Leach  made  as  a  candidate  for  the  legislature  in 
1860,  he  quoted  Leach  as  saying  that  if  a  war  should  develop,  "not 
the  rich— not  the  large  slaveholder— but  the  poor,  hard-working, 
unpretending  men  of  the  South  would  be  compelled  to  shoulder  their 
muskets  in  defence  of  the  South,"  while  the  slaveholders  would 
resort  to  every  possible  measure  to  keep  themselves  out  of  the  war. 
His  prediction,  the  writer  pointed  out,  had  become  a  reality.  The  war 
was  now  being  waged  for  the  slaveholder  and  his  property.45 

Soon  the  editor  of  the  Carolina  Watchman  voiced  the  grievances 
of  the  nonslaveholder.  Bruner  pointed  out  that  planters  and  manu- 
facturers were  getting  rich  by  the  war  and  were  feeling  no  pressure 
from  it.  "This  is  a  grievous  wrong,"  he  said,  because  "men,  for  the 
protection  of  whose  negroes  the  war  is  waged  get  rich— those  who 
have  no  negroes  become  poor."  He  added  that  unless  the  burden 
of  the  war  be  borne  equally  by  all,  the  nonslaveholder  who  bore  the 
whole  weight  of  it  "must  sink  under  it,  or  struggle  to  get  rid  of  it  by 
investing  in  land  and  negroes."  Bruner's  solution,  however,  seemed 
formidable  because  the  high  price  for  slaves  was  being  maintained 
in  spite  of  the  preliminary  emancipation  proclamation:    those  who 

41  North  Carolina  Standard,  November  7,  1862. 

42  Eaton,  A  History   of  the  Southern   Confederacy,   240-244. 

43  New  York  Times,  October  21,  1862,  reported  that  a  Union  meeting,  held  in 
Beaufort   County,   passed   resolutions   endorsing   Lincoln's    preliminary    proclamation. 

"New  York  Times,  November  14,  1862. 

45  North  Carolina  Standard,   November   14,   1862. 


64  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

had  money  were  investing  in  slaves  in  order  to  qualify  for  exemption. 
As  a  result,  the  nonslaveholder  was  bearing  more  and  more  the 
burden  of  the  war.46 

By  December  there  was  tangible  evidence  that  the  enthusiasm 
which  characterized  the  early  part  of  the  war  was  diminishing.  On 
December  1,  1862,  Lewis  Battle  wrote  that  "there  is  scarcely  a  day 
in  which  someone  does  not  desert.  .  .  .  The  condition  of  our  army  is 
certainly  below  par  if  desertions  are  as  numerous  in  other  Brigades 
as  they  are  in  ours."47  At  about  the  same  time,  discontent  was 
expressed  strongly  in  the  western  county  of  Haywood,  where  thirty 
to  forty  men  were  in  open  rebellion  against  the  government.48 
In  addition,  disloyalty  perceptibly  increased  in  Yadkin,  Cherokee, 
Catawba,  Ashe,  and  Randolph  counties,  where  few  people  owned 
slaves.49 

While  desertion,  disaffection,  and  disloyalty  increased  in  the  fall 
of  1862,  neither  the  Confederate  Congress  nor  the  southern  state 
legislatures  made  any  effort  to  comply  with  the  proposals  of  the 
preliminary  emancipation  proclamation;  instead,  many  Confederate 
leaders  immediately  agitated  for  a  stronger  prosecution  of  the  war. 
As  a  result,  Lincoln's  attempt  to  put  an  end  to  the  civil  struggle 
failed  at  this  time  and  on  January  1,  1863,  he  found  it  necessary  to 
carry  out  his  threat  by  declaring  the  slaves  of  the  rebellious  states 
free. 

Even  though  most  North  Carolina  newspapers  printed  the  text 
of  the  January  Emancipation  Proclamation,  editorial  comment  was 
not  so  prolific  as  it  had  been  with  the  preliminary  edict.50  In  mid- 

48  Carolina  Watchman,  December  8,  1862. 

47  Lewis  Battle  to  his  sister,  December  1,  1862,  Battle  Family  Papers,  Southern 
Historical   Collection,   University   of   North   Carolina   at   Chapel   Hill. 

48  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  December  8,  1862. 

49  Owsley,  "Defeatism  in  the  Confederacy,"  455. 

50  The  following  newspapers,  in  addition  to  those  discussed  in  subsequent  para- 
graphs, printed  the  text  of  the  Proclamation:  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  January  14, 
1863;  Hillsborough  Recorder,  January  14,  1863;  Greensborough  Patriot,  January  15, 
1863.  James  Fulton,  editor  of  Daily  Journal,  did  not  print  the  text  of  the  Proclamation, 
but  he  stated  that  it  had  been  issued  and  added  that  another  one  would  be  welcomed 
if  it  raised  the  price  of  slaves  as  much  as  did  the  preliminary  proclamation.  Daily 
Journal,  January  3,  6,  8,  1863. 

The  editorial  silence  on  the  Proclamation  did  not  stem  from  a  lack  of  concern  over 
the  document,  but  from  another  pertinent  factor.  The  North  Carolina  editors'  at- 
tention and  comments  had  been  sidetracked  to  a  vindication  of  North  Carolinians 
against  a  charge  by  the  editor  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer  that  the  North  Carolina 
citizenry,  editors,  and  state  legislature  entertained  reconstruction  sentiments.  For  a 
discussion  of  the  accusations  and  North  Carolina's  rebuttals,  see  North  Carolina 
Standard,  January  6,  9,  13,  1863;  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  January  7,  14,  28,  1863; 
Carolina  Watchman,  January  19,  1863;  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons  of  North 
Carolina,  Adjourned  Session,  1862-63,  161,  hereinafter  cited  as  House  Journal  with 
proper  session;  Journal  of  the  Senate  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  North 
Carolina,  Second  Session,  1863,  26-28,  hereinafter  cited  as  Senate  Journal;  Public 
Laws  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  Passed  by  the  General  Assembly,  at  Its  Session 
of  1862-' '63,  80-81. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  65 

January  Holden,  Bruner,  and  Hufham  expressed  their  sentiments 
and,  as  with  the  preliminary  proclamation,  contributed  to  the  in- 
creased differences  of  opinion  between  the  two  major  elements  of 
the  state's  population.  It  was  not  until  March,  1863,  however,  that 
several  editors  succinctly  voiced  their  ideas. 

In  comparison  with  the  comments  of  Bruner  and  Hufham,  Holden's 
early  editorial  comment  was  mild  and  ambiguous.  The  Proclamation, 
he  wrote,  "is  not  worth  the  paper  upon  which  it  is  written.  ...  A 
more  pusillanimous  document  was  never  committed  by  despotic 
power."  Despite  his  contention  that  the  document  was  worthless  and 
exhibited  cowardice,  he  indicated  that  the  edict  might  affect  some 
elements  of  the  state's  population.  Therefore,  he  declared,  "the  utmost 
vigilance,  courage,  and  skill  are  demanded  on  our  part,  to  check  the 
progress  of  the  invader  and  to  prevent  the  mischief  which  this  paper 
is  designed  to  effect.,,  51 

Bruner's  editorial,  couched  in  succinct  but  exaggerated  terms, 
aided  in  the  reduction  of  the  war  philosophy  to  one  for  the  defense 
of  slavery  by  emphasizing  the  North's  war  objective.  "The  most 
startling  political  crime,  the  most  stupid  political  blunder,  yet  known 
in  American  history,"  he  said,  "has  now  been  consummated.''  Ex- 
plaining that  one  or  both  of  two  possible  factors— wickedness  and  /or 
folly— predominated  in  the  document,  he  added  that  Lincoln  was 
"proclaiming  the  annihilation"  of  the  Constitution,  and  "using  the 
forces  confided  to  him,  for  its  destruction."  Lincoln  issued  the  Procla- 
mation under  the  pretense  that  it  was  an  act  of  justice  to  the  Negro, 
he  continued,  but  this  was  untrue.  "If  sympathy  for  the  slaves  and 
justice  to  the  negro  were  the  least  of  his  motives,  he  would  take 
especial  care  and  pains  that  his  proclamation  should  be  fully  applied 
to  those  districts  where  he  has  the  means  of  executing  its  provisions." 
But  he  did  not  do  this,  exclaimed  the  Salisbury  editor.  "He  directs 
it  only  to  those  portions  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  still  inhabited 
by  free  citizens,"  and  where  his  edict  could  have  no  effect  except  to 
incite  servile  insurrection— "the  real,  sole  purpose  of  this  procla- 
mation." It  was  impossible  for  Lincoln  to  hide  his  intention,  he  added, 
but  failure  to  accomplish  this  desired  end  would  result.  The  southern 
people  had  to  choose  between  victory  and  death.52 

Also  aiding  in  the  evolution  of  the  idea  that  slavery  instead  of  state 
rights  was  the  foundation  of  the  South's  war  effort,  Hufham  echoed 
President  Davis'  sentiments  when  he  told  the  readers  of  the  Biblical 


61  North  Carolina  Standard,  January  9,   1863. 
"Carolina  Watchman,  January  12,  1863. 


I 


66  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Recorder  that  "Lincoln's  emancipation  proclamation  is  pronounced 
'the  most  execrable  measure  recorded  in  the  history  of  guilty  man/ ' 
Though  the  abolitionists  of  the  North  had  attempted  to  conceal  their 
real  designs,  he  pointed  out,  they  were  now  clarified.  They  proposed 
"to  turn  loose  four  millions  of  people  possessing  childish  intellects, 
and  strong  passions,  and  totally  disqualified  for  self-government;  not 
only  to  liberate  them,  but  to  arm  them  against  their  masters."  Yet,  he 
iterated,  all  hope  for  the  South  was  not  lost,  because  the  northern 
people  "have  exploded  the  last  hope  of  reconstruction,  have  consoli- 
dated the  people  of  the  South,  inspired  them  with  a  determination  to 
be  free,  which  is  stronger  than  death,  and  imparted  to  our  soldiers  a 
valor  which  renders  them  invincible."  53 

Hufham's  exhortation  possessed  little  truth.  Instead  of  consolidat- 
ing the  people  of  North  Carolina,  the  Emancipation  Proclamation 
helped  to  sever  the  precarious  ties  which  held  together  the  various 
economic  groups  of  the  state.  "I  understood  well,"  the  son  of  a 
Henderson ville  minister,  N.  Collin  Hughes,  said,  "that  slavery  in  the 
South  was  at  the  bottom  the  bone  of  contention  that  precipitated 
the  war  then  raging  and  by  necessary  inference  the  occasion  of  the 
bitter  antagonism  of  sentiment  on  the  subject  of  slaveholding  between 
the  South  and  the  North." 54  The  Quakers  of  Piedmont  North  Caro- 
lina voiced  the  same  sentiments.  One  of  the  group  said  that  they 
were  "utterly  opposed  not  only  to  the  war  itself,"  but  also  "to  the 
system  of  slavery,  which  was  the  leading  object  of  the  contest."  55 
With  President  Lincoln's  Proclamation  on  January  1,  1863,  con- 
tended Judge  C.  J.  Pearson,  "the  condition  of  slavery  became  an  issue 
in  the  war."56 

By  the  beginning  of  1863  expressions  of  disaffection  increased.  On 
January  8,  1863,  A.  W.  Walker,  a  correspondent  to  the  Greensborough 
Patriot,  explained  that  many  of  the  original  secessionists  were  so 
eager  to  obtain  their  rights  before  North  Carolina  seceded  that  they 
"walked  us  right  out  of  the  Union.  They  were  determined  to  have 
their  rights,  even  if  they  had  to  fight  for  them!  But  many  of  them 
have  not  'fit,  nor  bled,  nor  died'  for  them  yet!'  He  suggested  that  if 
they  were  not  going  to  fight,  they  should  "skedaddle"  over  to  the 

M  Biblical  Recorder,  January  14,  28,  1863. 

54  N.  Collin  Hughes,  Hendersonville  in  Civil  War  Times,  1860-1865  ( Hendersonville : 
Blue  Ridge   Specialty   Printers,   1936),   17. 

65  Society  of  Friends,  An  Account  of  the  Sufferings  of  Friends  of  North  Carolina 
Yearly  Meeting,  in  Support  of  their  Testimony  against  War,  from  1861  to  1865 
(Baltimore:   William  K.  Boyle,  1868),  3. 

M  Haley  v.  Haley  (1867),  in  Helen  Tunnicliff  Catterall  (ed.),  Judicial  Cases 
Concerning  American  Slavery  and  the  Negro  (Washington:  Carnegie  Institute  of 
Washington,   1929),  II,   256-257. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  67 

Yankees;  at  the  same  time,  he  vindicated  those  who  had  favored  the 
Union  so  long  as  they  could,  but  who  now  wanted  peace.  "They 
are  not  to  be  censured  or  criticized  for  not  wanting  to  fight,"  he  con- 
cluded.57 Governor  Vance  received  a  letter  expressing  nearly  the 
same  sentiments.  More  explicit  and  straightforward  than  Walker,  a 
Bladen  County  resident  explained  that  "the  comon  people  is  drove 
of[f]  in  the  war  to  fight  for  the  big  mans  negro"  while  the  slave- 
holders were  allowed  to  remain  at  home,  raising  crops  and  setting 
prices  because  they  had  the  economic  power  to  do  so.58 

Though  the  exemption  acts  and  the  lack  of  food  contributed  to 
the  nonslaveholders'  growing  indifference,  the  idea  that  slavery  was 
the  basis  of  the  war  and  that  the  nonslaveholders  were  its  defenders, 
promoted  by  the  Emancipation  Proclamations,  almost  always  entered 
the  picture.  The  problem  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  nonslaveholders 
lacked  direct  ties  with  the  institution,  and  the  lack  of  economic  inter- 
est in  slavery  led  even  to  expressions  of  desire  for  the  emancipation 
of  slaves  and  a  reconstruction  of  the  Union.  In  the  Piedmont  area 
of  the  state  some  Montgomery  County  citizens  met  and  expressed 
a  desire  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  Union  "a  la  Abe  Lincoln."59 
On  January  5,  1863,  Jonathan  Worth,  a  prominent  political  leader  in 
the  state,  reported  that  on  a  trip  from  Asheboro  to  Whiteville  nearly 
every  man  he  saw  openly  favored  reconstruction  on  the  basis  of  the 
Constitution.60  The  Greensborough  Patriot  reported  that  E.  B.  Drake, 
editor  of  the  Iredell  Express,  advocated  compensated  emancipation 
of  slaves.61  Behind  the  Federal  lines,  a  group  of  Beaufort  County 
citizens  met  and  passed  resolutions  favoring  Lincoln's  "wise  plan  of 
compensated  emancipation,"  while  they  simultaneously  denounced 
Edward  Stanly,  military  governor  of  North  Carolina,  for  his  dis- 
couragement of  emancipation.62  In  mountainous  Madison  County, 
anti-Confederate  partisans  made  frequent  raids,  destroying  county 
property;  and  it  was  believed  that  these  people  were  endeavoring 
"to  get  back  into  the  best  government  that  ever  existed." 63 

While  substitution,  exemption,  conscription,  and  war-weariness 
bore  heavily  upon  them,  the  nonslaveholders  were  even  less  inter- 

67  Greensborough  Patriot,  January  8,  1863. 

68  Quoted  in  Charles  W.  Ramsdell,  Behind  the  Lines  in  the  Southern  Confederacy 
(Baton  Rouge:  Louisiana  State  University  Press,  1944),  47. 

w  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  January   14,   1863. 

80  Jonathan  Worth  to  J.  J.  Jackson,  January  5,  1863,  in  J.  G.  de  Roulhac  Hamilton 
(ed.),  The  Correspondence  of  Jonathan  Worth  (Raleigh:  North  Carolina  Historical 
Commission   [State  Department  of  Archives  and  History],  2  volumes,  1909),  I,  222. 

81  Greensborough  Patriot,  February  26,  1863. 
83  New   York   Times,  January   15,   1863. 

88  Weekly  Raleigh  Register,  January   21,   1863. 


68  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

ested  in  losing  their  lives  while  they  tried  to  defend  slavery.  As  a 
result  of  the  burden  which  many  nonslaveholders  felt,  they  deserted 
in  increasing  numbers.64  By  early  January,  1863,  the  second  Con- 
scription Act  was  unenforceable  among  the  mountain  folk  who  owned 
few  slaves.  In  fact,  desertion  had  increased  to  such  an  extent  that 
Governor  Vance  requested  Secretary  of  War  James  A.  Seddon  to 
suggest  methods  of  controlling  the  "desperadoes"  who  had  formed 
bands  of  outlaws  and  who  made  travel  through  the  mountain  regions 
extremely  dangerous.  Though  desertion  had  perceptibly  increased  in 
the  Piedmont  section  of  the  state,  Vance  explained  that  he  could 
still  enforce  the  conscription  acts  among  the  people  there;  his  major 
problem  was  that  desertion  was  becoming  contagious.65  Before  long, 
a  group  of  "tories"  had  banded  together  in  the  area  of  Moore,  Ran- 
dolph, and  Montgomery  counties,  and  these  renegades  were  causing 
considerable  alarm.  In  late  January  Vance  appealed  to  the  loyal 
citizens  to  aid  him  in  apprehending  the  deserters  and  asked  the  de- 
serters themselves  to  return  to  their  troops  of  their  own  free  will.60 
While  the  neighboring  states  were  attacking  the  Proclamation 
through  retaliatory  legislation,67  in  North  Carolina  the  legislators 
apparently  were  attempting  to  counteract  the  growing  conviction 
that  the  war  was  being  waged  in  defense  of  slavery.  Though  refusing 
to  justify  their  proposals  on  the  basis  of  the  Emancipation  Proclama- 
tion, several  legislators  introduced  bills  to  "permit  free  persons  of 
African  descent  to  select  masters  and  become  slaves."  68  On  January  22, 
1863,  Representative  W.  W.  Peebles  asked: 

That  all  free  persons  of  color  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  married  or 
unmarried,  possessing  a  sound  and  contracting  mind,  shall  have  full  right, 
power,  and  authority  to  enslave  themselves  to  any  white  citizen  of  this 
State,  in  the  same  manner  and  under  the  same  rules  and  regulations  as 
are  now  prescribed  by  law  for  the  conveyance  of  real  estate  by  feme 


6*  For  a  discussion  of  other  factors  contributing  to  increased  desertion,  see  Ella 
Lonn,  Desertion  During  the  Civil  War  (New  York:  Century  Company,  1928),  7,  11, 
12,  14,  17,  19. 

05  North  Carolina  Standard,  January  2,  1863;  R.  N.  Scott  and  Others  (eds.),  The 
War  of  the  Rebellion:  A  Compilation  of  the  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Con- 
federate  Armies  (Washington:  Government  Printing  Office,  70  volumes  [127  books, 
atlases,  and  index],  1880-1901),  Series  I,  XVIII,  821-822,  hereinafter  cited  as  Official 
Records. 

86  Carolina  Watchman,  January  26,   1863. 

97  For  instance,  in  the  fall  of  1862,  the  Virginia  General  Assembly  passed  an  act 
levying  a  fine,  double  the  value  of  the  property  concerned,  upon  any  person  who 
attempted  to  give  effect  to  the  preliminary  emancipation  proclamation.  Acts  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  Passed  at  its  Called  Session,  1862,  in  the 
Eighty -seventh  Year  of  the  Commonwealth,  12-15. 

66  Senate  Journal,  Second  Session,  1863,  30,  35-36,  44,  52-53;  House  Journal,  Ad- 
journed Session,  1862-63,  169,  181. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  69 

coverts.  .  .  .  All  free  persons  of  color  thus  enslaving  themselves  shall  be 
forever  thereafter  regarded  in  law  and  equity  as  negro  slaves  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes.69 

Had  such  a  proposal  been  adopted,  it  would  have  served  a  twofold 
purpose.  In  the  first  place,  the  legislators  would  have  directly  defied 
Lincoln's  Proclamation,  showing  that  they  had  no  plans  whatsoever 
to  yield  to  his  demands.  Secondly,  they  could  have  restricted  the 
contacts  between  the  free  Negroes  and  slaves  by  making  all  Negroes 
slaves,  thereby  enabling  the  white  people  to  control  better  the 
Negro  population  in  the  state.70 

Though  the  North  Carolina  legislature  defeated  the  January,  1863, 
bill,  numerous  proposals  for  the  general  enslavement  of  free  Negroes 
and  the  protection  of  slavery  continued  to  be  presented.  On  February 
2,  1863,  the  climax  in  the  legislative  attempts  to  enslave  free  Negroes 
occurred.  Senator  John  F.  Murrill  from  Onslow  County  requested 
that  a  law  be  passed  requiring  that  all  free  Negroes  who  had  not 
"voluntarily  sold  their  services  for  the  term  of  ninety-nine  years 
before  January  1st,  1864,  shall  be  removed  from  the  State."  Immedi- 
ately the  legislators,  with  disregard  of  sectional  alignment,  voted  to 
table  the  measure.71 

In  addition  to  its  refusals  to  enslave  free  Negroes  at  this  time, 
the  General  Assembly  also  refused  to  enact  legislation  designed  to 
strengthen  the  state's  patrol  system.72  Though  the  slaves  had  re- 
mained relatively  peaceful,  there  was  evidence  that  they  were  be- 
coming restive  now  that  freedom  seemed  possible.  In  many  eastern 
counties  free  Negroes  fled  to  the  Union  lines.73  Near  Hillsborough, 
three  Negroes  attacked  and  murdered  John  Lockhart;74  near  the 
Chatham  County  line  four  Negroes  killed  Isaac  Stroud.75  Both  mur- 
ders, the  courts  decided,  stemmed  from  a  feeling  of  insubordination 
on  the  part  of  the  slaves.76  Yet,  the  legislature  withstood  the  many 
proposals  to  defend  the  institution  of  slavery  and  to  protect  the 
whites  from  insurrectionary  slaves.  The  existing  laws  were  regarded 
as  adequate. 

By  mid-March,  1863,  the  idea  of  a  war  for  state  rights  had  clearly 

69  Quoted  in  John  Hope  Franklin,  "The  Enslavement  of  Free  Negroes  in  North 
Carolina,"  Journal  of  Negro  History,  XXIX   (October,  1944),  413. 

70  B.  H.  Nelson,  "Some  Aspects  of  Negro  Life  in  North  Carolina  During  the  Civil 
War,"  North  Carolina  Historical  Review,  XXV  (April,  1948),  150-151. 

71  Senate  Journal,  Second  Session,  1863,  52-53. 

72  Senate  Journal,  Second  Session,  1863,  36,  43. 

73  Official  Records,  Series  I,  XVIII,  879. 

74  Hillsborough  Recorder,  February  25,  1863. 

75  Hillsborough  Recorder,  February  18,  1863. 

76  Hillsborough  Recorder,  March  18,  1863. 


70  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

deteriorated  into  the  contention  that  the  struggle  was  for  the  defense 
of  the  institution  of  slavery.  Leading  in  the  development  of  this  theme 
for  the  majority  of  the  North  Carolinians  were  the  newspaper  editors. 
On  March  20,  1863,  W.  W.  Holden  said  that  "the  time  has  come  for 
plain  English.  The  war  was  occasioned  by  negro  slavery."77  A  few 
days  earlier,  J.  L.  Pennington,  editor  of  the  Raleigh  Daily  Progress, 
asked  the  question,  "what  is  all  this  for?"  And  he  gave  his  answer: 
"For  the  nigger."  He  then  argued  that  "better  a  thousand  times,  for 
North  and  South  that  the  last  vestige  of  this  inferior  race  should 
have  been  swept  from  the  Continent  than  have  brought  on  ourselves 
all  the  untold  horrors  of  this  civil  war.  The  North  is  fighting  to  elevate 
the  nigger  and  we  are  fighting  to  retain  the  nigger  and  defend  our 
homes." 78 

Almost  simultaneously  with  the  appearance  of  these  editorial  com- 
ments, movements  for  peace  became  stronger.  Though  the  peace 
movement  had  its  inception  with  the  birth  of  the  Confederacy,  there 
was  in  the  early  months  of  the  war  little  reason  for  great  alarm.79  As 
the  months  faded  into  years,  as  the  hardships  of  war  became  more 
severe,  as  the  Confederate  Congress  passed  legislation  regarded  by 
the  nonslaveholder  as  discriminatory,  and  as  Lincoln  issued  his 
Emancipation  Proclamations,  disenchantment  with  the  cause  of  the 
Confederacy  increased  considerably.  Throughout  the  spring  and  sum- 
mer of  1863,  the  peace  forces  developed  into  a  powerful  faction  in 
the  state,  and  as  a  result  stronger  accusations  against  the  slaveholders 
followed.  "Wicked  men  of  both  sections,"  said  Pennington,  "labored 
to  bring  it  [the  war]  on  to  accomplish  selfish  purposes,  and  sooner 
or  later,  in  some  shape,  they  will  get  their  reward;  but  with  that  we 
have  nothing  to  do."  He  hastened  to  add,  however,  that  slavery  could 
not  be  destroyed  or  forced  on  people  by  war  measures  and  for  that 
reason  attempts  should  be  made  to  end  this  war  for  slavery.80 

Every  honest  heart  throughout  the  land  earnestly  desires  peace.  .  .  . 
Politicians,  officeholders  and  contractors  may  desire  the  war  to  continue, 
but  ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred  of  the  PEOPLE  wants  it  to  stop, 
and  it  must  stop,  or  both  sections  are  ruined.  .  .  .  Now  is  no  time  to  talk 
about  boundary,  or  to  declare  what  states  we  will  or  will  not  admit  into 
the  Confederate  family.  It  will  be  time  enough  to  do  this  after  we 
establish  the  fact  that  we  have  a  Government  and  a  country.  We  have  a 


77  North  Carolina  Standard,  March  20,  1863. 

78  Quoted  in  Hillsborough  Recorder,  March  25,  1863. 

79  Wilfred  B.  Yearns,  "The  Peace  Movement  in  the  Confederate  Congress,"  Georgia 
Historical  Quarterly,  XLI    (March,  1957),  1. 

80  Quoted  in  Hillsborough  Recorder,  March  25,  1863. 


Reaction  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  71 

Confederacy  of  all  slave  States,  but  are  our  people  to  continue  this  war 
forever  for  the  nigger?  .  .  .  Many  of  our  people,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
North,  are  tired  of  fighting  for  the  negro.  Let  the  two  sections  separate, 
and  let  those  States  that  want  to  ally  themselves  to  the  South,  come  in; 
and  leave  slavery  as  it  always  should  have  been  left,  to  regulate  itself. 
Lincoln's  proclamation  cannot  take  it  from  a  people  whose  interest  it  is 
to  have  it,  nor  can  our  laws  or  bayonets  force  it  on  a  people  who  do  not 
want  it.  Give  us  an  honorable  peace,  and  we  will  regulate  slavery  after- 
wards.81 

Of  major  importance,  therefore,  in  the  development  of  the  non- 
slaveholders'  disaffection,  in  the  demands  for  peace,  and  ultimately 
in  the  defeat  of  the  Confederacy  was  Lincoln's  emancipation  policy, 
which  provided  the  link  enabling  the  southern  yeomen  to  perceive 
fully  that  they  were  fighting  for  an  institution  in  which  they  had  only 
a  peripheral  interest.  With  the  issuance  of  the  proclamations,  the 
slaveholders  and  conservative  state  leaders  had  felt  that  unity  of 
sentiment  would  result;  instead,  in  their  efforts  to  point  out  the 
abolitionist  sentiment  of  the  North,  they  promoted  the  alienation  of 
the  nonslaveholder. 

Congressional  debates  on  the  adoption  of  retaliatory  measures, 
which  resulted  from  Lincoln's  Proclamations,  also  alienated  groups 
within  the  state  who  deplored  adding  barbarism  to  the  already  harsh 
brutalities  of  war.  Holden's  argument  that  Congress  was  protecting 
and  defending  slavery  severed  the  ties  between  the  nonslaveholders 
and  the  slaveholders. 

Progressively,  therefore,  as  the  national  program  for  the  South 
developed  simultaneously  with  the  northern  nationalistic  program, 
the  Confederate  Congress,  newspaper  editors,  state  and  Confederate 
politicians,  and  planters  were  unintentionally  building  up  an  argu- 
ment on  which  the  nonslaveholder  might  base  his  contention  that  the 
war  was  fought  "for  the  nigger"— "a.  rich  man's  war  and  a  poor 
man's  fight." 

Hence,  to  the  accepted  reasons  for  the  Confederacy's  defeat- 
industrial  weakness,  the  effects  of  the  blockade,  reverses  in  battle, 
discriminatory  conscription  and  exemption,82  and  state  rights83  must 
be  added  the  internal  dissension  arising  from  the  strong  antislavery 
and  anti-planter  sentiments  of  the  small  southern  farmer  and  other 
nonslaveholders . 


81  Quoted  in  Hillsborough  Recorder,  March  18,  1863. 

M  See  Albert  Burton  Moore,  Conscription  and  Conflict  in  the  Confederacy  (New 
York:  Macmillan  Company,  1924),  vii,  49,  143,  187-188,  279-280,  283,  284;  Tatum, 
"Disloyalty,"  2,  15-16,  25-26,  42,  141-142,  152-153. 

83  See  Frank  L.  Owsley,  State  Rights  in  the  Confederacy  (Chicago:  University 
of  Chicago  Press,  1925),  vii,  1,  3,  10,  24,  76,  150,  177-181,  203,  214,  275,  279,  280-281. 


THE  DANGERS  OF  REACTION: 
REPEAL  OF  THE  REVENUE  ACT  OF  1918 


By  H.  Larry  Ingle: 


"The  problem  is,"  wrote  University  of  Chicago  historian  William 
E.  Dodd  early  in  1918  to  Chairman  Claude  Kitchin  of  the  House  Ways 
and  Means  Committee, 

to  keep  the  policy  you  people  have  set  into  motion  going  till  real  results 
can  be  obtained.  You  know  the  history  of  social  and  political  reforms  .  .  . 
well  enough  to  agree  with  me  that  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  keep  a  people 
up  to  the  sticking  point  long  enough  for  them  to  see  the  fruits  of  the  re- 
forms, to  realize  the  dangers  of  reaction. 

Dodd  also  predicted  that  if  the  war  should  end  quickly,  "you  will 
find  it  very  hard  indeed  to  continue  your  just  tax  system."  1 

With  near  design,  events  followed  the  course  of  Dodd's  prophecy. 
As  a  permanent  instrument  of  reform  the  excess  profits  tax  never 
really  captured  the  popular  imagination  and  by  1921  mere  accept- 
ance had  shaded  over  into  overt  hostility.  What  perhaps  is  even  more 
significant  is  that  occasional  progressives  such  as  Woodrow  Wilson 
and  William  G.  McAdoo  presented  a  united  front  with  those  opposing 
excess  profits  taxes— and  for  the  same  reasons.  The  brief  life  of  the 
tax  illustrated  the  tenuous  nature  of  that  progressivism  which  sought 
to  achieve,  in  Dodd's  words,  "real  results."  The  Kitchin  revenue  act 
of  1918,  had  it  remained  in  effect,  would  not  only  have  helped  pay 
for  the  war,  it  would  also  have  contributed  to  basic  changes  in  the 
class  structure  and  a  redistribution  of  wealth.  The  Revenue  Act  of 
1921,  reflecting  an  entirely  different  philosophy  of  revenue  collection, 
climaxed  a  conservative  obsession  to  have  done  with  attacks  on  busi- 
ness and  capital  by  repealing  the  tax. 

*  Mr.  Ingle  is  assistant  professor  of  history  at  Presbyterian  College,  Clinton,  South 
Carolina. 

1  William  E.  Dodd  to  Claude  Kitchin,  January  28,  1918,  Claude  Kitchin  Papers, 
Southern  Historical  Collection,  University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill,  herein- 
after cited  as  Kitchin  Papers.  Dodd  also  warned  that  capitalists  would  wage  a  cam- 
paign to  get  the  government  to  promote  foreign  trade — contrary  to  what  he  believed 
to  be  the  best  interests  of  the  people. 


Repeal  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918 


73 


Dm7   ^ 

WORRY! 

I'll  BJfiNG 
Home  jme 
Bacon 


A  cartoon  by  Berryman  which  appeared  in  the  Washington  Post  during  Kitchin's 
fight  to  secure  passage  of  tax  measures  based  on  the  democratic  principle  that  the 
burdens  of  government  should  be  borne  by  those  most  able  to  bear  them.  This  cartoon 
and  the  two  other  illustrations  used  with  this  article  appeared  in  Claude  Kitchin  and 
the  Wilson  War  Policies  by  Alex  Mathews  Arnett,  and  are  reproduced  by  courtesy  of 
Mrs.  Ethel  Stephens  Arnett,  Greensboro. 

Kitchin  thus  had  ample  reason  to  understand  what  Dodd  meant. 
He  had  had  to  work  long  hours  framing  revenue  measures  that  would 
raise  the  money  for  the  hungry  war  machine,  would  be  economically 
sound,  and  would  receive  endorsement  from  diverse  groups  in  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee,  the  House  itself,  the  Senate  Finance 


74  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Committee,  chaired  by  that  other  prominent  North  Carolinian  Furni- 
fold  M.  Simmons,  and  finally  on  the  Senate  floor.  Above  all  the  legis- 
lation would  have  to  be  based  on  what  Kitchin  called  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  democracy:  "the  burdens  of  Government  should 
be  borne  by  those  most  able  to  bear  them  and  not  by  those  least  able 
to  bear  them."2  That  he  had  been  successful  was  a  tribute  more  to 
his  perseverance  than  to  the  intrinsic  appeal  of  the  bills.  Taxation,  after 
all,  was  never  popular  even  when  the  money  raised  was  to  help 
achieve  such  lofty  goals  as  "making  the  world  safe  for  democracy/' 
A  major  portion  of  war  expenses,  Kitchin  firmly  believed,  should 
come  from  high,  graduated  taxes  on  those  netting  profits  in  excess  of 
a  just  rate  of  return.  "Then  the  only  standard,  the  only  rule,  is  that 
this  Nation  ought  to  collect  as  large  a  sum  in  taxes  each  year  during 
this  war  as  possible  and  mortgage  the  future  by  bonds  as  little  as 
possible/'  What  he  feared,  he  told  his  colleagues  on  September  6, 
1918,  was  that  history  would  repeat  itself  and  the  nation  would  face 
a  depression  after  the  war.  Such  a  decline  would  cut  deep  into 
federal  revenues  and  destroy  all  chances  of  funding  the  bonded  debt 
Congress  had  already  authorized.  And  Kitchin  feared  for  future  busi- 
nessmen who  would  have  to  carry  that  burden  during  hard  times.3 
It  was  one  of  the  anomalies  of  progressivism  that  the  excess  profits 
tax,  a  measure  which  both  its  supporters  and  opponents  recognized 
would  strike  at  the  base  of  corporate  wealth  and  economic  inequality, 
had  as  its  author  one  who  had  himself  amassed  a  moderate  fortune. 
A  successful  lawyer,  president  of  a  small  bank  in  Scotland  Neck  and 
owner  of  a  large  farm,  Claude  Kitchin  had  reached  his  goal  of 
election  to  Congress  from  the  state's  Second  District  in  1900.  Until 
enactment  of  excess  profits  taxation,  Kitchin's  reputation  as  a  pro- 
gressive resulted  more  from  association  than  achievement.  His  father, 
William  Hodge  Kitchin,  an  erstwhile  Populist,  and  his  brother,  Wil- 
liam Walton,  Democratic  governor  of  North  Carolina  from  1909  to 
1913,  had  helped  make  the  name  Kitchin  well  known  in  the  state. 
Claude  had  also  fought  numerous  political  battles  with  such  pro- 
gressives as  Charles  B.  Aycock,  Josephus  Daniels,  and  Walter  B. 
Clark.  After  a  rather  undistinguished  congressional  career,  he  came 
to  national  attention  when  the  inexorable  seniority  system  brought 
him  to  his  post  of  majority  leader  in  December,  1915.  Almost  immedi- 


2  Kitchin  to  Finis  Garrett,  August  5,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

3  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1917-1918  (Washing- 
ton: Government  Printing  Office,  1918),  LVI,  Appendix,  662,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Congressional  Record. 


Repeal  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918  75 

ately  his  opposition  to  preparedness  produced  open  conflict  with 
President  Woodrow  Wilson  and  his  stature— at  least  in  the  adminis- 
tration's view— suffered  when  he  spoke  and  voted  against  the  decla- 
ration of  war  with  Germany  in  April,  1917.  When  the  time  came, 
therefore,  to  frame  revenue  legislation  to  finance  the  war,  the  adminis- 
tration regarded  Kitchin's  leadership  with  something  less  than  whole- 
hearted acclaim.4 

Still,  Kitchin  drove  the  bills  past  the  House  gauntlet  in  almost  the 
same  form  as  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  originally  presented 
them.  With  characteristic  pleas  for  patriotic  unity  Kitchin  was  able 
to  secure  unanimous  support,  albeit  sometimes  grudgingly  from  Re- 
publicans, for  the  general  scope  of  revenue  legislation.  "I  want  every 
taxpayer,  however  large  or  small  he  may  be,"  he  declaimed,  "to  know 
that  while  the  taxes  levied  under  this  bill  are  going  to  be  hard  to  bear, 
the  millions  of  boys  over  yonder  in  the  trenches  are  bearing  greater 
burdens  and  greater  hardships  for  their  country,  and  doing  it  gladly 
and  willingly  and  heroically."5  By  1921,  however,  support  for  the 
wartime  tax  structure,  particularly  its  controversial  excess  profit  pro- 
visions, evaporated  because  of  several  factors:  the  war's  end  and 
breakup  of  the  nonpartisan  coalition,  division  of  the  always  unstable 
Democratic  bloc  into  warring  factions,  and  Kitchin's  oftimes  serious 
illness.  Alert  politicians  understood  that  this  situation  offered  an 
excellent  opportunity  to  enhance  their  own  reputations  by  promoting 
repeal.  Political  careers  had  been  erected  on  lesser  issues. 

Even  the  birth  of  H.R.  12863,  the  last  wartime  revenue  bill,  was 
inauspicious.  In  early  May,  1918,  six  months  after  the  session  con- 
vened, Secretary  of  the  Treasury  William  G.  McAdoo,  ignoring  the 
obvious  desire  of  Congress  to  adjourn  by  July  1  in  order  to  hit  the 
hustings,  advised  the  President  that  military  needs  required  passage  of 
a  new  revenue  bill.6  Although  congressional  leaders  informed  Presi- 

4  The  standard  study  of  Kitchin  is  Alex  M.  Arnett,  Claude  Kitchin  and  the  Wilson 
War  Policies  (Boston:  Little,  Brown  and  Company,  1937).  The  best  account  of  pro- 
gressivism  in  North  Carolina  is  Joseph  F.  Steelman,  "The  Progressive  Era  in  North 
Carolina,  1884-1917"  (unpublished  doctoral  dissertation,  University  of  North  Carolina 
at  Chapel  Hill,  1955). 

6  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1917-1918,  LVI,  Ap- 
pendix, 665. 

"William  G.  McAdoo  to  Woodrow  Wilson,  May  8,  1918,  William  G.  McAdoo  Papers, 
Manuscripts  Division,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.C.,  hereinafter  cited  as 
McAdoo  Papers;  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1917- 
1918,  LVI,  7163.  One  member  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  believed  that  Con- 
gress should  set  to  work  on  a  new  revenue  measure.  Cordell  Hull  advocated  to  his 
colleagues  that  the  government's  financial  situation  required  additional  revenue.  His 
pleas  went  unheeded  until  the  administration  made  its  decision.  Cordell  Hull,  Memoirs 
(New  York:  Macmillan  Company,  2  volumes,  1948),  I,  95,  hereinafter  cited  as  Hull, 
Memoirs. 


76  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

dent  Wilson  and  Secretary  McAdoo  of  sentiment  on  the  Hill  and  of 
fears  that  new  revenue  measures  prior  to  November  might  contribute 
to  Democratic  reversals  in  the  elections,  the  administration  never- 
theless recommended  enactment  of  additional  revenue  legislation.7 
Kitchin,  revealing  that  the  administration  had  rebuffed  his  earlier 
requests  to  begin  consideration  of  new  tax  legislation,  announced 
that  as  a  good  soldier  following  his  commander  he  would  keep  his 
committee  in  Washington  during  the  hot  summer  to  prepare  the 
bill.  But  he  made  no  effort  to  hide  either  his  pique  or  his  belief  that 
revenue  legislation  could  wait  until  the  next  session.8 

From  July  18  to  August  19,  while  the  House  took  three-day  recesses 
to  permit  all  but  a  few  members  to  mend  their  fences  at  home,  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee  worked  in  the  sweltering  humidity  to 
prepare  a  bill  for  consideration.9  With  one  eye  on  the  coming  elec- 
tions, administration  leaders  bitterly  opposed  Kitchin's  plan  to  raise  the 
largest  amount  from  excess  rather  than  war  profits  taxes.10  Reduced 
to  simplest  terms  by  the  Treasury  Department  for  Presidential  Secre- 
tary Joseph  P.  Tumulty,  the  dispute  resolved  itself  into  the  question 
of  whether  taxes  should  be  levied  on  profits  in  excess  of  those  realized 
prior  to  the  war  or  whether  they  should  be  laid  on  profits  in  excess 
of  a  given  return  on  capital.11  "It  is  sufficient  to  say,"  cautioned  Assist- 
ant Treasury  Secretary  Russell  C.  Leffingwell,  "that  the  difference  is 
not  one  of  words  but  one  of  substance  and  goes  to  the  very  root  of 
the  social  and  economic  problem."12 

To  Kitchin— and  as  it  turned  out,  to  a  majority  of  Congress— the 
matter  was  not  quite  so  simple.  Any  corporation  making  excess  profits, 
either  prior  to  or  during  the  war,  should  pay  a  proportionate  amount 
of  taxes.  To  illustrate,  under  a  simple  war  profits  scheme  corporations, 
such  as  Ford  Motor,  Eastman  Kodak,  National  Biscuit,  or  American 
Tobacco,  which  had  prospered  before  the  war  and  continued  to  do 
so  during  the  war,  would  escape  taxation.  During  the  brief  but  intense 
prewar  recession,  moreover,  some  concerns  had  made  small  profits 


7  W.  G.  McAdoo  to  Woodrow  Wilson,  May  23,  1918,  McAdoo  Papers. 

8  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1917-1918,  LVI,  7163- 
7164;  New  York  Times,  May  25,  26,  28,  1918. 

Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1917-1918,  LVI,  9144- 
9146. 

10  Russell  C.  Leffingwell  to  McAdoo,  July  31,  1918,  J.  P.  Tumulty  to  Woodrow  Wilson, 
August  2,  1918,  Woodrow  Wilson  Papers,  Library  of  Congress,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Wilson  Papers;  Leffingwell  to  McAdoo,  August  8,  1918,  Russell  C.  Leffingwell  Papers, 
Library  of  Congress. 

11  "Memorandum  Concerning  War  Profits  Taxes  and  Excess  Profits  Taxes,"  Leffing- 
well to  Tumulty,  July  31,  1918,  Wilson  Papers. 

"Leffingwell  to  Wilson,  August  2,  1918,  Wilson  Papers. 


Repeal  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918  77 

and  would  thus  be  penalized  by  a  war  profits  levy  alone.  Permitting 
such  discrimination  when  the  nation  was  fighting  for  democracy 
would  be  manifestly  unjust,  the  majority  leader  held.13 

The  final  bill,  not  unsurprisingly,  compromised  the  two  positions. 
The  excess  profits  principle  for  which  Kitchin  had  so  strenuously  con- 
tended remained  intact,  but  coupled  with  it  was  a  war  profits  tax.  A 
further  provision  required  corporations  to  compute  taxes  by  both 
methods  and  then  render  to  the  government  the  larger  amount.  The 
bill  also  provided  that  at  the  end  of  1919  the  war  profits  section  would 
expire  while  the  excess  profits  tax  would  continue  as  a  permanent 
feature  of  the  internal  revenue  code.  Congress  decided  that  normal 
profits  were  $3,000  plus  8  percent  of  invested  capital  and  permitted 
a  corporation  to  deduct  that  amount.  "For  the  taxable  year  1919  and 
each  taxable  year  thereafter,"  the  law  set  the  rate  at  20  percent  on 
net  income  up  to  20  percent  of  invested  capital  and  40  percent  on 
net  income  over  20  percent  of  invested  capital.  Although  the  House 
had  approved  additional  levels  of  graduation  and  higher  rates,  pro- 
visions which  the  conference  committee  dropped,  Kitchin  was  gen- 
erally pleased  because  the  final  bill  recognized  the  principle  so  crucial 
to  a  truly  democratic  tax.  This  progressive  achievement  which,  in  the 
words  of  administration  critic  Leffingwell,  went  "to  the  very  root  of 
the  social  and  economic  problem,"  had  its  ironic  aspect:    the  bill 

r  passed  only  because  of  the  exigencies  of  a  war  many  progressives  had 
originally  opposed  and  while  wartime  necessities  compromised  many 
liberties  valued  by  the  selfsame  progressives.14  But  as  a  permanent 
feature,  it  would  offer  future  progressives  ample  opportunity  to  raise 
the  rates  and  achieve  a  far-reaching  redistribution  of  wealth.  In  this 
potential  sense  the  passage  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918  was  one  of  the 
most  important  guideposts  on  the  progressive  road  to  a  more  demo- 
cratic social  order. 

Moreover,  as  Leffingweirs  comment  illustrated,  enemies  of  the 
law  knew  well  what  the  excess  profits  tax  meant.  Obviously  pleased 
when  the  conclusion  of  the  war  offered  an  opportunity  to  rid  the 
business  community  of  what  he  termed  a  producer  of  "industrial 
stagnation,"  President  Wilson  chose  the  formal  occasion  of  his  1919 
State  of  the  Union  message  to  recommend  repeal  of  excess  profits 

13  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1917-1918,  LVI,  Ap- 
pendix, 681-683. 

14  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1917-1918,  LVI,  Ap- 
pendix, 681;  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Third  Session,  1918-1919, 
LVII,  3005-3007;  40  Stat.  1088,  c.  18,  ss.  300-320;  Leffingwell  to  Wilson,  August  2, 
1918,  Wilson  Papers. 


78  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

taxes.15  And  in  December,  1920,  even  before  inauguration  of  Warren 
G.  Harding,  Wilson's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  David  F.  Houston 
drew  the  fire  of  progressives  when  he  advised  abolition  of  the  excess 
profits  levy  because,  he  said,  of  its  complexity  and  "lack  of  equity  as 
among  different  classes  of  business/'16  Labeling  Houston's  proposal 
"the  most  unwise,  unjust,  undemocratic,  and  pro-Republican  report 
that  ever  emanated  from  any  department,"  Kitchin  relieved  his 
pent-up  frustrations  at  almost  eight  years  of  executive  domination 
of  Congress.  He  charged  that  it  was  a  scheme  to  shift  $2  billion  in 
taxes  from  "profiteering  corporations"  onto  the  very  people  who 
had  endured  four  years  of  plundering.17  Kitchin  took  pride,  he  told 
one  correspondent,  in  having  written  a  bill  which  forced  those  who 
had  profited  from  the  war  to  pay  for  it.18  While  not  every  Republican 
opposed  such  a  levy— witness  the  example  set  by  Wisconsin's  James 
A.  Frear,  who  three  years  later  was  still  battling  for  such  a  progressive 
tax19— Andrew  Mellon,  treasury  secretary  during  three  business- 
oriented  administrations  in  the  1920's,  was  as  ardent  in  his  opposition 
to  excess  profits  levies  as  he  was  in  favor  of  a  balanced  budget. 
And  men  such  as  Mellon  determined  Republican  fiscal  policy.  Most 
observers  were  far  from  amazed,  therefore,  when  the  Harding  ad- 
ministration made  repeal  of  the  excess  profits  tax  a  major  priority.20 
With  their  huge  majorities  in  the  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  Republicans 
would  have  little  trouble  repealing  what  they  regarded  as  an  ob- 
noxious law. 

The  cause  of  progressive  taxation  was  also  weakened  by  a  vacuum 
in  the  front  ranks  of  the  Democratic  party.  On  April  9,  1920,  Claude 
Kitchin,  now  minority  leader,  suffered  a  stroke,  the  effects  of  which 
were  to  plague  •him  until  his  death  more  than  three  years  later. 
Though  able  periodically  to  work  at  his  office,  Kitchin's  condition 
gave  less  trouble  when  he  lounged  under  the  trees  of  his  Scotland 
Neck  farm.  Thus  when  the  Democratic  caucus  formulated  its  policy 
on  excess  profits  in  August,  1921,  Kitchin's  support  for  the  taxation 
policy  he  had  written  could  be  only  inadequately  conveyed  through 
the  mail.21  Even  their  leader's  muted  voice  would  have  had  little 


15  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-sixth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1919-1920,  LIX,  53. 
18  David  F.  Houston,  Eight  Years  with  Wilson's  Cabinet   (Garden  City:   Doubleday, 
Page,  and  Company,  2  volumes,  1926),  II,  101. 

17  New  York  Times,  December  10,  1920. 

18  Kitchin  to  S.  W.  Worthington,  June  24,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

19  C.  H.  England  to  Kitchin,  August  6,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers;  Congressional  Record, 
Sixty-eighth  Congress,  First  Session,  1923-1924,  LXV,  645-648. 

20 John  D.  Hicks,  Republican  Ascendancy,  1921-1933  (New  York:  Harper  and  Row, 
1963),  53,  hereinafter  cited  as  Hicks,  Republican  Ascendancy. 

21  Kitchin  to  T.  L.  Reilly,  June  6,  1921,  Kitchin  to  W.  A.  Oldfield,  June  30,  1921, 
Kitchin  Papers. 


Repeal  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918 


79 


\ 


*m 


After  a  stroke  on  April  9,  1920,  Kitchin  conducted  most  of  his  work  as  minority  leader 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  from  his  home  in  Scotland  Neck,  pictured  above. 


effect  on  those  Democrats  who  for  their   own  reasons   supported 
repeal  of  the  excess  profits  tax. 

In  the  House,  meanwhile,  a  number  of  Democrats,  led  by  Texas 
Representative  John  Nance  Garner,  were  beginning  to  break  with 
the  Democratic  taxation  policy  that  had  evolved  during  the  war. 
Garner  and  Kitchin  had  never  been  on  particularly  good  terms— for 
years  they  spoke  to  each  other  only  when  absolutely  necessary— 
and  "Cactus  Jack,"  as  he  was  called,  was  embittered  because  Kitchin 
had  not  followed  precedent  and  appointed  him  acting  minority 
leader.22  Known  as  much  for  his  prowess  around  the  poker  table  as 
his  legislative  ability,  Garner  became  the  Wilson  administration's 
informal  spokesman  in  the  House  when  Kitchin  opposed  the  war. 

28  James  F.  Byrnes,  All  in  One  Lifetime  (New  York:  Harper  and  Brothers,  1958), 
32-34;  George  Milburn,  "The  Statesmanship  of  Mr.  Garner,"  Harper's  Magazine, 
CLXV  (November,  1932),  675,  hereinafter  cited  as  Milburn,  "Statesmanship  of 
Garner." 


80  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Because  he  was  ranking  minority  member  on  Ways  and  Means,  his 
reversal  dismayed  those  Democrats  who  had  hoped  that  their  party 
would  present  a  united  front  to  oppose  Republican  revenue  measures. 
Thus  Garner,  "the  richest  man  in  Uvalde,"  raised  a  standard  to  which 
foes  of  wartime  taxes  could  repair.23 

First  tangible  evidence  of  the  growing  split  within  the  minority's 
ranks  came  when  the  Fordney  tariff  bill  passed  the  House  on  July  21, 
1921.  Despite  strong  pleas  from  the  convalescing  Kitchin  that  "[t]o 
displease  special  interests  in  one's  district  and  elsewhere  is  one  of 
the  penalities  which  every  Democrat  who  enters  Congress  risks," 
Garner  and  about  twenty  other  farmer-oriented  Democrats  supported 
tariffs  on  cotton  and  hides.24  Though  discouraging  because  of  the 
number  of  Democrats  willing  to  make  common  cause  with  Republi- 
cans, Garner's  defection  on  the  tariff  was  hardly  surprising.  He  had 
often  disregarded  Democratic  free-trade  doctrine  when  the  agri- 
cultural products  of  his  southern  Texas  district  required  protection,  a 
fact  that  led  Tennessee's  Cordell  Hull  to  conclude  that  at  heart  his 
colleague  on  Ways  and  Means  was  as  much  a  high  tariff  man  as  any 
Republican.25 

It  was  almost  a  month  later  when  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 
now  chaired  by  Michigan's  Joseph  W.  Fordney,  reported  the  revenue 
bill  designed  to  redeem  President  Harding's  simple  and  straight- 
forward pledge :  "We  are  committed  to  the  repeal  of  the  excess-profits 
tax.  .  .  ."26  The  committee's  preparation,  however,  was  not  matched 
by  House  Democrats.  They  simply  had  not  decided  what  to  do  about 
the  pending  legislation.  In  June  Kitchin  expressed  confidence  that 


23  W.  A.  Oldfield  to  Kitchin,  July  17,  1921,  Kitchin  to  Finis  Garrett,  August  5,  1921, 
Kitchin  Papers;  Arthur  M.  Schlesinger,  Jr.,  The  Crisis  of  the  Old  Order,  Volume  I  of 
The  Age  of  Roosevelt  (Boston:  Houghton  Mifflin  Company  [1957—],  1957),  I,  227- 
228;  Bascom  N.  Timmons,  Garner  of  Texas:  A  Personal  History  (New  York:  Harper 
and  Brothers,  1948),  83-84,  hereinafter  cited  as  Timmons,  Garner  of  Texas;  Robert 
S.  Allen,  "Texas  Jack,"  New  Republic,  LXX  (March  16,  1932),  119-121;  Washington 
Post,  July  6,  8,  1921.  Alex  M.  Arnett  interpreted  Garner's  opposition  to  the  excess 
profits  tax  as  an  attempt  by  Garner,  the  "undercover  promoter  of  reaction,"  to  wrest 
House  leadership  from  Kitchin,  "leader  of  the  liberal  element."  Alex  M.  Arnett, 
"Garner  versus  Kitchin:  A  Study  of  Craft  and  Statecraft,"  in  Vera  Largent  (ed.), 
The  Walter  Clinton  Jackson  Essays  in  the  Social  Sciences  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of 
North  Carolina  Press,  1942),  133-145.  Not  only  is  this  an  oversimplification,  but  Kit- 
chin's  benevolent  neutrality  for  Garner  against  Tennessee's  Finis  J.  Garrett  for 
minority  leadership  the  following  year  clearly  conflicts  with  Arnett's  interpretation. 
See  Kitchin  to  J.  J.  Egan,  December  12,  1922,  C  H.  England  to  Kitchin,  December 
13,  1922,  Kitchin  Papers.  Since  these  letters  are  in  the  Kitchin  Papers,  on  which 
Arnett's  paper  was  almost  exclusively  based,  one  wonders  how  he  could  have  reached 
the  conclusions  he  did. 

24 Kitchin  to  Garrett,  July  29,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers;  Congressional  Record,  Sixty- 
seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  4195-4196. 

25Milburn,  "Statesmanship  of  Garner,"  672;  Hull,  Memoirs,  I,  133. 

28  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  170. 


Repeal  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918  81 

"Every  Democrat  is  opposed  to  shifting  the  burdens  of  the  excess 
profits  tax  from  the  beneficiaries  [of  the  war]  to  the  victims."27  But 
Democrat  William  A.  Oldfield,  a  member  of  Ways  and  Means,  warned 
Kitchin  while  the  revenue  bill  was  in  committee  that  Garner  pro- 
posed to  repeal  the  excess  profits  tax,  concentrating  instead  on 
income,  inheritance,  and  tobacco  taxes.  Kit  chin's  continued  absence 
from  Washington  would  make  it  more  difficult,  Oldfield  thought,  to 
carry  the  Democratic  caucus  against  Garner.28 

As  the  process  of  writing  the  bill  continued,  Kitchin  gave  what 
encouragement  he  could  to  the  Democrats  on  Ways  and  Means 
who  might  support  his  position.  To  Arkansas'  Oldfield  he  threatened 
to  take  the  almost  unprecedented  step  of  filing  his  own  minority 
report  if  the  Democrats  were  "monstrous"  enough  to  support  repeal 
of  excess  profits  taxation.  Voting  for  Garner's  plan,  he  remonstrated, 
would  be  to  side  with  those  corporations  "whose  stockholders  stayed 
at  home,  three  thousand  miles  from  danger,  and  plundered  the  people 
and  Government  to  the  extent  of  $50,000,000  profits  from  1916  to 
the  present  time."  Repeal  would  permit  corporations  to  continue 
profiteering  during  peace  time.  "This  tax  is  the  only  conceivable 
check  on  their  avarice  and  plunder."  Had  the  Democrats  surrendered 
the  people's  interests  in  the  face  of  corporate  intimidation?  "If  not 
for  the  sake  of  right  and  justice,  for  the  sake  of  good  politics  we 
Democrats  should  not  even  have  the  appearance  of  relieving  the 
millionaires  and  the  corporate  interests  or  pandering  in  any  way 
to  them."  Republicans,  concluded  Kitchin,  could  monopolize  that 
position.29 

To  James  W.  Collier,  representative  from  Mississippi  on  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee,  Kitchin  wrote  that  the  government's  perma- 
nent revenue  should  be  income,  inheritance,  and  excess  profits  taxes. 
"[Corporate]  profiteering  or  excess  profits  should  be  taxed  to  pay 
off  our  war  debts  and  for  the  maintenance  and  support  of  our 
wounded  and  disabled  soldiers  and  widows  and  orphans  of  dead 
soldiers."  You  should  not,  the  none  too  subtle  Kitchin  explained,  "run 
your  tongues  out  in  a  race  with  the  Republicans  to  relieve  the  corpo- 
rate profiteers  of  the  country  of  taxation  and  keep  the  tax  on  the  small 
man  of  $1,000.00  to  $10,000.00  income." 30 

Repealing  corporate  taxation,  Kitchin  coached  acting  minority 
leader  Finis  J.  Garrett  of  Tennessee,  would  be  a  repudiation   of 

27  Kitchin  to  C.  D.  Noell,  June  14,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

28  Oldfield  to  Kitchin,  July  22,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

29  Kitchin  to  Oldfield,  July  23,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 
"Kitchin  to  J.  W.  Collier,  July  27,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 


82  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

fundamental  principles  of  the  Democratic  Party  that  taxes  should 
be  borne  by  those  best  able  to  bear  them.31  On  the  same  day  (August 
5)  he  wrote  Garrett,  Kitchin  pleaded  with  Collier  again:  "For 
God's  sake,  don't  let  Democrats  like  you  be  caught  in  the  Republican 
net,  knotted  and  tied  by  the  corporate  interests  and  the  millionaired 
groups  of  the  United  States."32 

When  debate  on  the  House  floor  began  on  August  17,  enough 
Democrats  had  been  "caught  in  the  Republican  net"  so  that  the 
caucus  had  not  formulated  a  policy.  At  a  10:00  a.m.  meeting— 
before  the  full  House  met  at  eleven  o'clock  to  consider  the  bill- 
William  F.  Stevenson  of  South  Carolina  proposed  that  Democrats 
vote  against  H.R.  8245  because  it  favored  "great  wealth  to  the 
detriment  of  the  citizens  of  ordinary  means"  and  because  the  caucus 
opposed  "at  this  time"  repealing  excess  profits  taxes.33  Having  already 
received  commitments  for  his  position,  Garner  opposed  even  this 
mild  statement  and  the  caucus  deadlocked.  Since  neither  side  pressed 
for  a  showdown,  the  meeting  recessed  until  evening,  and  members 
hurried  off  to  participate  in  the  opening  debate  with  no  party  policy 
to  guide  them.34 

Garner,  as  the  ranking  minority  member  of  Ways  and  Means 
present,  led  those  opposing  H.R.  8245,  but  his  arguments  testified 
to  his  inability  to  speak  for  anyone  other  than  himself  on  specific 
details.  There  should  be,  he  averred,  five  permanent  sources  of 
revenue:  inheritance  taxes,  personal  and  corporate  income  taxes, 
tariff  duties,  tobacco  levies,  and  postal  receipts.  "If  you  can  get  the 
money  to  run  the  Government  with  these  taxes,"  he  asked  his  col- 
leagues, "why  do  you  not  repeal  the  other  taxes  in  the  war  revenue 
act  of  1918?"  To  Democratic  applause  he  announced  that  if  he  had 
his  way,  excess  profits  taxes  would  be  the  last  to  go.  Almost  in  the 
next  breath,  however,  he  elicited  accolades  from  opponents  of  excess 
profits  taxation  by  proclaiming  that  those  taxes  could  be  repealed 
within  one  year.35 

When  the  Democratic  caucus  reassembled  at  eight  o'clock,  Steven- 
son obtained  the  floor  to  withdraw  his  anti-repeal  resolution.  Then 
Finis  Garrett  sought  to  unite  the  Democrats  by  moving  that  H.R. 
8245  subverted  sound  principles  of  taxation  in  that  it  freed  profiteers 
and  the  wealthy  of  their  just  tax  burdens.   With  a  rare  burst  of 

31  Kitchin  to  Garrett,  August  5,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

32  Kitchin  to  Collier,  August  5,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

33  "Minutes  of  Caucus,  August  17,  1921,"  copy  in  Kitchin  Papers. 

34  Oldfield  to  Kitchin,  August  17,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

35  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,   1921,  LXI,  5133. 


Repeal  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918 


83 


unanimity,  the  caucus  bound  its  members  to  vote  against  the  bill 
and  instructed  its  leaders  to  offer  a  motion  recommitting  the  bill  to 
Ways  and  Means  in  accord  with  the  Garrett  statement.  Oldfield 
immediately  proposed  that  the  recommittal  motion  include  a  pro- 
vision to  delete  excess  profits  repeal  and  the  Republican-sponsored 
substitute,  corporate  surtaxes.  To  regain  control  of  the  proceedings, 
Garner  moved  to  challenge  only  the  surtaxes.  The  debate  raged. 
Garner  won  a  number  of  votes  by  warning  that  the  caucus  should 
not  disdain  objections  of  such  eminent  Democrats  as  McAdoo,  Hous- 


Claude  Kitchin  was  elected  as  a  representative  to  the  Fifty-seventh  Congress  and 
served  in  the  House  of  Representatives  from  March  4,  1901,  until  his  death  on  May  31, 
1923.  He  is  buried  in  the  Baptist  Cemetery,  Scotland  Neck. 


84  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

ton,  and  Simmons.  Oldfield,  leading  those  opposing  excess  profits 
repeal,  proved  a  poor  organizer,  and  Peter  Ten  Eyck  of  New  York 
had  difficulty  reading  a  long,  unpunctuated  telegram  from  Kitchin. 
After  two  or  three  other  members  made  perfunctory  admonitions  that 
to  adopt  Garner's  motion  would  be  to  repudiate  Kitchin  s  leadership, 
the  substitute  passed  56  to  23;  the  House  Democrats  had  retreated 
from  their  wartime  progressive  position.36  Gone  was  their  opportunity 
to  press  for  a  real  option  by  endorsing  a  truly  progressive  tax;  instead 
debate  now  would  be  over  details— all  within  the  context  of  a  busi- 
ness-oriented tax  measure. 

Kitchin,  naturally  angered  by  the  caucus  action,  threatened  to 
arouse  various  farm  organizations  to  fight  those  Democrats  who 
approved  repeal.  Now  the  leader  of  a  minority  within  a  minority, 
he  was  convinced  that  Garner  was  maneuvering  him  into  a  position 
of  being  the  only  Democrat  on  Ways  and  Means  who  advocated 
excess  profits  taxation.37 

When  debate  resumed  on  the  House  floor,  strongest  adherence  to 
Kitchin's  progressive  program  came  from  Wisconsin  representative 
John  M.  Nelson,  who  as  a  Republican  took  his  party  to  task  for 
sponsoring  such  reactionary  legislation.  "As  equalizers  what  a  won- 
derful pair  of  levers  are  the  excess  profits  and  income  taxes  that 
the  war  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  American  people,"  he  exclaimed. 
"By  adjusting  these  levers  we  could  solve  not  only  the  evils  of  war 
profits,  of  inflation,  but  also  of  monopolies  and  trusts."  Like  Kitchin, 
this  long-time  friend  and  supporter  of  progressive  Senator  Robert  M. 
LaFollette  predicted  that  those  who  voted  for  repeal  would  be 
defeated  at  the  polls;  the  people  would  not  permit  democracy  to 
perish  between  the  twin  millstones  of  plutocracy  and  socialism.  Like 
Kitchin,  too,  he  acknowledged  defeat  on  the  issue,  but  pleaded  that 
congressmen  take  the  right  position  and  appeal  to  the  country  for 
vindication.38  Unfortunately,  no  Democrat  supported  Nelson's  cogent 
arguments,  although  some  did  deliver  speeches  designed  more  to 
impress  the  folks  back  home  with  Democratic  righteousness  than  to 
influence  the  debate's  outcome.39 

On  the  following  day,  August  19,  Kitchin's  "Minority  Views"  were 
printed  and  distributed  to  congressmen.  Unique  in  that  Kitchin  was 

38  "Minutes  of  Caucus,  August  17,  1921,"  England  to  Kitchin,  August  18,  1921,  Old- 
field  to  Kitchin,  August  20,  1921,  Kitchin  to  Garrett,  August  16,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

37  Kitchin  to  Billy  [Oldfield],  August  18,  1921,  Kitchin  Papers. 

38  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  5193; 
Belle  C.  LaFollette  and  Fola  LaFollette,  Robert  M.  LaFollette  (New  York:  Macmillan 
Company,  2  volumes,  1953),  I,  124,  454,  II,  1164. 

39  See  for  example  Congressman  Percy  E.  Quin's  address,  Congressional  Record, 
Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  5196. 


Repeal  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918  85 

the  only  minority  member  of  Ways  and  Means  to  sign  the  report, 
the  statement  was  at  once  a  skillful  political  assault  on  the  Republi- 
can bill  and  a  call  for  Democrats  to  oppose  every  section  of  it, 
especially  repeal  of  excess  profits  rates.  The  former  chairman  of  the 
tax-writing  committee  contrasted  the  secrecy  surrounding  preparation 
of  the  bill  with  what  he  termed  his  "cooperative  openness"  when 
Democrats  were  in  a  majority  during  the  Sixty-fourth  and  Sixty-fifth 
congresses.  In  stressing  that  the  committee  had  always  reported  reve- 
nue bills  unanimously,  Kitchin  ignored  the  fact  that  bills  written 
under  his  guidance  were  designed  to  finance  government  expenditures 
in  a  time  of  national  crisis.  No  doubt  he  hoped  that  casual  readers 
wTould  see  the  enormity  of  the  action  of  the  current  committee. 

The  major  portion  of  the  minority  report,  however,  concerned 
more  substantive  issues.  And  it  was  here  that  Kitchin  used  to  ad- 
vantage his  political  insights  gained  from  twenty  years  of  congressional 
service.  He  also  revealed  his  understanding  of  progressivism  and 
what  element  composed  that  reform  ideology.  His  attack  on  excess 
profits  repeal  had  two  prongs:  a  broad  appeal  to  congressmen  de- 
voted to  small  business  interests  and,  not  unrelated  to  the  first,  specific 
assaults  on  large  "rapacious  corporations."  For  small  corporations, 
making  not  over  8  or  10  percent  profit,  he  cautioned  that  substitution 
of  a  flat  12/2  percent  surtax  for  the  excess  profits  levy  would  increase 
taxes  as  much  as  50  percent,  while  it  would  reduce  by  the  same 
amount  the  contributions  from  larger  concerns  netting  20,  30,  or  50 
percent.  There  were,  he  alleged,  some  180  corporations  such  as 
United  States  and  Bethlehem  Steel,  the  Du  Pont  companies,  and 
various  Standard  Oil  companies  for  which  Republicans  had  designed 
the  present  revenue  measure;  the  tax  windfall  would  benefit  them, 
not  small,  weaker  corporations. 

To  those  for  whom  principles  of  economic  justice  had  no  appeal, 
Kitchin  had  another  argument.  "Let  every  Democrat  and  Republican 
bear  in  mind  always  that  these  same  corporations  were  filling  their 
coffers  with  their  fabulous  billions,  for  the  profits  of  their  stockholders, 
while  our  brave  boys  in  France  were  spilling  their  blood  for  the  pro- 
tections and  defense  of  their  country."  Their  officers,  directors,  and 
stockholders  never  <cfaced  a  German  gun,  braved  a  danger,  took  a 
risk,  made  a  sacrifice,  or  endured  a  suffering."  How  could  anyone, 
asked  this  outraged  Democrat,  consent  to  relieve  such  profiteering 
corporations  of  millions  in  taxes?  If  the  Democrats  denied  the  creed 
that  taxes  should  be  levied  according  to  ability  to  pay,  all  that  re- 


86  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

mained  was  the  Republican  principle  of  forcing  the  small  and  weak 
to  bear  most  of  the  taxes.40 

These  sentiments  brought  to  a  head  the  contending  forces  within 
the  Democratic  minority.  Oldfield,  Peter  F.  Tague  of  Massachusetts, 
and  John  F.  Carew  of  New  York  wanted  to  join  Kitchin  in  signing 
the  report,  but  in  an  angry  scene  in  the  minority  leader's  office,  Garner 
warned  that  if  they  spurned  his  leadership  he  would  issue  a  separate 
report  and  reveal  just  how  divided  the  party  was.  With  his  face  "all 
colors  of  the  rainbow,"  according  to  Kitchin's  secretary,  Garner  con- 
demned the  absent  Kitchin  for  being  unfair  toward  him  because 
of  his  vote  for  the  emergency  tariff  bill.41  Just  before  he  rushed  out, 
slamming  the  door  behind  him,  Garner  indicated  that  he  would  allow 
the  report  to  stand  as  "Minority  Views";  that  was  all  he  felt  could 
be  expected  of  him.  Taking  up  where  the  Texan  left  off,  Charles  R. 
Crisp  of  Georgia  insisted  that  Kitchin  had  no  right  to  dictate  while 
he  was  ill  at  home  in  Scotland  Neck.  James  Collier,  who  had  earlier 
appeared  to  be  on  Kitchin  s  side,  agreed  with  Garner  and  Crisp,  and 
Carew  vacillated  with  the  avowal  that  he  would  not  sign  so  long  as 
those  parts  critical  of  Democrats  remained. 

Kitchin  s  secretary,  Charles  H.  England,  hurried  out  to  find  Old- 
field  who  hastened  back  cursing  that  he  would  sign  the  report  just 
as  it  was  written.  Garner  then  returned  with  acting  minority  leader 
Finis  Garrett  in  tow.  Garrett  questioned  whether  the  Democrats 
should  let  the  public  know  that  they  were  so  divided  and  then  went 
on  to  attack  Kitchin  for  being  a  disorganizer  rather  than  a  leader. 
To  counter  such  allegations,  England  said  he  was  certain  that  Kitchin 
had  written  the  report  in  the  hope  that  all  would  sign,  but  that  he 
would  probably  not  oppose  any  unifying  changes  so  long  as  his  basic 
position  on  excess  profits  taxation  remained  uncompromised.  Garrett 
moderated,  reasoning  that  with  no  signatures  the  report  might  appear 
to  be  the  views  of  all  those  in  the  minority.  Although  Kitchin  would 
probably  have  preferred  otherwise,  all— including  the  still  unpacified 
Oldfield— concurred  in  submitting  the  report  under  the  minority 
leader's  name  alone.42  While  internal  differences  may  have  been 
submerged  by  the  strategy  adopted,  debate  in  the  House  revealed 

40 House  Report  150,  Part  2  (Washington:  Government  Printing  Office,  1921),  Sixty- 
seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  1-12. 

41  On  April  12  Garner  and  thirteen  other  farmer-oriented  Democrats  had  let  it  be 
known  that  they  would  ignore  the  decision  of  their  caucus  and  support  the  emergency 
tariff  bill,  an  ill-conceived  effort  to  raise  farm  prices  by  placing  a  duty  on  agricultural 
commodities.  New  York  Times,  April  14,  1921. 

42  Oldfield  to  Kitchin,  August  20,  1921,  England  to  Kitchin,  August  23,  1921,  Kitchin 
Papers. 


Repeal  of  the  Revenue  Act  of  1918  87 

that  no  one  was  fooled.  It  was  quite  evident,  moreover,  that  those 
who  had  envisioned  the  excess  profits  tax  as  a  permanent  feature  of 
the  revenue  code  were  no  longer  in  control. 

When  the  House  met  the  day  following  submission  of  the  much- 
debated  report,  the  chaplain  with  near-divine  perception  intoned 
thanks  that  "light  has  shone  upon  the  darkened  earth."43  As  debate 
continued,  Garner  announced  that  he  planned  a  recommittal  motion 
to  strike  out  corporate  surtaxes.  With  mock  surprise,  Nicholas  Long- 
worth,  Republican  House  leader,  asked  why  the  Democrats  did  not 
move  to  strike  excess  profits  repeal  as  their  minority  views  pro- 
posed. The  Democrats  laughed  and  applauded  when  Garner  retorted, 
"Oh,  the  gentleman  would  like  to  stir  up  friction  among  the  Demo- 
crats, but  he  will  have  a  devil  of  a  hard  time  doing  it." 44 

As  he  spoke  of  giving  Republicans  an  opportunity  to  face  voters 
with  a  record  of  opposing  high  corporation  taxes,  Garner  demon- 
strated that  Democrats  were  now  concerned  only  with  details— 
whether  surtaxes  should  be  high  or  low— and  not  essentials— whether 
there  should  be  a  progressive  excess  profits  levy.  And  in  his  good- 
humored  bantering  of  the  Democrats  for  permitting  a  "sick  man" 
to  determine  minority  policy,  Longworth  placed  his  finger  squarely 
on  Garner's  strategy.  Garner's  followers  believed,  the  Ohio  Republi- 
can concluded,  "that  by  limiting  [the  recommittal  motion]  to  one 
proposition  out  of  what  they  describe  as  a  vicious,  monstrous  pro- 
gram, they  may  be  able  to  induce  some  of  the  brethren  on  the  Re- 
publican side  to  vote  to  sustain  the  Democratic  report."45  Although 
some  progressive  Republicans  like  James  A.  Frear  protested  that  they 
would  like  to  go  on  record  for  retention  of  an  excess  profits  levy,46 
the  recommittal  motion  received  48  Republican  votes  as  it  was  de- 
feated 230  to  169.  The  bill  itself  then  passed  274  to  125  with  almost 
all  opposition  coming  from  the  Democrats.47 

Excess  profits  taxes  were  now  dead.  Passage  of  the  Revenue  Act  of 
1921  began  more  than  a  decade  of  whittling  away  what  progressivism 
remained  in  the  tax  structure.48  In  1935  Congress  passed  a  revenue 
bill  which  restored  an  excess  profits  levy;  significantly,  however,  the 


43  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  5337. 

"Congressional  Record,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  5343. 
The  claim  of  Bascom  N.  Timmons  that  Garner's  fight  against  the  tax  bill  won  Kitchin's 
admiration  simply  cannot  be  substantiated  by  the  evidence.  See  Timmons,  Garner  of 
Texas,  99. 

45  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  5344-5345. 

46  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  5346. 

47  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1921,  LXI,  5358-5359. 

48  Hicks,  Republican  Ascendancy,  106,  235. 


88  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

new  rates  were  much  lower  than  those  the  little  band  of  progressives 
had  battled  so  hard  to  perpetuate  in  1921. 49  Even  more  important 
was  the  fact  that  the  1921  defeat  of  excess  profits  taxes  signaled  the 
end  of  any  meaningful  progressivism;  the  war-spawned  revenue 
measure  was,  after  all,  one  of  the  very  few  measures  passed  during 
the  era  from  1901  to  1920  which  anticipated  the  creation  of  a  social 
and  economic  democracy,  which  did  not  retreat  from  the  possibility 
of  fundamental  changes  in  the  nation's  social  structure. 

In  1959  Arthur  S.  Link  asked,  "What  happened  to  the  progressive 
movement  in  the  1920's?"50  Insofar  as  the  excess  profits  tax  was 
involved,  a  desire  to  return  to  normalcy,  the  inability  of  a  leading 
progressive  to  exert  forceful  leadership  because  of  personal  illness, 
breakup  of  the  wartime  coalition,  and  political  catering  to  business 
thinking  all  played  a  significant  role  in  the  demise  of  progressivism. 
While  the  greatly  outnumbered  Democrats  could  not  have  stopped 
the  retreat,  their  leaders  saw  no  obligation  to  prevent  a  rout  or  to 
build  a  progressive  record  to  present  to  the  people;  instead  they 
accepted  the  traditional  conservative  arguments  that  progressive  tax- 
ation would  destroy  business  enterprise  and  initiative. 

49  The  rates  were  only  6  percent  on  profits  from  10  percent  to  15  percent  of  invested 
capital  and  12  percent  on  profits  over  15  percent  of  invested  capital.  49  Stat.  1019, 
c.  829,  s.  106. 

50  Arthur  S.  Link,  "What  Happened  to  the  Progressive  Movement  in  the  1920's?," 
American  Historical  Review,  LXIV  (July,  1959),  833-851. 


BOOK  REVIEWS 

The  John  Gray  Blount  Papers,  Volume  III,  1796-1802.  Edited  by  William 
Henry  Masterson.  (Raleigh:  State  Department  of  Archives  and  History, 
1965.  Illustrations,  notes,  index.  Pp.  xxviii,  621.  $5.00.) 

Five  hundred  documents  for  five  dollars!  That  is  a  quantitative 
statement  of  the  bargain  that  is  offered  in  this  informative,  useful 
book.  Its  value  is  multiplied  many  times,  however,  when  qualitative 
factors  are  considered. 

For  one,  the  texts  of  the  documents  are  genuine— about  as  literally 
and  faithfully  so  as  it  is  possible  to  achieve  in  converting  manuscripts 
into  print.  For  another,  the  documents  are  almost  uniquely  signifi- 
cant. They  deal  primarily  with  such  economic  developments  as  wide- 
spread commerce  and  interstate  land  speculation  during  seven  war- 
troubled  years— unsettled  years  of  political  change  and  of  international 
conflict  during  which  Washington,  D.C.,  was  less  a  financial  capital 
than  was  Washington,  N.C.,  the  center  of  John  Gray  Blount's  far- 
flung  ventures. 

Moreover,  this  correspondence  includes  both  the  outgoing  and 
the  incoming  mail  of  John  Gray  Blount  and  of  others  in  his  family. 
The  scores  of  writers  make  occasional  comments  about  politics  and 
other  matters.  But  profits  and  losses  are  their  theme.  Rarely  does  a 
documentary  publication  record  so  sensitively  fluctuations  in  the 
pulses  of  so  many  businessmen  and,  indeed,  of  a  nation  of  entre- 
preneurs. And  rare  is  it  that  a  governmental  agency  issues  so  wel- 
come a  record  of  individual  aspirations  and  failures  in  free  enter- 
prise. The  result  is  not  of  merely  local  relevance;  it  is  of  national 
importance.  Within  these  pages  parade  New  Englanders  such  as 
Oliver  Wolcott,  Pennsylvanians  such  as  Judge  James  Wilson  and 
financier  Robert  Morris,  westerners  such  as  Hugh  Lawson  White  and 
Andrew  Jackson,  and  North  Carolinians  by  the  scores.  Hundreds  of 
these  individuals,  even  among  the  most  obscure  of  them,  have  been 
identified  editorially,  often  on  the  basis  of  manuscript  records. 

Despite  his  distant  residence,  in  Texas,  Dr.  Masterson  was  the 
perfect  choice  to  succeed  Dr.  Alice  Barnwell  Keith  as  the  editor  and 
to  "screen"  before  publication  the  excellent  product  of  staff  labors 


90  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

in  Raleigh.  Continuation  of  the  series,  many  will  join  in  hoping 
fervently,  will  receive  high  priority  among  the  many  worthy  projects 
of  the  publishing  department. 

W.  Edwin  Hemphill 

South  Carolina  Archives  Department 


North  Carolina  Troops,  1861-1865:  A  Roster.  Volume  1,  Artillery.  Com- 
piled by  Louis  H.  Manarin.  (Raleigh:  State  Department  of  Archives  and 
History,  1966.  Frontispiece,  maps,  preface,  introduction,  index.  Pp. 
xvii,  691.  $12.00.) 

Recognizing  the  long-known  fact  that  John  W.  Moore's  Roster  of 
North  Carolina  Troops  in  the  War  Between  the  States  (4  volumes, 
Raleigh,  1882)  contained  numerous  errors  of  omission,  spelling,  and 
factual  information,  the  North  Carolina  Confederate  Centennial  Com- 
mission adopted  as  its  most  ambitious  project  the  preparation  and 
publication  of  a  new  roster.  Louis  H.  Manarin,  an  experienced  re- 
searcher into  Civil  War  records,  was  chosen  as  the  compiler  of  the 
new  roster,  and  space  and  facilities  for  his  editorial  staff  were  secured 
in  the  National  Archives,  thus  affording  easy  access  to  the  War 
Department  Collection  of  Confederate  Records  ( Record  Group  109 ) , 
especially  the  Compiled  Military  Service  Records  which  provide  the 
principal  source  of  information  on  individual  North  Carolinians  who 
served  in  the  Confederate  forces. 

Volume  1,  Artillery,  contains  unit  histories  and  rosters  for  the 
three  regiments  (10th,  36th,  and  40th),  four  battalions  (1st,  3rd, 
10th,  and  13th),  and  Captain  Abner  A.  Moseley's  Company  (Samp- 
son Artillery),  totaling  the  fifty-four  companies  of  artillery  that  North 
Carolina  supplied  to  the  Confederate  States  Army.  The  unit  histories 
are  brief  but  succinct  and  furnish  information  as  to  the  date  and 
place  of  each  unit's  mustering  into  service,  the  principal  areas  in 
which  it  operated  and  the  actions  in  which  it  was  engaged,  changes 
that  occurred  in  its  name  or  numerical  designation,  and  the  date  and 
place  of  its  final  surrender  or  disbandment.  The  individual  service 
records,  which  follow  in  each  instance  immediately  after  the  unit's 
history,  contain  the  date  and  place  of  enlistment,  the  time  period  over 
which  the  man  was  "present  or  accounted  for,"  and  the  last  docu- 
mented date  pertaining  to  his  service.  The  editing  is  well  done  and 
represents  a  great  improvement  over  all  previous  efforts  to  list  and 
identify  North  Carolina's  Confederate  soldiers. 


Book  Reviews  91 

Upon  the  termination  of  the  North  Carolina  Confederate  Centen- 
nial Commission  in  1965,  the  roster  project  was  transferred  to  the 
State  Department  of  Archives  and  History  which  aspires  to  complete 
a  twelve-volume  series  covering  all  phases  of  Civil  War  service  by 
North  Carolinians.  Future  volumes  will  be  dependent  upon  con- 
tinued legislative  support,  which  the  excellence  of  this  one  should 
be  an  important  aid  in  securing. 

James  W.  Patton 

University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


Carpetbagger's  Crusade:  The  Life  of  Albion  Winegar  Tour  gee.  By  Otto 
H.  Olsen.  (Baltimore:  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  1965.  Frontispiece,  pre- 
face, introduction,  illustrations,  critical  bibliography,  index.  Pp.  xiv, 
395.  $7.95.) 

Albion  W.  Tourgee  was  born  in  Williamsfield,  Ohio,  of  New  Eng- 
land parents  in  1838  and  died  in  1905.  He  was  educated  at  the 
University  of  Rochester  and  taught  school  for  a  short  time.  He  grew 
up  in  a  milieu  of  humanitarian  reform  but,  as  a  young  man,  remained 
aloof  from  much  of  the  contemporary  ferment,  noticeably  the  slavery 
dispute.  A  short  career  in  the  Civil  War  brought  a  startling  change 
in  TourgeVs  attitude  and  he  soon  became  a  militant  advocate  of 
reform.  Tourgee  removed  to  North  Carolina  in  1865  and  for  four- 
teen years  he  carried  on  a  crusade  for  civil  rights,  political  equality 
of  the  races,  free  public  education,  and  penal  reform  in  the  state. 
Self-righteous  and  opinionated,  he  demanded  that  the  whites  accept 
their  former  slaves  as  fellow  citizens  and  looked  upon  anyone  who 
opposed  his  views  as  an  enemy.  Tourgee  made  significant  contri- 
butions to  the  state  as  a  member  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of 
1868  and  of  the  commission  which  prepared  a  code  of  laws  and  a 
code  of  civil  procedure.  Bitterly  resented  at  first,  the  reforms  were 
gradually  accepted  by  the  courts  and  the  people.  A  modern  authority 
has  characterized  the  code  of  civil  procedure  as  "the  most  sweeping 
legislative  contribution  in  the  nineteenth  century  to  the  law  of  private 
relations."  TourgeVs  public  career  also  included  membership  in  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1875  and  a  term  on  the  state  Supreme 
Court  bench. 

As  the  Republican  program  of  reconstruction  collapsed,  Tourgee 
took  up  his  pen  in  support  of  the  cause.  Among  his  numerous  books 
three  were  of  special  significance.  Toinette:  A  Tale  of  the  South 


. » 


92  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

depicted  the  evils  of  the  slave  regime  by  calling  attention  to  mis- 
cegenation. Favorably  received  generally  in  the  North  it  was  con- 
demned in  the  state  on  the  ground  that  its  purpose  was  "To  Popu- 
larize Inter-marriage  Between  the  Races."  A  Fool's  Errand  By 
One  of  the  Fools,  largely  a  biographical  account  of  Tourgee's  role  in 
Reconstruction,  was  highly  influential  on  northern  public  opinion 
and  a  best  seller.  Bricks  Without  Straw  was  a  story  of  the  dilemma 
faced  by  the  former  slaves  as  they  sought  education  and  economic 
stability  in  the  midst  of  race  prejudice.  Tour  gee  organized  a  publish- 
ing company  which  was  at  first  financially  successful  but  later  failed. 
He  edited  Our  Continent  and  contributed  widely  to  other  periodicals 
and  newspapers. 

In  1891  Tourgee  turned  once  again  to  his  crusade  for  civil  rights 
and  took  the  lead  in  organizing  the  National  Civil  Rights  Association. 
In  the  same  year  he  was  appointed  to  direct  a  legal  attack  upon  the 
Louisiana  railroad  segregation  law.  In  1896  he  filed  a  brief  before 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  which  he  maintained  that  the 
Louisiana  law  denied  "equal  protection  of  the  law  to  all  classes  of 
citizens"  and  "deprives  citizens  of  liberty  and  immunity  without  due 
process  of  the  law."  The  court  denied  the  plea  and  upheld  the  state 
law.  But  fifty-eight  years  later  the  Supreme  Court  reversed  the 
doctrine  in  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  and  Tourgee  the  Fool  had  won  his 
case. 

This  is  an  interesting,  informative,  and  satisfying  biography  of 
a  controversial  figure  in  North  Carolina  and  a  significant  one  in  the 
Reconstruction  era  of  United  States  history.  It  is  based  upon  exten- 
sive research  in  a  wide  range  of  sources,  many  of  which  were  hereto- 
fore unused.  The  author  is  a  sympathetic  and  ardent  champion  of 
Tourgee  and  yet  recognizes  the  faults  and  weaknesses  of  the  man. 
The  book  is  well  balanced  and  an  important  contribution  to  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  Reconstruction  period. 

Fletcher  M.  Green 

University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 

Preachers,  Pedagogues  &  Politicians:  The  Evolution  Controversy  in  North 
Carolina,  1920-1927.  By  Willard  B.  Gatewood,  Jr.  (Chapel  Hill:  Uni- 
versity of  North  Carolina  Press,  1966.  Preface,  epilogue,  appendixes, 
bibliography,  index.  Pp.  x,  268.  $5.95.) 

The  publication  in  1966  of  two  scholarly  works  on  the  intellectual 
climate  of  North  Carolina  in  the  1920's  adds  immeasurably  to  an 


Book  Reviews  93 

understanding  and  appreciation  of  that  period.  Willard  B.  Gatewood's 
brilliant  analysis  of  the  antievolution  controversy  has  recently  been 
supplemented  by  Suzanne  Cameron  Linder's  perceptive  and  moving 
biography  of  William  Louis  Poteat.  With  patience  and  thoroughgoing 
mastery  of  detail,  Gatewood  demonstrates  that  the  campaign  to  out- 
law the  teaching  of  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  was  the  result  of  a 
congeries  of  forces  that  had  alienated,  disoriented,  and  confused  the 
people.  They  readily  fell  prey  to  revivalists,  religious  zealots,  anti- 
intellectuals,  demagogues,  and  cranks  who  exploited  the  profound 
sense  of  disillusionment  that  followed  the  First  World  War.  The 
author  makes  every  effort  to  present  objectively  the  patent  nonsense 
and  irrationality  that  became  the  stock-in-trade  of  the  antievolution 
crusade. 

It  is  disconcerting,  however,  to  find  that  Presbyterians,  who  were 
presumably  educated  and  fairly  substantial,  were  in  the  vanguard 
of  the  movement  to  outlaw  freedom  of  inquiry.  The  editorial  campaign 
against  the  theory  of  evolution  was  led  by  the  Charlotte  Observer, 
which  served  an  urban,  industrial,  and  basically  conservative  con- 
stituency. Interestingly,  a  larger  vote  against  the  outlawry  of  Darwin- 
ism in  the  public  schools  and  in  support  of  academic  freedom  came 
from  rural  and  agricultural  counties  of  the  Coastal  Plain  than  from 
counties  of  the  Piedmont  and  the  Mountain  regions.  The  reader  is 
left  with  a  nagging  impression  that  the  agitation  of  public  opinion 
on  this  issue  was  powerfully  influenced  by  economic  considerations. 
The  spellbinding  revivalists  lost  interest  when  the  crusade  ceased 
to  be  lucrative. 

There  would  be  little  point  to  a  lengthy  and  detailed  description 
of  the  antics  of  the  antievolutionists.  This  study  achieves  stature  as 
a  pioneering  work,  however,  in  its  description  of  the  mobilization  of 
forces  to  defend  freedom  of  speech,  thought,  and  inquiry.  It  may  well 
be  that  the  legacy  of  this  struggle  will  be  instructive  to  the  student  of 
history  long  after  the  superficial  giddiness  of  the  decade  has  been 
forgotten.  What  is  impressive  about  the  fight  for  intellectual  freedom 
in  the  1920's  is  the  caliber  of  leaders  who  successfully  defied  the 
powerful  forces  that  were  operating  upon  public  opinion.  William 
Louis  Poteat  of  Wake  Forest  College  and  Harry  W.  Chase  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  North  Carolina  were  the  two  most  influential  spokesmen  in 
rebutting  the  antievolution  strategy.  But  a  host  of  their  followers 
deserve  mention  for  their  contributions  in  defeating  the  antievolution 
bills  of  David  Scott  Poole  in  1925  and  1927.  Among  the  most  promi- 
nent were  the  editorial  staff  of  the  Greensboro  Daily  News,  William 


94  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

O.  Saunders  of  the  Elizabeth  City  Independent,  Howard  W.  Odum, 
Frank  P.  Graham,  Walter  Murphy,  Henry  Groves  Connor,  Jr.,  Edgar 
D.  Broadhurst,  Nell  Battle  Lewis,  Sam  J.  Ervin,  Jr.,  Albert  S.  Keister, 
Charles  W.  Tillett,  Jr.,  Richard  T.  Vann,  and  Zeno  P.  Metcalf. 

It  is  surprising  that  college  faculties  were  not  more  outspoken  in 
their  defense  of  freedom  of  inquiry;  but  the  silence  of  the  state  super- 
intendent of  public  instruction  and  the  decision  of  the  North  Carolina 
Education  Association  to  ignore  the  issue  altogether  suggest  an  even 
more  disappointing  apathy  and  indifference  toward  academic  free- 
dom. Proponents  of  an  antie volution  law  ultimately  defeated  their 
own  purpose  by  use  of  bitter,  vindictive,  and  extreme  tactics.  A  com- 
parison will  inevitably  be  drawn  between  the  evolution  controversy 
of  the  1920's  and  the  speaker  ban  law  furore  of  the  1960's.  The  value 
of  Gatewood's  study  is  that  it  illuminates  the  persistence  of  anti- 
intellectualism  and  irrationality  and  explores  the  shadowy  realms  of 
reaction  and  despair.  As  a  result  of  this  work  developments  of  recent 
years  can  be  seen  in  a  clearer  historical  focus. 

Joseph  F.  Steelman 

East  Carolina  College 


William  Louis  Poteat:  Prophet  of  Progress.  By  Suzanne  Cameron  Linder. 

(Chapel  Hill:    University  of  North   Carolina   Press,   1966.   Foreword, 
illustrations,  notes,  index.  Pp.  xviii,  224.  $5.00.) 

William  Louis  Poteat  was  an  enthusiastic  apostle  of  progress  whose 
career  was  a  prolonged  struggle  in  behalf  of  freedom  of  the  human 
mind.  The  survival  of  such  a  man  in  the  academic  atmosphere  of 
the  South  was  in  itself  a  remarkable  feat.  That  he  became  in  his 
own  lifetime  the  honored  son  of  the  region's  largest  evangelical  de- 
nomination was  truly  extraordinary.  The  fact  that  Poteat  served  both 
as  president  of  the  North  Carolina  Academy  of  Science  and  the 
Baptist  State  Convention  was  evidence  that  he  was  no  ordinary 
individual.  Those  awed  by  his  diverse  talents  and  impressive  triumphs 
in  the  cause  of  enlightenment  grasped  the  import  of  H.  L.  Mencken's 
description  of  him  as  "the  liaison  officer  between  Baptist  revelation 
and  human  progress." 

Although  Poteat's  career  formed  an  inextricable  part  of  the  history 
of  Baptist-related  Wake  Forest  College,  this  book  by  Suzanne  Linder 
is  more  than  a  mere  biography  of  a  biology  professor  and  college 


Book  Reviews  95 

president.  It  is  a  perceptive  portrait  of  a  southerner  with  a  deep  sense 
of  human  and  spiritual  values  who  utilized  his  broad  learning, 
persuasive  eloquence,  and  boundless  energy  to  "pick  a  little  path 
of  light  in  the  surrounding  darkness"  of  his  native  region.  In  an 
era  when  southerners  generally  defined  progress  in  terms  of  shirt 
factories  and  hosiery  mills  Poteat  dedicated  himself  to  progress  of 
another  variety— the  improvement  of  man's  intellectual  and  social 
condition.  From  the  laboratory  as  well  as  the  pulpit— and  he  was  at 
home  in  both— he  waged  a  relentless  battle  against  ignorance, 
prejudice,  provincialism,  and  their  varied  offspring.  Significantly,  one 
of  his  earliest  public  addresses  was  a  thoughtful  inquiry  into  the 
relationship  between  science  and  religion,  and  his  last  was  a  bold 
assertion  of  the  Christian's  responsibility  in  race  relations. 

This  well-balanced  study  of  Poteat's  life  begins  with  an  illumi- 
nating account  of  his  formative  years  in  Caswell  County.  The  Civil 
War  destroyed  the  comfortable  society  of  the  slaveholding  aristocracy 
into  which  he  was  born  and  left  his  family  in  radically  reduced 
circumstances.  Nevertheless,  in  1872,  Poteat  managed  to  enter  Wake 
Forest  College  where  he  was  to  remain  for  the  rest  of  his  life  as 
student,  professor,  and  president,  successively.  Among  the  more  no- 
table of  his  numerous  contributions  to  the  institution  was  the  intro- 
duction of  the  laboratory  method  of  teaching  science,  a  distinction 
which  few  colleges  in  the  South  could  claim  at  the  time.  The  record 
of  his  academic  activities  is  complemented  by  a  careful  analysis  of 
his  intellectual  maturity.  Not  satisfied  merely  to  place  the  stamp  of 
enlightenment  upon  the  hundreds  of  young  Baptists  who  came  under 
his  influence  in  the  academic  cloister,  Poteat  actively  participated 
in  a  variety  of  reform  movements  which  he  viewed  as  means  of 
achieving  God's  purpose  in  the  redemption  of  society.  Toward  this 
end  he  labored  tirelessly  in  behalf  of  child  labor  legislation,  temper- 
ance, better  schools,  mental  health  facilities,  lower  freight  rates,  and 
more  harmonious  race  relations. 

Quite  appropriately,  Mrs.  Linder  has  devoted  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  this  volume  to  Poteat's  role  in  the  controversy  over  evolution 
which  climaxed  in  a  dramatic  struggle  during  the  1920's.  At  no  other 
juncture  in  his  career  was  so  much  at  stake,  including  his  own  repu- 
tation and  the  financial  status  of  the  college.  Noisy  threats  by  his 
Baptist  brethren  failed  to  budge  him  in  his  unequivocal  defense  of 
academic  freedom.  He  consistently  maintained  that  his  teaching  of 
evolution  for  forty  years  had  neither  discredited  the  Bible  in  the 
eyes  of  students  nor  lessened  his  personal  commitment  to  the  Christ- 


96  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

ian  faith.  That  the  Wake  Forest  alumni  rallied  so  overwhelmingly  to 
the  support  of  his  stand  in  behalf  of  intellectual  spaciousness  offered 
abundant  testimony  to  the  success  of  his  efforts  in  the  cause  of  culture 
and  enlightenment.  Poteat's  ultimate  triumph  in  the  Baptist  struggle 
over  evolution  was  an  event  of  far-reaching  consequence  for  the  in- 
tellectual and  religious  life  of  the  entire  South  as  well  as  North  Caro- 
lina. 

This  volume  is  impressive  in  every  respect,  from  format  and  design 
to  prose  and  documentation.  Suzanne  Linder  has  produced  an  ex- 
cellent biography  of  an  extraordinary  man  and,  in  the  process,  has 
added  a  significant  chapter  to  the  cultural  and  intellectual  history  of 
the  New  South. 

Willard  B.  Gatewood 
University  of  Georgia 


Legends  of  the  Outer  Banks  and  Tar  Heel  Tidewater.  By  Charles  Harry 
Whedbee.  (Winston-Salem:  John  F.  Blair,  1966.  Foreword,  illustra- 
tions. Pp.  x,  165.  $3.75.) 

A  Charlotte  book  reviewer  recently  commented  on  the  penchant 
North  Carolinians  have  for  writing  about  themselves  and  their  state. 
They  never  seem  to  tire  of  it,  she  observed.  She  was  right,  of  course, 
and  this  book  is  evidence  of  the  truth  of  her  statement.  Among  these 
eighteen  stories  by  Judge  Whedbee  (he  is  judge  of  the  municipal 
court  in  Greenville  and  has  a  television  program)  are  those  oft-told 
yarns  about  Virginia  Dare's  transformation  into  a  white  deer,  about 
Blackbeard  and  Theodosia  Burr,  about  the  ghost  ship  "Carroll  M. 
Deering,"  about  the  devil's  hoofprints  at  Bath  (Judge  Whedbee  saw 
them  recently),  and  the  floating  church  at  Swan  Quarter.  They  are 
all  good  stories,  and  he  tells  them  well,  adding  fresh  touches. 

There  are  less  familiar  legends:  the  naming  of  Jockey's  Ridge 
from  races  held  there  with  banker  ponies,  the  settlement  of  the  "lost 
colonists"  at  Milltail  Creek  on  the  Dare  County  mainland,  the  blas- 
phemous fisherman  "Old  Quork"  of  Ocracoke,  the  Seven  Sisters  sand- 
hills at  Nags  Head,  the  drowning  of  Ocracoke's  Jim  Baum  of  Gaskill, 
the  church  door  which  came  up  on  the  beach  for  St.  Andrews-by-the- 
Sea,  Amy  Harris'  floating  coffin  at  Duck,  and  the  albino  porpoise, 
Hatteras  Jack,  guiding  ships  past  the  reefs  and  shoals. 

Only  three  of  the  eighteen  stories  are  set  in  the  spreading  coastal 


Book  Reviews  97 

region  below  Ocracoke,  two  of  them  concerning  the  "boozhyot"  at 
Cape  Lookout  in  rum-running  days,  the  third  about  the  medicinal 
waters  of  Shallotte  Inlet.  For  this  reason  Judge  Whedbee's  book  can 
be  criticized  for  its  lack  of  scope  and  its  misleading  title.  In  practical 
usage,  the  Outer  Banks  terminate  south  of  Portsmouth,  and  Cape 
Lookout  and  Shallotte  are  not  on  or  near  them,  though  Judge  Whed- 
bee  says  they  are.  Too,  if  he  is  going  to  include  the  entire  coastal 
region,  his  proportion  is  awry.  Even  this  Piedmont  reviewer  can 
think  offhand  of  dozens  of  stories  from  southeastern  North  Carolina 
which  would  have  added  interest  to  the  book.  If  pirate  Blackbeard  at 
Ocracoke,  why  not  pirate  Stede  Bonnet  at  Topsail  Inlet?  Where  are 
the  stories  of  the  lower  Cape  Fear:  the  Dram  Tree,  the  spy  Bose 
O'Neill  Greenhow  of  Confederate  times,  and  so  on  and  on?  Doubt- 
less the  Beaufort  area  can  provide  enough  legendary  material  for 
a  book  all  to  itself.  Judge  Whedbee's  stories  are  so  good  that  it  is 
pleasant  to  think  what  might  have  happened  if  he  had  done  a  bit 
more  exploring  southward  from  his  customary  environs. 

Bichard  Walser 

North  Carolina  State  University 


The  Catawba  Indians:  The  People  of  the  River.  By  Douglas  Summers 
Brown.  (Columbia:  University  of  South  Carolina  Press,  1966.  Illustra- 
tions, notes,  index.  Pp.  viii,  400.  $10.00.) 

Douglas  Summers  Brown  (Mrs.  H.  Dockery  Brown)  follows  the 
destiny  of  the  Catawba  Indians  of  South  Carolina  from  the  time 
when  Spanish,  French,  and  English  explorers  and  colonists  entered 
their  lives  to  that  moment  when  an  aroused  Catawba  remnant  re- 
asserted its  independence  by  rejecting  a  continuing  wardship  and 
launched  itself  into  the  stream  of  American  life.  This  narrative  covers 
four  centuries,  from  approximately  1560  to  1962.  Mrs.  Brown  has 
supported  her  account  with  copious  extracts  from  historical  and 
archival  sources  and  has  uncovered  some  new  materials  in  the  Lyman 
Draper  Papers  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin  and  in  the  narrative 
of  Thomas  (Kanawha)  Spratt.  The  latter  settled  among  the  Catawba 
as  the  French  and  Indian  War  drew  to  a  close. 

Those  seeking  descriptions  of  Catawba  life  and  custom  will  not 
find  the  work  useful,  for  the  thrust  of  Mrs.  Brown's  approach  stresses 
important  personalities  (Indian  and  non-Indian)  who  influenced  the 


98  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Siouan-speaking  Catawba  and  participated  in  the  transformation  of 
their  homeland  and  in  their  political  situation.  The  narrative  approach 
which  Mrs.  Brown  has  elected  to  follow  naturally  places  limitations 
on  what  she  is  able  to  convey  to  the  reader.  Some  will  miss  the  stimu- 
lus of  a  broad  canvas  of  interpretation  as  sketched  by  Verner  W. 
Crane  in  The  Southern  Frontier  and  Chapman  James  Milling  in  Red 
Carolinians. 

Mrs.  Brown's  detailed  narrative  does  not  divide  Catawba  history 
into  a  clear  set  of  periods;  rather,  she  describes  matters  topically 
within  special  time  spans:  Catawba-settler  relations,  Catawba  defense 
against  the  intrusion  of  northern  Indians,  the  firming  of  Catawba 
loyalties  during  the  French  and  Indian  War,  the  constancy  of  Catawba 
loyalty  to  South  Carolina  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  time  of 
decline  during  the  early  nineteenth  century,  the  Catawba  dispersion 
following  the  last  treaty  with  South  Carolina  in  1840,  the  gradual 
reconstitution  of  the  Catawba  as  a  political-tribal  entity  during  the 
nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries,  and  finally,  the  political  dis- 
solution that  followed  congressional  legislation  in  1959  by  Catawba 
request. 

The  disadvantage  of  any  political  history,  of  course,  is  the  narrow 
context  of  interpretation.  In  this  instance  the  reader  remains  wholly 
unaware  of  transformations  in  Catawba  economy,  daily  habits,  family 
relations,  knowledge,  religious  beliefs,  ceremonialism,  and  customary 
ways  that  accompanied  basic  alterations  in  the  Catawba  political 
situation.  Missing  is  the  context  which  gave  purpose,  meaning,  and 
distinction  to  the  Catawba  as  a  people— their  culture.  The  gradual 
erosion  of  the  Catawba  culture  base  undoubtedly  hastened  the  para- 
sitic inclination  and  encouraged  the  apathy  and  spontaneous  alco- 
holism by  which  a  shattered  Catawba  character  revealed  itself.  The 
acceptance  of  the  Mormon  faith  by  the  Catawba— almost  to  a  man- 
is  one  of  two  important  culture-events  touched  upon  by  Mrs.  Brown. 
The  action  aligns  the  Catawba  with  other  Indian  groups  who  have 
succeeded  in  stabilizing  their  accommodation  to  the  bewildering  com- 
plexities and  fast-moving  impact  of  American  culture  by  means  of 
a  native  or  Christian-based  worship.  Catawba  rejection  of  continu- 
ing federal  and  state  wardship  gives  the  other  signal  culture-event. 
Both  hint  at  important  acculturative  forces  at  work  which  only  the 
personal  narratives  of  the  Catawba  could  highlight.  Mrs.  Brown  sup- 
plies some  firsthand  information  on  these  items,  but  with  three- 
quarters  of  her  work  devoted  to  documented  history,  there  is  only 
space  for  two  short  chapters  on  what  has  been  happening  recently 
to  the  Catawba. 


Book  Reviews  99 

Mrs.  Brown  has  written  an  informative  work  that  should  prove 
useful  to  those  interested  in  the  ethnohistory  of  the  Southeast.  The 
selection  of  maps  focuses  on  the  period  of  exploration  and  coloni- 
zation. 

Fred  W.  Voget 

Southern  Illinois  University 


The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia.  By  Alan  Conway.  (Minneapolis:  Univer- 
sity of  Minnesota  Press,  1966.  Notes,  index.  Pp.  v,  248.  $6.50.) 

Professor  Alan  Conway,  senior  lecturer  in  American  history  at 
University  College  of  Wales,  Aberystwyth,  has  written  a  readable 
and  moderate  revisionist  history  of  Reconstruction  in  Georgia.  In 
his  opinion  the  invective  heaped  upon  "Radical  Reconstruction"  by 
Georgia  historians  has  been  "excessive,  irrational,  and  unjustified/' 

The  Republicans  never  had  a  sufficient  majority  in  the  legislature 
to  be  confident  of  maintaining  themselves  in  power.  In  the  first 
Reconstruction  legislature  the  senate  was  almost  evenly  divided  be- 
tween Republicans  and  Democrats,  and  the  former  enjoyed  only  a 
bare  majority  in  the  House.  Radical  Republican  rule,  always  weak  in 
Georgia,  was  ended  by  1871. 

Georgia  did  not  suffer  from  grinding  oppression  and  ignorant 
Negro  domination.  Nevertheless,  whites  in  the  state  responded  with 
violence  and  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  to  keep  Negroes  in  their  "place"  and 
to  intimidate  white  Republicans.  The  terroristic  activities  of  the  Klan 
were  apparently  approved  by  a  majority  of  whites.  As  Conway  says, 
prominent  Georgians  denied  the  existence  of  such  an  organization 
in  the  state  "with  one  hand  on  their  hearts  and  the  other  upon  their 
white  sheets.  .  .  ." 

Though  undoubtedly  there  was  some  corruption  during  Recon- 
struction, Conway  finds  that  it  has  been  exaggerated.  It  was  peculiar 
neither  to  Reconstruction  nor  Republicans.  Indeed  even  during  Radi- 
cal rule  Georgia  Democrats  seemed  to  have  a  conspicuous  place  at 
the  public  trough. 

Conway's  book  does  much  to  update  the  interpretations  of  C.  Mil- 
dred Thompson's  Reconstruction  in  Georgia  (1915),  but  it  by  no 
means  completely  replaces  Miss  Thompson's  research.  One  wishes  he 
had  treated  more  thoroughly  the  social  changes  of  Reconstruction 
and  the  problems  encountered  by  the  recently  emancipated  slaves. 

Joe  M.  Richardson 
Florida  State  University 


100  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  Overseer:  Plantation  Management  in  the  Old  South.  By  William 
Kauffman  Scarborough.  (Baton  Rouge:  Louisiana  State  University 
Press,  1966.  Illustrations,  notes,  bibliography,  tables,  index.  Pp.  xv, 
256.  $7.50.) 

Another  segment  of  population  in  the  antebellum  South  is  brought 
into  clear  focus  as  a  result  of  Professor  Scarborough's  painstaking 
portrayal  of  The  Overseer.  In  the  quarter  century  since  Frank  Owsley 
and  the  group  at  Vanderbilt  began  the  use  of  manuscript  census 
records  to  build  reliable  class  portraits  from  the  segments  of  the 
various  schedules,  meticulous  scholars  have  effectively  used  this 
material  as  a  basis  for  more  reliable  pictures  of  the  Old  South.  In 
addition,  this  author  has  had  a  goodly  supply  of  plantation  records, 
diaries,  and  family  papers  to  add  color  and  richness  to  statistical 
evidence.  It  has  all  been  presented  in  a  scholarly  manner,  but  anyone 
interested  in  class  structure  will  find  this  material  worthwhile  reading. 

The  lot  of  an  overseer  was  not  an  easy  one.  Although  held  in  more 
esteem  than  the  slave  trader,  he  was  generally  rejected  socially.  He 
was  caught  between  the  desires  of  a  plantation  owner  to  produce 
a  good  crop  and  the  limitations— either  physical  or  humanitarian— 
of  the  slaves  who  had  to  do  the  work.  If  there  was  a  steward  between 
the  owner  and  the  overseer  or  a  recalcitrant  "driver"  between  him 
and  the  slaves,  his  task  was  yet  more  difficult. 

In  general,  the  more  competent  overseers  were  to  be  found  on 
the  large  rice  and  sugar  plantations  of  the  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia  coasts  and  in  Louisiana.  On  these  rich  tracts  the  overseers 
might  earn  from  $1,000  to  $2,000  a  year  plus  living.  Although  in  the 
older  plantation  areas  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  the  annual 
pay  ranged  from  only  $300  to  $500  cash,  the  stability  of  the  owners 
attracted  and  kept  good  overseers.  It  was  in  the  tobacco  and  cotton 
lands  opening  up  farther  west  where  proprietors  were  attempting  to 
make  big  money  fast  that  the  worst  overseers  were  found.  They  were 
younger  men,  often  incompetent,  always  poorly  paid,  moving  annually 
from  plantation  to  plantation,  mourned  neither  by  owner  nor  slave, 
and  described  unfavorably  by  most  people  who  traveled  through  the 
area. 

In  an  interesting  chapter  on  "The  Overseer  Elite,"  Mr.  Scarborough 
gives  some  specific  accounts  of  men  who  were  eminently  successful 
in  their  chosen  profession.  Some  contributed  to  the  agricultural  re- 
forms of  the  period;  a  few  perfected  inventions  in  farming  imple- 
ments; an  even  larger  number  so  improved  their  status  as  to  become 
stewards,  yeomen  farmers,  or  even  small  plantation  owners. 


Book  Reviews  101 

In  between  the  worst  and  the  best  were  hundreds  of  overseers  who 
did  the  best  job  they  could  under  the  circumstances.  When  one 
reads  the  numerous  requests  of  plantation  owners  to  Confederate 
authorities  to  excuse  their  overseers  from  military  service,  it  is  clear 
that  they  were  indispensable  men  in  the  plantation  system. 

Blanche  Henry  Clark  Weaver 

Nashville,  Tennessee 


Dear  Ones  at  Home:  Letters  from  Contraband  Camps.  Edited  by  Henry  L. 
Swint.  (Nashville:  Vanderbilt  University  Press,  1966.  Notes,  bibli- 
ography, index.  Pp.  274.  $6.95.) 

This  book  is  primarily  a  collection  of  letters  from  the  camps  for 
"contraband"  Negroes  established  by  the  Union  armies  during  the 
Civil  War  and  shortly  thereafter.  One  who  is  aware  that  at  least 
some  slaves  were  literate  might  be  led  to  believe  (and  hope)  that 
the  Negroes  themselves  had  written  the  letters,  but  this  is  not  the 
case.  The  writers  were  two  idealistic  Quaker  teachers  from  Wor- 
cester, Massachusetts,  named  Lucy  and  Sarah  Chase.  Lucy,  the 
older,  stronger,  and  more  articulate  of  the  two,  worked  from  1862  to 
1869. in  Virginia,  Georgia,  and  Florida,  and  Sarah  was  with  her  much 
of  the  time.  They  wrote  home  frequently,  long  newsy  letters,  full  of 
the  type  of  description  that  warms  the  historian's  heart— pictures 
of  the  living  conditions,  and  the  attitudes  and  aspirations  of  the 
freedmen. 

For  this  alone  the  collection  is  a  valuable  contribution  and  cer- 
tainly it  will  be  of  assistance  to  students  of  Negro  history.  The  letters 
reveal  also  a  great  deal  about  educational  methods  and  relief  measures 
during  the  war  and  immediate  postwar  periods.  Perhaps  the  most 
interesting  and  revealing  aspect  of  the  book  is  the  insight  it  gives 
into  the  minds  of  two  Quaker  humanitarians  nurtured  on  the  thought 
of  antebellum  New  England  reformers  and  so  devoted  to  their  ideals 
that  they  would  endure  mosquitoes,  rat-infested  cabins,  and  even 
the  danger  of  shipwreck,  and  the  battlefield.  They  were  so  dedicated 
to  the  welfare  of  the  freedmen  and  so  oblivious  to  the  problems  of 
whites  that  they  sometimes  appear  to  be  infected  with  an  inverted 
racism. 

Professor  Swint's  editing  deserves  commendation.  He  has  omitted 
some  repetitious  material  from  the  letters  and  has  spared  readers  the 


102  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

burden  of  plowing  through  tedious  footnotes  encumbered  with  trivial 
and  obscure  data.  Yet  the  information  he  provided  is  quite  sufficient 
to  make  clear  the  content  of  the  letters.  The  Introduction  provides 
biographical  information  on  the  Chase  sisters  and  explains  the  various 
reasons  New  Englanders  were  interested  in  the  education  of  the 
freedmen. 

Richard  L.  Zuber 

Wake  Forest  College 


Frontier  Mission:  A  History  of  Religion  West  of  the  Southern  Appala- 
chians to  1861.  By  Walter  Brownlow  Posey.  (Lexington:  University  of 
Kentucky  Press,  1966.  Appendix,  index.  Pp.  viii,  436.  $9.00.) 

In  numerous  articles  and  books  published  over  the  past  thirty- 
five  years  Professor  Walter  B.  Posey  has  established  himself  as  the 
foremost  historian  of  American  Christianity  on  the  southern  frontier. 
His  publications  have  been  marked  by  painstaking  and  thorough 
research,  an  orderly  presentation,  a  critical  approach  free  from  bias, 
and  an  understanding  of  his  subject. 

The  present  volume,  almost  as  large  as  the  author's  four  previous 
ones  combined,  is  a  mixture  of  something  old  and  something  new; 
and  it  is  good  to  have  it  all  in  one  volume.  The  old  is  the  story  of  the 
Methodists,  Presbyterians,  and  Baptists  on  the  frontier  from  each's 
initial  settlement  until  the  early  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
The  new  consists  of  two  parts:  the  extending  of  the  history  of  these 
churches  to  1861,  and  the  inclusion  of  all  other  religious  groups  in 
the  area.  There  is  a  protracted  discussion  of  two  items  which  were 
dealt  with  in  the  author's  Religious  Strife  on  the  Southern  Frontier; 
Roman  Catholic  activities  in  the  area  and  the  emergence  and  growth 
of  two  churches  which  were  products  of  the  frontier  environment, 
the  Disciples  of  Christ  and  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians.  Other 
new  material  includes  an  account  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church 
in  the  region,  the  story  of  the  Shakers  in  Kentucky,  a  discussion  of 
the  split  in  the  Methodist  church,  and  a  summary  on  the  state  of 
religion  in  the  area  on  the  eve  of  the  Civil  War. 

In  concluding  a  fine  analysis  of  the  "slavery  problem"  in  the 
churches,  Posey  says  (page  351):  "without  the  direct  and  indirect 
support  of  the  churches  in  the  South  .  .  .  [slavery]  might  have  been 
shortlived."  This  reviewer  wishes  that  he  had  developed  this  idea, 


Book  Reviews  103 

since  the  religious  establishment  generally  reflects  the  values   and 
ideals  of  its  environment. 

Frontier  Mission  is  a  valuable  book  but  its  usefulness  would  have 
been  greatly  enhanced  by  the  inclusion  of  a  bibliography  or  biblio- 
graphical essay.  Documentation  is  sparse  and  one  is  frequently  re- 
ferred to  sources  which  are  listed  in  one  of  the  author's  earlier  volumes 
or  articles.  This  could  be  a  serious  handicap  since  some  of  these  books 
are  out  of  print.  Textual  errors  appear  to  be  minor;  the  review  copy 
contained  garbled  sentences  on  pages  167  and  192,  and  in  several 
places  Blountville,  Tennessee,  was  spelled  Blountsville.  These  are 
trivial  and  hardly  detract  from  the  value  of  the  book.  Students  of 
American  Christianity  and  the  Old  South  are  indebted  to  Professor 
Posey  for  this  informative  presentation. 

W.  Harrison  Daniel 

University  of  Richmond 


The  Right  to  Vote:  Politics  and  the  Passage  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment. 
By  William  Gillette.  (Baltimore:  Johns  Hopkins  Press  [John  Hopkins 
University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.  Series  LXXXIII 
(1965),  1.],  1965.  Frontispiece,  preface,  bibliography,  index,  list  of 
tables,  Pp.  x,  181.  $4.50.) 

Of  all  the  legislative  and  constitutional  developments  during  the 
Reconstruction  era,  perhaps  none  more  clearly  underscored  the  na- 
tional aspects  of  Reconstruction  than  the  passage  and  ratification 
of  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  amendments.  While  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  has  been  the  subject  of  numerous  books  and  articles, 
students  of  the  period  have  not  given  similar  attention  to  the  suf- 
frage amendment.  The  only  other  extensive  study  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  is  the  Legislative  and  Judicial  History  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment,  written  by  John  M.  Mathews  and  published  almost 
sixty  years  ago.  Yet,  as  William  Gillette  has  pointed  out  in  this 
unique  and  important  monograph,  the  problem  of  suffrage  evoked 
a  decidedly  national  reaction,  since  the  primary  goal  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  was  the  enfranchisement  of  Negroes  outside  the  deep 
South.  The  securing  of  the  vote  for  Negroes  in  the  South  was  of  some 
importance,  although  it  was  secondary  to  the  fact  that  the  suffrage 
question  outside  the  South  touched  not  only  on  the  matter  of  the 
vote  for  Negroes  but  the  use  of  the  vote  by  various  immigrant  groups, 
notably  the  Irish. 


104  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

While  Gillette  gives  some  attention  to  the  tortuous  road  over  which 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment  traveled  in  the  course  of  its  passage  by 
Congress,  his  principal  concern  is  with  its  ratification.  He  gives  ade- 
quate attention  to  its  ratification  by  the  southern  states,  but  con- 
centrates on  the  problem  of  ratification  outside  the  South  where, 
incidentally,  only  the  five  New  England  states  along  with  Iowa  and 
Minnesota  voluntarily  had  already  given  the  Negro  the  ballot.  Since 
the  ratification  of  the  amendment  might  enfranchise  as  many  as 
170,000  Negroes  in  the  border  states,  the  Northeast,  the  Middle  West, 
and  the  Far  West,  both  political  parties  weighed  with  great  care  the 
impact  of  ratification  on  its  own  future.  Where  ratification  might  cost 
them  elections  in  such  states  as  Maryland,  Delaware,  and  New  Jersey, 
the  Democrats  fought  it  bitterly.  Where  Republicans  believed  that  the 
amendment  did  not  go  far  enough  or  where  they  feared  the  vote 
of  the  Chinese,  the  Irish,  and  other  foreign  born,  they  opposed  ratifi- 
cation. Circumstances  differed  from  state  to  state  and  even  from  one 
locality  to  another. 

The  uncertainty  of  the  outcome  can  be  seen  in  the  rejection  of  the 
amendment  by  Kentucky,  Delaware,  Georgia,  and  Ohio  in  1869,  and 
by  New  York's  rescission  of  its  ratification  in  January,  1870.  When  a 
sufficient  number  of  states  had  finally  ratified  the  amendment,  the 
supporters  of  it  had  no  cause  for  excessive  elation,  for,  as  Gillette 
points  out,  some  states— Virginia,  Mississippi,  and  Georgia— had 
been  forced  to  ratify  as  a  condition  of  readmission  to  the  Union;  and 
the  proponents  would  not  live  to  see  Oregon  and  California  ratify, 
in  1959  and  1962,  respectively.  Nor  was  there  a  sound  basis  for 
optimism  regarding  its  effect:  The  amendment  did  not  guarantee 
Negroes  the  vote  in  the  South,  the  President  did  not  seek  consci- 
entiously to  enforce  the  amendment,  and  the  Supreme  Court  in  1876 
struck  down  the  acts  of  Congress  designed  to  enforce  it.  Perhaps 
most  important  of  all,  the  American  people  lost  interest  in  free  and 
fair  voting.  In  most  parts  of  the  country— in  the  North  as  well  as  in 
the  South— political  idealism  was  badly  tarnished  within  a  decade 
after  ratification. 

John  Hope  Franklin 

University  of  Chicago 


Book  Reviews  105 

The  Papers  of  Woodrow  Wilson.  Edited  by  Arthur  S.  Link,  with  John  W. 
Davidson  and  David  W.  Hurst,  associate  editors.  Volume  I,  1856-1880. 
(Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1966.  Illustrations,  notes,  in- 
dex. Pp.  xxviii,  715.  $15.00.) 

This,  the  first  of  some  forty  projected  volumes,  is  an  auspicious  be- 
ginning for  what  will  surely  be  one  of  the  major  historical  landmarks 
of  modern  times.  Woodrow  Wilson,  his  thought,  and  his  times  will  be 
known  in  a  more  intimate  and  more  complete  fashion  than  has  hither- 
to been  possible. 

The  human  interest  is  considerable  in  this  initial  volume,  which 
spans  the  years  from  Wilson's  birth  to  his  abrupt  withdrawal  from  the 
law  school  of  the  University  of  Virginia.  A  diary  which  he  kept  in 
shorthand  during  his  undergraduate  years  at  Princeton  is  transcribed 
and  printed  here  for  the  first  time,  and  it  is  probably  the  single  most 
interesting  feature  of  the  volume. 

Wilsons  deeply  religious  nature  is  well  known.  That  he  was  not 
always  pious  and  had  some  humor  about  him,  even  in  his  serious  and 
intense  college  days,  is  illustrated  by  his  description  of  himself  in  a 
letter  to  his  father.  He  declared  that  he  was  distinguished  in  a  crowd 
by  his  "long  nose,  open  mouth,  and  consequential  manner"  and  was 
"noted  in  college  as  a  man  who  can  make  a  remarkably  good  show 
with  little  or  no  material/' 

Next  to  Wilson  himself,  the  most  fascinating  person  revealed  here 
is  his  father,  the  Reverend  Joseph  R.  Wilson,  whose  deep  love  for  his 
son  and  constant  concern  for  his  son's  spiritual  and  intellectual 
growth  are  recurrring  themes  in  numerous  letters.  (The  editors  have 
wisely  included  a  large  number  of  the  letters  Wilson  received.)  No 
excerpt  really  does  justice  to  the  unusually  close  relationship  between 
this  father  and  son,  and  the  following  passage  suggests  only  one  of 
the  many  facets:  "Your  cheerfulness  is  most  gratifying  to  us  all.  There 
is  no  better  gift  than  this,  and  none  more  deserving  of  cultivation.  One 
of  the  principal  uses  of  our  wonderfully  humane  religion  is  to  pro- 
mote buoyancy  of  disposition,  by  freeing  the  soul  from  that  which 
is  alone  worthy  of  the  name,  Burden:  the  sense  of  sin.  I  trust  that  your 
good  spirits,  darling  boy,  are  due  in  great  part  to  an  easy  conscience— 
to  the  smile  of  God." 

Janet  Woodrow  Wilson,  not  happy  with  life  in  Wilmington,  during 
her  husband's  tenure  in  the  First  Presbyterian  church  there,  wrote 
motherly,  loving  letters.  During  the  tense,  suspenseful  days  when  the 
nation  awaited  the  outcome  of  the  Hayes-Tilden  presidential  contest, 


106  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

she  cautioned  her  passionately  Democratic  son:  "The  fear  that  you 
may  be  provoked  beyond  endurance,  during  these  anxious  days,  by 
those  Radical  companions  of  yours,  has  crept  into  my  heart."  A  few 
days  later  Wilson's  mother  confessed  that  "there  is  a  great  deal  about 
the  Southern  people  that  I  don't  like— only  I  like  them  decidedly 
better  than  I  do  the  Northern."  She  insisted  that  "the  only  thing  we 
can  do,  in  any  case,  is  to  keep  quiet  &  submit.  The  Northern  people 
must  fight  it  out  among  themselves  this  time,  and  I  am  thankful  that 
it  is  so." 

Wilson  s  voracious  reading  in  British  history  and  literature,  his 
constant  study  and  effort  to  improve  his  oratorical  and  writing  style 
(with  astute  help  from  his  father),  his  cold  disdain  for  universal 
suffrage  and  the  contemporary  workings  of  the  federal  government— 
all  these  are  among  the  themes  in  this  rich  volume. 

Robert  F.  Durden 

Duke  University 


OTHER  RECENT  PUBLICATIONS 

A  Guide  to  Civil  War  Records  in  the  North  Carolina  State  Archives 
has  recently  been  published  by  the  State  Department  of  Archives  and 
History.  Originally  planned  and  begun  as  a  project  of  the  North  Caro- 
lina Confederate  Centennial  Commission,  the  Guide  was  completed, 
edited,  indexed,  and  typed  for  offset  by  members  of  the  Division  of 
Archives  and  Manuscripts.  One  hundred  and  twenty-eight  pages  in 
length,  including  a  name,  place,  unit,  and  subject  index  of  thirty-eight 
pages,  it  describes  in  summary  detail  those  records  in  the  archives 
belonging  to  the  General  Assembly,  state  convention,  governor,  ad- 
jutant general,  auditor,  secretary  of  state,  treasurer  and  comptroller, 
and  counties  and  municipalities,  as  well  as  organization  records,  maps, 
and  newspapers,  which  relate  to  the  Civil  War.  Although  unpublished, 
detailed,  finding  aids  for  several  of  these  records  groups  have  been 
available  for  some  time  for  the  use  of  researchers  who  are  in  a  position 
to  visit  the  department's  Search  Room,  no  overall  description  of  these 
significant  records  of  the  Civil  War  has  previously  been  available  for 
the  use  of  scholars.  Bound  in  an  attractive  paper  cover  which  is 
illustrated  by  a  wood  engraving  of  a  Confederate  battle  scene  from  a 
contemporary  weekly,  the  Guide  can  be  ordered  from  the  Division  of 


Book  Reviews  107 

Publications,  Box  1881,  Raleigh,  N.C.,  27602,  for  $2.00  plus  a  10-cent 
postage  and  handling  charge.  When  ordering  by  mail,  please  include 
ZIP  code. 

During  1965  and  1966  the  Genealogical  Publishing  Company,  Inc., 
has  been  involved  in  a  program  of  reprinting  Heads  of  Families  at 
the  First  Census  of  the  United  States  Taken  in  the  Year  1790,  which 
includes  the  federal  enumerations  for  eleven  states:  Connecticut, 
Maine,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  New  York,  North 
Carolina,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  South  Carolina,  and  Vermont. 
The  census  of  1790  for  six  additional  states,  Delaware,  Georgia,  Ken- 
tucky, New  Jersey,  Tennessee,  and  Virginia,  were  destroyed  during 
the  War  of  1812.  For  Virginia,  however,  taxpayer  lists  made  in  the 
years  1782,  1783,  1784,  and  1785  have  been  reconstructed  to  re- 
place the  original  returns,  and  that  volume  has  been  included  in  the 
present  series.  The  data  have  been  reproduced  by  the  photolitho- 
graphic process  on  a  good  quality  of  paper;  each  clothbound  volume 
measures  8/2  x  11  inches,  and  prices  range  from  $7.50  to  $15.00  per 
volume.  In  addition  to  the  enumeration  of  free  white  males  of  sixteen 
years  and  upward,  free  white  males  under  sixteen  years,  free  white 
females,  all  other  free  persons,  and  slaves,  the  292-page  volume  for 
North  Carolina  includes  a  brief  introduction  and  a  93-page  index 
to  names.  Copies  of  the  North  Carolina  Census— 1790  may  be  ordered 
from  the  publisher  at  521-23  St.  Paul  Place,  Baltimore,  Maryland, 
21202,  for  $12.50  each. 

A  History  of  the  North  Carolina  State  Board  of  Health,  1877-1925, 
by  Benjamin  E.  Washburn,  is  a  brief  account  of  the  first  fifty  years 
of  organized  public  health  work  in  the  state,  beginning  with  events 
leading  up  to  the  establishment  of  the  State  Board  of  Health  by  the 
General  Assembly  in  1877  to  the  resignation  of  the  first  full-time 
state  health  officer,  Dr.  Watson  Smith  Rankin,  in  1925.  The  96-page 
text  highlights  the  development  of  effective  methods  of  treating  and 
controlling  then-prevalent  diseases  such  as  hookworm,  typhoid,  dip- 
theria,  smallpox,  and  tuberculosis;  particular  emphasis  is  given  to 
the  appalling  need  for  educating  the  public  in  health  matters  during 
those  early  decades.  Perhaps  this  interesting  little  work  will  give 
impetus  to  a  definitive  study  of  the  State  Board  of  Health.  A  limited 
number  of  single  copies  of  the  book,  which  is  bound  in  hardcovers 
and  includes  appendixes  and  indexes,  will  be  available  without 
charge  from  the  Personal  Health  Division,  State  Board  of  Health, 
Raleigh. 


108  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

New  Gilead  Church:  A  History  of  the  German  Reformed  People  on 
Coldwater,  by  the  Reverend  Banks  Shepherd,  has  been  written  and 
published  in  an  effort  to  organize  and  preserve  the  story  of  the 
church,  thought  to  have  been  established  in  1766.  The  book,  which 
has  been  printed  on  a  slick  paper  and  bound  in  cloth,  includes  a 
number  of  interesting  photographs.  Twenty-two  pages  of  the  63-page 
text  are  made  up  of  appendixes,  footnotes,  a  bibliography,  and  an 
index.  The  appendixes  list  the  names  of  all  the  known  pastors  and 
their  pastorates,  members,  cemetery  records,  and  other  important  data 
from  the  church  files.  Copies  of  the  book  may  be  purchased  at  $5.00 
each  from  the  publications  committee  of  the  New  Gilead  Church, 
Route  3,  Concord,  N.  C,  28081. 

The  McGraw-Hill  Book  Company  has  rendered  a  service  to  students 
of  the  post-Civil  War  era  by  reprinting  in  a  two-volume  paperback 
edition  Walter  L.  Fleming's  Documentary  History  of  Reconstruction: 
Political,  Military,  Social,  Religious,  Educational,  and  Industrial,  1865 
to  1906.  In  the  words  of  the  editor,  "The  documents  presented  are 
principally  laws,  state  and  federal,  official  reports,  and  political  plat- 
forms; accounts  of  Northern  men  and  foreigners  living  or  traveling 
in  the  South;  accounts  of  Southerners,  white  and  black,  ex-Confeder- 
ates and  Unionists,  Conservatives  and  Radicals.  With  the  exception 
of  the  laws  and  political  documents  the  material  used  consists  mainly 
of  accounts  by  persons  who  had  first  hand  acquaintance  with  con- 
ditions in  the  South."  This  documentary  collection  was  first  published 
in  1912;  in  the  intervening  half  century  it  has  been  supplemented 
but  not  superseded.  Volume  1  (493  pages)  includes  a  succinct  and 
candid  foreword  by  David  Donald  of  John  Hopkins  University; 
Volume  2  (480  pages)  includes  a  22-page  index.  The  volumes  are 
priced  at  $2.45  each.  The  publisher's  address  is  330  West  42nd  Street, 
New  York,  N.Y.,  10036. 

American  Intellectual  Histories  and  Historians,  by  Robert  Allen 
Skotheim,  is  a  study  of  the  history  of  ideas  based  on  an  analysis  of 
selected  works  of  American  historians  from  William  Bradford,  leader 
of  Plymouth  Colony,  to  Eric  Goldman,  the  most  recent  intellectual-in- 
residence  at  the  White  House.  Although  almost  every  American  his- 
torian of  note  is  mentioned  briefly  in  the  main  text,  in  the  footnotes, 
or  in  the  "Essay  on  Historiographical  Scholarship"  (Appendix  B), 
the  author  has  chosen  representative  works  of  ten  major  seminal  his- 
torians for  in-depth  analyses:  Tyler,  Eggleston,  Robinson,  Beard, 
Becker,  Parrington,  Curti,  Morison,  Miller,  and  Gabriel.  At  the  con- 


Book  Reviews  109 

elusion  of  the  book,  one  is  left  with  the  realization  that  historians  of 
ideas  have  been  extremely  rare  on  the  American  scene  and,  with 
the  author,  laments  that  present-day  professionals  have  not  accepted 
the  challenge  of  Perry  Miller  and  Arthur  Lovejoy  but  instead  have 
turned  to  topic  specialization.  With  this  work,  which  began  as  a 
doctoral  dissertation,  Professor  Skotheim  has  made  an  important 
contribution  to  American  historiography.  The  326-page  book,  bound 
in  hardcovers,  includes  a  preface,  two  appendixes,  and  an  index.  The 
publisher  is  Princeton  University  Press,  and  the  price  is  $6.95. 

Princeton  University  Press  is  also  the  publisher  of  Madison  s  "Ad- 
vice to  My  Country"  based  on  the  Whig-Clio  Bicentennial  Lectures 
delivered  at  Princeton  in  1965  by  Adrienne  Koch.  Using  as  a  catapult 
the  last  message  of  James  Madison,  written  seventeen  years  after  he 
left  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  Professor  Koch  sur- 
veys Madison's  life  from  his  student  days  at  Princeton  to  his  death 
at  age  eighty-five.  Under  three  classical  headings  of  liberty,  justice, 
and  union,  the  author  discusses  Madison's  views  on  church,  state, 
and  education,  federal  and  state  cooperation,  civil  rights,  nullification, 
slavery,  and  state  rights,  all  subjects  which  have  been  or  continue  to 
be  of  crucial  importance  in  American  history.  In  this  little  book  (the 
main  text  consists  of  only  159  pages  in  large  print)  Professor  Koch 
has  done  much  to  restore  luster  to  the  image  of  one  of  the  greatest 
statesmen  America  has  yet  produced,  and  "little  Mr.  Madison" 
would  have  been  pleased  with  the  felicitous  prose.  At  the  end  of  the 
text  there  are  27  pages  of  notes,  which  constitute  a  historiographical 
essay,  a  bibliographical  list,  and  an  index.  The  price  of  the  book, 
which  is  clothbound,  is  $4.50. 

Harper  Torchbooks  has  issued  two  titles  in  its  "Contemporary  Essay 
Series."  In  Public  Administration  and  Policy,  the  editor,  Peter  Woll, 
associate  professor  of  politics  at  Brandeis  University,  has  selected 
twelve  essays  to  present  a  brief,  informative,  and  engrossing  analysis 
of  the  roles  assumed  by  the  three  branches  of  the  federal  government 
in  the  origin,  development,  and  continuation  of  the  great  American 
bureaucracy.  The  book  includes  a  preface,  introduction,  and  an  edi- 
torial note  preceding  each  essay,  all  written  by  Professor  Woll.  At  the 
end  of  the  collection  the  identities  of  the  contributors  and  the  sources 
of  the  essays  (all  previously  published)  are  given.  The  editor  has 
achieved  admirably  his  stated  aim  of  stimulating  the  interest  of  stu- 
dents and  general  readers  "concerned  with  recent  trends  in  govern- 
ment and  public  administration."  This  paperbound  volume  is  de- 


110  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

signated  TB  1284,  has  279  pages,  and  is  priced  at  $2.75.  The  second 
title  is  American  Constitutional  Law:  Historical  Essays,  edited  by  the 
general  editor  for  the  series,  Leonard  M.  Levy.  In  a  pleasantly  didactic 
introduction,  the  editor,  who  is  Earl  Warren  Professor  of  Consti- 
tutional Law  and  History  at  Brandeis  University,  leaves  the  impres- 
sion the  Constitution  is  a  marvelously  incandescent  milestone  on  the 
highway  of  history,  always  available  for  reference,  but  of  little  practi- 
cal value  in  negotiating  the  labyrinth  of  politics,  business,  and  every- 
day living.  For  the  vast  majority  who  lack  the  time  and  interest  to 
peruse  one  or  more  of  the  380  volumes  of  Supreme  Court  decisions 
now  available  to  find  out  what  that  7,000-word  document  really  says, 
Professor  Levy  has  provided  a  very  readable  introductory  study  of 
the  metamorphosis  of  the  Constitution  since  1789.  The  seven  con- 
tributors represented  are  John  P.  Roche,  Max  Lerner,  Robert  J. 
Harris,  Walton  H.  Hamilton,  Robert  G.  McCloskey,  Robert  L.  Stern, 
and  Alpheus  T.  Mason.  Each  essay  is  preceded  by  an  editorial  criti- 
que, and  a  selected  bibliography  of  articles  for  further  reading  has 
been  included.  This  247-page  volume,  which  is  numbered  TB  1285, 
sells  for  $2.45.  The  address  of  Harper  and  Row,  Publishers,  is  49  East 
33rd  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y,  10021. 


Editors  Note:  The  historical  news  will  be  published  in  an  enlarged 
Carolina  Comments  beginning  in  January,  1967.  Carolina  Comments 
will  be  published  bimonthly  as  in  the  past,  but  its  size  will  conform 
to  that  of  the  Review  and  Permalife  paper  will  be  used  in  both  publi- 
cations. An  index  will  be  published  each  year. 

The  decision  to  make  the  change  was  reached  after  much  discus- 
sion by  both  the  members  of  the  Advisory  Editorial  Board  and  the 
heads  of  the  divisions  of  the  Department  of  Archives  and  History. 

Readers  are  invited  to  send  news  items  for  possible  use  in  Carolina 
Comments.  News  should  be  sent  promptly  so  that  it  will  be  published 
as  soon  as  possible  after  events  occur.  Send  news  items  to  the  Divi- 
sion of  Publications,  State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  Box 
1881,  Raleigh,  N.  C,  27602. 

The  January  issue  of  Carolina  Comments  will  be  delayed  for  a  few 
days  because  of  the  decision  to  include  news  of  the  1966  Culture 
Week  meetings  in  this  number  rather  than  that  for  March. 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review  is  printed  on  Permalif  e,  a  text 
paper  developed  through  the  combined  efforts  of  William  J.  Barrow 
of  the  Virginia  State  Library,  the  Council  on  Library  Resources,  Inc., 
and  the  Standard  Paper  Manufacturing  Company.  Tests  indicate  that 
the  paper  theoretically  has  a  useful  life  of  at  least  300  years. 


THE  NORTH  CAROLINA  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 
EDITORIAL  POLICY 

The  Editorial  Board  of  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Review  is 
interested  in  articles  and  documents  pertaining  to  the  history  of  North 
Carolina  and  adjacent  states.  Articles  on  the  history  of  other  sections 
may  be  submitted,  and,  if  there  are  ties  with  North  Carolinians  or 
events  significant  in  the  history  of  this  state,  the  Editorial  Board  will 
give  them  careful  consideration.  Articles  on  any  aspect  of  North  Caro- 
lina history  are  suitable  subject  matter  for  the  Review,  but  materials 
that  are  primarily  genealogical  are  not  accepted. 

In  considering  articles,  the  Editorial  Board  gives  careful  attention 
to  the  sources  used,  the  form  followed  in  the  footnotes,  and  style  in 
which  the  article  is  written,  and  the  originality  of  the  material  and  its 
interpretation.  Clarity  of  thought  and  general  interest  of  the  article 
are  of  importance,  though  these  two  considerations  would  not,  of 
course,  outweigh  inadequate  use  of  sources,  incomplete  coverage  of 
the  subject,  and  inaccurate  citations. 

Persons  desiring  to  submit  articles  for  the  North  Carolina  Historical 
Review  should  request  a  copy  of  The  Editors  Handbook,  which  may 
be  obtained  free  of  charge  from  the  Division  of  Publications  of  the  De- 
partment of  Archives  and  History.  The  Handbook  contains  informa- 
tion on  footnote  citations  and  other  pertinent  facts  needed  by  writers 
for  the  Review.  Each  author  should  follow  the  suggestions  made  in 
The  Editors  Handbook  and  should  use  back  issues  of  the  North  Caro- 
lina Historical  Review  as  a  further  guide  to  the  accepted  style  and 
form. 

AD  copy  should  be  double-spaced;  footnotes  should  be  typed  on 
separate  sheets  at  the  end  of  the  article.  The  author  should  submit  an 
original  and  a  carbon  copy  of  the  article;  he  should  retain  a  second 
carbon  for  his  own  reference.  Articles  accepted  by  the  Editorial  Board 
become  the  property  of  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Review  and 
may  not  have  been  or  be  published  elsewhere.  The  author  should  in- 
clude his  professional  title  in  the  covering  letter  accompanying  his 
article. 

Following  acceptance  of  an  article,  publication  will  be  scheduled  in 
accordance  with  the  established  policy  of  the  Editorial  Board.  Since 
usually  a  large  backlog  of  material  is  on  hand,  there  will  ordinarily  be 
a  fairly  long  period  between  acceptance  and  publication. 

The  editors  are  also  interested  in  receiving  for  review  books  relating 
to  the  history  of  North  Carolina  and  the  surrounding  area. 

Articles  and  books  for  review  should  be  sent  to  the  Division  of 
Publications,  State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  Box  1881, 
Raleigh,  North  Carolina. 


44/2 


North  Carolina  State  Library 
Raleigh 


He. 

A*. 


Spun?  ?967 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


Christopher  Crittenden,  Editor  in  Chief 

Mrs.  Memory  F.  Mitchell,  Editor 
Miss  Marie  D.  Moore,  Editorial  Associate 

ADVISORY  EDITORIAL  BOARD 

John  Fries  Blair  William  S.  Powell 

Miss  Sarah  M.  Lemmon  David  Stick 

Henry  S.  Stroupe 


STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  ARCHIVES  AND  HISTORY 
EXECUTIVE  BOARD 

Josh  L.  Horne,  Chairman 

Miss  Gertrude  Sprague  Carraway  Ralph  P.  Hanes 

T.  Harry  Gatton  Hugh  T.  Lefler 

Fletcher  M.  Green  Edward  W.  Phifer 

Christopher  Crittenden,  Director 


This  review  was  established  in  January,  192J+,  as  a  medium  of  publication  and  dis- 
cussion of  history  in  North  Carolina.  It  is  issued  to  other  institutions  by  exchange, 
but  to  the  general  public  by  subscription  only.  The  regular  price  is  $4.00  per  year. 
Members  of  the  North  Carolina  Literary  and  Historical  Association,  Inc.,  for  which 
the  annual  dues  are  $5.00,  receive  this  publication  without  further  payment.  Back 
numbers  still  in  print  are  available  for  $1.00  per  number.  Out-of-print  numbers  may 
be  obtained  from  Kraus  Reprint  Corporation,  16  East  J+6th  Street,  New  York,  New 
York,  10017,  or  on  microfilm  from  University  Microfilms,  3 IS  North  First  Street,  Ann 
Arbor,  Michigan.  Persons  desiring  to  quote  from  this  publication  may  do  so  without 
special  permission  from  the  editors  provided  full  credit  is  given  to  the  North  Caro- 
lina Historical  Review.  The  Review  is  published  quarterly  by  the  State  Department 
of  Archives  and  History,  Education  Building,  Corner  of  Edenton  and  Salisbury  Streets, 
Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  27601.  Mailing  address  is  Box  1881,  Raleigh,  North  Carolina, 
27602.  Second  class  postage  paid  at  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  27602. 

COVER — To  help  observe  the  two  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  found- 
ing of  Salem,  the  North  Carolina  Literary  and  Historical  Association  held 
its  1966  Culture  Week  sessions  in  Winston-Salem,  November  29  through 
December  3,  1966.  Music  was  an  important  part  of  both  the  religious  and 
secular  activities  of  the  Moravians  in  early  Salem.  Pictured  on  the  cover 
are  a  flute,  violin,  cornet,  and  French  horn,  dating  from  the  first  days  of 
the  village  and  preserved  in  the  Wachovia  Museum.  For  an  article  on  the 
contribution  of  the  Moravians  to  the  history  of  North  Carolina,  see  pages 
144  to  153.  Photograph  by  Edward  Ragland,  reproduced  by  courtesy  of 
Old  Salem,  Inc. 


7^e    %vtf6,   gcvtolCtt* 
*i¥i4twUcal  device* 


Volume  XLIV  Published  in  April,  1967  Number  2 

CONTENTS 

FACTORS  IN  THE  ECONOMY  OF  COLONIAL 
BEAUFORT 1 1 1 

Charles  L.  Paul 

PAPERS  FROM  THE  SIXTY-SIXTH  ANNUAL  SESSION  OF 
THE  NORTH  CAROLINA  LITERARY  AND  HISTORICAL 
ASSOCIATION,  Winston-Salem,  December  2,  1966 
INTRODUCTION  135 

REVIEW  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  FICTION,  1965-1966 136 

Ralph  Hardee  Rives 

THE  MORAVIANS  AND  WACHOVIA 144 

Kenneth  G.  Hamilton 

REVIEW  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  NONFICTION,  1965-1966  ...  154 

Herbert  R.  Paschal 

GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES:  A  NON- 
EXCLUSIVE PARTNERSHIP  DEDICATED  TO  THE 
ATTAINMENT  OF  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE,  SECURITY, 

AND  STABILITY  THROUGH  PEACEFUL  MEANS 161 

Sir  Patrick  Dean 

FURNIFOLD  M.  SIMMONS:  "JEHOVAH  OF  THE 

TARHEELS"? 166 

Richard  L.  Watson,  Jr. 

MY  BROTHER'S  KEEPER:  WILLIAM  H.  POLK  GOES 

TO  SCHOOL  188 

Paul  H.  Bergeron 

NORTH  CAROLINA  BIBLIOGRAPHY,  1965-1966 205 

William  S.  Powell 

BOOK  REVIEWS  214 


BOOK  REVIEWS 


CUMMING,  North  Carolina  in  Maps,  by  Louis  De  Vorsey,  Jr 214 

Morrison,  Josephus  Daniels:  The  Small-d  Democrat, 

by  I.  B.  Holley,  Jr .215 


SlRMANS,  Colonial  South  Carolina:  A  Political  History,  1663-1763 

by  Daniel  M.  McFarland   216 


Johnson,  The  Ndt  Turner  Slave  Insurrection  (Together  with 
Thomas  R.  Gray's  The  Confession,  Trial,  and  Execution 
of  Nat  Turner  as  a  Supplement) ,  by  James  W.  Patton 217 


Jones,  Henry  Newman's  Salzburger  Letterbooks,  by  Spencer  King  .  .218 


KING,  Georgia  Voices:  A  Documentary  History  to  1872, 

by  Phinizy  Spalding  219 


De  Vorsey,  The  Indian  Boundary  in  the  Southern  Colonies, 

1763-1775,  by  William  P.  Cumming 220 


Eaton,  A  History  of  the  Old  South,  by  Herbert  J.  Doherty,  Jr 222 

Sellers,  James  K.  Polk,  Continentalist,  by  Charlton  W.  Tebeau 223 


Galambos,  Competition  and  Cooperation:  The  Emergence  of  a 

National  Trade  Association,  by  Robert  W.  Work  224 


Other  Recent  Publications   225 


FACTORS  IN  THE  ECONOMY  OF  COLONIAL 

BEAUFORT 

By  Charles  L.  Paul  * 

The  town  of  Beaufort  was  laid  out  and  named  on  October  2,  1713, 
on  land  owned  by  Robert  Turner,  a  local  settler.1  Though  laid  out  by 
permission  of  the  Lords  Proprietors,  the  town  was  not  incorporated  by 
the  Colonial  government  until  1723.2  In  the  meantime,  it  had  been 
established  as  a  port  of  entry  for  the  colony3  and  had  been  designated 
as  the  site  of  the  courthouse  for  Carteret  Precinct,  which  was  estab- 
lished in  1722.4  Moreover,  at  least  thirty-nine  town  lots  had  been  sold 
before  the  time  of  its  incorporation.5 

These  early  indications  of  Beaufort's  growth  and  development,  how- 
ever, were  more  apparent  than  real,  for  few,  if  any,  of  the  first  pur- 
chasers of  lots  made  their  homes  in  the  town.6  The  history  of  Beaufort 


*  Mr.  Paul  is  professor  of  history  at  Chowan  College,  Murfreesboro. 

1  Permission  for,  the  date  of,  and  the  men  and  circumstances  connected  with  the 
laying  out  of  the  town  are  mentioned  in  most  of  the  deeds  for  lots  issued  before  the 
town  was  incorporated  in  1723.  See  Carteret  County  Deed  Books,  Office  of  the  Register 
of  Deeds,  Carteret  County  Courthouse,  Beaufort,  Deed  Book  D,  91-92,  and  passim, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Carteret  Deed  Books;  Craven  County  Will  Books,  Office  of  the 
Clerk  of  Court,  Craven  County  Courthouse,  New  Bern,  Will  Book  A,  13-51,  hereinafter 
cited  as  Craven  Will  Books.  See  also  Charles  L.  Paul,  "Colonial  Beaufort,"  North 
Carolina  Historical  Review,  XLII  (Spring,  1965),  139-152,  hereinafter  cited  as  Paul, 
"Colonial  Beaufort." 

a  Walter  Clark  (ed.),  The  State  Records  of  North  Carolina  (Winston,  Goldsboro,  and 
Raleigh :  State  of  North  Carolina,  16  volumes  and  4-volume  index  [compiled  by  Stephen 
B.  Weeks  for  both  Colonial  Records  and  State  Records],  1895-1914),  XXIII,  334,  here- 
inafter cited  as  Clark,  State  Records.  For  the  text  of  the  act  of  incorporation  see 
Clark,  State  Records,  XXV,  206-209. 

"William  L.  Saunders  (ed.),  The  Colonial  Records  of  North  Carolina  (Raleigh: 
State  of  North  Carolina,  10  volumes,  1886-1890),  II,  454,  hereinafter  cited  as  Saunders, 
Colonial  Records. 

*  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  102.  For  the  establishment  of  Carteret  Precinct  see 
David  Leroy  Corbitt,  The  Formation  of  the  North  Carolina  Counties,  1663-19 US 
(Raleigh:  State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  1950),  74. 

5  Carteret  Deed  Books,  A,  65,  and  D,  121,  277-278;  Craven  Will  Books,  A,  13-20,  23, 
28-32,  48-51. 

8  Twenty-two  of  the  thirty-nine  lots  sold  before  1723  were  later  resold  by  the  town 
commissioners  with  the  stipulation  that  a  house  must  be  built  on  them  within  a  pre- 
scribed length  of  time,  an  indication  that  their  first  owners  had  not  built  on  them. 
Carteret  Deed  Books,  A,  D,  G,  H,  I,  passim.  The  remaining  seventeen  lots  were  owned 
by  Thomas  Roper,  Christopher  Gale,  James  Moore,  Maurice  Moore,  John  Royal, 
Christopher  Hale,  John  Clark,  and  James  Davis.  Carteret  Deed  Books,  A,  65,  and 
D,  121,  277-278;  Craven  Will  Books,  A,  13,  17-20,  48-51.  With  the  possible  excep- 
tion of  James  Davis,  all  of  these  men  lived  outside  of  the  Beaufort  area  in  the  period 


112 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


The  "Hummock  House"  in  Beaufort,  which  derives  its  name  from  the  high  ground  or 
hillock  on  which  it  stands.  The  house  is  thought  to  have  been  built  in  the  early 
eighteenth  century  and  it  seems  most  likely  to  be  the  "White  House"  which  pilots  of 
ships  at  sea  sighted  to  guide  them  into  Beaufort  harbor.  Photograph  by  Roy  Eubanks, 
reproduced  by  courtesy  of  the  Beaufort  Historical  Association. 


between  the  founding  of  the  town  in  1713  and  its  incorporation  in  1723.  Beaufort 
County  Deed  Books,  Office  of  the  Register  of  Deeds,  Beaufort  County  Courthouse, 
Washington,  Deed  Book  1,  143,  193,  hereinafter  cited  as  Beaufort  County  Deed  Books; 
C.  Wingate  Reed,  Beaufort  County,  Two  Centuries  of  History  (Raleigh:  Edwards  & 
Broughton  Co.,  1960),  26-27;  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  209,  257,  316,  608; 
Craven  Will  Books,  A,  20,  48-51.  These  considerations  do  not  preclude  the  fact  that 
Beaufort  received  settlers  in  this  period,  because  the  records  for  the  sale  of  lots  in 
the  town  are  incomplete  and  settlers  might  have  purchased  lots  without  having  their 
deeds  recorded.  That  this  did  occur  on  occasion  is  abundantly  evident  from  the  existing 
records. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  113 

throughout  the  Colonial  period  was  one  of  very  limited  growth.  In 
1737  John  Brickell  described  Beaufort  as  "small  and  thinly  in- 
habited," 7  and  as  late  as  1765  a  visitor  in  the  town  reported  that  it  did 
not  have  more  than  twelve  houses.8  Though  settlement  became  more 
substantial  after  1765,9  the  town's  number  of  taxables  did  not  exceed 
one  hundred  during  the  Colonial  period.10 

Economic  factors  played  a  decisive  role  in  determining  Beaufort's 
smallness  as  a  Colonial  town.  The  nature  of  Beaufort's  economy,  in 
turn,  was  largely  determined  by  the  physical  features  and  the  natural 
resources  of  the  surrounding  area.  An  examination  of  these  matters  is 
essential  to  an  understanding  of  the  town's  slow  development. 

Colonial  Beaufort  was  a  seaport  located  on  the  North  Carolina 
mainland  about  midway  between  the  present  states  of  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina.  It  was  separated  from  the  open  sea  by  the  waters  of 
Core  and  Bogue  sounds,  which  lay  between  the  mainland  and  the 
islands  of  the  Outer  Banks.11  Piercing  the  Outer  Banks  just  two  miles 
south  of  Beaufort,  Topsail  Inlet  provided  this  port  with  access  to  the 
open  sea.12  Topsail  Inlet  was  the  most  navigable  of  any  of  the  inlets 


7  John  Brickell,  The  Natural  History  of  North-Carolina  with  an  Account  of  the 
Trade,  Manners,  and  Customs  of  the  Christian  and  Indian  Inhabitants  (Dublin,  Ire- 
land: Printed  by  James  Carson,  1737),  8,  hereinafter  cited  as  Brickell,  Natural  History. 

8  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller  in  the  Colonies,  1765,  Part  I,"  American  Historical 
Review,  XXVI  (July,  1921),  733,  hereinafter  cited  as  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller." 

•Whereas  the  town  was  reported  to  have  had  not  more  than  twelve  houses  in  1765, 
at  least  nine  new  buildings  were  erected  in  Beaufort  during  the  six  years  following 
1765.  Carteret  Deed  Books,  H,  70,  315-316,  332,  357,  445-446,  480;  I,  246-247,  354-355, 
385. 

10  Taxables  were  white  males  over  sixteen  years  of  age  and  Negroes  and  mulattoes 
of  either  sex  over  twelve  years  of  age.  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VII,  489.  There 
are  no  available  figures  from  the  Colonial  period  which  reveal  the  exact  number  of 
taxables  living  in  Beaufort  at  any  one  time;  in  the  opening  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  however,  slightly  more  than  one  tenth  of  the  population  of  Carteret  County 
lived  in  the  town.  Compare  A.  R.  Newsome  (ed.),  "A  Miscellany  from  the  Thomas 
Henderson  Letter  Book,  1810-1811, "  North  Carolina  Historical  Review,  VI  (October, 
1929),  398,  hereinafter  cited  as  Newsome,  "Miscellany  from  the  Thomas  Henderson 
Letter  Book";  and  Charles  L.  Coon,  The  Beginnings  of  Public  Education  in  North 
Carolina:  A  Documentary  History,  1790-18^0  (Raleigh:  North  Carolina  Historical 
Commission  [State  Department  of  Archives  and  History],  2  volumes,  1908),  I,  20, 
486.  Since  the  total  number  of  taxables  for  all  of  Carteret  County  in  1774  was  only  870 
(see  Vestry  Books  of  St.  John's  Parish,  Beaufort,  1742-1843,  3  volumes,  State  Archives, 
I,  68,  hereinafter  cited  as  Vestry  Books  of  St.  John's  Parish),  it  must  be  concluded 
that  the  number  of  taxables  living  in  Beaufort  did  not  exceed  one  hundred  during  the 
Colonial  period. 

"According  to  present  designations  Core  Sound  extends  no  closer  to  Beaufort  than 
the  eastern  tip  of  Harkers  Island.  In  earlier  years,  however,  Core  Sound  was  con- 
sidered as  extending  to  and  including  Beaufort  harbor.  See  Beaufort  County  Deed 
Books,  1,  129-130,  and  passim. 

12  This  inlet  is  now  called  Beaufort  Inlet,  but  its  general  designation  during  the 
Colonial  period  was  Topsail  Inlet.  See  inset  entitled  "Port  Beaufort  or  Topsail  Inlet" 
on  Edward  Moseley's  "New  and  Correct  Map  of  the  Province  of  North  Carolina,"  in 
William  P.  Cumming,  The  Southeast  in  Early  Maps  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of 
North  Carolina  Press,  c.  1958),  Plate  52;  the  same  map  is  included  also  in  William  P. 
Cumming,  North   Carolina  in  Maps    (Raleigh:    State   Department   of   Archives    and 


114  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

along  the  North  Carolina  coast,13  having  a  low-water  depth  of  twelve 
feet  with  approximately  four  additional  feet  on  high  tide.14  Between 
the  inlet  and  the  town  lay  the  body  of  water  which  provided  Beaufort 
with  "a  safe  and  Commodious  Harbor.  .  .  ." 15  The  depth  of  the  water 
in  this  harbor  ranged  from  five  to  seven  fathoms.16 

Beaufort  was  situated  on  a  small  peninsula  formed  by  the  North  and 
Newport  rivers,  both  of  which  were  shallow  and  short,  averaging  less 
than  five  feet  in  depth  and  extending  less  than  fifteen  miles  into  the 
interior.17  Core  and  Bogue  sounds  were  also  shallow  but  were  longer, 
extending  when  considered  together  some  sixty  miles  along  the  coast 
from  a  northeasterly  to  a  southwesterly  direction.  As  a  passageway 
Core  Sound  was  the  most  important  inland  waterway  to  the  life  of 
Colonial  Beaufort  in  that  it  provided  a  water  connection  with  Pamlico 
Sound  and,  hence,  with  the  towns  of  New  Bern,  Bath,  and  Edenton. 
Nevertheless,  Core  Sound  was  a  shallow  and  inconvenient  passage- 
way,18 and  one  of  the  most  significant  features  of  Beaufort's  network 
of  inland  waterways  was  that  none  of  them  provided  a  convenient 
connection  with  the  more  productive  interior. 

History,  1966),  Plate  VI,  hereinafter  cited  as  Moseley's  "Map  of  Port  Beaufort."  See 
also  Frances  Latham  Harriss  (ed.),  Lawson's  History  of  North  Carolina  (Richmond: 
Garrett  &  Massie,  Inc.,  1960),  61-65,  hereinafter  cited  as  Harriss,  Lawson's  History; 
and  Brickell,  Natural  History,  4.  It  was  sometimes  called  Old  Topsail  Inlet.  See 
Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VI,  608.  This  inlet  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the  present 
New  Topsail  or  Old  Topsail  inlets  located  near  Hamstead. 

13  For  a  comparison  of  North  Carolina's  major  inlets  in  the  Colonial  period  see 
Charles  Christopher  Crittenden,  The  Commerce  of  North  Carolina,  1763-1789  (New 
Haven:  Yale  University  Press,  1936),  3-4,  hereinafter  cited  as  Crittenden,  The  Com- 
merce of  North  Carolina,  in  which  the  author  comments  that  "Old  Topsail  was  not  as 
dangerous  as  most  of  the  other  inlets"  in  North  Carolina  and  that  "the  number  of 
wrecks  occurring  there  was  not  large."  See  also  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  684,  in 
which  Beaufort  Inlet  is  described  as  "being  very  safe  and  Navigable  for  Vessels  of 
Great  Burthen.  .  .  ." 

14  See  Moseley's  "Map  of  Port  Beaufort."  On  this  map,  which  is  dated  1733,  Beau- 
fort Inlet  is  described  as  having  twelve  feet  of  water  on  the  bar.  See  also  Harriss, 
Lawson's  History,  65,  and  Brickell,  Natural  History,  4.  In  1762  Governor  Dobbs 
described  it  as  having  sixteen  feet  of  water,  but  he  did  not  specify  whether  this  meas- 
urement was  made  on  high  or  low  tide.  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VI,  608.  A  French 
traveler  who  visited  the  colony  in  1765  commented  that  it  had  thirteen  feet  of  water 
on  low  tide  and  that  the  tide  did  not  rise  above  four  feet.  "Journal  of  a  French 
Traveller,"  733.  In  the  light  of  this  Frenchman's  comments,  it  may  be  concluded  that 
Governor  Dobbs'  measurement  was  made  on  high  tide. 

15  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  684. 

16  See  Moseley's  "Map  of  Port  Beaufort." 

17  No  records  are  available  revealing  the  average  depth  of  water  in  these  rivers 
during  the  Colonial  period.  The  above  judgments  are  based  on  recent  measurements 
made  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Commerce  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  and 
recorded  on  navigation  charts  of  the  Beaufort  area. 

18  In  1761  it  was  described  as  having  "about  5  feet  water."  Saunders,  Colonial 
Records,  VI,  607. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  115 

The  terrain  of  the  area  surrounding  Beaufort19  was  almost  completely 
flat,  the  elevation  ranging  from  sea  level  to  thirty  feet  above  sea  level. 
Such  flat  terrain  provided  poor  natural  drainage,  except  near  the  rivers, 
sounds,  and  creeks  which  facilitated  it.  This  was  especially  true  for 
the  less  sandy  soils  which  were  dominant  in  the  area.  Those  soils  which 
were  sandy  enough  to  allow  internal  drainage  were  in  many  cases 

!>oor  in  fertility.  The  result  of  these  conditions  was  that  most  of  the 
and,  except  for  small  areas  of  high,  loamy  soil  located  near  the 
waterways,  was  poorly  suited  for  cultivation.  Though  comparatively 
small  in  total  acreage,  there  were  numerous  tracts  of  land  along  the 
edges  of  the  waterways  which  were  well  suited  for  the  production  of 
a  variety  of  crops.20 

The  early  settlers  in  the  Beaufort  area  found  two  main  types  of 
natural  vegetation.  On  the  tidal  marsh,  which  was  especially  prevalent 
along  the  edges  of  North  River,  Newport  River,  Core  Sound,  and  the 
Sound  side  of  the  Outer  Banks,  and  which  constituted  at  least  20  per- 
cent of  the  area  under  consideration,21  coarse  marsh  grasses  and 
rushes  were  virtually  the  only  type  of  vegetation.  On  the  rest  of  the 
soils  different  types  of  pine  trees  were  dominant— on  the  more  sandy 
soils  west  of  Beaufort  longleaf  pines  were  the  most  numerous,  while 
loblolly  pines  dominated  the  less  sandy  soils.22 

Another  geographical  feature  which  affected  the  life  of  Colonial 
Beaufort  was  the  presence  of  a  very  fine  harbor  at  Cape  Lookout 
located  nine  miles  southeast  of  the  town.  It  was  unique  among  North 
Carolina  harbors  in  that  it  was  situated  on  the  ocean  side  of  the  beach, 
and  one  did  not  have  to  navigate  a  treacherous  bar  in  order  to  enter  it. 
In  1756  Governor  Arthur  Dobbs  reported  that  he  had  surveyed  this 
harbor  and  that  it  had  "27  [feet?]  to  3  fathom  water  steep  to  the 
bank.  .  .  ."  He  rather  enthusiastically  described  this  harbor  as  "the 
best  and  safest  from  Boston  to  the  Capes  of  Florida,  where  a  large 
squadron  may  lie  as  safe  as  in  a  mill  pond.  .  .  ."23 

The  economic  activities  of  Colonial  Beaufort  were  largely  based 

19  In  this  article  the  terms  area  surrounding  Beaufort  and  Beaufort  area  are  in- 
tended to  include  all  of  that  part  of  Carteret  County  that  lies  on  Bogue  Sound,  Core 
Sound,  Newport  River,  North  River,  and  the  creeks  and  bays  draining  into  them.  This 
designation  is  justified  by  the  fact  that  in  the  Colonial  period  the  people  living  on  these 
waterways  were  drawn  to  Beaufort  politically,  geographically,  and  economically. 

20  S.  O.  Perkins  and  Others,  Soil  Survey  of  Carteret  County,  North  Carolina  (Wash- 
ington: United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  1938),  8-34,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Perkins,  Soil  Survey.  See  also  Harry  Roy  Merrens,  Colonial  North  Carolina  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  c.  1964),  37-49, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Merrens,  Colonial  North  Carolina. 

21  Perkins,  Soil  Survey,  9,  and  the  accompanying  soil  map. 

99  Perkins,  Soil  Survey,  2;   Merrens,  Colonial  North  Carolina,  86-88,   185-193. 
88  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  V,  598. 


116  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

upon  the  exploitation  of  the  natural  resources  which  were  present  in 
the  area  surrounding  the  town.  One  of  these  natural  resources  was 
the  marine  life  which  inhabited  the  waters  of  the  Beaufort  area.  As 
early  as  1585  the  great  abundance  of  fish  in  the  Core  Sound  area  was 
noted,24  and  in  1709  John  Lawson  listed  forty-one  types  of  fish  and 
eighteen  types  of  shellfish  found  along  the  coast  of  North  Carolina. 
Most  of  those  which  Lawson  listed  were  described  as  being  useful 
either  because  of  their  value  as  food  or  because  of  some  by-product 
derived  from  them.25 

The  production  of  seafood  for  commercial  purposes  became  an  item 
in  the  economy  of  the  Beaufort  area  very  soon  after  the  first  settlers 
arrived.26  Before  1709  red  drum,  a  fish  which  Lawson  described  as 
being  found  in  "greater  Number  .  .  .  than  any  other  sort,"  were  being 
caught,  salted,  and  exported  to  other  colonies.27  That  the  Core  Sound 
area  was  a  center  of  this  drum  fishing  activity  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  by  1709  an  inlet  in  that  area  was  named  Drum  Inlet.28  It  was 
while  fishing  at  this  inlet  sometime  before  1711  that  John  Fulford,  who 
lived  near  the  Straits  of  Core  Sound,29  and  two  companions  were 
deprived  of  their  provisions  and  equipment  by  two  Indians.30 

Types  of  seafood  other  than  red  drum  were  exported  from  the  Beau- 
fort area  at  a  very  early  date.  For  instance,  in  1710  Christoph  Von 
Graffenried  inscribed  on  his  map  of  the  Swiss  and  German  settlement, 


24  See  "The  Tiger  Journal  of  the  1585  Voyage,"  in  David  Beers  Quinn,  The  Roanoke 
Voyages,  1584-1590:  Documents  to  Illustrate  the  English  Voyages  to  North  America 
under  the  Patent  Granted  to  Walter  Raleigh  in  158J+  (London:  Hakluyt  Society  [Second 
Series  No.  CIV],  2  volumes,  1955),  I,  188,  hereinafter  cited  as  Quinn,  Roanoke  Voyages. 
Among  other  things,  this  document  describes  the  first  landing  made  on  the  North 
American  mainland  by  members  of  the  second  voyage  of  the  Raleigh  venture  in  1585 
under  the  command  of  Sir  Richard  Grenville,  At  the  site  of  the  landing  the  members 
of  this  expedition  caught  "in  one  tyde  so  much  fishe  as  woulde  haue  yelded  vs  XX. 
pounds  in  London."  In  his  notes  on  this  document  Quinn  comments  that  "Beaufort 
Harbour  is  the  most  likely  location"  for  Grenville's  first  landing.  Quinn  Roanoke 
Voyages,  I,  188n. 

*  Harriss,  Lawson* s  History,  159ff . 

26  Settlers  had  arrived  in  the  Beaufort  area  by  1708.  See  Paul,  "Colonial  Beaufort," 
140-141. 

27  Harriss,  Lawson's  History,  165. 

28  See  Lawson's  map,  which  is  reproduced  as  the  frontispiece  in  Harriss,  Lawson's 
History. 

■  Minutes  of  the  Craven  County  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and  Quarter  Sessions,  1712- 
1715,  State  Archives,  Book  I,  1,  hereinafter  cited  as  Craven  Court  Minutes. 

80  This  incident  was  reported  as  follows :  "And  further  John  Fulf ord ;  has  to  acquaint 
yr  honour:  that  they  where  asleep  att  the  Inlett:  in  the  Night:  There  where  three  in 
Company:  They  went  there  a  fishing  at  Drum  Inlett:  &  there  came  two  Indians  as 
they  found  nex  morning  by  there  Track:  on  the  Sand:  They  took  with  them  one  Matt: 
Two  fishing  lines:  &  one  blanckett  &  one  broad  axe:  &  one  stuff  West:  &  two  pr  of 
Linned  Drawes:  &  the  Majert  part  of  there  provision."  J.  R.  B.  Hathaway  (ed.), 
The  North  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  II,  437-438,  hereinafter  cited 
as  Hathaway,  Genealogical  Register.  Though  this  report  is  not  dated  it  is  listed  by 
the  editor  among  "Items  Relating  to  the  Indian  Troubles  Out  of  Which  Came  the 
Indian  War  of  1711-12"  and  is  preceded  by  a  document  dated  1704. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  117 

which  he  had  planted  at  the  present  site  of  New  Bern,  that  "fish, 
oysters,  crabs,  clams,  and  many  other  things"  were  brought  to  his 
colony  from  the  Core  Sound  area.31 

Though  extensive  records  are  lacking,  it  is  evident  that  the  expor- 
tation of  seafood  remained  an  important  factor  in  the  economy  of 
Beaufort  throughout  the  Colonial  period.  In  1765  it  was  reported  that 
the  Beaufort  area  had  "fish  and  oisters  ...  in  great  plenty,  .  .  ." 32  and 
in  1771  Governor  Josiah  Martin  described  Beaufort  as  "a  small  fishing 
Town.  .  .  ." 33  The  value  which  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  area 
placed  upon  this  natural  resource  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  in  1771 
Jacob  Shepard,  one  of  Carteret  County's  representatives  in  the  Assem- 
bly,34 presented  to  that  body  a  petition  "from  sundry  of  the  Inhabitants 
of  Carteret  County  therein  praying  a  stop  may  be  put  to  the  hauling 
of  seins  in  the  said  County." 35  The  result  of  this  petition  was  the  en- 
actment of  a  law  "to  prevent  the  untimely  Destruction  of  Fish  in  Core 
Sound,  Bogue  Sound,  and  the  Straights  in  Carteret  County."36  Some 
indication  of  the  importance  of  fishing  during  the  Colonial  period  can 
perhaps  be  inferred  from  a  record  dated  January  1,  1789,  which  shows 
that  no  less  than  212  barrels  of  fish  were  exported  from  the  town  of 
Beaufort  in  the  preceding  six  months.37 

Though  they  were  not'  used  for  food,  whales  were  plentiful  along 
the  coast  near  Beaufort  and  were  an  important  economic  factor  in  that 
area  during  the  Colonial  period.  As  early  as  1681  the  Lords  Proprie- 
tors were  informed  that  "there  are  many  Whales  upon  the  Coast  of 
Carolina,"38  and  in  1709  John  Lawson  commented  that  "Whales  are 
very  numerous  on  the  Coast  of  North  Carolina.  .  .  ." 39  According  to 
the  Fundamental  Constitutions  of  Carolina  issued  in  1669,  these  mam- 
mals were  the  property  of  the  Lords  Proprietors.40  On  July  13,  1681, 
the  Lords  Proprietors  granted  the  inhabitants  of  Carolina  "free  lease 
for  the  space  of  seven  years  ...  to  take  what  whales  they  can  and  con- 
vert them  to  their  owne  use.  .  .  ."41  That  this  lease  was  renewed  in 


31  Alonzo  Thomas  Dill,  Jr.,  Governor  Try  on  and  His  Palace  (Chapel  Hill:  University 
of  North  Carolina  Press,  c.  1955),  opposite  32. 
83  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller,"  733. 

83  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  IX,  33. 

84  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VIII,  106. 

36  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VIII,  392. 
39  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  803. 

37  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers,  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1789,  State  Archives, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort. 

38  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  I,  338. 

39  Harriss,  Lawson's  History,  162. 

40  Clark,  State  Records,  XXV,  135. 

41  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  I,  338. 


118  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

succeeding  years  and  that  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  Carolina  made 
use  of  this  opportunity  is  shown  by  the  record  of  a  case  brought  before 
the  general  court  of  Albemarle  County  in  1694.  This  case  involved 
Timothy  Pead,  Charles  Thomas,  and  Mathias  Towler;  and  its  purpose 
was  to  determine  which  party  should  have  legal  possession  of  a 
whale.42 

In  1709  whaling  on  the  North  Carolina  coast  was  restricted  to  "a 
few  People  who  live  on  the  Sand-Banks"  of  the  coast;43  but  in  1715  the 
Lords  Proprietors  opened  the  waters  to  "any  New  England  men  or 
others  to  catch  Whales,  Stergeon  or  any  other  Royal  Fish.  .  .  ." 44  This 
brought  whalers  from  other  colonies  to  North  Carolina.45  The  only 
fee  required  for  this  whaling  privilege  was  the  annual  payment  of  two 
deerskins  to  the  Lords  Proprietors.  As  years  passed,  however,  this  fee 
was  increased  to  one  tenth  of  the  oil  and  whalebone  produced  from 
all  whales  caught.46  Finally,  in  1730,  just  after  North  Carolina  became 
a  royal  colony,  this  fee  was  completely  abolished  for  the  sake  of  en- 
couraging the  whaling  industry.47 

At  first  whaling  activities  on  the  North  Carolina  coast  were  confined 
to  the  processing  of  those  whales  "being  found  dead  on  the  shore. 
.  .  ." 48  After  1715,  when  whalers  started  entering  the  colony  from 
other  areas,  this  situation  gradually  changed.  By  1726  boats  were  being 
used  in  the  local  whaling  industry,  and  a  license  granted  to  Samuel 
Chadwick  in  that  year  gave  him  permission  to  use  three  boats  in  his 
whaling  activities.49  Apparently  the  whales  were  spotted  from  lookout 
stations  on  the  beach,  after  which  the  crews  manned  the  boats,  encoun- 
tered and  killed  the  whales,  and  towed  them  back  to  the  beach  where 
the  whalebone  was  saved  and  the  blubber  was  used  for  oil.  Cape 
Lookout,  with  its  safe  harbor  on  the  ocean  side  of  the  beach,  was  an 
ideal  location  for  such  whaling  activities. 

Even  before  its  incorporation  as  a  town  in  1723,  Beaufort  had  be- 

43  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  I,  419. 

43  Harriss,  Lawson's  History,  88. 

**  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  175-176. 

45  In  1715  John  Royal,  a  mariner  from  Boston,  purchased  six  lots  in  Beaufort.  Craven 
Will  Books,  A,  48-51.  This  record  does  not  connect  Royal  with  the  whaling  industry, 
but  it  does  not  rule  out  the  possibility  that  he  was  at  Beaufort  for  that  purpose. 
More  positive  evidence  that  the  action  of  the  Lords  Proprietors  brought  whalers  from 
other  colonies  to  the  area  is  the  fact  that  during  a  gale  in  November,  1720,  three 
sloops,  all  of  which  were  en  route  from  New  England  to  North  Carolina,  were  forced 
to  seek  shelter  at  Hampton,  Virginia.  At  least  one  of  these  sloops  was  coming  to  the 
Colony  "to  procure  a  License  to  Whale."  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  397. 

48  This  fee  was  increased  sometime  before  1723.  See  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II, 
490. 

47  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  III,  99,  214. 

48  Harriss,  Lawson's  History,  162. 

49  Hathaway,  Genealogical  Register,  II,  298. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort 


119 


MM 
■  s 

3  g 

.a  o 

peso 
s^  o 

si 

o  < 

£  © 

«H    03 

g  * 


g-a 

*h   03 
O  rn 

S  * 

03   O 

£  o 


>>^3 
w  o3 

s  © 
^^ 

*Q   to 

H  « 

«H  ^ 
©  co 

«<5 


120  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

come  an  important  center  of  the  whaling  operations  off  the  North 
Carolina  coast.  As  early  as  1714  a  certain  Captain  John  Records 
was  fishing  in  the  waters  of  the  area,  but  the  precise  location  of  his 
activities  at  that  time  is  unknown.50  By  1722,  however,  "Capt  John 
Records  &  others"  were  definitely  "whaling  on  the  Sea  Coast  of  port 
Beaufort,"  and  the  extent  of  their  success  at  that  time  can  be  de- 
termined from  the  fact  that  the  tenth  part  of  their  catch,  which  was 
due  to  the  Lords  Proprietors,  amounted  to  "Sixty  Barrels  of  Brain 
oyl  and  Eight  hundred  wt.  of  Bone.  .  .  ." 51 

As  years  passed  whaling  activities  in  the  Beaufort  area  increased. 
By  1726  Samuel  Chadwick,  Ephraim  Chadwick,  Ebenezer  Chadwick, 
and  John  Burnap  had  moved  from  New  England  to  Carteret  Precinct 
and  were  whaling  in  the  waters  of  that  area.52  In  1728  the  Lords  Pro- 
prietors estimated  that  their  tenth  of  the  income  from  North  Carolina's 
whaling  industry  during  the  four  years  prior  to  1728  amounted  to 
£800  sterling.53  Evidence  that  the  Beaufort  area  had  by  this  time 
become  the  center  of  the  Carolina  whaling  industry  is  seen  in  the  fact 
that  in  1728  William  Little,  Receiver  General  for  North  Carolina, 
deputized  Ebenezer  Harker  "of  Port  Beaufort  to  receive  the  Tenth  of 
all  whale  oyl  and  Bone  Catched  on  the  Sea  Coast  of  this  province." 54 
Two  years  later  Little  maintained  that  in  the  interim  Harker  should 
have  received  67  barrels  of  oil  and  enough  whalebone  to  be  valued  at 
£360  in  North  Carolina  currency.55 

After  the  abolition  of  the  tax  on  whaling  in  1730,  the  officials  of  the 
colony  kept  few  records  concerning  the  industry.  Nevertheless,  whal- 
ing continued  to  be  an  important  economic  activity  in  the  Beaufort 
area.  In  1755  Governor  Dobbs  in  a  description  of  Cape  Lookout  com- 
mented that  it  was  a  place  "where  the  whale  fishers  from  the  North- 
ward have  a  considerable  fishery  from  Christmas  to  April,  when  the 
whales  return  to  the  nOrthwd.  .  .  ."56  John  Shackleford,  who  owned 
the  beach  between  Topsail  Inlet  and  Cape  Lookout,  sold  two  tracts  of 


50  Vice- Admiralty  Papers,  1697-1759,  4  volumes,  State  Archives,  I,  24,  hereinafter 
cited  as  Vice-Admiralty  Papers. 

61  Vice-Admiralty  Papers,  I,  28.  The  date  given  in  this  record  is  "on  or  about  the 
year  1721,"  but  the  action  described  in  it  is  also  said  to  have  occurred  while  William 
Reed  was  acting  governor.  Since  Reed  did  not  assume  that  position  until  September  7, 
1722  (Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  460),  and  since  Port  Beaufort  was  not  created 
until  April  4,  1722  (Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  454),  the  year  1722  is  probably 
the  correct  date. 

52  Hathaway,  Genealogical  Register,  II,  298.  For  a  history  of  the  Chadwick  family 
see  Amy  Muse,  Grandpa  Was  A  Whaler:  A  Story  of  Carteret  Chadwicks  (New  Bern: 
Owen  G.  Dunn  Company,  1961). 

53  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  722. 

54  Vice-Admiralty  Papers,  I,  22. 

55  Vice- Admiralty  Papers,  I,  22. 

58  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  V,  346. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  121 

that  beach  in  1757  to  men  connected  with  the  whaling  industry,  Joseph 
Morse  and  Edward  Fuller.  Their  deeds  also  gave  them  "privileges  to 
Point  Lookout  Bay  that  is  to  have  liberty  to  fish  and  whale  in  said  Bay 
and  also  to  have  a  landing  at  the  said  Point  Lookout  Bay."  5T  That 
whaling  continued  in  the  Beaufort  area  throughout  the  rest  of  the 
Colonial  period  is  shown  by  the  activities  of  a  certain  David  Wade, 
who  during  the  Revolutionary  War  deserted  Captain  Enoch  Ward's 
Core  Sound  company  of  militia  and  "entered  with  Capt.  Pinkum  to 
go  a  whaling.  .  .  ." 58 

Forest  industries  were  probably  as  important  to  the  economy  of 
Colonial  Beaufort  as  was  the  fishing  or  the  whaling  industry.  The 
Beaufort  area  was  richly  endowed  with  an  extensive  pine  forest,  and 
before  the  Colonial  period  ended  this  forest  was  being  sawed  into 
lumber  and  also  was  being  used  for  the  production  of  tar  and  crude 
turpentine,  from  which  rosin,  pitch,  and  spirits  of  turpentine  were 
made.  The  extensive  character  of  this  pine  forest  was  vividly  described 
by  a  Frenchman  who  traveled  from  Beaufort  to  New  Bern  in  the 
spring  of  1765.  His  journey,  he  said,  was  "through  a  continual  forest 
of  pine  trees."  He  spent  the  first  night  after  leaving  Beaufort  at  the 
home  of  a  "good  Quaker"  who  lived  twelve  miles  from  the  town;  and 
his  only  description  of  this  Quaker  other  than  "good"  was,  "He  makes 
spirits  of  turpentine  and  rosin."  The  next  day  he  continued  his  journey, 
which  he  described  as  "still  the  same  thing  today  as  yesterday,  pine 
trees.  .  .  ."  He  even  commented  that  the  road  was  "very  Dangerous  in 
stormy  weather  by  the  falling  of  the  great  dead  trees." 59 

The  forest  industries  of  the  Beaufort  area  were  of  three  distinct 
types,  one  of  which  was  the  production  of  lumber.  Before  the  Colonial 
period  came  to  an  end,  there  were  at  least  two  sawmills  in  the  Beaufort 
area.  One  of  these  was  located  on  Gales  Creek,  which  flowed  into 
Bogue  Sound;60  the  other  was  on  Black  Creek,  which  flowed  into 
Newport  River.61  These  sawmills  were  run  by  waterpower  produced 
through  the  utilization  of  dams,  tide  gates,  and  waterwheels.  Logs 
were  floated  to  the  sawmills,  which  were  located  at  the  dams.62 
Boards,  scantlings,  heavy  timbers,  and  shingles  were  produced  at  these 
sawmills.  Export  records  which  apply  specifically  to  the  Beaufort  area 

67  Carteret  Deed  Books,  F,  456. 

58  Clark,  State  Records,  XXII,  894-895. 

69  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller,"  734. 

w  Carteret  County  Court  of  Common  Pleas  and  Quarter  Sessions,  1723-1789,  4  vol- 
umes, State  Archives,  III,  319. 

"Carteret  Deed  Books,  H,  440-441. 

M North-Carolina  Gazette  (New  Bern),  June  6,  1778,  hereinafter  cited  as  North- 
Carolina  Gazette. 


122  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

are  not  available  for  the  Colonial  period,  but  they  do  exist  for  a  short 
period  just  after  the  end  of  the  Revolutionary  War.  These  records 
show  that  during  a  period  of  ten  months  in  the  years  1788  and  1789, 
327,000  shingles  and  161,500  feet  of  lumber  of  different  types  were 
exported  from  the  town  of  Beaufort.63 

Another  forest  industry  of  the  Beaufort  area  was  concerned  with  the 
production  of  crude  turpentine  and  its  related  products,  rosin  and 
spirits  of  turpentine.  Although  these  products  were  being  produced  in 
the  colony  as  early  as  1709,64  they  were  not  mentioned  in  the  records 
of  the  Beaufort  area  until  1743.  In  that  year  Josiah  Jones  of  Carteret 
County  purchased  a  seven-acre  tract  of  land  on  the  northeast  side  of 
White  Oak  River  and  paid  for  it  with  twenty  barrels  of  turpentine.65 
Two  years  later,  in  1745,  Samuel  Chadwick,  who  had  moved  to  Car- 
teret County  as  a  whaler,  sold  two  tracts  of  land  in  that  county  but 
reserved  the  pine  trees  growing  on  these  tracts  of  land  for  his  own 
use.  The  deeds  which  he  granted  for  these  tracts  stipulated  that  he 
was  to  have  the  "liberty  to  tend  or  work  or  make  any  better  use  of 
them  [the  pine  trees]  and  bare  of  [f]  or  Carry  of[f]  from  ye.  sd. 
land  any  turpentine  made  of  the  sd.  pines  or  any  timber  or  rales  got  or 
made  on  the  sd.  lands.  .  .  ."  The  price  paid  for  one  of  these  tracts  of 
land  was  one  hundred  barrels  of  "good  merchantable  .  .  .  turpentine. 
»66  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  by  the  1740's  the  production  of 
turpentine  had  become  a  factor  in  the  economy  of  the  Beaufort  area. 

Crude  turpentine  was  the  oleoresin  of  longleaf  pines  obtained  as  an 
exudate  from  small  incisions  made  in  the  trunks  of  the  trees.  Although 
the  turpentine  could  be  obtained  during  all  seasons  of  the  year,  the 
peak  of  activity  came  during  the  spring  and  summer  months  when 
the  oleoresin  flowed  most  freely.67  As  the  crude  turpentine  oozed  from 

63  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1789.  In  1764  only 
222,150  shingles  and  134,560  feet  of  lumber  were  exported  from  all  of  the  Port  Beaufort 
customs  district.  D.  L.  Corbitt  (ed.),  "Imports  and  Exports  at  Beaufort,  1764,"  North 
Carolina  Historical  Review,  VI  (October,  1929),  412,  hereinafter  cited  as  Corbitt, 
"Imports  and  Exports  at  Beaufort,  1764."  See  below  for  the  area  included  in  the 
Port  Beaufort  customs  district  in  1764. 

64  Harriss,  Lawson's  History,  100. 

65  Carteret  Deed  Books,  D,  357.  This  turpentine  was  probably  in  its  crude  form,  since 
the  records  of  the  Beaufort  area  appear  to  be  consistent  in  referring  to  the  distilled 
product  as  spirits  of  turpentine. 

66  Carteret  Deed  Books,  D,  380,  395. 

67  The  Frenchman  who  traveled  from  Beaufort  to  New  Bern  in  the  spring  of  1765 
commented  that  "turpentine  is  only  made  in  the  summer  time."  "Journal  of  a  French 
Traveller,"  733.  For  the  seasonal  aspect  of  this  industry  as  well  as  its  utilization  of 
longleaf  pines,  see  Merrens,  Colonial  North  Carolina,  86-87,  229;  and  Kenneth  B. 
Pomeroy  and  James  G.  Yoho,  North  Carolina  Lands;  Ownership,  Use,  and  Manage- 
ment of  Forest  and  Related  Lands  (Washington:  American  Forestry  Association, 
1964),  13,  hereinafter  cited  as  Pomeroy  and  Yoho,  North  Carolina  Lands. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  123 

the  tree,  it  drained  down  into  a  deep  hole  called  a  cup  which  had  been 
placed  near  the  base  of  the  tree.  Every  three  or  four  weeks  the  fluid 
was  collected  into  barrels,  which  held  31/2  gallons  and  which  weighed, 
when  filled,  320  pounds.  One  man  could  tend  approximately  3,000 
trees,  which  in  the  course  of  one  season  would  produce  about  100 
barrels  of  crude  turpentine.  This  was  usually  sold  in  its  natural  form, 
the  price  of  which  in  1765  was  eight  shillings  current  money  per  bar- 
rel.68 On  occasions,  however,  it  was  distilled  into  spirits  of  turpentine.69 
One  barrel  of  crude  turpentine  would  produce  about  three  gallons  of 
spirits  of  turpentine.  The  chief  by-product  of  this  distilling  process 
was  rosin  which,  among  other  things,  was  used  in  the  production  of 
varnish.70  An  indication  of  the  extent  of  this  industry  in  the  Beaufort 
area  during  the  Colonial  period  can  be  attained  from  the  export  rec- 
ords mentioned  above.  During  a  period  of  ten  months  duration  in 
the  years  1788  and  1789,  293  barrels  of  crude  turpentine,  192  barrels 
of  rosin,  and  22  barrels  of  spirits  of  turpentine  were  exported  from  the 
town  of  Beaufort.71 

The  production  of  tar  and  pitch  was  also  a  forest  industry  in  the 
Beaufort  area  during  the  Colonial  period.  In  fact  the  Frenchman  who 
journeyed  from  Beaufort  to  New  Bern  in  1765  commented  that  "there 
is  .  .  .  great  quantities  of  tarr  and  pitch  raised  in  this  part  of  the  coun- 
try; indeed  more  than  in  any  other  part  of  America."72  To  be  sure, 
this  comment  was  intended  to  apply  to  all  of  the  eastern  part  of  the 
colony,  but  the  fact  that  it  was  made  in  connection  with  a  description 
of  the  Beaufort  area  is  significant. 

The  manufacture  of  tar  was  more  complex  than  the  production  of 
turpentine  and  its  related  products.  It  was  extracted  from  the  wood 
of  pine  trees,  "generally  of  old  fallen  pines  and  of  the  branches  and 
knotty  parts,"  by  heating  this  wood  in  a  kiln  designed  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  base  of  such  a  kiln  was  made  of  clay,  was  circular  in  shape, 
and  sloped  downward  toward  the  center.  The  pine  wood  was  laid  on 
the  base  in  a  pile  reaching  a  height  of  from  ten  to  twelve  feet  and 
was  arranged  so  that  each  piece  extended  outward  and  slightly  up- 
ward from  the  center  of  the  pile.  The  whole  pile  was  then  covered 

68  A  contemporary  account  of  the  methods  used  in  the  production  of  crude  turpentine 
is  given  in  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller,"  733.  See  also  Crittenden,  The  Commerce 
of  North  Carolina,  54;  and  Pomeroy  and  Yoho,  North  Carolina  Lands,  13. 

69  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller,"  734. 

70  Crittenden,  The  Commerce  of  North  Carolina,  54.  Varnish  was  being  produced  in 
the  Beaufort  area  by  1788.  Export  records  for  the  period  between  July  1,  1788,  and 
January  1,  1789,  show  that  nineteen  barrels  of  varnish  were  shipped  from  the  town 
of  Beaufort.  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1789. 

71  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1789. 
"  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller,"  733-734. 


124  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

with  an  earthen  wall,  except  for  a  small  opening  at  the  top  where  a 
fire  was  kindled.  Small  holes  were  punched  through  the  sides  of  the 
kiln  as  needed  for  ventilation  and  the  opening  at  the  top  was  partly 
covered  so  as  to  confine  the  fire  and  to  leave  only  enough  heat  to 
force  the  tar  downward  in  the  wood  and  eventually  to  the  base  of 
the  kiln.  A  wooden  pipe  sloping  downward  from  a  small  hole  in  the 
center  of  the  base  of  the  kiln  carried  the  tar  to  a  point  approximately 
ten  feet  outside  of  the  circumference  of  the  kiln.  A  pit  was  dug  at  the 
outward  end  of  this  pipe,  in  which  a  barrel  was  placed  to  catch  the 
tar  as  it  drained  from  the  kiln.  The  barrels  used  for  tar  held  and 
weighed  the  same  amount  when  filled  as  did  the  barrels  used  for 
turpentine.73 

The  production  of  pitch  was  much  less  complicated  than  the  pro- 
duction of  tar.  It  was  made  simply  "by  boiling  it  [tar]  in  an  Iron 
ketle  or  making  a  hole  in  the  Ground  in  which  the  tar  is  put  and  set 
on  fire  and  burns  itself  into  pitch."74 

Export  records  for  the  years  1788  and  1789  show  that  319  barrels 
of  tar  were  shipped  from  the  town  of  Beaufort  within  a  period  of  ten 
months.75 

Another  economic  activity  of  the  area  around  Colonial  Beaufort 
which  was  made  possible,  at  least  in  part,  by  the  trees  of  that  area 
was  shipbuilding.  The  tall,  straight  pines  provided  not  only  lumber 
for  shipbuilding  but  were  also  ideal  for  masts;  and  the  chief  products 
of  these  pines— tar,  pitch,  turpentine,  and  rosin— were  recognized  as 
essential  naval  stores.  Though  pines  dominated  the  landscape  in  the 
area,  the  "Sandy  Islands  and  Sea  Coasts  on  the  Main"  supported  an 
abundant  growth  of  cedars  and  live  oaks  which,  as  Governor  Dobbs 
pointed  out  in  1761,  were  "excellent  for  Ship  Timber  being  all 
crooked  and  very  lasting.  .  .  ."76  Thus  the  Beaufort  area  was  well 

73  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller,"  733-734. 

74  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller/'  733-734. 

75  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1789.  No  pitch  was 
exported  from  the  town  of  Beaufort  during  the  period  covered  by  these  records.  This 
does  not  mean,  however,  that  pitch  was  not  produced  in  the  area,  since  these  records 
cover  such  a  short  period  and  apply  to  such  a  small  area.  In  fact,  the  statement  made 
by  the  French  traveler  in  1765  that  "great  quantities  of  tarr  and  pitch  [are]  raised  in 
this  part  of  the  country"  indicates  that  pitch  was  produced  near  Beaufort.  Undoubt- 
edly, some  of  this  pitch,  as  well  as  the  other  naval  stores  produced  in  the  Beaufort 
area,  did  not  appear  in  the  export  records  as  it  was  used  by  the  local  shipbuilding 
industry. 

The  quantity  of  naval  stores  exported  from  the  town  of  Beaufort  was  small  com- 
pared to  the  quantity  exported  from  all  of  the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district.  For 
instance,  in  1764,  30,403  barrels  of  tar,  3,303  barrels  of  turpentine,  3,721  barrels  of 
pitch,  619  barrels  of  rosin,  and  1,279  barrels  of  spirits  of  turpentine  were  exported 
from  the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district.  Corbitt,  "Imports  and  Exports  at  Beaufort, 
1764,"  412. 

78  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VI,  606-607. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  125 

supplied  with  the  natural  resources  necessary  for  a  shipbuilding 
industry. 

Evidence  indicates  that  the  residents  of  the  Beaufort  area  made 
use  of  these  natural  resources  at  a  very  early  date.  As  early  as  1713 
George  Bell  contracted  to  instruct  two  servant  boys,  Charles  Cogdell 
and  George  Cogdell,  "in  ye  building  of  Vessells."77  In  1732  William 
Borden  moved  from  Rhode  Island  to  the  Beaufort  area  and  entered 
the  shipbuilding  business,78  and  in  1752  there  was  a  "ship  yard"  at 
Harkers  Island,  an  island  located  a  few  miles  east  of  Beaufort.79  The 
occupations  of  "shipwright"  and  "ship  carpenter"  were  used  quite 
frequently  to  describe  the  trades  of  those  who  purchased  property 
in  the  Beaufort  area.80  Though  records  are  lacking  which  reveal  the 
extent  of  this  activity  in  the  Beaufort  area,  Governor  Tryon  reported 
in  1767  that  shipbuilding  in  North  Carolina  as  a  whole  was  "not 
considerable,  the  largest  built  vessel  not  exceeding  two  hundred  tons 
burden."81  The  average  size  of  the  vessels  built  at  Beaufort  was  very 
likely  represented  by  one  advertised  in  the  May  15,  1778,  issue  of 
the  'North-Carolina  Gazette-. 

The  subscriber  [Abiel  Chaney]  has  for  sale  at  the  town  of  Beaufort, 
Carteret  County,  a  new  vessel  on  the  stocsts,  well  calculated  for  a  fast 
sailer,  and  will  be  completely  finished  by  the  15th  of  May  next.  Her 
demensions  are  55  feet  keel  strait  rabber,  11  feet  rake  forward,  18  and 
a  half  feet  beam,  and  7  feet  and  half  hold.82 

The  status  which  shipbuilding  attained  in  the  economy  of  the  Beau- 
fort area  in  the  years  immediately  after  the  Revolutionary  War  is 
revealed  by  the  following  statement  made  in  1810: 

The  principal  trade  carried  on  here  [in  Beaufort]  is  Ship  building  in 
which  they  have  acquired  a  very  considerable  reputation  both  on  account 
of  the  solidity  of  the  materials  &  the  Judgment  and  Skill  of  their  workmen 
as  well  in  modelling  as  in  compleating  their  Vessels.  Live  oak  and  Cedar 
are  the  timbers  principally  used  but  the  stock  is  by  no  means  so  abundant 
as  it  has  been.  Some  of  the  swiftest  sailers  &  best  built  Vessels  in  the 
United  States  have  been  launch'd  here,  particularly  the  Ship  Minerva 
a  well  known  Packet  between  Charleston  &  Newyork.  There  are  at  present 
five  Vessels  on  the  Stocks  two  of  which  are  ready  to  be  launch'd.83 


77  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  172. 

78  William  K.  Boyd  (ed.),  "Some  North  Carolina  Tracts  of  the  18th  Century,  II, 
William  Borden's  'Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  North  Carolina,'  "  North  Carolina 
Historical  Review,  II   (April,  1925),  189. 

79  Carteret  Deed  Book,  E,  299-300. 

80  For  example,  see  Carteret  Deed  Books,  E,  299;  H,  277,  292,  317. 

81  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VII,  429. 

82  North-Carolina  Gazette,  May  15,  1778. 

^Newsome,  "Miscellany  from  the  Thomas  Henderson  Letter  Book,"  399. 


126  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  fact  that  Beaufort  had  won  such  a  reputation  by  1810,  as  well 
as  the  fact  that  its  supply  of  cedar  and  oak  was  "by  no  means  so 
abundant"  as  it  had  been,  indicates  that  shipbuilding  had  been  an 
established  industry  in  the  Beaufort  area  for  a  long  time. 

A  relatively  large  percentage  of  the  Beaufort  area  consisted  of 
tidal  marsh.  As  noted  earlier,  this  marsh  land  was  especially  pre- 
valent along  the  edges  of  Newport  River,  North  River,  Core  Sound, 
and  the  Sound  side  of  the  Outer  Banks;  and  it  supported  a  natural 
growth  of  different  kinds  of  grasses  and  shrubs  suitable  as  pasture 
for  livestock.  During  the  Colonial  period  cattle,  sheep,  and  hogs  were 
permitted  to  use  these  areas  as  an  open  range.  To  be  sure,  many  of 
these  animals  were  raised  for  home  consumption;  but  some  of  them 
at  least  were  sold  either  at  local  or  distant  markets.  Thus,  the  pro- 
duction of  livestock  was  a  factor  in  the  economy  of  Colonial  Beau- 
fort. 

The  existing  records  reveal  little  as  to  the  number  of  livestock  that 
subsisted  in  the  Beaufort  area  at  any  given  time  during  the  Colonial 
period.  In  1713  John  Shackleford  purchased  a  piece  of  land  near 
the  site  where  the  town  of  Beaufort  was  soon  to  be  laid  out  for  "Three 
Gentle  good  Cows  and  Calves  .  .  .";84  and  before  1730  he  had  herds 
of  livestock  on  the  section  of  the  Outer  Banks  east  of  Topsail  Inlet, 
which  he  had  obtained  in  1723.85  In  1745  Ephraim  Chadwick  sold 
"ten  likely  cows  and  calves,  [and]  two  four  year  old  steers"  to  John 
Clitherall.86  There  were  cattle  at  Cape  Lookout  in  1747  when  the 
Spanish  attacked  the  town  of  Beaufort,  and  one  of  the  arguments 
which  Governor  Dobbs  used  during  the  French  and  Indian  War  for 
the  erection  of  a  strong  fort  at  Cape  Lookout  was  that  a  fort  would 
prevent  the  enemy  from  obtaining  provisions  by  simply  "shooting  the 
Cattle  on  the  Banks."87  Dobbs  estimated  in  1764  that  nearly  seven 
eighths  of  the  cattle  of  North  Carolina  had  died  because  of  a  dis- 
temper brought  from  South  Carolina,88  but  by  the  end  of  the  Colonial 
period  the  number  of  cattle  seems  to  have  increased  considerably. 
In  1776  Robert  Williams,  a  resident  of  the  Beaufort  area,  was  con- 
cerned lest  "the  Numerous  herds  of  Cattle  on  the  Sea  Coast  .  .  . 
fall  into  the  hands  of  the  British;89  and  in  1777  Captain  John  Nelson 

84  Craven  Will  Books,  A,  11. 

85  Carteret  County  Records,  Grants,  1717-1724,  State  Archives,  Book  D,  4. 
89  Carteret  Deed  Books,  D,  399. 

87  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  V,  345-346. 

88  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VI,  1029. 

89  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  742.  For  the  location  of  Williams'  residence  see  a 
sketch  of  the  Harlowe  Creek  area  reproduced  in  Milton  Franklin  Williams,  The  Wil- 
liams History   Tracing  the  Descendants  in  America  of  Robert   Williams   of  Ruthin, 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  127 

of  the  Craven  County  militia  was  sent  to  Core  Banks  to  repel  the 
enemy  if  possible  "and  by  all  means  to  remove  the  Stocks  of  Cattle  & 
Sheep  so  as  at  every  event  to  prevent  their  falling  in  the  enemies 
hands." 90  The  only  indication  available  as  to  how  many  of  the  cattle 
of  the  Beaufort  area  were  used  for  commercial  purposes  is  derived 
from  the  export  records  for  the  town  of  Beaufort  for  the  years  1788 
and  1789.  In  a  period  of  ten  months  during  these  years  four  vessels 
left  Beaufort  carrying  livestock  to  St.  Barthelemy,  Guadeloupe,  and 
Hispaniola.91 

Largely  because  of  the  scarcity  of  arable  lands,  the  cultivation  of 
crops  in  the  Beaufort  area  was  not  an  important  economic  activity  dur- 
ing the  Colonial  period.  Many  of  the  early  settlers  spoke  of  their  home- 
sites  as  plantations,  but  this  designation  seems  to  have  been  used  in 
the  loose  manner  common  to  the  period. 

The  first  record  of  cultivated  crops  in  the  Beaufort  area  dates  from 
the  year  1713,  when  in  the  midst  of  the  Tuscarora  War  a  garrison  sta- 
tioned at  a  certain  Shackleford's  plantation  requested  and  received 
"Liberty  to  plant  Corne  on  ye  said  plantation." 92  This  corn,  however, 
was  grown  for  home  consumption,  a  pattern  of  farming  which  seems  to 
have  been  dominant  throughout  the  Colonial  period.  The  Frenchman 
who  traveled  from  Beaufort  to  New  Bern  in  the  spring  of  1765  com- 
mented that  "there  was  here  and  there  a  small  vilage  and  some  little 
farms  Dispersd  up  and  Down  where  they  rais  nothing  but  Indian  Corn 
(of  which  they  make  their  bread)  and  peas."93  Some  of  these  peas 
were  grown  for  export  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  one  of  the  vessels 
which  left  Beaufort  in  the  fall  of  1788  bound  for  Martinique  carried 
among  other  things  480  bushels  of  peas.  This,  however,  was  the  only 
shipment  of  peas  made  in  a  period  of  ten  months;  one  other  product 
of  cultivation  which  was  shipped  from  Beaufort  during  that  period 
was  200  bushels  of  potatoes,  which  were  carried  to  New  York.94  The 
only  other  crop  mentioned  in  the  records  of  the  area  around  Colonial 
Beaufort  was  rice.  In  1776  Robert  Williams  described  his  business  as 
that  of  rice  planting.95 

North  Wales,  Who  Settled  in  Carteret  County,  North  Carolina,  in  1763  (St.  Louis: 
Privately  printed,  1921),  64-66.  This  sketch  was  drawn  by  John  S.  Williams,  the  son 
of  Robert  Williams,  in  1864.  See  also  Clark,  State  Records,  XXII,  738,  745-746. 

60  Clark,  State  Records,  XI,  775. 

61  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1789.  The  sizes  of 
the  shipments  are  not  given. 

ea  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  2.  For  the  location  of  Shackleford's  plantation  see 
Paul,  "Colonial  Beaufort,"  141-142. 

93  "Journal  of  a  French  Traveller,"  734. 

**  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1789. 

85  Clark,  State  Records,  XXII,  746. 


128  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  town  of  Beaufort  was  made  "a  port  for  the  unloading  and  dis- 
charging Vessells"  by  an  order  of  the  Lords  Proprietors  on  April  4, 
1722. 96  This  town,  its  harbor,  and  Topsail  Inlet,  which  connected  the 
harbor  with  the  ocean,  served  as  a  port  of  entry  throughout  the  rest 
of  the  Colonial  period. 

The  order  of  the  Lords  Proprietors  which  made  Beaufort  a  port 
affected  only  that  area  which  could  be  served  through  Topsail  Inlet. 
Since  the  inland  waterways  which  led  to  this  inlet  did  not  extend 
into  the  interior  or  make  convenient  connections  with  rivers  that  did, 
the  services  of  Port  Beaufort  were  restricted  to  a  small  area  lying 
along  the  south  and  east  sides  of  Carteret  Precinct.  This  area  con- 
stituted the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district,  and  the  offices  of  the 
customs  officials  for  this  district  were  established  at  the  town  of 
Beaufort.97 

The  size  of  the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district  was  greatly  enlarged 
in  1730.  In  that  year  the  Neuse  River  estuary,  on  which  the  town  of 
New  Bern  was  located  and  which  until  1730  had  been  a  part  of  the 
Port  Bath  customs  district,  was  placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
customs  officials  of  Port  Beaufort.98  Since  vessels  bound  for  the  Neuse 
River  and  New  Bern  entered  North  Carolina's  inland  waterways 
through  Ocracoke  Inlet,  located  approximately  fifty  miles  northeast 
of  Topsail  Inlet,  and  at  no  point  in  their  journey  entered  waterways 
leading  to  Topsail  Inlet,  the  change  made  in  1730  added  a  second  port 
of  entry  to  the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district.  Before  1739  this  dis- 
trict was  again  expanded  by  the  inclusion  of  the  area  served  by 
vessels  entering  Bogue  and  Bear  inlets.99 

For  fifteen  years  after  the  Neuse  River  estuary  was  included  in  the 

96  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  454. 

97  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  IV,  169-171.  There  were  usually  two  officials  con- 
nected with  the  enforcement  of  trade  regulations  at  each  of  the  ports  of  North  Caro- 
lina. The  deputy  naval  officer's  responsibilities  were  to  keep  records  of  imports  and 
exports,  make  lists  of  vessels  entering  and  clearing,  and  examine  certificates  of  bond 
and  registration.  This  officer  was  responsible  to  the  naval  officer  of  the  colony,  who  was 
in  turn  responsible  to  the  governor.  The  other  official,  the  collector  of  customs,  was 
responsible  to  the  British  commissioners  of  customs.  His  primary  responsibility  was 
to  collect  duties  on  imports  and  exports.  See  Crittenden,  The  Commerce  of  North 
Carolina,  39-41.  Port  Beaufort's  first  collector  of  the  customs  was  Christopher  Gale, 
who  was  appointed  to  this  position  when  the  port  was  established.  See  Saunders, 
Colonial  Records,  II,  561.  The  first  record  of  the  appointment  of  a  deputy  naval  officer 
for  Port  Beaufort  is  dated  1724,  when  Governor  Burrington  appointed  John  Sparrow 
to  that  position.  Carteret  Court  Minutes,  I,  3.  Port  Beaufort  did  not  have  a  comptrol- 
ler before  1767.  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VII,  535. 

"Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  IV,  169. 

99  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  IV,  374.  These  two  inlets  were  located  at  the  west  end 
of  Bogue  Sound  about  twenty-five  miles  west  of  Beaufort  harbor.  The  area  served  by 
these  two  inlets  was  small.  Thus  this  inclusion  was  not  as  important  to  the  Port 
Beaufort  customs  district  as  was  the  inclusion  of  New  Bern. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  129 

Port  Beaufort  customs  district  the  customs  officials  for  the  district 
continued  to  maintain  headquarters  at  the  town  of  Beaufort.  As 
Governor  Burrington  pointed  out  in  1736,  this  arrangement  caused 
quite  a  bit  of  inconvenience  for  masters  of  vessels  trading  at  Neuse 
River.  Writing  to  the  commissioners  of  the  customs  in  London  in 
1736,  Burrington  asserted  that  the  masters  of  such  vessels  had,  since 
1730,  "been  forced  to  ride  forty  miles  [on  horseback]  to  enter  and 
clear  at  Beaufort  thro  a  low  watery  and  uninhabited  Country  which 
after  great  Rains  is  not  passable  in  many  Days."  He  contended  that 
the  town  of  Beaufort  was  the  most  convenient  place  for  the  collec- 
tion of  customs  duties  for  vessels  entering  Topsail  Inlet  but  that  in 
his  opinion  Neuse  River  should  not  be  a  part  of  the  Port  Beaufort 
customs  district.100  Burrington's  suggestion  to  exclude  Neuse  River 
from  the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district  was  not  heeded,  but  in  1746 
an  alternate  solution  to  this  problem  of  having  two  distinct  ports  of 
entry  in  one  customs  district  was  provided  by  the  appointment  of  an 
additional  collector  for  the  Port  Beaufort  district.  Thomas  Lovick, 
who  had  served  as  collector  of  customs  for  Port  Beaufort  since  before 
1734,101  was  to  continue  "to  reside  at  Core  Sound,  to  receive  the  .  .  . 
Duty  on  the  .  .  .  Liquors  and  Rice,  imported  in  such  Vessel  or  Vessels 
which  shall  lade  or  unlade  in  Core  Sound,  or  Bogue  Inlet,  .  .  ."  while 
James  Macklewean  was  to  receive  the  same  duties  for  "Vessels  which 
shall  lade  or  unlade  in  Neus  River."  102  This  arrangement  was  con- 
tinued until  the  death  of  Thomas  Lovick  in  about  1759.103  By  that 
time  the  volume  of  oceanborne  trade  handled  at  New  Bern  on  Neuse 
River  had  become  much  greater  than  that  handled  at  Beaufort,  and 
from  then  until  the  end  of  the  Colonial  period  New  Bern  was  the 
headquarters  for  the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district.104 

The  few  customs  records  available  for  the  Port  Beaufort  customs 
district  during  the  Colonial  period  do  not  reveal  the  percentage  of 

100  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  IV,  169-171. 

101  Vice-Admiralty  Papers,  I,  68. 

102  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  270-271. 

103  Thomas  Lovick  was  a  justice  of  the  peace  for  Carteret  County  in  1758.  Carteret 
Court  Minutes,  II,  237.  His  will  was  probated  in  the  June,  1759,  session  of  the  Carteret 
County  Court,  at  which  time  he  was  pronounced  "Deceased."  Carteret  Court  Minutes, 
II,  240. 

104  Dill  cites  the  year  1739  as  the  approximate  time  when  New  Bern  began  its  rise  as 
a  port  town.  Alonzo  Thomas  Dill,  Jr.,  "Eighteenth  Century  New  Bern:  A  History  of 
the  Town  and  Craven  County,  1700-1800,"  Part  V,  "Political  and  Commercial  Rise  of 
New  Bern,"  North  Carolina  Historical  Review,  XXII  (January,  1946),  63-64.  By  the 
1750's  the  term  Port  Beaufort  was  at  times  used  to  refer  exclusively  to  the  area 
between  Ocracoke  Inlet  and  the  town  of  New  Bern  on  Neuse  River,  and  many  of  the 
acts  which  were  passed  by  the  Assembly  in  the  1750's  and  the  1760's  for  facilitating 
Port  Beaufort  applied  only  to  the  area  between  Ocracoke  Inlet  and  New  Bern.  See, 
for  example,  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  375-378. 


130  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  trade  of  that  district  that  entered  through  Topsail  Inlet  and  was 
handled  at  the  town  of  Beaufort.105  Customs  reports  are  available, 
however,  for  a  period  of  five  years  just  after  the  end  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary War  which  pertain  exclusively  to  the  port  at  the  town  of 
Beaufort.106  These  reports,  along  with  reports  for  the  rest  of  the  Port 
Beaufort  customs  district,  reveal  that  between  July,  1785,  and  March, 
1790,  less  than  10  percent  of  the  oceanborne  commerce  of  the  Port 
Beaufort  customs  district  was  handled  at  the  town  of  Beaufort.107  Pro- 
ceeding on  the  assumption  that  this  percentage  had  not  radically 
changed  since  the  closing  decades  of  the  Colonial  period,  it  must  be 
concluded  that  the  volume  of  commerce  handled  at  the  town  of  Beau- 
fort was  quite  small  indeed.  For  instance,  during  the  year  ending 
October  1,  1764,  only  127  vessels  entered  the  Port  Beaufort  customs 
district,  the  great  majority  of  which  were  sloops  and  schooners  rather 
than  the  larger  ships,  snows,  and  brigs.108  Furthermore,  during  the  28 
months  that  ended  January  5,  1770,  a  total  of  282  vessels  with  a 
tonnage  of  9,909  entered,  while  283  vessels  with  a  tonnage  of  9,931 
cleared  the  customs  at  Port  Beaufort.109  On  the  basis  of  these  figures 
an  average  of  only  ten  vessels  each  month  entered  the  Port  Beaufort 
customs  district  during  the  last  decades  of  the  Colonial  period,  and 
these  ten  vessels  had  an  average  tonnage  of  about  35  tons  each.  The 
town  of  Beaufort,  with  less  than  10  percent  of  this  trade,  was  quite 
insignificant  as  far  as  its  contribution  to  North  Carolina's  oceanborne 
commerce  was  concerned.110 


105  These  records  refer  only  to  Port  Beaufort.  Since  there  were  three  distinct  parts 
of  that  port  after  the  1730's,  there  is  no  way  to  determine  which  part  these  records 
concern.  There  are  no  records  for  Port  Beaufort  for  the  period  before  1730,  when  it 
included  only  the  area  that  could  be  served  through  Topsail  Inlet. 

106  Treasurer's  and   Comptroller's   Papers   for   Port   Beaufort,   1784-1790. 

107  Between  July,  1785,  and  March,  1790,  an  average  of  slightly  less  than  two  vessels 
each  month  entered  at  the  town  of  Beaufort.  A  similar  number  entered  through  Bogue 
and  Bear  inlets,  while  the  number  entering  at  New  Bern  averaged  nearly  fifteen 
each  month.  Thus,  during  the  period  under  consideration,  the  town  of  Beaufort 
attracted  only  about  10.5  percent  of  the  vessels  that  entered  the  Port  Beaufort  customs 
district.  Those  vessels  entering  at  the  town  of  Beaufort  brought  smaller  amounts  of 
taxable  commodities,  and  probably  smaller  cargoes,  than  those  entering  at  New  Bern. 
For  instance,  the  average  amount  of  duty  collected  on  each  vessel  entering  at  New 
Bern  between  1785  and  1790  was  approximately  £18,  while  the  average  amount 
collected  from  each  vessel  entering  at  the  town  of  Beaufort  during  the  same  period 
was  only  about  £9.  The  average  duty  collected  from  vessels  entering  Bogue  and  Bear 
inlets  during  this  period  was  about  £6.  On  the  basis  of  these  figures  one  must  conclude 
that  the  proportion  of  Port  Beaufort's  commerce  that  was  handled  at  the  town  of 
Beaufort  was  well  below  10  percent. 

108  Corbitt,  "Imports  and  Exports  at  Beaufort,  1764,"  412. 

109  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VIII,  174. 

110  Even  if  Beaufort's  proportion  of  Port  Beaufort's  commerce  was  larger  at  an 
earlier  date,  as  was  indicated  by  Governor  Josiah  Martin  in  1773  (see  Saunders, 
Colonial  Records,  IX,  636-637),  its  total  volume  was  still  quite  small  since  the  total 
volume  of  commerce  of  the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district  was  much  smaller  at  that 
time.  See  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  V,  314;  VI,  968. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  131 

The  few  vessels  that  traded  at  the  town  of  Beaufort  during  the 
Colonial  period  came  from  a  variety  of  ports.  Before  1719  a  certain 
Captain  Stone  rented  Craney  Island,  later  named  Harkers  Island, 
from  Thomas  Pollock  for  "100  weight  of  Cocoa.  .  .  ."  ni  Stone's  pos- 
session of  this  commodity  indicates  some  trade  at  that  time  between 
the  Beaufort  area  and  the  West  Indies.  Before  1731  three  New  Eng- 
land vessels  were  seized  by  the  customs  officials  at  Beaufort  because 
of  improper  registration;112  in  1734  the  sloop  "Middleborough,"  which 
had  loaded  at  Boston,  and  the  brig  "George,"  which  had  loaded  at 
Dublin,  Ireland,  brought  cargoes  to  the  town  of  Beaufort.113  In  1747, 
in  the  midst  of  King  George's  War,  a  sloop  from  Rhode  Island,  the 
"King  George,"  entered  Beaufort  harbor  with  a  Spanish  prize,  the 
"Elizabeth  and  Annah,"  which  had  been  captured  at  St.  Thomas 
Island  in  the  West  Indies;114  and  in  1759  a  vessel  named  "St.  Andrew" 
arrived  at  Beaufort  with  a  cargo  from  London.115  Other  ports,  both 
on  the  North  American  continent  and  in  the  West  Indies,  were  also 
represented.116 

The  items  which  these  vessels  brought  to  Beaufort  were  also  varied 
but  consisted  mainly  of  those  necessities  that  could  not  be  produced 
from  the  natural  resources  of  the  Beaufort  area.  For  instance,  the 
cargo  which  was  brought  to  Beaufort  from  London  in  the  "St.  Andrew" 
in  1759  and  which  was  advertised  for  sale  for  "Cash,  or  Tar,  Deer 
Skins,  or  Furr,  Etc."  consisted  of  the  following  items: 

London  Cordage,  Tinklingburghs,  Irish  Prizes,  fine  brown  Cloth,  Sail 
Twine,  Worsted  Stocking  Breeches  Patterns,  red  and  black;  ready  made 
Cotton  and  Check  Shirts ;  strip'd  double  breasted  Flannel  Jackets ;  Flannel 
and  Check  Drawers ;  long  and  short  Trowsers  and  Frocks ;  white  cup  and 
Saucers,  .  .  .  Bowls,  Mugs,  Plates  and  Dishes,  .  .  .  Tortoise  Shell  Cups  and 
Saucers,  Teapots.  .  .  .  Glasses  of  all  Sorts,  Loaf  Sugar,  [and]  Powder 
[sugar].  .  .  ,117 

Molasses,  sugar,  rum,  and  wine  were  especially  important  imported 


111  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  II,  388.  For  the  original  name  of  Harkers  Island 
see  Moseley's  "Map  of  Port  Beaufort";  and  Paul,  "Colonial  Beaufort,"  150n. 

112  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  III,  226-227. 

113  Vice- Admiralty  Papers,  I,  65-68. 

114  Vice-Admiralty  Papers,  III,  5,  17-21. 

li5N0th.  Carolina  Gazette  (New  Bern),  October  18,  1759,  hereinafter  cited  as  NOth. 
Carolina  Gazette. 

118  In  1785  vessels  came  to  Beaufort  from  the  following  American  ports:  Philadelphia; 
Charleston;  Baltimore;  New  York;  New  London;  Portsmouth,  Virginia;  and  Middleton, 
Massachusetts.  One  vessel  came  from  Rhode  Island,  but  the  specific  port  was  not 
determined.  Also,  vessels  came  from  the  following  West  Indies  locations:  Guadeloupe, 
Jamaica,  New  Providence,  St.  Thomas,  and  Turks  Island.  Treasurer's  and  Comptrol- 
ler's Papers  for  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1790. 

117  NOth.  Carolina  Gazette,  October  18,  1759. 


132  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


commodities.118  Salt,  used  for  seasoning  food  and  for  the  preservation 
of  fish  and  meat,  was  also  an  important  import.119 

The  items  exported  from  Beaufort  consisted  mainly  of  the  products 
of  the  area,  fish,  naval  stores,  livestock,  and  some  vegetables.  Most  of 
the  vessels  carrying  exports  went  either  to  the  West  Indies  or  to 
English  Colonial  ports  on  the  North  American  continent.120 

During  the  early  years  of  Beaufort's  history,  a  few  observers  of 
Colonial  conditions  looked  upon  the  town  with  its  relatively  safe  and 
accessible  harbor  as  having  the  potential  for  becoming  a  commercial 
center.  For  example,  in  1737  John  Brickell  considered  Beaufort  to  have 
a  pleasant  prospect,121  while  six  years  earlier  another  observer  had 
predicted  that  it  would  become  the  colony's  "principal  port."122  As 
has  been  demonstrated  above,  however,  Beaufort's  anticipated  com- 
mercial supremacy  failed  to  become  a  reality.  The  Frenchman  who 
visited  the  town  in  1765  was  not  impressed  by  its  economic  achieve- 
ments,123 and  in  1773  Governor  Martin  commented  that  "there  are  no 
persons  of  condition  or  substance  in  it.  .  .  ." 124 

Undoubtedly,  there  were  many  factors  involved  in  Beaufort's  failure 
to  become  an  important  commercial  center.  North  Carolina's  other 
ports  were  to  a  certain  degree  isolated  from  the  ocean,125  but  the  port 
at  the  town  of  Beaufort  was  isolated  from  the  interior.  No  large  river 
flowed  down  to  it  bringing  the  produce  of  a  large  section  of  the  Coastal 
Plain  and  Piedmont,  as  was  the  case  with  Wilmington,  Brunswick, 
New  Bern,  Bath,  and  Edenton.  Furthermore,  since  it  was  located  on 
a  peninsula,  the  edges  of  which  were  dissected  by  many  creeks  and 
bays  and  the  center  of  which  was  dominated  by  swampland,126  land 
transportation  of  bulky  commodities  between  Beaufort  and  the  interior 
was  almost  impossible;  and  since  other  ports  were  more  accessible  to 

118  During  the  year  ending  in  October,  1766,  27,490  gallons  of  rum  and  wine  were 
imported  into  the  Port  Beaufort  customs  district.  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers 
for  Port  Beaufort,  1763-1789.  During  a  period  of  one  month  in  1785,  1,032  gallons  of 
rum,  1,000  gallons  of  molasses,  and  985  pounds  of  sugar  were  imported  at  the  town 
of  Beaufort.  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort,  1784-1790. 

UG  Clark,  State  Records,  XI,  624;  XXII,  933. 

120  These  statements  are  based  upon  export  records  for  the  town  of  Beaufort  during 
the  years  1784-1789.  See  Treasurer's  and  Comptroller's  Papers  for  Port  Beaufort, 
1784-1789. 

121  Brickell,  Natural  History,  8. 

122  From  "The  Importance  of  the  British  Plantations  in  America"  (London,  1731), 
71,  as  quoted  in  Francis  L.  Hawks,  History  of  North  Carolina  from  1663  to  1729 
(Fayetteville:  E.  J.  Hale  &  Son,  2  volumes,  1858),  II,  558-559. 

123  He  commented  that  "the  inhabitants  seem  miserable.  .  .  ."  "Journal  of  a  French 
Traveller,"  733. 

124  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  IX,  636-637. 

125  See  Crittenden,  The  Commerce  of  North  Carolina,  3-4. 

126  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  IV,  169. 


The  Economy  of  Colonial  Beaufort  133 

the  interior,  such  transportation  was  most  improbable.  In  this  situation, 
the  only  area  which  Beaufort  could  effectively  serve  as  a  port  was 
that  lying  along  the  edges  of  the  short  rivers  and  sounds  which  led  to 
the  town.  With  its  services  restricted  to  this  small  area  of  limited 
natural  resources,  Beaufort  never  had  a  large  quantity  of  commodities 
for  export  nor  a  large  market  for  which  it  could  import. 

The  limitation  imposed  upon  the  town  of  Beaufort  by  its  isolation 
from  the  interior  was  clearly  seen  by  Governor  Dobbs  soon  after  his 
arrival  in  the  colony.  On  January  4,  1755,  in  a  report  to  the  Board  of 
Trade  in  London  on  the  "Wants  &  Defects  of  the  Province,"  he  com- 
mented that  while  Topsail  Inlet  was  "a  very  safe  Harbour  with  deep 
Water  and  no  Bar  .  .  ."  it  had  "no  navigable  River"  leading  to  it,  and 
therefore  "no  considerable  Trade  .  .  .  [could]  be  carried  from 
thence.  .  .  ." 12T 

As  late  as  1764  Governor  Dobbs  had  nothing  new  to  report  to  the 
Board  of  Trade  concerning  Beaufort's  commercial  capacity,128  but  in 
1766  efforts  were  initiated  which,  if  they  had  been  carried  to  comple- 
tion, would  have  given  Colonial  Beaufort  a  waterway  connecting  it 
with  the  interior.  On  November  13,  1766,  Richard  Cogdell,  one  of 
Carteret  County's  representatives  in  the  Assembly,129  introduced  a  bill 
for  the  construction  of  a  canal  connecting  the  head  of  Harlowe  Creek, 
which  flowed  into  the  north  side  of  Newport  River  approximately  five 
miles  above  Beaufort,  with  the  head  of  Clubfoot  Creek,  which  flowed 
into  the  south  side  of  Neuse  River  approximately  twenty  miles  below 
New  Bern.130  The  distance  between  the  heads  of  these  two  creeks  was 
less  than  ten  miles,  and  an  overland  passageway  between  them  was 
already  in  use.131  A  canal  connecting  these  two  creeks  would  not  only 
have  given  Beaufort  access  to  Neuse  River  and  the  interior,  it  would 
also  have  made  Beaufort  the  port  of  entry  for  cargoes  bound  for  New 
Bern,  then  the  capital  of  the  colony.  Furthermore,  it  would  have  cut 
in  half  the  distance  by  water  from  New  Bern  to  the  ocean.  This  canal, 
however,  never  became  a  reality  during  the  Colonial  period.  The  bill 
initiated  by  Cogdell  was  enacted  into  law  in  1766,  but  instead  of  pro- 
viding that  the  canal  be  financed  out  of  public  funds,  it  was  to  be 
financed  by  "many  Public  Spirited  Gentlemen  [who]  being  willing 
to  further  a  Work  of  such  an  interesting  Nature  to  a  Commercial 
Country,  have  offered  to  contribute  to  the  same,  by  either  paying  in 

127  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  V,  316. 
^Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VI,  1028. 

129  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VII,  342. 

130  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  VII,  368. 
M1  Saunders,  Colonial  Records,  V,  345. 


134  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Sums  of  Money,  or  sending  their  Slaves  to  Work  in  cutting  the  said 
Canal.  .  .  . 132  Although  the  commissioners  who  were  appointed  to 
oversee  the  construction  of  this  canal  were  instructed  to  "immediately 
employ  Hands  to  work  on  the  said  Canal"  as  soon  as  they  had  "re- 
ceived any  Subscriptions  of  Monies  to  carry  on  the  same," 133  there  is 
no  indication  that  work  ever  began  under  the  provisions  of  this  act.134 
Thus,  Beaufort  was  compelled  to  remain  commercially  isolated  from 
the  rest  of  the  colony,  a  port  of  only  local  significance  throughout 
the  Colonial  period.  This  factor,  more  than  any  other,  explains  its  lack 
of  growth  as  a  Colonial  town. 


132  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  684-685. 

133  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIII,  684-685. 

134  In  1783  the  state  legislature  reenacted  the  law  of  1766  with  only  minor  revisions. 
Clark,  State  Records,  XXIV,  538.  In  1784  a  new  act  was  passed  which  allowed  private 
contractors  to  assume  the  task  of  constructing  the  canal  and  gave  them  the  right  to 
charge  a  toll  for  its  use.  Clark,  State  Records,  XXIV,  634.  The  canal  was  eventually- 
constructed  under  the  provisions  of  this  act.  See  Clifford  Reginald  Hinshaw,  Jr., 
"North  Carolina  Canals  Before  I860,"  North  Carolina  Historical  Review,  XXV  (Janu- 
ary, 1948),  1-15. 


PAPERS  FROM  THE  SIXTY-SIXTH  ANNUAL 

SESSION  OF  THE  NORTH  CAROLINA  LITERARY 

AND  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION 

Winston-Salem,  December  2,  1966 

INTRODUCTION 

For  the  first  time  in  its  history,  the  North  Carolina  Literary  and 
Historical  Association  held  its  annual  meeting  outside  the  city  of 
Raleigh.  To  help  observe  the  two  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  found- 
ing of  Salem,  the  various  associations  which  comprise  Culture  Week 
agreed  to  hold  their  1966  sessions  in  Winston-Salem. 

Papers  presented  at  the  December  meeting  are  being  published 
in  this  issue  of  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Review  as  has  been  the 
custom  for  many  years.  Only  the  address  by  Dr.  William  J.  Murtagh 
of  the  National  Trust  for  Historic  Preservation  on  "German  Architec- 
ture in  the  United  States,  with  Specific  Attention  to  the  Moravians" 
has  been  omitted.  The  editors  felt  that  the  address  without  its  ac- 
companying slides  was  so  incomplete  as  to  be  meaningless  to  readers. 

Information  on  the  business  sessions  and  programs  of  Culture  Week 
societies  was  included  in  the  January,  1967,  issue  of  Carolina  Com- 
ments. 


REVIEW  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  FICTION, 

1965-1966 

By  Ralph  Hardee  Rives* 

I  would  like  to  begin  by  paying  tribute  to  a  distinguished  North 
Carolina  author  who  did  not  have  a  book  in  the  1966  competition  for 
any  literary  award.  I  feel,  however,  that  this  is  an  appropriate  time 
and  place  to  express  congratulations,  appreciation,  indebtedness,  and 
love  to  North  Carolina's  "First  Lady  of  Literature."  She  has  been 
called  "the  Thomas  Wolfe  of  our  Coastal  Plain."  I  am  referring,  of 
course,  to  Mrs.  Bernice  Kelly  Harris,  who  in  May,  1966,  was  the 
recipient  of  the  North  Carolina  Award  for  the  distinction  she  has  given 
the  literature  of  our  state.  Mrs.  Harris  is  a  writer  of  intelligence,  com- 
passion, and  artistry.  "To  Be  Rather  Than  To  Seem"  is  a  motto  that  as 
appropriately  fits  her  as  it  does  her  beloved  state. 

No  area  in  the  world  is  more  misunderstood  or  more  misportrayed 
in  literature  and  on  the  stage  than  the  American  South.  Exaggerated 
caricatures  of  decadent,  backward  southerners  who  live  pathetically 
in  a  past  that  never  quite  existed  have  too  long  been  present  in  the 
works  of  many  skillful  but  insensitive  authors  and  critics  from  both 
the  North  and  the  South.  Mrs.  Harris  writes  with  amazing  objectivity 
and  honesty  but  always  with  understanding  and  appreciation  of  the 
problems  and  personalities  peculiar  to  her  area  of  the  United  States, 
and  her  seven  distinguished  novels  have  acquainted  thousands  of 
readers  with  a  whole  region  and  a  whole  way  of  life  that  is  unique 
and  good  and  rich  in  tradition.  And,  on  this  occasion,  I  would  salute 
Mrs.  Harris  for  her  personal  contributions  to  the  cultural  heritage  of 
North  Carolina. 

Mrs.  Harris— or  "Miss  Kelly"  as  she  is  affectionately  known  by  those 
most  closely  associated  with  her— merits  special  recognition  and  com- 
mendation for  the  unselfish  interest  she  has  displayed  in  encouraging 
new  writers  to  express  themselves.  Since  1963  she  has  taught  a  creative 

*  Dr.  Rives  is  associate  professor  of  English  at  East  Carolina  College,  Greenville; 
this  report  was  given  at  the  morning  meeting  of  the  Literary  and  Historical  Associa- 
tion, December  2,  1966. 


Review  of  North  Carolina  Fiction  137 

writing  course  at  Chowan  College,  and  the  results  have  been  most 
significant  and  for  "Miss  Kelly"  very  rewarding.  Several  students  have 
had  the  pleasant  experience  of  seeing  their  works  published  in  news- 
papers and  magazines,  and  two  novels  are  now  in  the  final  stages  of 
preparation  for  publication. 

I  wish  to  commend  Sam  Ragan  of  the  Raleigh  News  and  Observer 
for  discovering  and  presenting  a  wide  variety  of  new  talent  through 
his  column,  "Southern  Accent,"  which  was  initiated  in  1948.  Mr. 
Ragan  has  given  consistent  encouragement  to  countless  unknown 
writers,  including  many  college  students,  by  publishing  and  comment- 
ing on  their  works  along  with  the  work  of  artists  who  have  already 
arrived.  His  recognition  and  praise  of  various  college  literary  maga- 
zines has  been  especially  noteworthy. 

I  also  wish  to  express  my  personal  appreciation  to  Richard  Walser 
of  the  University  of  North  Carolina  at  Raleigh  for  his  distinguished 
contributions  toward  making  the  inhabitants  of  this  state  aware  of 
their  cultural  and  literary  history.  No  other  single  person  has  done 
more  to  preserve  the  story  of  our  literati  than  Professor  Walser,  and 
his  various  volumes  and  anthologies  provide  within  themselves  an 
almost  sufficient  bibliography  for  a  college  course  in  North  Carolina 
literature. 

During  the  past  two  years,  in  the  month  of  August,  Bernadette 
Hoyle  has  sponsored  the  Tar  Heel  Writers'  Roundtable  in  Raleigh 
with  an  attendance  at  each  annual  meeting  of  approximately  one 
hundred  writers  of  varying  degrees  of  experience,  interest,  and  ability. 
The  talent  displayed  and  the  effervescent  enthusiasm  of  the  students 
enrolled  in  the  classes  reflect  the  definitely  favorable  climate  for  crea- 
tive writing  in  North  Carolina  at  this  time.  Mrs.  Hoyle  is  to  be 
saluted  for  her  excellent  organization  of  the  various  sessions  and  for 
recruiting  each  year  a  noteworthy  "faculty"  drawn  from  both  within 
and  outside  the  boundaries  of  the  state.  Members  of  the  roundtable 
hear  successful  writers  discuss  their  methods;  they  learn  special  writ- 
ing techniques,  share  their  problems,  meet  outstanding  authors  and 
critics  and,  most  important  of  all,  gain  inspiration. 

I  would  also  like  to  pay  tribute  to  those  men  and  women  in  North 
Carolina  who  are  responsible  for  the  numerous  writers  clubs  and 
creative  writing  groups  that  have  been  organized  on  practically  every 
college  and  university  campus  and  in  many  towns  and  cities. 

The  books  which  were  entered  in  the  1966  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  com- 
petition varied  greatly  in  length,  style,  purpose,  and  appeal.  There 
were  a  few  works  by  authors  whose  names  are  well  known  throughout 


138  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  United  States  and  even  in  foreign  countries,  and  there  were  first 
works  by  interesting,  talented,  and  promising  newcomers.  There  were 
several  books  by  authors  from  the  academic  world,  several  written  by 
full-time  journalists,  and  many  which  were  penned  by  housewives  and 
others  of  various  occupations.  Some  of  the  books  were  published  by 
nationally  known  publishing  houses,  while  many  others  were  pri- 
vately printed.  Some  of  the  books  were  geared  toward  the  tastes  and 
interests  of  adults  while  a  very  significant  number  were  oriented 
toward  the  ever-increasing  juvenile  reading  market.  The  works  tended 
to  fall  largely  within  the  areas  of  the  novel,  incidental  stories,  and 
poetry. 

The  dearth  of  creative  works  in  the  fields  of  drama  and  the  short 
story  gives  some  reason  for  concern  and  is  perhaps  an  indication  that 
we  need  to  give  more  impetus  toward  playwriting  and  short  story 
writing  in  our  creative  writing  classes  and  clubs.  Surely  at  no  time  in 
our  history  have  there  been  more  significant  issues  or  themes  to  stimu- 
late the  writing  of  successful  comedies  or  tragedies,  historical  plays  or 
folk  plays.  As  an  old  "ham"  myself,  I  tremble  at  the  thought  of  North 
Carolinians  not  producing  a  single  play— not  even  a  bad  play,  which 
after  all  is  better  than  no  play  at  all— in  1966. 

The  themes  of  many  of  the  books  and  poems  published  in  1966 
were  specifically  related  to  North  Carolina,  a  fact  which  does  not  at 
all  disturb  me,  as  it  apparently  does  some  critics,  for  I  believe  in  the 
truth  and  wisdom  of  the  old  adage  "know  thyself."  If  we  as  a  homo- 
genous group  of  Americans  who  have  the  unique  heritage  of  being 
Carolinian  and  southern  would  be  able  to  think  and  act  intelligently 
beyond  our  borders— and  we  must— we  must  first  be  able  to  understand 
clearly  and  appreciate  that  which  is  within  our  borders.  The  wide 
diversity  in  topics,  interests,  and  media  of  communication,  the  diver- 
sity of  our  own  geography,  the  increasing  cosmopolitanism  of  our 
native  writers,  and  the  healthy  influence  of  our  "adopted"  writers  who 
have  made  North  Carolina  their  home  should  prevent  us  from  be- 
coming too  inbred,  too  restricted,  or  too  narrow  in  vision  and  scope. 
I  am  pleased  that  so  many  North  Carolina  writers  want  to  write  about 
this  state  and  I  say  bravo  to  them!  I  cannot  imagine  a  Virginian  not 
writing  about  Virginia  or  a  Texan  not  somehow  bringing  Texas  into 
his  work,  or  a  true  New  Yorker  not  using  Manhattan  for  a  locale.  Why, 
then,  should  we  be  apologetic  about  our  interest  in  our  state? 

It  is  a  popular  pastime  nowadays  to  decry  the  backwardness,  the 
ignorance,  the  unhappiness,  and  the  tremendous  poverty  of  North 


Review  of  North  Carolina  Fiction  139 

Carolina  in  particular  and  the  South  in  general.  We  are  portrayed  by 
many  critics  as  a  people  who  are  unlettered,  untutored,  and  com- 
pletely unaware  of  the  world  beyond  our  borders  and  incapable  of 
understanding  most  of  what  occurs  within  our  borders.  The  story  of 
the  South,  to  many  of  our  critics,  is  a  tragic,  unfortunate  chapter  in 
the  annals  of  American  history.  While  on  a  lecture  tour  of  Great 
Britain  in  1962,  in  which  I  stressed  the  unique  social  and  cultural 
ties  which  unite  that  nation  with  our  section,  I  was  told  by  one 
Englishman,  "I  am  glad  to  hear  a  southern  viewpoint;  our  last  speaker 
from  America  came  from  Ohio  and  said  that  she  was  ashamed  to  be 
an  American  because  of  the  South." 

I  do  not  consider  myself  either  a  professional  southerner  or  pro- 
fessional Carolinian,  though  I  am  proud  of  being  both  southern  and 
Carolinian.  I  am  proud  of  the  history  of  the  South  and  of  the  history 
of  North  Carolina,  and  I  happen  to  be  a  defender,  not  necessarily 
of  the  status  quo,  but  of  our  unique  heritage  and  tradition.  I  am  not, 
of  course,  blind  to  our  faults  and  shortcomings  or  to  the  dark  pages 
in  our  history  but  my  study  of  history  in  general  reveals  similar  faults 
and  mistakes  and  dark  pages  in  the  history  and  development  of  any 
region  or  culture  or  civilization. 

Thad  Stem,  Jr.,  the  well-known  essayist,  journalist,  poet,  and  critic, 
of  Oxford,  a  master  in  the  use  of  the  metaphor  and  simile,  is  an  author 
who  is  unashamedly  proud  of  his  state  and  its  history.  In  his  Spur 
Line,  with  its  unique  arrangement  of  thirty-eight  poems  and  an  equal 
number  of  prose  selections,  he  not  only  reflects  distinctive  artistry  with 
his  pen  but  interprets  with  romantic  nostalgia  images  of  North  Caro- 
lina several  decades  ago.  He  does,  indeed,  take  rural  and  small-town 
manners  and  customs,  recolors  and  revitalizes  what  is  often  considered 
commonplace,  and  makes  them  glowing  and  fresh. 

Stem  possesses  a  keen  insight  into  both  the  logical  and  emotional 
behavior  of  man,  and  the  society  of  which  he  writes  and  with  which 
he  is  so  obviously  familiar  is  not  an  impersonal,  cynical,  bitter,  revolt- 
ing society.  Much  of  what  he  describes  is  symbolic,  and  he  uses  many 
effective  historical  allusions  and  much  impressive  imagery.  In  an  age 
of  bizarre  beatnik  literature,  his  work  is  refreshingly  unaffected  with- 
out being  naive,  uncomplex  without  being  obvious.  Thad  Stem's  work 
reflects  wisdom  and  humility.  With  extraordinary  deftness  he  tells  of 
the  lazy  Wednesday  afternoons  he  has  known  in  his  hometown.  He 
picturesquely  describes  the  magic  quality  of  the  old-time  trains.  He 
comments  on  such  diverse  topics  as  superstitions,  the  school  celebra- 


140  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

tions  on  Sidney  Lanier's  birthday  when  he  was  a  child,  Sam  Jones,  the 
famous  Methodist  evangelist;  and  he  recalls  the  eccentricities  of  many 
small  town  characters  who  are  familiar  stereotypes  found  throughout 
eastern  Carolina. 

Though  there  is  a  universal  quality  and  appeal  about  Spur  Line,  the 
reader  is  ever  aware  of  the  overtones  of  the  author's  native  Oxford  in 
Granville  County.  When  he  candidly  declares  that  he  is  "one  of  a  few 
middle-aged  Americans  who  still  lives  on  the  street  on  which  he  was 
born,"  one  readily  realizes  that  this  fact  contributes  in  no  small  way  to 
the  perspective  of  the  work. 

Another  native  North  Carolinian  who  hails  from  "the  same  neck  of 
the  woods"  (to  be  colloquial)  as  Mr.  Stem  is  the  talented,  versatile, 
and  quite  youthful  Reynolds  Price.  Mr.  Price  won  national  attention 
and  acclaim  a  few  years  ago  with  his  movingly  tender  and  beautifully 
phrased  masterpiece,  A  Long  and  Happy  Life.  His  1966  publication, 
A  Generous  Man,  though  perhaps  not  altogether  as  outstanding  in 
merit  as  its  predecessor,  brought  further  distinction  to  Mr.  Price  be- 
cause of  its  precision  of  language  and  insight  into  human  character.  As 
Granville  Hicks  observed  in  the  Saturday  Review,  the  book  is  "rich, 
original  and  profound." 

Ben  Haas  of  Raleigh  brought  forth  The  Last  Valley,  a  skillful  work 
of  some  length  which  is  worthy  of  praise  and  note.  Set  in  a  beautifully 
wooded  valley  high  in  Appalachia,  with  "its  forests  and  waters  still 
untouched  by  the  bulldozers  and  dredgers,"  The  Last  Valley  is  con- 
cerned with  character  in  conflict  and  it  reflects  the  same  keen  talent 
and  ability  as  Mr.  Haas'  earlier  novel,  Look  Away,  Look  Away,  and  is 
not  nearly  so  controversial  in  theme. 

Professor  Fred  Chappell  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina  at 
Greensboro  published  his  second  novel,  The  Inkling,  a  book  which 
reflects  the  same  imaginativeness  and  realism  which  characterized  his 
It  Is  Time,  Lord,  published  three  years  ago.  This  new  work  reveals  a 
distinguished  ability  to  create  "a  structure  of  great  subtlety  and  com- 
plexity that  reflects,  as  a  microcosm,  passions  and  fears  and  dreams 
that  are  universal." 

Another  young  writer  whose  prose  has  captured  the  attention  of 
distinguished  reviewers,  is  Heather  Ross  Miller,  an  Elizabethtown 
housewife  whose  published  works  include  articles,  stories,  and  two 
novels  in  addition  to  poetry.  Her  second  novel,  this  year's  Tenants  of 
the  House,  is  a  book  filled  with  rich  symbolism,  originality,  and  con- 
viction. 


Review  of  North  Carolina  Fiction  141 

Peggy  Hoffmann  of  Raleigh,  a  North  Carolinian  by  adoption,  pro- 
duced two  works  in  1966,  both  of  which  reveal  her  as  a  serious, 
dedicated,  and  talented  writer.  A  Forest  of  Feathers,  her  first  novel, 
treats  with  poignancy,  sensitivity,  and  deep  perception  the  troubled 
mind  and  heart  of  an  unforgettable— yet  nameless— girl  who  is  mentally 
ill.  Mrs.  Hoffmann  tells  the  story  with  honesty,  imagination,  and  bitter 
humor,  but,  most  of  all,  with  tender  pathos  and  understanding.  Her 
versatility  as  an  author  is  further  evidenced  in  her  book  Shift  to  High!, 
a  juvenile  work  which  tells  of  the  exciting  escapades  of  three  teen-age 
boys  on  an  automobile  excursion  in  North  Carolina,  a  journey  which 
turns  out  to  be,  in  reality,  a  journey  into  maturity. 

Manly  Wade  Wellman  of  Chapel  Hill,  indisputably  one  of  the  state's 
most  prolific  authors,  published  Battle  of  Bear  Paw  Gap,  the  third  in 
a  trilogy  of  historical  novels  of  the  Revolutionary  period  aimed  largely 
toward  young  people.  This  latest  work  is  full  of  dangerous  adventures, 
brave  frontiersmen,  and  Indians  involved  in  the  establishment  of  Bear 
Paw  Gap  in  the  North  Carolina  mountains. 

A  dramatic  horse  story,  entitled  A  Dash  of  Pepper,  written  by 
Thelma  Harrington  Bell,  was  vividly  enhanced  by  a  series  of  dis- 
tinguished drawings.  Mrs.  Bell  is  the  author  of  six  other  works  of 
juvenile  fiction. 

Lewis  W.  Green's  The  Year  of  the  Swan  is  an  original  Chinese  fable 
also  enhanced  by  eight  original  woodcuts  and  bamboo-designed  bor- 
ders around  the  pages  of  type.  , 

The  Cape  Fear  area  furnished  the  inspiration  for  Ethel  Herring's 
booklet,  About  Turtles  and  Things— Near  Fort  Caswell.  This  collection 
of  autobiographical  stories  relates  some  of  the  things  which  the  author 
and  her  family  have  learned  over  two  decades  about  their  favorite 
vacation  spot. 

Three  other  books  which  further  demonstrate  the  inspiration  North 
Carolinians  receive  from  the  history,  geography,  and  people  of  their 
state,  is  evidenced  by  William  S.  Powell's  North  Carolina,  Richard 
Walser  and  Julia  Montgomery  Street's  North  Carolina  Parade:  Stories 
of  History  and  People,  and  Annie  Sutton  Cameron's  booklet  on  Hills- 
borough and  the  Regulators. 

Mr.  Powell's  book,  effectively  illustrated  with  a  variety  of  photo- 
graphs, is  a  patriot's  tribute  to  the  Old  North  State  and  is  quite 
understandably  subjective  in  content.  It  is  readable  and  it  is  worth 
reading.  For  friends  living  out  of  state  or  out  of  this  country  I  recom- 
mend this  book  as  a  possible  gift. 


142  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  Walser-Street  anthology  of  North  Carolina  stories  is  oriented 
toward  the  interest  level  of  the  intermediate  grade  student  who  may 
wish  to  learn  more  of  our  state  history.  The  youthful  reader  will  make 
the  acquaintance  of  such  exciting  and  diversified  individuals  as  Vir- 
ginia Dare,  Blackbeard,  Daniel  Boone,  Flora  Macdonald,  Andrew 
Johnson,  Buck  Duke,  Thomas  Wolfe,  and  Clarence  Poe. 

Miss  Cameron's  account  of  Colonial  Hillsborough,  "capital  of  the 
Carolina  back  country,"  sheds  new  insight  and  knowledge  into  the 
events  surrounding  the  Regulator  movement.  It  is  the  type  of  informa- 
tive, readable,  documented  booklet  that  should  be  written  about  every 
historic  town  in  North  Carolina. 

Another  book  aimed  largely  toward  the  reading  interests  of  teen-age 
boys  is  Robinson  Barnwell's  Head  Into  the  Wind.  Mrs.  Barnwell,  a 
former  high  school  teacher,  possesses  not  only  exceptional  writing 
ability  but  an  unusual  understanding  and  empathy  for  the  problems 
and  loneliness  of  adolescence.  She  has  written  with  poignancy  of  the 
emotional  maturity  of  a  thirteen-year-old  lad  forced  to  adjust  to  the 
death  of  his  father. 

It  is  significant  that  numerous  North  Carolina  writers  have  pro- 
duced and  are  producing  books  of  poetry.  Not  all  the  poems  are  great; 
in  fact,  some  of  them  are  not  even  good,  by  critical  standards,  but  they 
are  poems  and  they  are  very  real  expressions  of  a  very  real  creative 
urge.  Many  of  the  lyrics  are  marked  by  a  freshness  of  theme,  meticu- 
lous craftsmanship,  and  a  poetic  honesty. 

The  poems  in  Dorothy  Bell  Kauffman's  book,  The  Inheritance  of  My 
Fathers,  recall  the  history,  folklore  and  spirit  of  southeastern  North 
Carolina  and  recreate  the  Cape  Fear  country  of  a  bygone  era.  For 
All  the  Lost  and  Lonely,  by  Edward  Dixon  Garner,  is  a  delightful  col- 
lection of  singing  verses  that  disclose  a  love  of  nature  and  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  mountains  and  mountain  people.  Sallie  Nixon's 
booklet,  Surely  Goodness  and  Mercy,  contains  poems  which  are,  in  the 
words  of  the  author,  "a  simple  testament  of  an  abiding  faith  in  God, 
and  a  growing  one  in  man."  Victor  R.  Small,  a  medical  doctor,  has 
produced  Over  My  Shoulder,  his  second  book  of  poetry,  which  also 
contains  two  prose  tales,  a  work  which  reveals  irony,  romance,  wry 
humor,  all  with  a  nostalgic  charm  and  perceptive  depth.  Betty  V. 
Stoffel's  second  published  work,  Splendid  Moments,  is  admittedly 
written  from  a  woman's  point  of  view  and  discloses  keen  spiritual  in- 
sights and  compassion  fused  into  "a  poetic  profile  of  human  values  and 


Review  of  North  Carolina  Fiction  143 

emotions."  Poems'  Words  of  Wisdom,  by  Milford  R.  Ballance,  contains 
some  twenty-one  poems  ranging  over  a  wide  spectrum  of  themes,  and 
Leona  Hayes  Chunn's  Rouse  With  the  Dawn  is  a  collection  of  verse 
which  prompted  Archibald  Rutledge  to  declare:  "Here  we  have  to 
deal  with  one  of  the  rarest  of  human  beings— a  true  poet." 

Having  had  the  unique  opportunity  to  become  acquainted  with 
these  various  works  of  North  Carolina  authors  this  year,  I  must  admit 
to  a  general  feeling  of  optimism.  And,  because  of  this  optimism,  I 
wish  to  conclude  with  a  prediction. 

Among  the  classes  which  I  teach  from  time  to  time  in  my  role  as  a 
professor  of  English  is  a  survey  course  in  American  literature  wherein 
the  content  is  selected  from  the  writings  of  the  earliest  Puritans  of  the 
seventeenth  century  through  the  works  of  Poe,  Hawthorne,  Melville, 
Emerson,  and  Lowell.  In  addition  to  learning  something  about  those 
writers  and  their  respective  contributions  to  literature,  the  students 
also  learn  that  at  certain  specific  periods  in  our  history  there  were 
cultural  centers  where  the  intellectual  climate  produced  a  "colony" 
or  "school"  of  distinguished  writers  whose  literary  works  reflected 
and  affected  the  temper  of  the  times.  Philadelphia,  Concord,  Cam- 
bridge, and  Charleston  were  such  centers.  I  always  make  a  point  of 
explaining  to  my  students  why  North  Carolina  and  the  South  produced 
so  few  writers  during  those  periods,  why  the  intellectual  climate  here 
produced  statesmen  rather  than  writers,  and  why  orators  instead  of 
literary  figures  flourished. 

I  predict  with  absolute  certainty  that  students  in  the  twenty-first 
century,  whether  in  Idaho,  Alaska,  England,  Austria,  Australia,  or 
even  on  the  moon,  will  read  in  their  survey  courses  of  American  litera- 
ture that  during  the  mid-twentieth  century  North  Carolina— as  a  state 
—was  a  literary  center  with  a  school  or  colony  of  writers  whose  works 
increased  in  importance  and  value  with  the  passage  of  years.  And 
those  students  will  read  of,  about,  and  from  Paul  Green,  Thomas 
Wolfe,  Bernice  Kelly  Harris,  Betty  Smith,  Sam  Ragan,  Thad  Stem, 
Jr.,  LeGette  Blythe,  Glenn  Tucker,  Richard  Walser,  and  many,  many 
others.  And  the  sophomores  and  juniors  of  that  distant  day  will,  upon 
reading  the  works  of  these  writers,  find  their  horizons  broadened,  their 
knowledge  increased,  their  faith  in  humanity  restored  or  strengthened, 
and  their  appreciation  of  southern  civilization  sharpened,  while  they 
are  learning  to  develop  their  own  personalities  and  to  find  their  own 
souls. 


THE  MORAVIANS  AND  WACHOVIA 

By  Kenneth  G.  Hamilton* 


The  founding  fathers  of  the  United  States  chose  for  its  official  motto 
a  Latin  phrase,  E  pluribus  unum,  thereby  asserting  their  faith  that 
out  of  the  former  thirteen  American  colonies  they  would  forge  one 
single,  truly  united  nation.  Similarly  every  commonwealth  which 
forms  a  part  of  this  nation  is  in  its  turn  made  up  of  many  communities, 
each  with  individual  characteristics  whereby  it  enriches  the  life  of 
the  whole.  That  fact  has  provided  the  guidelines  for  this  paper.  It  will 
endeavor  to  stress  some  of  the  distinctive  features  of  Winston-Salem, 
a  community,  which  in  its  formative  years,  at  least,  certainly  was 
in  many  ways  unique  in  North  Carolina.  It  will  also  suggest  how  the 
community  thus  fashioned  has  made  its  contribution  through  the  years 
to  the  state  of  which  it  is  a  part. 

Many  persons  are  familiar  with  the  series  of  volumes  published  suc- 
cessively by  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Commission  and  the  State 
Department  of  Archives  and  History  under  the  title  Records  of  the 
Moravians  in  North  Carolina.  They  will  agree  that  Winston-Salem 
has  an  almost  embarrassing  wealth  of  archival  material  for  the  his- 
torian to  draw  upon.  The  manuscripts  date  back  to  the  very  beginning 
of  this  city,  then  called  "Salem,"  and  portray  a  unique  settlement  in 
the  rolling  hills  of  the  Piedmont  district. 

This  community  was  set  apart  from  others  from  its  very  inception. 
It  did  not  originate  like  so  many  of  its  neighbors  through  the  coming 
together  of  numbers  of  people,  chiefly  strangers  to  each  other,  who 
located  at  a  given  spot  without  prior  design  and  then  formed  a  town 
out  of  the  varied  elements  which  were  available  to  them. 

January  6,  1766,  marked  the  actual  beginning  of  Salem.  But  at  least 
as  early  as  November,  1750,  leading  Moravians  in  Herrnhut,  Germany, 
had  weighed  the  pros  and  cons  of  establishing  a  colony  in  North 

*  Since  retiring  from  the  executive  board  of  the  Northern  Province  of  the  Moravian 
church  and  from  his  position  as  provincial  archivist,  Bishop  Hamilton  has  resided  in 
Winston-Salem,  where  he  devotes  full  time  to  work  on  the  Records  of  the  Moravians 
in  North  Carolina;  Bishop  Hamilton  spoke  at  the  morning  meeting  of  the  Literary  and 
Historical  Association,  December  2,  1966. 


The  Moravians  and  Wachovia  145 


The  title  page  of  the  "Brotherly  Agreement"  of  the  Salem  Moravian  Congregation. 
This  document  contains  the  principles  of  conduct  agreed  to  by  its  members  in  1780. 
Photograph  supplied  by  the  author. 

Carolina  on  land  which  John,  Lord  Carteret,  Earl  of  Granville,  had 
offered  to  sell  them  on  advantageous  terms.  Before  deciding  to  do  so, 
however,  the  church  fathers  commissioned  their  chief  representative 
in  America,  Bishop  August  Gottlieb  Spangenberg,  to  explore  the  terri- 
tory in  question  to  determine  whether  he  could  find  as  much  as  100,- 
000  acres  of  land  suitable  for  their  purposes.  Ultimately  Spangenberg 
chose  an  area  in  what  is  now  Forsyth  County.  At  his  suggestion  the 
Moravians  named  their  tract  "die  Wachau"--or  "the  Meadowland  of 


146  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  Wach"— because  they  thought  its  watercourses  made  it  resemble 
an  ancestral  estate  of  the  Zinzendorfs  in  Austria.  The  name  became 
anglicized  as  "Wachovia." 

On  August  7,  1753,  the  deeds  to  this  large  tract  were  signed  in  Lon- 
don, and  on  the  seventeenth  of  November  that  same  year  the  first 
Moravian  settlers  came  to  North  Carolina.  Before  they  left  Pennsyl- 
vania detailed  plans  had  been  evolved  for  parceling  out  most  of 
Wachovia  to  members  of  the  church  who,  it  was  hoped,  would  be  able 
to  win  a  livelihood  by  farming.  In  the  center  of  the  area,  however,  a 
town  was  to  be  built,  where  crafts  and  trades  would  be  cultivated  and 
business  fostered.  Nearly  thirteen  years  passed  following  the  arrival 
of  the  first  colonists  before  the  authorities  of  the  church  agreed  on  a 
site  for  the  central  community.  In  the  interval  drafts  had  been  made 
and  rejected  and  a  final  plan  for  the  new  town  adopted,  before  an  ax 
bit  into  the  first  tree  on  its  site.  The  direction  of  the  streets,  their 
various  widths,  the  size  of  the  individual  town  lots,  provisions  for  a 
central  square,  around  which  the  most  important  community  struc- 
tures were  to  cluster— all  had  been  agreed  upon  in  the  period  preced- 
ing work  on  the  first  house  in  Salem.  Here  then  was  an  authenticated 
instance  of  town  planning  in  the  1760's. 

Not  merely  the  physical  form  of  the  projected  community  had 
been  predetermined,  but  steps  had  been  taken  to  assure  that  all 
activities  would  be  carried  on  in  it  which  the  church  considered  basic 
to  its  welfare.  The  cultivation  of  religious  life  had  been  provided  for 
as  a  matter  of  course,  but  also  the  presence  of  artisans  to  labor  in 
essential  crafts,  together  with  other  individuals  dedicated  to  the  school- 
ing of  the  children  of  the  settlement;  a  doctor  to  care  for  its  health; 
also  men  capable  of  directing  the  musical  activities  of  the  community, 
a  phase  of  its  life  upon  which  the  early  Moravians  laid  exceptional 
stress.  Thus  Salem  owed  the  first  facet  of  its  unusual  character  to  its 
status  as  a  church-related  community. 

Furthermore— and  this  obviously  was  a  most  important  matter— even 
after  the  community  came  into  being,  when  by  death  or  for  any  other 
reason  it  lost  an  individual  who  possessed  some  specialized  skill,  the 
church  could  draw  upon  its  membership  in  Pennsylvania  or  Europe 
to  fill  the  vacancy  thus  created. 

Due  to  such  advantages  Salem— this  name  too  had  been  selected 
in  Europe— enjoyed  from  its  earliest  period  an  unusual  degree  of  self- 
sufficiency  within  what  was  soon  to  become  the  state  of  North  Caro- 
lina. Handwrought  fixtures  of  wood  or  metal,  tools,  pieces  of  furniture, 


The  Moravians  and  Wachovia  147 

guns,  musical  instruments,  and  many  other  items  fashioned  by  early 
Moravians  in  Salem  can  still  be  found  there,  where  they  were  pre- 
served and  treasured  through  the  years.  The  church  diary  records  that 
when  President  Washington  visited  in  Salem  in  1791  he  inspected  the 
industries  and  other  establishments  of  the  town  and  expressed  his 
pleasure  especially  at  the  way  in  which  the  waterworks  were  utilized. 
Indeed,  early  Salem  was  able  to  supply  a  wide  area  about  it  with  the 
products  of  its  crafts,  particularly  its  pottery.  The  Moravians  also 
played  a  part  in  meeting  the  medical  needs  of  the  whole  countryside. 
After  the  turn  of  the  eighteenth  century  Salem  offered  educational 
benefits  to  non-Moravian  children— mainly  girls.  These  latter  were 
cared  for  in  a  boarding  school,  established  in  1802. 

Yet  another  quality  distinguished  Salem  in  its  early  years:  its  people 
were  one  in  their  religious  beliefs  and  objectives.  To  say  this  is  not 
to  attempt  to  deny  that  strong  religious  forces  were  evident  in  the  life 
of  other  North  Carolina  communities  of  this  period.  But  Salem  came 
into  being  as  a  closed  Moravian  settlement.  In  matters  of  the  faith 
its  founders  without  exception  were  united  by  common  religious 
views.  They  called  each  other  "brother"  and  "sister,"  and  these  were 
no  empty  terms.  To  live  as  a  brotherhood  of  men  and  women  who 
sought  to  have  their  lives  conform  to  the  will  of  their  Saviour  in  every 
respect  had  been  the  main  motive  for  their  acquiring  so  large  a  tract 
in  the  New  World  and  for  their  locating  their  town  in  its  center. 
Thus  they  hoped  to  be  free  from  all  interference  in  their  chosen  way 
of  life,  a  privilege  they  had  sought  for  in  vain  in  Europe. 

To  promote  and  deepen  devotion,  the  community  was  organized 
into  so-called  "choirs"  or  divisions.  Each  group— children,  older  boys, 
older  girls,  single  men,  single  women,  married  couples,  widowers,  and 
widows— had  separate  leaders,  separate  devotional  exercises,  separate 
instruction,  though  united  congregational  worship  also  had  its  recog- 
nized place  in  the  activities  of  the  community.  The  single  men,  the 
single  women,  and  in  some  years  the  widows  too  shared  as  much  of 
their  daily  affairs  as  possible,  each  group  occupying  a  "choir  house" 
of  its  own.  When  death  called  away  a  member  of  the  community,  his 
body  was  laid  to  rest  with  others  of  his  choir  who  had  preceded  him, 
not  with  members  of  his  family.  This  practice,  incidentally,  is  still 
followed  in  the  Moravian  God's  Acre  and  constitutes  one  of  the  few 
choir  customs  still  to  survive.  Another  is  the  announcement  of  the 
death  of  each  member  of  the  congreation  by  the  church  band's  playing 


148 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


The  saal  in  the  Single  Brothers  House  in  Old  Salem,  which  was  used  by  the  unmarried 
men  and  boys  for  their  worship  and  song  services.  The  organ  was  built  by  the  well- 
known  Pennsylvania  organ  maker,  David  Tannenberg,  in  1797-1798.  It  has  been  fully 
restored.  Photograph  reproduced  by  courtesy  of  Old  Salem,  Inc. 


three  chorale  tunes,  the  second  of  which  indicates  the  choir  to  which 
the  deceased  had  belonged. 

For  many  years  those  who  lived  in  Salem  made  little  distinction 
between  civil  and  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  church  directed  all  of 
the  affairs  of  the  community.  The  people  wanted  it  so,  and  their 
leaders  saw  to  it  that  careful  observance  of  all  church  regulations  was 
maintained.  Quite  naturally  such  a  community  laid  itself  open  at  many 
points  to  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  its  neighbors  because  of  its 


The  Moravians  and  Wachovia  149 

dissimilarity  to  them.  In  particular  the  conscientious  scruples  which 
the  Moravians  of  the  early  period  cherished  against  bearing  arms  or 
taking  oaths  could  readily  be  misinterpreted.  This  was  even  more 
true  of  another  guiding  principle  which  they  maintained— that  of  obey- 
ing every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake  in  so  far  as  their 
consciences  would  allow.  It  requires  no  great  effort  of  the  imagination 
to  realize  how  strangely  foreign  the  Salem  community  must  have 
seemed  to  the  rest  of  North  Carolina  in  the  1770's.  The  demand  for 
political  independence  from  Great  Britain,  which  was  surging  through 
the  thirteen  colonies  like  a  ground  swell,  was  unknown  in  Salem.  The 
Moravians  took  little  interest  in  politics.  Moreover  they  owed  to  Great 
Britain  gratitude  for  important  benefactions;  and  since  many  of  their 
brethren  lived  within  the  borders  of  the  empire  and  others  labored  as 
missionaries  of  the  gospel  in  distant  British  colonies,  they  purposely 
sought  to  avoid  any  actions  which  might  endanger  their  position. 

Yet  another  characteristic  of  Salem  set  it  apart  from  the  rest  of 
North  Carolina  for  a  long  period.  In  all  important  decisions  affecting 
its  life  and  development  this  community  was  subject  to  final  control 
by  the  central  boards  of  the  Moravian  church  in  far-off  Germany. 
At  first  Salem  followed  Herrnhut's  guidance  with  implicit  trust.  This 
was  quite  natural.  After  all,  in  the  early  years  the  great  majority  of  the 
residents  had  come  from  Germany  via  Pennsylvania  or  Maryland. 
They  continued  to  speak  German  in  their  homes,  their  businesses, 
their  church.  They  brought  distinctive  German  architecture  to  this 
part  of  the  state.  They  cultivated  German  thoroughness  in  their  crafts 
and  German  methods  in  their  schools.  Many  of  the  local  leaders  had 
been  trained  in  the  Moravian  institutions  of  the  fatherland.  Moreover 
they  sincerely  believed  that  the  instructions  which  they  received  from 
their  brethren  in  Germany  represented  in  fact  the  will  of  their  divine 
Lord.  This  conviction  was  based  upon  the  boards'  practice  of  sub- 
mitting their  problems  to  the  lot  before  determining  upon  any  specific 
course  of  action.  They  did  this  as  a  rule  in  one  of  two  ways.  In  the 
first,  the  alternatives  open  to  the  church  would  be  set  down  on  slips 
of  paper,  one  of  which  was  then  drawn  after  earnest  prayer  for  God's 
overruling.  Or,  the  answer  could  be  sought  to  a  single  question  by 
drawing  one  of  three  slips  of  paper.  In  that  case  the  first  would  bear 
the  word  "yes";  the  second,  "no";  the  third  would  be  blank.  Drawing 
the  blank  was  generally  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  time  was  not  yet 
ripe  for  any  decision  in  the  matter. 


150  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

In  their  willingness  to  be  directed  from  Herrnhut,  Salem's  attitude 
differed  diametrically  from  that  taken  by  most  of  its  neighboring  com- 
munities, in  which  men  coveted  self-determination  and  were  quick  to 
rebel  against  any  hint  of  absentee  control. 

Finally,  let  me  stress  the  fact  that  these  unique  features  in  Salem's 
life  persisted  for  an  abnormally  long  time  due  to  the  exclusive  char- 
acter of  the  town.  In  a  conscious  effort  to  preserve  their  way  of  life 
the  Salem  Moravians  relied  chiefly  upon  three  measures.  First,  the 
church  kept  ownership  of  the  Salem  land,  leasing  it  to  individuals  at 
very  moderate  terms.  The  leases,  however,  were  continued  subject  to 
their  holders'  conforming  to  all  regulations  adopted  by  the  church 
council.  Those  who  persisted  in  refusing  to  abide  by  them  had  to 
leave  the  community.  In  such  cases,  or  even  when  a  lessee  moved 
away  of  his  own  free  will,  he  could  sell  the  improvements  which  he 
had  made  upon  the  land  only  to  some  other  Moravian  who  would 
be  acceptable  as  a  resident  of  the  town.  If  such  a  purchaser  could 
not  be  found,  the  church  authorities  were  under  obligation  to  take 
over  the  items  in  question  at  a  fair  price.  A  second  regulation  gave 
the  church  fathers  paternalistic  control  over  businesses  and  crafts 
within  the  town.  To  assure  the  heads  of  families  the  income  they 
needed  for  the  support  of  those  dependent  upon  them,  the  number 
of  individuals  allowed  to  practice  any  given  trade  or  profession  was 
limited  so  as  to  have  the  supply  of  goods  they  produced  or  services 
they  rendered  conform  to  the  local  demand.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
the  interest  of  the  community,  prices  and  profits  were  also  controlled. 
The  third  measure,  which  was  intended  to  maintain  the  continuity  of 
their  way  of  life,  curtailed  personal  liberty  even  more  drastically. 
Young  Moravians  had  to  choose  their  life  partners  from  among  the 
membership  of  the  church  or  from  the  limited  number  of  friends 
whom  the  authorities  judged  to  be  qualified  for  membership. 

The  average  American  of  our  day,  including  the  average  American 
who  belongs  to  the  Moravian  Church,  would  consider  such  controls 
intolerable.  Paradoxically,  however,  the  community  which  instituted 
them  two  hundred  years  ago  saw  in  them  a  guarantee  of  the  highest 
freedom,  freedom  to  follow  the  precepts  of  God.  Not  so  their  chil- 
dren's children.  Slowly,  but  steadily,  dissatisfaction  and  open  dis- 
regard of  the  regulations  increased.  Finally,  in  1856  the  lease  system 
was  terminated  by  an  overwhelming  vote  of  the  church  council,  and 
Salem  ceased  to  be  an  exclusive  Moravian  center. 

Some  seven  years  earlier  the  church  council  had  voted  to  sell  land 
lying  on  the  northern  outskirts  of  Salem  to  the  commissioners  of  the 


The  Moravians  and  Wachovia  151 

newly  created  county  of  Forsyth.  The  latter  wanted  to  obtain  this 
site  for  the  county  seat  because  of  its  central  location.  A  community 
sprang  up  around  the  county  buildings;  in  1851  it  received  its  name, 
"Winston."  The  new  town  soon  outstripped  its  neighbor  in  industry 
and  banking,  though  it  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  earlier  settlement 
also  had  pioneered  in  the  manufacture  of  tobacco,  textiles,  furniture, 
and  had  established  banking  facilities  of  its  own. 

More  and  more  rapidly  Salem  now  became  assimilated  into  the 
ways  of  the  rest  of  North  Carolina,  thereby  gaining  much,  but  of 
necessity  also  losing  much  of  its  distinctive  character.  Friendly  rela- 
tions continued  between  the  two  neighboring  communities.  In  1913 
they  consolidated  and  formed  the  twin  city  of  Winston-Salem,  this 
to  their  mutual  benefit.  It  goes  without  saying  that  Winston-Salem  in 
1966  owes  much  also  to  the  earlier  decades  of  Winston's  development, 
prior  to  the  amalgamation  of  the  two  towns,  but  time  does  not  allow 
a  discussion  of  this  subject. 

There  remains  the  second  phase  of  my  topic,  that  concerned  with 
the  question:  "What  contributions  has  Winston-Salem  made,  due  to 
its  distinctive  characteristics,  to  the  state  of  North  Carolina?"  What 
may  be  said  in  this  respect  of  this  city,  as  it  looks  back  upon  two 
centuries  of  significant  development? 

It  has  promoted  education  wholeheartedly.  Salem  Academy  and 
College  for  Girls  and  Young  Women  traces  its  beginnings  back  to  the 
day  schools  which  the  Moravians  organized  in  their  settlement  in 
1772,  when  schools  were  few  in  the  land.  Thirty  years  later  the 
church  authorities  decided,  in  response  to  repeated  requests,  to  estab- 
lish a  boarding  school  in  Salem,  which  non-Moravian  girls  would 
also  be  encouraged  to  attend.  R.  D.  W.  Connor,  in  his  North  Carolina: 
Rebuilding  an  Ancient  Commonwealth,  1584-1925,  wrote  with  regard 
to  higher  education  for  women: 

The  Moravian  Church  led  the  way  when,  in  1802,  it  founded  the  Salem 
Female  Academy.  This  institution  occupied  the  field  alone  until  the  educa- 
tional revival  of  the  [eighteen]  forties  awakened  the  interest  of  the  other 
churches  in  the  problem. 

The  city  is  proud  to  be  the  home  of  two  other  colleges  today.  In 
chronological  order— in  so  far  as  this  community's  connection  with 
them  in  concerned— they  are  Winston-Salem  State  College  and  Wake 
Forest  College.  The  former  was  begun  as  the  Slater  Industrial  Aca- 
demy in  1892,  when  only  two  other  communities  provided  the  colored 
citizens  of  this  state  with  an  opportunity  of  gaining  higher  education. 
More  recently,  in  1956,  Winston-Salem  gave  a  warm  welcome  to  Wake 


152  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Forest  College,  when  that  outstanding  institution  moved  to  this  city. 
Its  medical  school  had  been  brought  to  Winston-Salem  in  1941,  a 
step  which  anticipated  the  transfer  of  the  college  by  some  fifteen 
years.  Indeed,  local  climate  appears  to  be  favorable  to  education, 
since  this  city  has  provided  the  location  for  three  significant  experi- 
ments in  modern  techniques  in  this  field,  represented  by  the  Gover- 
nor's School,  the  North  Carolina  Advancement  School,  and  the  North 
Carolina  School  of  the  Arts. 

Probably  Winston-Salem  is  even  better  known  for  its  industries  and 
its  banking  activities.  In  support  of  this  statement  the  fact  can  be 
cited  that  though  it  lies  far  from  the  world's  waterways  the  federal 
government  granted  it  the  status  of  a  "port  of  entry"  in  1916  because 
of  the  volume  of  its  imports  of  tobacco.  Tobacco,  textiles,  and  elec- 
tronics lead  the  list  of  the  industries  for  which  Winston-Salem  is 
known.  While  perhaps  none  of  these  should  be  regarded  as  a  direct 
outgrowth  of  Moravian  Salem,  yet  definite  continuity  can  be  shown 
between  other  local  industrial  concerns  and  the  early  crafts.  More- 
over, may  not  the  prosperity  of  this  community  and  the  good  labor 
relations  which  it  has  generally  enjoyed  be  considered  a  heritage  of 
the  day  when  hardworking,  shrewd,  but  devout  pioneers  laid  the 
pattern  for  this  community  in  the  heart  of  Wachovia?  Ever  since  its 
founding  the  Moravian  congregation  has  included  this  petition  in  its 
Sunday  litany:  "Bless  the  sweat  of  the  brow  and  the  faithfulness  in 
handicraft  business,"  though  this  prayer  has  been  slightly  edited  in 
the  present  form  to  read:  "Bless  the  sweat  of  the  brow  and  faithful- 
ness in  business." 

Today  the  Wachovia  Bank  and  Trust  Company  is  recognized  to  be 
the  largest  bank  not  in  North  Carolina  alone  but  in  the  whole  south- 
eastern section  of  the  nation.  Its  very  name  recalls  its  close  ties  with 
the  past;  and  in  fact,  some  of  the  leading  personalities  connected 
with  the  Wachovia  National  Bank,  one  of  the  present  corporation's 
predecessors,  had  had  a  part  in  earlier  banking  ventures  in  Salem. 

Business  activities,  however,  have  not  stifled  the  cultural  interests 
of  our  community.  Winston-Salem  points  with  pride  to  the  paintings 
of  Daniel  Welfare  and  the  poems  of  John  Henry  Boner  and  to  the 
creative  talents  of  others  as  well.  So  it  was  fitting  that  a  later  genera- 
tion should  undertake  to  pioneer  in  the  Arts  Council  movement.  This 
city,  however,  may  surely  claim  music  as  its  most  important  contri- 
bution to  the  arts.  Through  the  years  the  Moravians  have  preserved 
in  their  archives  a  great  store  of  manuscript  music,  much  of  it  com- 
posed locally  by  men  like  Johann  Friedrich  Peter  and  Johann  Chris- 


The  Moravians  and  Wachovia  153 

tian  Bechler  and  first  enjoyed  by  the  residents  of  Salem,  when  dedi- 
cation to  the  arts  was  quite  unusual  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 
Thanks  to  the  relatively  recent  efforts  of  the  Moravian  Music  Foun- 
dation this  treasure  store  is  becoming  more  generally  available  and 
more  widely  appreciated.  Similarly,  in  1950,  the  community's  interest 
in  its  past  found  concrete  expression  in  the  organization  of  Old 
Salem,  Inc.,  an  association  dedicated  to  preserving  and  restoring 
the  buildings  and  crafts,  the  streets  and  walks  which  picture  so  vividly 
those  beginnings  to  which  we  in  our  time  owe  such  a  debt. 

There  remain  two  aspects  of  Winston-Salem  which  ought  not  to  be 
omitted  from  even  so  brief  a  summary  as  this.  Its  residents  have 
cultivated  philanthropy  on  a  generous  scale.  For  more  than  forty 
years  the  United  Fund  drives,  or  similar  city-wide  campaigns  under 
other  names,  have  never  failed  to  reach  their  annual  goals.  Moreover, 
as  the  city  prospered,  a  number  of  foundations  were  created  to  pro- 
mote the  well-being  not  merely  of  this  community  but  of  other  areas 
in  the  state  as  well.  Philanthropy  frequently  is  an  outgrowth  of 
religious  faith.  In  view  of  the  ideals  which  motivated  the  founders 
of  Salem  and  dominated  life  within  that  community  for  so  long  a 
period,  the  generous  spirit  found  in  this  city  today  can  be  regarded 
at  least  in  part  as  a  fruit  of  commitment  to  God  and  concern  for  the 
needs  of  others,  needs  which  the  church  as  such  no  longer  is  in  a 
position  to  supply. 

The  characteristic  of  Winston-Salem  which  the  early  settlers  of 
Salem  in  Wachovia  would,  however,  surely  have  put  first  is  its  con- 
tinuing witness  to  faith  in  a  living  God.  This  influence  has  reached 
far  out  beyond  the  city  limits.  No  doubt  the  same  could  be  said  in 
varying  ways  of  every  other  community  which  cultivates  vital  reli- 
gion. Nevertheless  at  this  point  Winston-Salem's  contribution  has 
been  distinctive.  Through  two  centuries  this  city  has  sponsored  a 
deeply  moving  form  of  worship  each  Easter  dawn.  In  it,  year  by 
year,  a  great  assembly  gives  expression  to  the  central  convictions  of 
Christian  faith.  The  number  of  those  who  reverently  participate  in 
this  service  has  swelled  into  the  thousands.  They  come  from  every  part 
of  the  state  and  from  far  beyond  its  borders.  Modern  science  carries 
their  witness  on  the  air.  Who  can  appraise  the  help  thus  given  to 
generations  of  men  and  women  in  their  spiritual  needs!  In  view  of 
this  privilege  and  of  many  other  benefits  the  citizenry  of  Winston- 
Salem  has  done  well  to  designate  the  two  hundredth  anniversary 
of  the  founding  of  Salem  in  Wachovia  as  a  "Year  of  Thanksgiving." 


REVIEW  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  NONFICTION, 

1965-1966 

By  Herbert  R.  Paschal,  Jr.* 


As  a  judge  in  the  Mayflower  Award  Competition  of  1966  and  as 
one  who  loves  this  state,  I  could  not  help  but  experience  a  feeling  of 
warmth  and  pleasure  as  I  sat  in  my  study  with  this  year's  34  May- 
flower entries  piled  about  me.  Surrounding  me  was  the  visible  evidence 
of  the  scholarship,  creative  ability,  and  high  purpose  of  my  fellow 
North  Carolinians. 

But  as  I  contemplated  the  bounty  spread  before  me  certain  nagging 
questions  began  to  penetrate  the  euphoria  of  the  moment.  I  recalled 
reading  somewhere  that  about  28,000  books  were  published  in  the 
United  States  last  year.  A  quick  check  of  a  reference  work  disclosed 
that  about  20,000  were  new  works  published  for  the  first  time.  If 
half  of  these  new  works  were  fiction  (and  this  is  giving  fiction  far 
too  large  a  share),  then  the  truth  must  come  clearly  home  to  you  as 
it  did  to  me.  North  Carolinians  are  not  writing  their  share  of  general 
or  nonfiction  works.  It  is  difficult  to  pinpoint  this  lag  precisely.  It  may 
be  50,  100,  or  200  volumes,  but  the  lag  is  certainly  there.  Thirty-four 
volumes  are  not  enough. 

Reviewing  North  Carolina's  nonfiction  works  last  year,  Professor 
Henry  Stroupe  noted  the  number  of  volumes  entered  in  the  May- 
flower Competition  had  declined  from  40  in  1963,  to  31  in  1964,  to  25 
in  1965.  Professor  Stroupe  remarked  that  this  decline  might  well  be 
"a  matter  of  concern."  Happily,  this  downward  trend  has  been 
checked  by  the  34  volumes  entered  in  competition  this  year.  In  the 
end,  however,  a  fluctuation  of  a  few  volumes  each  year  is  not  very 
significant.  What  is  needed  is  a  strong  current,  sufficient  to  sweep  us 
out  of  the  mid-century  doldrums  in  which  we  now  seem  caught.  This 
is  the  fifteenth  year  in  which  only  nonfiction  works  have  been  eligible 

*  Dr.  Paschal  is  chairman  of  the  Department  of  History,  East  Carolina  College, 
Greenville ;  this  report  was  made  at  the  morning  meeting  of  the  Literary  and  Historical 
Association,  December  2,  1966. 


Review  of  North  Carolina  Nonfiction  155 

for  the  Mayflower  Award.  The  average  number  of  volumes  placed  in 
competition  during  this  period  has  been  30,  and  the  total  number 
each  year  has  seldom  been  far  from  this  average.  While  no  one  would 
contend  that  we  have  lost  ground,  it  would  be  folly  to  contend  that 
we  are  making  large  strides  forward  either.  Professor  Richard  Walser 
in  his  presidential  address  to  this  association  three  or  four  years 
ago  warned  that  signs  of  a  slowing  down  in  cultural  achievement 
were  apparent  in  North  Carolina.  An  increase  each  year  of  six,  eight, 
or  ten  volumes  entered  in  the  Mayflower  Competition  would  be  a 
certain  sign  that  the  mid-century  doldrums  had  been  broken.  That 
such  a  development  will  not  be  long  in  coming  cannot  help  but  be 
the  ardent  wish  of  all. 

It  may  seem  strange  that  one  assigned  the  task  of  reviewing  the 
nonfiction  works  produced  in  North  Carolina  during  the  past  year 
should  take  time  to  lament  the  works  not  written.  My  action  might 
be  compared  with  that  of  the  preacher  who  delivers  a  powerful  ser- 
mon to  his  congregation  on  Sunday  denouncing  those  who  fail  to 
attend  church.  For  in  truth  it  is  not  those  who  are  in  attendance  on 
Sunday  morning  who  need  the  lecture  but  those  who  are  absent. 
Certainly  the  33  authors  whose  works  appear  on  the  Mayflower  list 
have  done  their  share  to  meet  any  possible  Tar  Heel  sluggishness  in 
literary  production. 

In  attempting  to  place  the  volumes  to  be  reviewed  in  categories,  I 
have  come  to  have  the  utmost  respect  for  librarians  who  without 
hesitation  declare  that  this  volume  should  be  classified  973.065  or 
that  as  328.547.  I  have  longed  for  such  skill  and  assurance  but  in  vain. 
Certainly  it  is  plain  that  the  historians  have  been  the  most  prolific 
Tar  Heel  writers.  They  are  followed  (but  not  too  closely)  by  the 
writers  of  biographies  and  memoirs.  Authors  of  religious  works  and 
of  literary  criticism  have  contributed  several  volumes  in  their  respec- 
tive categories.  The  remaining  works  may  be  given  the  admittedly 
broad  but  the  decidedly  safe  classification  of  miscellaneous. 

Eight  of  the  works  classified  as  history  delve  into  the  history  of 
North  Carolina.  Two  of  the  volumes,  Swain  County:  Early  History 
and  Educational  Development,  by  Lillian  Franklin  Thomasson,  and 
An  Illustrated  History  of  Yadkin  County  1850-4956,  by  William  E. 
Rutledge,  Jr.,  add  to  the  steadily  growing  list  of  county  histories. 
While  both  works  are  victims  of  many  of  the  faults  and  problems 
which  beset  local  history,  they  nonetheless  add  interesting  detail  and 
preserve  much  material  of  value  for  those  who  may  subsequently 
write  the  full  story  of  the  mountain  country  of  this  state. 


156  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Two  ancient  North  Carolina  churches  are  treated  in  two  separate 
studies.  These  are  New  Gilead  Church:  A  History  of  the  German  Re- 
formed People  of  Coldwater,  by  Banks  D.  Shepherd,  and  One  Hundred 
and  Fifty  Years  of  Service,  1816-1966,  the  story  of  the  Hillsborough 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  Cabarrus  County  church  on  Coldwater 
Creek  was  a  focal  point  for  much  of  the  German  Reformed  work  in 
Colonial  North  Carolina,  and  the  account  of  the  early  days  of  this 
church  constitutes  the  most  significant  portion  of  Shepherd's  volume. 
The  28  pages  devoted  to  the  history  of  the  Hillsborough  Presbyterian 
Church  give  only  a  fleeting  glimpse  of  that  historic  church's  interest- 
ing past. 

In  102  concisely  written  pages  Dr.  Benjamin  E.  Washburn  has  pro- 
duced A  History  of  the  North  Carolina  State  Board  of  Health,  1877- 
1925.  The  reader  of  this  volume  completed  its  reading  with  two 
wishes:  one,  that  Dr.  Washburn  will  ultimately  bring  his  account 
from  1925  to  the  present  and,  two,  that  all  of  the  state's  departments 
and  agencies  in  Raleigh  will  eventually  publish  similar  accounts  of 
their  historical  development.  The  first  portion  of  the  study  constitutes 
a  general  history  of  the  Board  of  Health's  development,  while  the 
latter  portion  of  the  book  describes  the  evolution  of  the  various  divi- 
sions within  the  agency  down  to  1925. 

An  almost  unique  volume  in  concept  and  execution  is  William  S. 
Powell's  Paradise  Preserved.  It  is  a  most  interesting  account  of  the 
thirty-odd  year  history  of  the  Roanoke  Island  Historical  Association. 
To  place  the  story  of  the  association  in  perspective  the  author  briefly 
describes  the  Raleigh  colonies  on  Roanoke  Island,  traces  the  later 
ownership  of  the  settlement  site,  and  tells  of  the  efforts  by  individuals 
and  organizations  from  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  to  the  present  to 
gain  national  recognition  for  the  events  which  transpired  on  Roanoke 
Island  in  the  late  sixteenth  century.  The  tremendous  success  which 
the  Roanoke  Island  Historical  Association  has  had  with  Paul  Green's 
outdoor  symphonic  drama  The  Lost  Colony  is  now  history,  thanks  to 
the  efforts  of  Mr.  Powell. 

Richard  W.  Iobst's  The  Bloody  Sixth  is  a  magnificently  detailed 
account  of  the  career  of  the  Sixth  North  Carolina  Regiment  during 
the  Civil  War.  Included,  also,  is  a  roster  of  the  regiment  compiled  by 
Louis  H.  Manarin.  As  the  reader  follows  the  regiment  from  First 
Manassas  where  its  gallant  commander,  Charles  F.  Fisher,  fell; 
through  the  nightmare  of  Rappahannock  Station;  and  on  to  Appo- 
mattox, he  comes  clearly  to  understand  why  it  well  deserved  the 
sobriquet  of  "the  Bloody  Sixth." 


Review  of  North  Carolina  Nonfiction  157 

F.  Roy  Johnson's  Tales  from  Old  Carolina  is  part  history  and  part 
folk  tales.  Whatever  its  classification,  it  is  interesting.  Johnson,  rapidly 
becoming  one  of  the  more  prolific  writers  on  the  North  Carolina 
scene  (he  has  two  entries  in  this  year's  competition),  recounts  story 
after  story  of  life  in  the  old  Albemarle  area  as  it  was  lived  a  hundred 
or  more  years  ago.  Johnson's  other  volume,  The  Nat  Turner  Slave 
Insurrection,  is  a  well-documented  account  of  the  tragic  incident  in 
Southampton  County,  Virginia,  which  so  shocked  North  Carolina  and 
the  South.  This  work  should  be  read  by  any  who  do  not  fully  appre- 
ciate the  haunting  fear  of  slave  insurrection  which  beset  the  dreams 
and  thoughts  of  the  southern  slave  owner. 

Professor  Robert  Durden  of  Duke  University  has  written  The  Cli- 
max of  Populism.  The  climax  to  which  the  author  alludes  is  the 
famous  free  silver  election  of  1896.  The  author  carefully  reconstructs 
the  role  of  the  Populist  party  in  this  election  and  in  doing  so  presents 
evidence  to  show  that  a  number  of  opinions  held  by  historians  about 
the  1896  election  will  have  to  be  carefully  reexamined. 

Y.  C.  Wang's  Chinese  Intellectuals  and  the  West,  1872-1949,  is  a 
highly  complex  and  detailed  study  of  the  100,000  Chinese  students 
who  left  their  own  country  to  study  abroad  prior  to  1949  and  of  the 
impact  which  these  returning  students  had  upon  China.  Professor 
Wang  seems  to  feel  the  new  intelligentsia  tended  to  destroy  the  old 
moral  and  ethical  values  of  China  and  to  replace  them  with  little  of 
lasting  worth.  The  new  ideas  which  entered  the  vacuum  thus  created 
need  no  elaboration  here. 

Lillian  Parker  Wallace,  a  Baptist,  continues  to  write  of  the  Papacy 
with  understanding  and  sympathy  in  Leo  XIII  and  the  Rise  of  Social- 
ism. The  work  is  essentially  a  full-scale  treatment  of  the  collision  of 
the  doctrines  of  socialism  and  those  of  the  Catholic  church  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  out  of  which  came  Pope  Leo's  Rerum  Novarum. 
The  knowledge  and  scholarship  of  the  author  is  evident  on  every 
page  of  this  work. 

The  final  volume  of  history  to  be  reviewed  is  The  Russian  Army 
Under  Nicholas  I,  1825-1855,  by  John  S.  Curtiss.  Despite  the  rather 
forbidding  title,  this  is  an  exceptionally  readable  volume.  One  com- 
pletes this  work  feeling  as  if  he  were  an  authority  on  the  Russian 
people  and  their  character.  While  the  story  of  the  wars  fought  by 
Russia  during  the  reign  of  Nicholas  is  told  in  considerable  detail,  one 
remembers  most  vividly  the  chapters  which  describe  the  recruitment, 
training,  and  day-to-day  activities  and  life  of  the  men  and  officers  who 
fought  in  the  wars.  This  is  a  genuinely  rewarding  study. 


158  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Six  works  on  our  Mayflower  list  belong  clearly  in  the  field  of  biog- 
raphy or  memoirs.  Given  our  locale  and  circumstances,  it  is  perhaps 
only  fitting  that  we  begin  our  consideration  of  this  category  with 
Dorothy  Nifong's  Brethren  With  Stethoscopes.  This  small  volume  con- 
tains quite  readable  and  entertaining  sketches  of  the  many  beloved 
physicians  who  have  served  the  Moravian  community  from  Colonial 
times  to  the  present  generation.  It  is  impossible  to  pass  on  to  another 
work  without  adding  a  word  of  congratulations  on  the  beauty  of  the 
format.  If  only  all  books  were  as  typographically  interesting,  reading 
would  bring  even  more  pleasure. 

Those  who  like  to  feel  that  North  Carolinians  can  do  things  a  little 
better  than  most  will  find  strong  proof  in  Glenn  H.  Todd's  The 
Immortal  Nick  Arrington.  This  biography  tells  of  the  wealthy  Nash 
County  plantation  owner  who  made  his  plantation,  "The  Cedars," 
the  home  of  the  most  celebrated  gamecocks  in  the  world.  No  name 
ranks  higher  in  the  annals  of  this  bloody  sport  than  that  of  Nick 
Arrington.  He  was,  says  his  biographer,  "the  greatest  cockfighter  that 
ever  lived." 

A  former  Mayflower  winner,  LeGette  Blythe,  has  written  Robert 
Lee  St  owe:  Pioneer  in  Textiles.  In  this  work  Blythe  tells  the  life  story 
of  a  Gaston  County  man  who  in  the  best  tradition  of  the  New  South 
philosophy  built  a  textile  manufacturing  empire. 

Calvin  B.  Hoover,  long-time  chairman  of  the  Department  of  Eco- 
nomics at  Duke  University,  has  written  his  Memoirs  of  Capitalism, 
Communism,  and  Nazism.  These  memoirs  disclose  that  professors, 
too,  can  live  exciting  lives.  Few  professors,  however,  can  match 
Hoover's  varied  career  as  scholar,  adviser  to  presidents,  and  OSS 
agent  in  World  War  II. 

Former  Governor  Terry  Sanford  has  turned  to  the  writing  of 
memoirs  with  a  work  intriguingly  entitled  But  What  About  the 
People?  In  this  work  Mr.  Sanford  tells  how  he  set  out  to  improve 
education  in  North  Carolina  during  his  administration.  It  is,  as  all 
North  Carolinians  know,  a  success  story.  The  former  governor  is, 
however,  silent  upon  the  political  infighting  which  must  have  accom- 
panied his  many  victories  for  education. 

Another  former  Mayflower  winner,  Glenn  Tucker,  has  written  Zeb 
Vance:  Champion  of  Personal  Freedom.  In  this  work  the  man  who 
may  well  have  been  the  most  beloved  North  Carolinian  who  has 
ever  lived  comes  clearly  and  sharply  into  focus  for  the  first  time  in  a 
biography.  Concentrating  principally  upon  Vance's  career  as  Civil 


Review  of  North  Carolina  Nonfiction  159 

War  governor,  Tucker  has  written  a  biographical  study  of  the  first 
rank. 

The  field  of  religion  is  well  represented  among  the  Mayflower  com- 
petitors. James  Cleland,  dean  of  Duke  Chapel,  in  He  Died  as  He 
Lived  has  written  seven  moving  meditations  on  the  seven  last  words 
or  statements  uttered  by  Christ  upon  the  Cross.  His  Duke  colleague, 
David  B.  Bradley,  is  the  author  of  Circles  of  Faith  which  is  designed 
to  serve  as  an  introductory  work  for  those  about  to  embark  upon  a 
study  of  the  world's  great  religions.  Catherine  Johansson's  Concepts 
of  Freedom  in  the  Old  Testament  finds  hidden  meanings,  sometimes 
vague  to  this  reviewer,  in  certain  passages  of  the  Bible.  Wayside  Re- 
flections, by  L.  A.  Martin,  is  a  collection  of  seventy  or  eighty  short 
inspirational  messages.  A  Lutheran  minister,  Raymond  H.  Witt,  tells 
of  his  efforts  to  integrate  a  parish  on  the  South  Side  of  Chicago  and 
tells  the  story  quite  well  in  the  title  of  his  book,  It  Aint  Been  Easy, 
Charlie. 

Undoubtedly  the  best  seller  among  the  books  on  the  Mayflower  list 
(the  jacket  on  my  copy  said  there  were  400,000  copies  already  in 
print)  is  Billy  Graham's  World  Aflame.  There  are  twenty-three  chap- 
ters which  together  constitute  a  powerful  if  lengthy  sermon.  The 
movement  of  this  work  may  be  seen  in  the  following  selected  chapter 
headings:  "Flames  Out  of  Control,"  "The  Searchers  in  a  Flaming 
World,"  "The  Inescapable  Christ,"  "How  to  Become  a  New  Man," 
and  "The  Fabulous  Future." 

Literary  criticism  is  splendidly  represented  by  three  works.  Chris- 
tian Rite  and  Christian  Drama,  by  O.  B.  Hardison,  Jr.,  is  a  collection 
of  seven  closely  reasoned  essays  designed  to  reassess  the  available 
knowledge  of  the  medieval  drama.  Hardison  contends  in  the  last 
two  essays  that  the  vernacular  drama  did  not  necessarily  emerge  from 
the  Latin  or  church  drama  as  many  authorities  maintain.  Lodwick 
Hartley's  Laurence  Sterne  in  the  Twentieth  Century  consists  in  part  of 
a  long  essay  describing  how  the  author  of  Tristram  Shandy  has  fared 
at  the  hands  of  biographers  and  critics.  The  greater  portion  of  the 
book  is  given  over  to  a  bibliography  of  works  relating  to  Sterne  pub- 
lished since  1900.  Jay  Broadus  Hubbell  has  published  a  collection  of 
seventeen  essays  in  South  and  Southwest.  They  range  in  subject  from 
"The  Smith-Pocahontas  Literary  Legend"  to  "Jesse  Holmes  the  Fool 
Killer." 

Art  history  is  represented  by  only  one  volume  but  it  is  a  magnificent 
one.  This  work  is  Sidney  David  Markman's  Colonial  Architecture  of 
Antigua  Guatemala.  It  is  an  exhaustive  study  of  the  physical  remains 


160  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

of  the  city  which  served  as  the  capital  of  Guatemala  from  1541  to 
1773.  It  is  handsomely  illustrated  with  215  photographs.  This  work 
cannot  help  but  be  the  definitive  study  of  its  subject. 

In  Congress  and  Lobbies,  coauthors  Andrew  M.  Scott  and  Margaret 
Hunt  describe  their  interviews  with  congressmen  which  were  de- 
signed to  determine  to  what  extent  the  people's  representatives  were 
influenced  by  interest  groups  or  lobbyists.  Their  conclusion  is  that 
the  influence  of  interest  groups  upon  Congress  is  far  less  than  has 
been  thought. 

Jasper  L.  Stuckey  has  written  the  only  work  which  can  be  placed 
in  the  broad  area  of  science.  It  is  North  Carolina:  Its  Geology  and 
Mineral  Resources.  It  contains  not  only  what  its  title  promises  but 
also  a  history  of  the  development  of  the  science  of  geology  in  North 
Carolina.  It  is  an  excellent  and  much  needed  work.  In  Around  the 
World  Report,  1965,  Holt  McPherson  takes  the  reader  on  a  highly 
personal  tour  of  much  of  Asia,  while  Loy  A.  Martin  in  The  Crewcut 
relates  anecdotes  gleaned  from  nearly  forty  years  behind  a  barber's 
chair.  The  ladies  who  may  wonder  what  the  men  are  talking  about 
behind  the  big  plate  glass  windows  will  find  from  a  perusal  of  this 
work  that  it  is  rather  bland  stuff. 

Harry  Golden  in  A  Little  Girl  Is  Dead  presents  in  full  detail  one  of 
the  more  famous  murder  cases  of  the  early  twentieth  century,  the 
murder  of  Mary  Phagan.  All  of  the  ingredients  are  here— a  teen-age 
girl  murdered  in  a  pencil  factory  in  Atlanta,  a  Jewish  manufacturer 
accused  of  the  crime,  a  Georgia  lynch  mob,  et  cetera,  et  cetera.  To 
Golden  the  whole  case  is  obviously  loaded  with  symbolism.  To  this 
reviewer  it  was  an  absorbing  story  well  told. 

We  have  run  our  course.  The  story  is  told,  and  this  reviewer  must 
admit  to  the  sentiments  expressed  in  the  title  of  the  work  of  one  of 
our  authors— If  Aint  Been  Easy,  Charlie. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES:  A 

NONEXCLUSIVE  PARTNERSHIP  DEDICATED  TO 

THE  ATTAINMENT  OF  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE, 

SECURITY,  AND  STABILITY  THROUGH 

PEACEFUL  MEANS 

By  Sir  Patrick  Dean* 


When  I  was  first  approached  by  the  organizers  of  these  celebra- 
tions, I  received  a  number  of  letters  addressed  to  "Sir  Patrick  Dean," 
which,  of  course,  was  quite  normal  and  absolutely  correct.  As  the 
correspondence  went  on  I  noticed,  however,  that  my  name  under- 
went a  subtle  change  and  I  was  increasingly  referred  to  as  "Sir  Patrick 
Henry  Dean."  I  am  used  to  this  form  of  address  by  now,  especially 
when  I  happen  to  be  in  Virginia. 

When  I  was  reading  the  excellent  material  sent  to  me  by  the  North 
Carolina  Literary  and  Historical  Association,  I  saw  that  there  might 
be  an  additional  reason  for  the  use  of  my  full  name.  This  is  that 
apparently  Joseph  Winston,  after  whom  the  Winston  part  of  Winston- 
Salem  was  named,  was  related  to  Patrick  Henry. 

I  had  better  tell  you  the  truth  at  the  outset  that  I  was  not  named 
after  Patrick  Henry.  Nor  do  I  know  why  I  was  christened  thus  because 
I  doubt  very  much  whether  my  father  and  mother  had  it  in  mind  at 
that  time  that  I  should  become  Ambassador  to  the  United  States.  So 
far  as  I  know  the  only  obvious  thing  that  Patrick  Henry  and  I  have  in 
common  is  that  we  started  out  as  lawyers.  After  that  our  paths  di- 
verged. He  became  very  close,  as  he  himself  admitted,  to  becoming 
a  rebel,  while  I  have  only  changed  from  the  striped  pants  of  the  law- 
yer to  the  stuffed  shirt  of  the  diplomatist. 

I  am  greatly  honored  to  have  been  invited  here  to  celebrate  with 
you  the  two  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  founding  of  Salem. 

*  Sir  Patrick  Dean  is  the  British  Ambassador  to  the  United  States;  this  address  was 
made  at  the  luncheon  meeting  of  the  Literary  and  Historical  Association,  December  2, 
1966. 


162  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  story  of  this  city  is  indeed  fascinating  and  significant,  too.  To 
begin  with  it  is  hard  to  imagine  that  it  was  ever  possible  to  buy  the 
tract  of  land  known  as  Wachovia— some  100,000  acres— for  £916.  But 
my  history  book  tells  me  it  was  so.  It  was  an  arrangement  arrived  at 
between  the  Moravians  and  Lord  Granville,  the  last  of  the  Lords 
Proprietors  of  the  colony,  who  held  the  counties  bordering  on  Vir- 
ginia. The  early  settlers  who  came  to  Wachovia  were  from  Penn- 
sylvania and  were  largely  central  European  by  origin.  They  decided 
that  they  wanted  a  "congregation  town"  where  only  members  of  the 
Moravian  church  would  live.  That  town  began  to  grow  in  1766  and 
it  was,  significantly,  I  think,  called  Salem,  from  the  Hebrew,  meaning 
"peace."  Before  that,  the  territory  which  is  now  North  Carolina  had, 
of  course,  been  inhabited  by  a  number  of  Indian  tribes  and  was  visited 
by  French,  Spanish,  and  English  explorers  in  the  early  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. Then  there  were  the  very  early  attempts  by  the  English  to 
settle  on  Roanoke  Island,  some  two  hundred  years  before  the 
founding  of  Salem.  And  later  much  of  the  state  was  settled  by  Eng- 
lishmen and  Scottish  Highlanders  and  people  of  mixed  Scottish  and 
Irish  descent. 

Now  all  these  peoples,  with  their  different  religious,  social,  racial, 
and  educational  backgrounds  have  melded,  through  natural  hardship 
and  the  vicissitudes  of  war,  and  have  built  and  created,  prospered  and 
expanded.  This  city  is  now,  as  we  all  know,  one  of  the  leading  cultural 
and  manufacturing  centers  of  the  South.  Britain  has  long  enjoyed  not 
only  a  close  cultural  and  historical  association  with  North  Carolina 
and  Winston-Salem,  we  also  have  very  close  and  important  business 
ties  as  well. 

So  it  seems  appropriate  and  it  is  for  me  a  great  pleasure  to  take 
this  opportunity  to  say  a  few  words  to  you  about  the  position  of  our 
two  countries  in  the  world  today. 

Let  me  begin  by  saying  that  while  Britain  is  no  longer  one  of 
the  greatest  powers  because  we  have  not  the  military  might,  eco- 
nomic strength,  or  the  resources,  or  the  populations  of  the  United 
States  and  Russia,  we  are  nonetheless  preeminently  a  worldwide 
power  with  more  interests,  relationships,  and  commitments  in  every 
part  of  the  globe  than  any  other  power.  As  Mr.  George  Brown,  the 
British  Foreign  Secretary,  put  it  recently,  we  are  "linked  to  the  four 
corners  of  the  world,  linked  by  trade,  linked  by  the  Commonwealth, 
linked  by  our  Alliances."  These  ties  have  come  to  us  through  history 
and  geography,  and  through  the  realities  of  international  life  today. 

Though  Britain  is  geographically  roughly  the  same  size  as  the  state 


Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  163 

of  Oregon;  hard  put  to  it,  up  to  now,  too  often  for  comfort,  to  make 
both  ends  meet;  though  we  have  to  import  about  half  the  food  we 
eat  and  nearly  all  the  raw  materials  we  need  for  our  industry— we 
have  nonetheless  many  blessings. 

These  include,  above  all,  a  spirit  of  independence,  of  determination, 
of  adventure,  of  ingenuity  and  a  desire  to  innovate  and  to  invent,  to 
explore  and  to  pioneer.  Without  them  we  certainly  should  not  have 
survived.  We  share  these  with  you,  just  as  we  share  a  common  history 
and,  I  believe,  a  common  destiny.  Today,  at  this  stage  in  our  long 
and  at  times  stormy  association,  we  can  see  certain  things  very  clearly 
indeed.  Above  all,  our  two  countries  have  reached  a  point  where  for 
our  own  peoples  at  home  and  for  the  world  at  large  we  hope  for  and 
are  working  toward,  very  broadly,  the  same  things. 

This  closeness  of  view  and  similarity  in  approach  to  world  problems 
is,  of  course,  based  upon  many  things.  We  are  greatly  helped  by  speak- 
ing a  common  language— "The  strongest  and  most  durable  of  all 
ties/'  as  De  Tocqueville  wrote.  We  are  like-minded  in  our  fundamental 
beliefs;  the  parliamentary  system,  the  independent  judiciary,  the 
inalienable  right  of  human  beings  to  live  in  freedom  and  dignity  under 
law;  that  the  state  is  made  for  man  and  not  vice  versa.  There  are 
strong  ties  of  blood,  too. 

But  this  common  approach,  based  on  our  closely  intermingled  past, 
is  not,  I  believe,  in  any  way  a  narrow,  myopic  relationship.  There  is 
no  exclusivity  about  the  partnership  between  Britain  and  the  United 
States.  Some  people  suggest  that  it  is  so,  but  they  do  so  out  of  ignor- 
ance. You  may  have  come  across  this  line  of  thought— that  the  partner- 
ship is  in  some  way  exclusive  or  preclusive— in  the  context  of  the 
probings  and  soundings  that  are  now  going  on  about  possible  British 
entry  into  the  European  Common  Market.  Perhaps  people  do  not 
always  fully  understand  what  we  say.  That  of  course  may  be  our 
fault.  What  we  have  in  fact  always  tried  to  make  clear  is  that  we 
could  never  take  part  in  the  building  of  a  unified  Europe  if  the  cost 
were  to  divide  the  Atlantic  down  the  middle.  Put  another  way,  we 
do  not  intend  to  narrow  the  English  Channel  by  widening  the  Atlantic 
Ocean.  How  could  we?  We  know  that  it  is  vital  for  world  peace  and 
stability  as  well  as  for  our  own  individual  national  well-being  that 
the  responsibilities  and  commitments  of  Europe  and  North  America 
should  continue  to  be  interdependent. 

I  do  not  believe  any  nation,  however  great  and  powerful  or  small 
and  insignificant,  can  ever  again  be  sure  it  would  survive  another 
global  war.  In  Britain's  case  another  war  of  that  kind  is  unthinkable: 


164  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

we  are  far  too  vulnerable.  For  the  seas  that  surround  our  islands, 
though  always  our  friend,  can  never  again  be  the  shield  that  they 
were  in  the  past.  So  it  would  surely  be  an  incredibly  backward  step 
if,  after  two  disastrous  world  wars  and  tremendous  efforts  on  the  part 
of  governments  and  people  over  the  years  to  bring  about  greater 
unity,  we  were  now  to  go  back  on  our  tracks  and  deny  all  these 
things.  Are  not  the  Commonwealth,  the  European  Economic  Com- 
munity, EFTA,  NATO,  SEATO,  CENTO,  the  OAS,  and  the  OAU,  to 
mention  only  some  of  the  main  organizations,  and  above  all  the  United 
Nations  itself,  are  they  not  all  concrete,  if  imperfect,  examples  of 
governments'  and  peoples'  determination  to  work  together,  to  ad- 
vance by  peaceful  cooperation  rather  than  by  any  violent  means? 

Our  way  to  international  peace,  security,  and  stability  is  to  work 
through  peaceful  means— negotiation,  arbitration,  mediation,  consul- 
tation, and  discussion  within  the  framework  of  international  law.  In  a 
world  where  the  old  empires  have  broken  up  and  the  greater  part  of 
the  world's  population  is  going  through  a  period  of  change  it  is  essen- 
tial that  we  should  try  to  ensure  that  that  change  is  peaceful  and  not 
violent. 

In  some  of  the  newly— or  relatively  newly  independent  countries- 
poverty  and  ignorance  and  disease  are  extreme  and  the  potential  for 
fermenting  violence  is  extreme,  too,  as  we  have  all  unfortunately  seen. 
That  is  why  those  nations  in  the  developed  world,  the  United  States 
and  Britain,  and  other  like-minded  countries,  have  launched  big  pro- 
grams of  aid  for  the  developing  countries.  These  programs,  generous 
though  they  are,  are  never  large  enough,  so  great  is  the  gap  be- 
tween the  developing  and  developed  countries.  That  gap  used  to  be 
thought  about  in  terms  of  wealth  only— hence  the  terms  Haves  and 
Have-Nots— but  now  it  is,  I  think,  understood  to  be  much  more  com- 
plex. The  gap  now  covers  the  ability  to  trade  in  this  highly  competitive 
world  and  refers,  too,  to  the  huge  technological  gulf  between  us 
which  gets  wider  by  geometrical  rather  than  arithmetical  progression. 
Indeed,  we  might  now  almost  refer  to  the  two  parties  as  the  Know- 
Hows  and  the  Non-Know-Hows. 

Side  by  side  with  our  aid  programs  are  the  treaties  and  defensive 
alliances  by  which  both  we  and  you  seek  to  help  the  smaller  coun- 
tries, when  they  ask,  from  being  overcome  or  subverted  by  larger 
and  more  powerful  countries. 

Within  our  partnership  there  is,  naturally,  a  great  disparity.  The 
United  States  is  the  most  powerful  nation  on  earth.  But  you  would,  I 
am  sure,  be  the  first  to  agree  that,  as  we  found  out,  power  brings  with 


Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  165 

it  extra  burdens  and  more  responsibilities.  To  carry  these  out  you 
need  not  only  your  own  vast  resources,  and  the  willingness  of  your 
people,  and  your  own  broad  shoulders.  You  also  have  to  have  friends. 
Though  in  terms  of  power,  Britain's  contribution  is  bound  to  be  small 
beside  yours,  it  is  nonetheless  constant  and  significant.  Above  all,  it  is 
there  and  you  are  aware  that  it  will  remain  there  so  long  as  it  is 
needed  and  so  long  as  we  are  able  to  provide  it.  I  am  thinking  here 
of  such  concrete  things  as  the  fact  that  Britain  has  always  made  the 
biggest  contribution  after  the  United  States  to  NATO  and  that  again, 
after  you,  we  are  the  second  largest  contributor  to  United  Nations 
activities  as  a  whole.  Moreover,  we  are  the  only  country  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  all  three  defensive  alliances,  NATO,  SEATO,  and  CENTO. 

Then,  too,  we  have  something  to  offer  the  partnership  which  is 
difficult  to  measure  in  concrete  terms.  Through  history,  especially 
our  imperial  and  trading  past,  we  have  naturally  well-established  links 
with  many  parts  of  the  world  where  you  have  few  or  none.  And  by 
these  links  which  cover  the  whole  globe,  principally  through  the 
Commonwealth,  we  can  make  a  certain  unique  contribution. 

So  between  us,  I  think  we  have  much  to  offer  in  the  continuing 
struggle  for  peace  and  for  the  improvement  of  our  fellowmen's  way 
of  life  and  standard  of  living. 


FURNIFOLD  M.  SIMMONS: 
"JEHOVAH  OF  THE  TAR  HEELS"? 

By  Richard  L.  Watson,  Jr.* 


"In  him  one  discovers  nothing  of  the  flashing  eye,  the  craggy  mein, 
the  Bryanesque  shine  which  one  instinctively  associates  with  the 
Lord  God  Jehovah  and  the  Senator  from  the  South.  Nevertheless,  the 
man's  duds,  in  the  aggregate,  are  worthy  of  the  stateliest  neanderthaler 
who  ever  cooled  his  heels  on  a  Capitol  Hill  desk,  worthy  of  Jehovah 
in  His  most  waggish  moments.  .  .  ." 

"Simmons'  salient  achievement  is  to  have  lifted  the  Republican 
party  in  the  state  to  a  fighting  equality  with  its  foe,  and  set  North 
Carolina  on  a  path  that  .  .  .  must  lead  finally  to  Republican  rule."  So 
wrote  the  distinguished  North  Carolina  journalist-critic,  Wilbur  J. 
Cash,  in  July,  1929.1  F.  M.  Simmons,  U.S.  senator  from  North  Caro- 
lina, epitome  of  Democratic  regularity,  had  just  refused  to  support 
Alfred  E.  Smith,  the  Democratic  party's  candidate  for  President  of 
the  United  States. 

Just  two  years  before  Peter  Wilson  in  his  book  Southern  Exposure 
stated  that  "Furnifold  M.  Simmons  ...  is  the  greatest  representative 
North  Carolina  has  ever  sent  to  the  Councils  of  the  Nation."  In  1914 
Josiah  W.  Bailey  had  written  that  "in  our  National  Councils"  Simmons 
"is  the  most  conspicuous  individual  since  Nathaniel  Macon."2  By 
then  Simmons  had  already  served  thirteen  years  in  the  U.S.  Senate, 
and  Bailey  had  been  one  of  the  Senator's  key  supporters  particularly 


*  Dr.  Watson  is  professor  of  history  at  Duke  University,  Durham.  He  served  as 
president  of  the  Literary  and  Historical  Association  in  1966  and  delivered  his  presi- 
dential address  at  the  dinner  meeting  of  the  association,  December  2,  1966. 

aW.  J.  Cash,  "Jehovah  of  the  Tar  Heels,"  American  Mercury,  XVII  (July,  1929), 
310-318,  hereinafter  cited  as  Cash,  "Jehovah  of  the  Tar  Heels." 

2  Peter  Michael  Wilson,  Southern  Exposure  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Caro- 
lina Press,  1927),  186;  speech  by  R.  A.  Nunn  given  at  the  memorial  exercises  for 
Senator  Simmons  at  the  Craven  County  Superior  Courtroom,  May  13,  1946,  copy  in 
Manuscript  Department,  Duke  University  Library,  Durham;  Bailey  to  editor,  Greens- 
boro Daily  News  [August,  1914],  Josiah  W.  Bailey  Papers,  Duke  Manuscript  Depart- 
ment, hereinafter  cited  as  Bailey  Papers. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  167 

in  the  campaign  for  renomination  over  W.  W.  Kitchin  in  1912— the 
only  primary  in  Simmons'  thirty-year  career,  other  than  his  first 
and  last,  in  which  he  faced  any  significant  opposition.  In  1914,  at 
sixty  years  of  age,  Simmons  was  reaching  the  peak  of  his  power.  Six- 
teen years  later,  sick,  tired,  with  many  of  his  political  friends  dead- 
he  ran  in  his  last  primary  and  the  same  Josiah  Bailey  overwhelmed 
him. 

There  have  been  a  number  of  attempts  to  rate  American  political 
leaders.  One  poll  attempted  to  select  the  five  leading  senators,  and 
the  portraits  of  Clay,  Webster,  Calhoun,  La  Follette,  and  Taft  now 
grace  the  Senate  Reception  Room.  Someday  someone  will  list  the 
North  Carolinians  who  have  had  the  greatest  influence  upon  national 
politics.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  dare  to  provide  such  a  list.  Perhaps, 
however,  the  career  of  Furnifold  McLendel  Simmons  might  suggest 
some  of  the  criteria  for  such  a  selection. 

One  of  these  might  be  length  of  service.  Although  length  of  service 
does  not  mean  distinction,  frequent  reelection  does  imply  that  con- 
stituents are  satisfied;  and  the  longer  the  service,  the  greater  the 
opportunity  to  perform.  Simmons  is  one  of  five  representatives  and 
senators  from  North  Carolina  who  served  in  the  U.S.  Congress  for 
thirty  years  or  more.  Nathaniel  Macon  served  thirty-four  years  in 
the  eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth  centuries,  and  Robert  L.  Dough- 
ton  with  forty  years,  Edward  Pou  with  thirty-three  years,  and  Harold 
Cooley  with  thirty-two  years,  all  served  in  the  twentieth  century. 
Simmons,  tied  with  Cooley  for  fourth  place  among  North  Carolina's 
legislators  in  tenure  but  first  among  the  senators,  entered  politics  from 
New  Bern  in  the  late  1870's.  At  that  time  the  Republican  party  in 
North  Carolina  was  strong  while  the  Democrats  were  badly  split  over 
what  many  considered  radical  policies  of  monetary  inflation  and 
government  regulation  demanded  by  farm  groups.  In  1884  the  Re- 
publicans in  the  Second  District,  whose  membership  included  thou- 
sands of  Negro  voters,  had  elected  a  Negro,  James  E.  O'Hara,  as 
their  congressional  representative.  Before  OHara's  term  was  over, 
another  Negro,  probably  encouraged  by  the  Democrats,  was  seeking 
the  nomination.  By  this  maneuver  the  Republican  voters  in  the  dis- 
trict were  split.  Simmons  had  just  been  appointed  chairman  of  the 
Democratic  Executive  Committee  of  the  district.  He  was  thirty-two 
years  old,  a  persuasive  speaker,  and  a  successful  lawyer,3  but  he  was 
also  a  farmer  sympathetic  to  agrarian  demands  yet  unwilling  to  com- 

8 News  and  Observer  (Raleigh),  October  14,  September  2,  1886,  hereinafter  cited  as 
News  and  Observer. 


168  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

mit  himself  to  some  of  the  more  radical  ones.  A  logical  candidate  to 
take  advantage  of  the  Republican  split,  he  was  nominated  and  elected. 

Thus  began  Simmons'  political  career.  It  was  a  hesitant  beginning 
because  two  years  later  he  was  defeated  by  Henry  P.  Cheatham, 
another  Republican  Negro.  In  this  year  Democrats  all  over  the  state 
were  having  difficulties  because  the  Farmers  Alliance  and  Populists 
were  upsetting  traditional  party  applecarts.  By  1892  the  situation  had 
deteriorated  so  rapidly  that  Democratic  defeat  in  the  state  seemed 
likely.  At  that  time  the  chairmanship  of  the  Democratic  State  Com- 
mittee was  hardly  a  sought-after  post,  and  the  party  old  guard  may 
have  been  seeking  a  victim  when  they  asked  Simmons  to  accept  it. 
Simmons'  father  advised  his  son  to  turn  them  down  suspecting  that 
they  were  looking  for  a  scapegoat.4  The  father  may  have  been  right, 
but  had  Simmons  refused  the  post,  he  might  never  have  been  a  U.S. 
senator. 

Simmons  did  accept  and  acquired  a  reputation  as  a  superb  party 
organizer  which  was  to  be  his  throughout  his  career.  This  reputa- 
tion was  the  result  of  meticulous  attention  to  detail;  voter-by- 
voter  canvass  by  responsible  workers,  protection  of  the  polls  by 
poll  watchers,  judicious  use  of  absentee  ballots,  distribution  of 
literature,5  making  use  of  eloquent  speakers  (young  men  in  most 
cases  such  as  Charles  B.  Ay  cock,  Cameron  Morrison,  Locke  Craig, 
Lee  S.  Overman,  Robert  B.  Glenn,  Claude  and  W.  W.  Kitchin,  and 
Josephus  Daniels),  and  an  indefinable  personal  magnetism  that  his 
friends  tried  hard  to  explain.  The  Democrats  won  in  1892,  and,  as  the 
Wilmington  Star  put  it,  "Chairman  Simmons  proved  himself  a  Napo- 
leon in  politics  in  the  recent  campaign." 6 

Simmons  gave  up  the  chairmanship  to  accept  his  reward,  the  post 
of  Collector  of  Internal  Revenue  for  the  Eastern  District  of  North 
Carolina.  In  the  next  elections,  those  of  1894  and  1896,  the  Demo- 
crats suffered  a  series  of  statewide  defeats  and  in  1898  he  was  called 
back  to  win  the  state  from  the  control  of  the  Republicans  and  Popu- 
lists and  their  Negro  allies.  New  successes  brought  him  the  most 
important  national  office  which  North  Carolina  Democrats  could  be- 
stow, that  of  U.S.  senator. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  elections  of  1898  and  1900,  but 
again  Simmons  made  his  mark  as  chairman  of  the  Democratic  State 
Committee  and  created  an  organization  upon  which  his  future  politi- 

*J.  Fred  Rippy  (ed.),  F.  M.  Simmons,  Statesman  of  the  New  South  .  .  .   (Durham: 
Duke  University  Press,  1936),  19,  hereinafter  cited  as  Rippy,  F.  M.  Simmons. 
6  News  and  Observer,  September  11,  1892. 
B  Quoted  in  News  and  Observer,  November  12,  1892. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  169 

cal  security  rested.  Those  were  emotional  years  when  racial  an- 
tagonisms were  at  fever  pitch,  and  when  the  goal  was  not  only 
Democratic  victory  but  Negro  disfranchisement.  The  two  went  hand 
in  hand  because  the  thousands  of  Negroes  who  voted  in  those  days 
usually  voted  Republican,  and  some  Democrats  simply  wanted  to  cut 
down  on  Republican  strength.  But  motives  were  mixed.  There  were 
undoubtedly  those  who  wished  to  win  by  any  means,  and  an  anti- 
Negro,  white  supremacy  slogan  attracted  votes.  At  the  same  time, 
many  were  convinced  that  the  polls  were  being  corrupted  by  illiterate 
Negro  voters,  and  hence  looked  upon  disfranchisement  as  a  positive 
reform.  Indeed  the  campaign  took  on  the  nature  of  a  crusade.  Sim- 
mons described  it  years  later  as  "those  great  days  of  1898  when  you 
and  I  fought  side  by  side  with  thousands  of  the  bravest  and  best  of 
the  state  to  restore  reputable  and  honest  government  to  North  Caro- 
lina." He  continued  to  cite  his  successes  of  1898  and  1900  in  all  his 
campaigns  including  the  primary  of  1930  when  he  was  finally 
defeated.7 

Thus  the  early  campaigns  provided  Simmons  with  an  organization 
and  a  reputation— factors  which  put  him  in  the  Senate  and  helped  to 
keep  him  there,  and  which  led  to  his  political  enemies  tagging  him 
and  his  friends  with  the  label  "Simmons  Machine." 

It  would  be  difficult  to  define  precisely  what  this  machine  was 
or  what  it  did.  His  friends,  understandably,  denied  the  existence  of 
any  sinister  organization.  Simmons  was  a  highly  respected  man,  they 
claimed,  and  his  friends  turned  to  him  for  political  advice;8  more  often 
than  not  they  followed  it.  Perhaps  his  influence  was  greatest  in  select- 
ing governors,  a  process  in  which  he  took  a  keen  interest.  Even  in  gub- 
ernatorial campaigns,  however,  his  role  is  unclear  since  he  left  much  of 
the  personal  work  to  others,  such  as  his  dedicated  and  controversial 
secretaries,  A.  D.  Watts  until  the  early  1920's  and  then  Frank  Hamp- 
ton. Simmons  was  particularly  active  in  supporting  Aycock  in  1900, 
Craig  in  1908  and  1912,  Morrison  in  1920,  and  Angus  W.  McLean  in 
1924.  Only  in  1908  was  his  candidate,  Locke  Craig,  defeated,  and 
Craig  came  back  to  win  in  1912.  In  that  same  year  W.  W.  Kitchin 
challenged  Simmons  for  the  Senate,  the  only  time  in  thirty  years  that 
Simmons'  tenure  was  threatened.  But  the  advantageous  position  of 
a  man  already  in  office  together  with  the  effectiveness  of  his  organi- 
zation quashed  the  threat. 


7  Rippy»  F.  M.  Simmons,  184. 

8  Author's  interview  with  John  Langston,  June   25,   1954;    author's   interview  with 
Prank  Hampton,  September  6,  1955. 


170  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

There  is  little  evidence  of  any  significant  influence  of  a  machine 
in  state  legislation.  After  the  disfranchising  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution in  1900,  the  only  clear-cut  case  of  Simmons'  personal  inter- 
vention in  state  legislation  was  in  the  fight  for  prohibition.  He  claims 
to  have  drafted  the  Watts  Bill  of  1903  which  provided  the  entering 
wedge  by  prohibiting  "saloons  and  distilleries"  in  rural  areas.  The 
issue  became  perhaps  the  liveliest  in  the  state  until  statewide  pro- 
hibition was  adopted  in  1908.  Although  such  men  as  Thomas  J.  Jarvis, 
Josiah  Bailey,  Locke  Craig,  Josephus  Daniels,  and  particularly  Gov- 
ernor Glenn  were  in  the  forefront  of  this  campaign,  Simmons  helped 
work  out  the  strategy  by  dramatically  claiming  that  the  state  was 
"spending  more  money  for  Liquor  than  for  education,  for  intoxication 
than  for  children." 9  From  a  political  point  of  view  these  victories  had 
gratifying  results.  Simmons  had  identified  himself  with  the  popular 
side  in  one  of  the  exciting  issues  of  the  day  and  gained  supporters 
among  women's  clubs,  churches,  and  increasingly  influential  organi- 
zations such  as  the  Anti-Saloon  League  and  the  Woman's  Christian 
Temperance  Union. 

By  the  time  Simmons  entered  the  Senate  in  1901,  he  had  already 
been  a  professional  politician  for  fifteen  years.  Political  loyalty  and 
responsibility  for  constituents  were  a  part  of  his  very  being,  and  his 
office  staff  kept  busy  taking  care  of  North  Carolinians.  Sometimes  they 
merely  greeted  visitors,  but  there  were  also  all  kinds  of  services:  the 
banker  from  Charlotte  whom  Simmons  aided  in  securing  a  govern- 
ment deposit;10  the  employee  in  the  Department  of  Internal  Revenue 
who  was  transferred  back  to  North  Wilkesboro  at  Simmons'  request 
and  who  promised  Simmons'  secretary,  "If  ever  I  can  render  you  or 
the  Senator  a  favor,  nights  don't  get  too  dark— rain  or  hail  won't  fall 
too  fast  for  me  to  move  to  your  or  his  interest."  n 

Simmons  took  advantage  of  all  opportunities  to  send  government 
favors  to  constituents.  He  distributed  flowering  shrubs  from  the 
Botanical  Gardens;  he  honored  numerous  requests  for  fish  to  stock 
fish  ponds  by  ordering  them  from  the  Commissioner  of  Fisheries;12  he 

9Rippy,  F.  M.  Simmons,  35-37;  Hugh  Talmage  Lefler  and  Albert  Ray  Newsome, 
North  Carolina:  The  History  of  a  Southern  State  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North 
Carolina  Press,  1954),  568-569;  Daniel  J.  Whitener,  Prohibition  in  North  Carolina, 
1715-1945  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1946),  Chapters  IX  and 
X,  especially  157,  n.23. 

10  W.  C  Wilkinson  to  Simmons,  December  2,  1907,  Furnifold  M.  Simmons  Papers, 
Duke  Manuscript  Department,  hereinafter  cited  as  Simmons  Papers. 

11  P.  E.  Dancy  to  Frank  Hampton,  October  31,  1919,  Simmons  Papers. 

u  See,  for  example,  Simmons  to  George  W.  Hess,  Director  of  U.S.  Botanical  Gardens, 
April  1,  1925,  Simmons  Papers.  In  1925  over  800  applications  from  North  Carolina  for 
fish  were  pending. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  171 

took  advantage  of  an  annual  appropriation  providing  for  free  distri- 
bution of  garden  seeds.  As  one  party  worker  put  it  in  1908,  "I  suggest 
that  you  let  the  seed  come  right  along,  so  that  I  may  distribute  them 
among  my  operatives  before  they  begin  to  complain.  The  effect  is 
good."13 

Simmons  and  his  secretaries  spent  a  great  deal  of  effort  in  reward- 
ing constituents  with  jobs.14  The  traditional  source  of  political  reward 
was,  of  course,  the  post  office.  The  plums  involved  were  not  only 
postmasters,  but  railway  postal  clerks,  postal  inspectors,  rural  letter 
carriers,  and  the  location  of  R.F.D.  routes.  In  a  rural  state  such  as 
North  Carolina,  communication  was  important  and  the  postal  em- 
ployees were  frequently  a  source  of  political  views  and  could  thus 
swing  considerable  influence.  As  Frank  Hampton,  Simmons'  secre- 
tary, put  it  on  one  occasion,  "These  matters  are  loaded,  and  ...  re- 
quire a  very  thorough  knowledge  of  local  politics  and  political 
functions  and  political  county  leaders.  .  .  ." 15  In  any  case  Simmons 
supported  legislation  popular  with  the  postal  employees  such  as  the 
expansion  of  the  R.F.D.  system  and  numerous  measures  for  higher 
pay.16  Understandably  the  rural  letter  carriers— who  themselves  were 
organized— were  enthusiastic  supporters.  Indeed  this  support  may  have 
been  one  of  the  most  important  factors  explaining  the  effectiveness 
of  the  Simmons  organization. 

When  Simmons  was  elected  to  the  Senate,  postmasters  were  not 
chosen  by  civil  service  examinations.  Normally  congressmen  nomi- 
nated candidates  proposed  by  the  local  faithful  and  thus  gained 
friends  strategically  placed  for  political  purposes.  Simmons  under- 
standably favored  this  procedure.  He  was  also  understandably  upset 
when  President  Wilson  tightened  up  the  civil  service  requirements  for 
postmasters  and  finally  limited  the  selection  for  any  particular  job  to 
the  person  who  scored  highest  on  a  competitive  examination.17  To  the 
Democrats  the  unfortunate  result  of  this  procedure  might  be  that  the 
top  scorer  could  be  a  Republican.  Part  of  the  game  now  became  to  see 
to  it  that  "two  or  three  good  Simmons  Democrats  .  .  ."  "likely  to  make 
good  grades"  would  take  the  examination  so  that  "the  chances  of  a 

13  Lawrence  McRae,  County  Board  of  Elections,  Rockingham  County,  to  Simmons, 
March  31,  1908,  Simmons  Papers. 

14  For  example,  Simmons  to  J.  M.  Long,  June  15,  1921,  Simmons  Papers. 
"Hampton  to  Leon  Fuquay,  October  1,  1926,  Simmons  Papers. 

iaSee,  for  example,  James  H.  Holloway  to  Simmons,  March  7,  1907,  and  numerous 
letters  in  Simmons  Papers  in  1908  and  in  January,  1925;  E.  D.  Pearsall  to  S.  A.  Ashe, 
July  26,  1912,  also  in  Simmons  Papers. 

17  Simmons  to  Woodrow  Wilson,  March  15,  1917,  Woodrow  Wilson  Papers,  Division 
of  Manuscripts,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.C.;  Report  of  the  Postmaster 
General,  1919  (Washington:  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  1919),  57. 


172  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Republican  making  the  highest  grade  would  be  reduced  to  a  mini- 

» 10 
mum. 

When  Warren  G.  Harding  became  President  in  1921,  he  looked  at 
the  Wilson  method  of  choosing  postmasters  with  quite  different  eyes. 
Republican  complaints  about  the  system  were  that  the  top  grade  might 
go  to  a  Democrat,  and  to  appoint  Democratic  postmasters  would  not 
do;  so  within  two  months  of  his  inauguration,  Harding  changed  the 
procedure  by  instructing  the  Postmaster  General  to  nominate  to  the 
President  the  name  of  not  the  one  with  the  highest  grade  but  "one  of 
the  highest  three  qualified  eligibles.  .  .  ." 19 

Simmons  quickly  saw  that  Harding  would  probably  be  able  to  find 
at  least  one  Republican  among  the  top  three.  He  knew  that  he  could 
not  "exercise  any  influence  in  the  matter  of  appointments  with  the 
Republican  administration."  Yet  he  proposed  to  see  that  the  civil 
service  laws  and  executive  orders  were  "not  prostituted  for  political 
purposes."20  For  example,  when  he  learned  that  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment proposed  to  hold  another  examination  for  the  postmaster- 
ship  of  Norlina  where  only  one  man,  a  Democrat,  had  qualified,  he 
wrote  Postmaster  General  Will  H.  Hays:  "Of  course,  I  do  not  expect 
a  Republican  Administration  to  appoint  Democrats  in  preference  to 
Republicans,  but  in  this  case,  Mr.  Hardy  is  the  only  eligible,  and  I 
should  think  that  his  appointment  would  follow  as  a  matter  of  course, 
if  the  merit  system  is  to  receive  any  consideration  whatsoever.  I  under- 
stand it  is  proposed  to  call  for  another  examination  on  the  grounds 
that  a  full  list  of  three  eligibles  is  desired.  ...  I  know  that  this  course 
would  be  only  a  subterfuge,  and  I  do  not  think  that  it  will  have  your 
approval.  I  shall  await  with  much  interest  your  Department's  action 
in  this  case."21 

Postmaster  appointments,  providing  bulbs,  seeds,  and  shrubs  for 
constituents,  being  sure  that  the  rural  routes  were  established  in  line 
with  his  friends'  wishes,  even  at  times  slipping  a  word  to  people  who 
were  grading  civil  service  examinations,22  baseball  tickets,  appoint- 
ments to  Annapolis  and  West  Point,  veterans'  claims  for  hospital 
service  and  pensions,  all  were  important  in  retaining  a  loyal  following 
in  North  Carolina.  They  hardly  determine  status  as  a  statesman,  how- 


18  [Hampton]  to  T.  M.  Washington,  March  18,  1919;  [Hampton]  to  L.  V.  Bassett, 
October  16,  1919,  Simmons  Papers. 

19 Report  of  the  Postmaster  General,  1921  (Washington:  U.S.  Government  Printing 
Office,  1921). 

"Simmons  to  G.  L.   Griffin,  May  13,  1921,  Simmons  Papers. 

31  Simmons  to  Will  Hays,  December  22,  1921,  Simmons  Papers. 

22  Hampton  to  Thomas  Battle,  February  20,  1926 ;  telegram,  Hampton  to  J.  P.  Bunn, 
March  2,  1926,  Simmons  Papers. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  173 

ever,  and  if  Simmons  is  to  be  ranked  as  one  of  North  Carolina's  great- 
est, he  will  have  to  be  judged  by  more  than  the  gains  and  losses  in 
postmasterships.  He  must  be  judged  on  the  basis  of  his  effectiveness 
as  a  legislator. 

In  this  category,  also,  Simmons  would  emerge  with  good  marks.  He 
owed  his  reputation  in  the  Senate  not  merely  to  seniority  but  to 
intelligence  and  hard  work.23 

The  most  tangible  results  of  Simmons'  legislative  efforts  may  have 
come  from  his  membership  on  the  Senate  Committee  on  Commerce. 
Simmons  was  a  member  of  that  committee  from  1906  until  he  left 
the  Senate,  and  he  took  his  national  responsibilities  seriously.  Un- 
questionably, however,  these  national  interests  were  colored  by  the 
effect  that  various  projects  would  have  upon  his  state.  At  heart  he 
was  an  eastern  North  Carolinian,  sensitive  to  high  transportation 
costs  and  low  farm  prices;  convinced  of  the  potentialities  of  New 
Bern  and  Wilmington  as  ocean  ports;  of  the  rivers,  sounds,  and 
swamps  as  inland  waterways,  and  of  the  possibilities  of  connecting 
these  by  a  railway  with  the  trans-Appalachian  West. 

Simmons  was  by  no  means  the  only  North  Carolinian  in  Congress 
who  fought  to  improve  the  state's  waterways.  John  Small  of  Washing- 
ton, congressman  from  1899  to  1919,  and  Lindsay  Warren,  also  from 
Washington,  who  served  from  1925  to  1941,  were  equally  dedicated. 
Yet  Simmons  and  his  secretaries  put  an  amazing  amount  of  time  in 
following  projects  small  and  large  from  local  studies  to  the  chief  of 
army  engineers,  to  congressional  committee,  and  to  the  floors  of  the 
House  and  Senate.  Year  after  year,  Simmons  would  wangle  appropria- 
tions for  such  projects  as  a  thirty-foot  channel  in  the  Cape  Fear  River 
from  Wilmington  to  the  sea;  the  construction  of  dams  and  locks  on 
the  Cape  Fear  to  create  a  reliable  eight-foot  channel  from  Fayette- 
ville  to  Wilmington;24  and,  perhaps  his  most  important  project,  the 
Atlantic  Intracoastal  Waterway. 

23  Both  Senator  Henry  F.  Ashurst  and  Senator  Walter  George  testified  to  Simmons' 
abilities.  Author's  interviews  with  Senator  Ashurst,  March  30,  1955,  and  with  Senator 
George,  March  31,  1955. 

91  Cape  Fear  River  at  and  Below  Wilmington,  N.C.,  and  Between  Wilmington  and 
Navassa,  Report  on  Review  of  Reports  Heretofore  Submitted  on  Cape  Fear  River 
Below  Wilmington,  N.C.,  and  Between  Wilmington  and  Navassa,  House  Rivers  and 
Harbors  Committee,  Document  No.  39,  Seventy-first  Congress,  Second  Session,  cited 
in  46  Stat.  923,  c.  847.  Cape  Fear  River,  N.C.,  Report  on  Preliminary  Examination  and 
Survey  of  Cape  Fear  River,  Above  Wilmington,  N.C.,  with  View  to  Construction  of 
Lock  and  Dam  About  15  Miles  Below  Fayetteville,  House  Documents,  Seventy-first 
Congress,  Third  Session,  1930-1931,  No.  786;  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  1934, 
Seventy-fourth  Congress,  First  Session,  1935,  No.  7,  Part  1,  393;  Report  of  Chief 
of  Engineers,  Army,  1935,  Seventy-fourth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1936,  Part  1, 
474-475. 


174  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Apparently  that  project  was  launched  in  1875  with  a  survey  from 
the  Dismal  Swamp  to  the  Cape  Fear  River.  By  1909  the  route  from 
Boston  to  Beaufort  had  been  surveyed.  In  1912  the  first  appropria- 
tion was  made  for  acquiring  North  Carolina  real  estate,  and  from 
then  on  the  battle  was  joined  to  extend  the  distance,  deepen  the 
channel,  and  improve  the  facilities.25 

From  the  beginning  Small  and  Simmons  had  championed  the 
project.  Which  of  the  two  made  the  greater  contribution  was  per- 
fectly clear  to  the  partisans  of  each;  however,  Josephus  Daniels 
perhaps  gave  a  reasonable  appraisal  when  he  told  Small,  "Simmons 
did  a  great  work  and  I  think  it  will  be  his  most  lasting  monument. 
But  .  .  .  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  his  supporters  to  give  him  full 
credit  and  deny  your  initiative  would  be  most  unjust.  .  .  ,"26  In  any 
case,  after  Small's  retirement  from  the  House  in  1919,  Simmons  was 
the  project's  principal  champion.  By  1928  it  was  almost  completed 
from  Boston  to  Beaufort;  an  appropriation  of  $6  million  had  been 
provided  to  carry  it  to  Wilmington;  and  Simmons  was  prophesying 
its  early  extension  to  Miami  at  a  cost  of  more  than  $125  million  and 
was  dreaming  of  an  inland  water  route  all  the  way  from  Maine  to 
Mexico.27 

Although  Simmons  probably  made  his  greatest  contribution  to 
North  Carolina  through  the  Commerce  Committee,  he  owed  his  na- 
tional reputation  more  to  his  service  on  the  prestigious  Senate  Finance 
Committee.  He  was  appointed  to  that  committee  in  1908  when  the 
Republicans  controlled  the  Senate.  As  usual  he  took  his  responsibility 
seriously  and  spent  uncounted  hours  in  becoming  one  of  the  nation's 
leading  authorities  on  tariffs  and  taxes.  Indeed  studying  a  tariff 
schedule  was  his  idea  of  pleasant  reading.  He  soon  discovered,  how- 
ever, that  the  task  was  too  much  for  otherwise  busy  senators,  and  he 
demanded  that  minority  members  of  the  Finance  Committee  be 
authorized  to  call  upon  experts  to  help  them  unravel  the  intricacies 
of  a  complicated  tariff  schedule  or  revenue  bill.  This  realization  that 
important  committees  needed  expert  advice  led  to  the  creation  in  the 

25  For  early  history  see  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-fourth  Congress,  First  Session, 
1915-1916,  5462-5464. 

26  Daniels  to  John  Small,  October  15,  1930,  Josephus  Daniels  Papers,  Division  of 
Manuscripts,  Library  of  Congress,  hereinafter  cited  as  Daniels  Papers.  For  a  brief 
treatment  of  Small's  contribution  and  his  differences  with  Simmons,  see  Mary  Louise 
Elder,  "The  Political  Organization  and  Techniques  of  John  H.  Small"  (unpublished 
master's  thesis,  Duke  University,  1958). 

27  Hearings  Before  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  United  States  Senate,  70th  Con- 
gress,  1st  Session  on  S.  1760,  a  Bill  to  Increase  the  Capital  Stock  of  the  Inland  Water- 
ways Corporation  (Washington:  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  1928),  9-13;  Con- 
gressional Record,  Seventieth  Congress,  First  Session,  1927-1928,  3595-3612. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  175 

1920's  of  an  important  institution,  the  Joint  Committee  on  Taxation, 
a  bipartisan  body  with  an  expert  staff  which  was  designed  to  supply 
members  of  both  houses  factual  data  on  revenue  legislation.28 

In  the  early  twentieth  century,  the  tariff  was  as  lively  an  issue  as 
civil  rights  or  foreign  aid  in  the  1960's,  and  Simmons  found  himself 
in  the  midst  of  a  battle  for  tariff  reform.  Here  is  not  the  place  to  tell 
the  story  of  the  tariff  fiasco  of  1909— but  it  did  serve  to  educate  Sim- 
mons. He  learned  the  need  for  a  mastery  of  detail,  for  compromising 
on  small  points,  and  for  combining  with  dissident  groups  in  order 
to  win  partial  victories. 

The  debate  of  1909,  moreover,  brought  out  Simmons'  pragmatic 
attitude  toward  issues.  The  official  Democratic  position  as  described 
in  the  party  platform  of  1908  was  for  a  tariff  for  revenue  only  and  for 
lumber  to  be  on  the  free  list.29  Simmons  called  for  general  tariff  duties 
to  raise  necessary  revenue  but  also  specific  duties  to  protect  those 
products  "which  most  need  to  be  protected  against  unequal  foreign 
competition.  .  .  ." 30  In  the  vote  he  deserted  the  majority  of  his  party 
and  voted  for  a  higher  duty  on  lumber.  For  this  certain  Democrats 
accused  him  of  treachery.  Simmons  countered  by  arguing  that  he 
would  have  voted  for  lower  duties  on  lumber  had  it  not  been  clear 
that  the  majority  was  going  to  raise  duties  including  those  on  products 
essential  for  consumers  and  farmers  in  North  Carolina— as  he  put  it 
"if  we  must  have  protective  tariffs,  I  was  determined  that  the  lumber- 
men of  my  section  should  share  in  [the]  benefits."31 

Simmons  succeeded  to  the  chairmanship  of  the  Finance  Committee 
when  Wilson  became  President  in  1913.  Some  of  the  more  progressive 
Democrats  considered  Simmons  unduly  conservative  and  had  opposed 
his  appointment.  Actually  they  did  not  understand  Simmons— for  he 
should  not  have  been  labeled  progressive  or  conservative  or  liberal 
or  what  have  you.  He  was  a  practical  Democratic  politician  who 
would  legislate  according  to  the  particular  situation  in  which  he  found 
himself.  By  1913  he  had  made  himself  an  authority  on  the  tariff  and 
as  a  Democratic  senator  he  accepted  the  responsibility  of  pushing 
through  a  program  which  the  Wilson  administration  could  display 
to  the  voters. 

In  this  case  a  dry-as-dust  tariff  debate  was  colored  by  accusations 
of  undue  influence  from  pressure  groups.  The  House,  guided  by  Oscar 

38  Author's  interview  with  Leon  Fuquay,  March  31,  1955;  author's  interview  with 
Alexander  M.  Walker,  December  9,  1958. 

29  Kirk  H.  Porter  and  Donald  Bruce  Johnson  (eds.),  National  Party  Platforms, 
1840-1960   (Urbana:   University  of  Illinois  Press,  1961),  146. 

30  Speech  in  the  Senate,  April  28,  1909,  quoted  in  Rippy,  F.  M.  Simmons,  228. 
91  Rippy,  F.  M.  Simmons,  50. 


176  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

W.  Underwood  of  Alabama,  produced  a  moderate  bill  and  passed 
it  on  to  the  Senate.  Here  Simmons'  Finance  Committee  reduced  the 
rates  even  more,  and  the  Senate  goaded  by  Wilson  and  maneuvered 
by  Simmons  put  a  measure  on  the  books  which  was  the  lowest  since 
the  Civil  War.  The  Underwood-Simmons  tariff,  the  only  significant 
statute  that  bears  Simmons  name,  brought  accolades  to  both  leaders 
from  Wilson  and  also  brought  the  statement  from  the  Washington 
Post  that  "Mr.  Simmons,  heralded  originally  as  a  conservative,  has 
come  forth  with  his  radical  colors  flying  in  the  breeze."82 

Simmons  made  an  even  more  significant  contribution  in  the  meas- 
ures (for  taxes  and  liberty  bonds)  which  were  passed  between  1917 
and  1919  to  finance  the  war  effort.  Imagine  the  situation:  involve- 
ment in  a  distant  war— millions  of  men  to  be  transported  overseas  with 
unlimited  supplies,  ships,  munitions— how  to  finance  such  a  war  then 
without  precedent?  From  1866  to  1917  federal  expenditures  had  run 
well  under  $1  billion  a  year.  In  1917  they  ran  about  $2  billion;  in 
1918  more  than  $12.5  billion,  and  in  1919  $18.5  billion,  an  annual 
expenditure  not  to  be  exceeded  until  1942.33  Understandably  con- 
troversies in  which  the  Finance  Committee  was  headlined  developed 
over  fiscal  policy;  and  as  usual  Simmons  took  a  moderate  position. 

He  told  the  story  of  a  wealthy  constituent  who  lived  in  New  York 
and  who  "later  became  a  humanitarian."  In  1916  this  man  had 
advocated  entering  the  war,  saying  that  the  people  would  pay  the 
cost  willingly.  After  the  first  revenue  measure  was  passed,  however, 
he  rushed  into  Simmons'  office  and  claimed  that  the  Congress  had 
"gone  stark  mad/'  "You  are  ruining  us,"  he  said.  At  this  point  Simmons 
"told  him  that  he  could  count  himself  fortunate  if  we  merely  took  his 
income"  and  that  before  the  war  was  over  "a  Capital  levy  might  be 
necessary."  In  Simmons'  view,  the  wealthy  had  to  pay  the  great  bulk 
of  the  war's  cost  but,  as  he  put  it,  "I  believe  just  as  strongly  .  .  .  [that] 
patriotic  duty  require  [s]  that  every  man,  rich  or  poor,  should  pay  his 
part.  .  .  ."34 

The  Wilson  years  brought  to  a  high  point  Simmons'  senatorial  ca- 
reer. In  1918  he  lost  his  chairmanship  when  the  Republicans  carried 

83  Bailey  to  Simmons,  September  10,  1913,  Simmons  Papers;  Washington  Post,  Octo- 
ber 2,  1913;  Arthur  S.  Link,  Wilson:  The  New  Freedom  (Princeton:  Princeton  Univer- 
sity Press,  1956),  177-197. 

33  Expenditures  of  the  federal  government  in  1865  were  $1,297,555,000,  the  largest  to 
that  date.  The  lowest  point  after  that  date  was  in  1878  with  $236,964,000.  Annual  ex- 
penditures then  fluctuated  upward  to  $760,587,000  in  1915.  U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census, 
Historical  Statistics  of  the  United  States,  Colonial  Times  to  1957  (Washington:  U.S. 
Government  Printing  Office,  1960),  718. 

34Rippy,  F.  M.  Simmons,  63-64;  speech  in  Senate,  August  10-11,  30,  1917,  quoted  in 
Rippy,  F.  M.  Simmons,  404. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  177 

both  the  House  and  Senate  and  from  then  until  he  left  the  Senate,  he 
was  ranking  Democrat  on  the  Finance  Committee,  and  for  a  part  of 
that  time,  ranking  Democrat  in  the  Senate. 

The  period  could  not  have  been  a  particularly  happy  time  for  him. 
By  1920  he  was  sixty-six  years  old  and  frequently  ill.  In  1926  what 
he  thought  was  a  severe  case  of  poison  ivy  which  spread  all  over  his 
face  turned  out  to  be  shingles.  He  was  in  continuous  pain  and  got  no 
relief  for  months  until  surgeons  cut  a  facial  nerve.35 

During  the  leisurely  Coolidge  years,  from  1923  to  1929,  Congress 
was  in  session  for  an  average  of  only  four  or  five  months  a  year,  and 
Simmons  was  able  to  spend  long  periods  on  his  New  Bern  farms. 
Although  he  loved  New  Bern,  he  had  his  troubles  since  many  farmers 
did  not  enjoy  prosperity  even  in  the  twenties.  Simmons  himself  oc- 
casionally had  good  tobacco  crops,  but  frequently  "the  boll  weevil  got 
his  cotton." 36  He  was  in  debt  and  had  difficulty  in  paying  his  taxes, 
not  to  mention  the  taxes  of  his  colored  tenants.37 

In  spite  of  age  and  catastrophe,  however,  Simmons  strengthened 
his  reputation  as  a  legislator  and  authority  on  public  finance  during 
the  1920's,  particularly  in  the  field  of  taxation.  Here  he  was  at  his 
legislative  best.  He  knew  all  the  tricks  of  the  parliamentary  trade,  as 
well  as  the  foibles  of  his  political  enemies  and  friends.  The  Senate 
situation  was  made  to  order,  moreover,  for  the  skilled  strategist.  In 
spite  of  Republican  majorities,  there  were  always  about  a  dozen 
Republicans  who  bolted  the  party  so  frequently  that  they  were  known 
as  "Sons  of  the  Wild  Jackasses."  Senators  like  George  Norris,  Robert 
La  Follette,  and  Hiram  Johnson  might  vote  with  their  party,  go  their 
own  independent  way,  or,  horror  of  horrors,  even  vote  with  the 
Democrats. 

The  architect  of  Republican  tax  policy  was  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  Andrew  William  Mellon,  Pittsburgh  industrialist,  art  collec- 
tor, and  millionaire— and  the  "Sons  of  the  Wild  Jackasses"  disliked 
millionaires  even  more  than  they  did  Democrats.  As  early  as  1921, 
when  the  first  postwar  revenue  bill  was  passed,  Simmons  joined  the 
elder  La  Follette  in  modifying  a  Mellon-backed  measure.38 

35  Fuquay  to  Daniels,  October  4,  1926,  Daniels  Papers;  Mrs.  F.  M.  Simmons  to 
Hampton  [October  17,  1926],  memorandum  for  the  press,  December  6,  1926,  Simmons 
Papers;  H.  R.  Bryan  to  Bailey,  March  19,  1927,  Bailey  Papers. 

38  Billy  Leinster  to  Hampton,  August  18,  1923;  Hampton  to  Mrs.  J.  R.  Stuart. 
October  14,  1924,  Simmons  Papers. 

37  J.  R.  Westbrook  to  Simmons,  August  2,  1921;  Simmons  to  Westbrook,  May  31, 
1921;  Hampton  to  Thomas  H.  Battle  [March  ?,  1925],  Simmons  Papers. 

38 Belle  C.  La  Follette  and  Fola  La  Follette,  Robert  M.  La  Follette  (New  York:  Mac- 
millan  Company,  2  volumes,  1953),  II,  1034-1037;  News  and  Observer,  May  4,  1924. 


178  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  coalition  of  Democrats  and  Independents  won  several  sig- 
nificant changes  in  that  bill,  and  from  then  through  1928,  Simmons 
spent  much  of  his  time  battling  it  out  with  the  Republican  opposition. 
In  1924  he  succeeded  in  getting  the  Senate  to  accept  his  version 
rather  than  that  of  Mellon.  As  the  News  and  Observer  happily  re- 
ported: "Simmons'  Liver  Regulator  has  become  standard  in  the 
Senate.  It  is  now  called  Simmons'  tax  regulator.  It  is  warranted  to 
prevent  over-fattening  of  the  already  pudgy  purses/'39  In  this  bill 
his  supporters  included  the  "Sons  of  the  Wild  Jackasses";  as  a  result, 
he  was  acquiring  the  reputation  of  a  radical,  and  some  of  his  North 
Carolina  business  friends  began  to  fear  that  in  his  zeal  to  defeat 
Mellon  he  might  create  a  tax  structure  that  would  be  hard  on  them. 
They  need  not  have  feared.  While  Simmons  fought  the  Republicans, 
he  kept  his  eyes  firmly  fixed  on  what  effect  each  tax  law  would  have 
upon  the  people  he  knew  in  North  Carolina.  As  Hampton  reassured 
a  Greensboro  industrialist,  "I  would  bet  you  almost  anything  within 
my  command  that  the  reduction  that  Senator  Simmons  will  finally 
advocate  will  save  you  more  money  than  if  Secretary  Mellon's  pro- 
posal should  be  adopted  in  toto."40 

Indeed  as  the  battle  developed  in  1926,  it  appeared  that  Simmons 
was  trying  to  outdo  Mellon  in  a  demand  for  tax  reduction,  and  in 
fact,  he  probably  was.  He  apparently  suspected  that  Mellon  wanted 
to  save  the  largest  tax  reduction  for  1928  so  that  the  Republicans  could 
get  the  credit  for  it  just  before  the  presidential  election  of  that  year. 
Simmons  with  his  political  antenna  sensitively  tuned  to  such  ma- 
neuvers was  determined  that  whatever  tax  reduction  was  possible 
should  take  place  in  1926— two  years  before  the  presidential  election.41 

In  1926  Simmons  won  two  important  revisions  in  the  measure 
which  had  the  support  of  the  administration.  One  of  these  was  a  sub- 
stantial reduction  in  surtaxes  on  citizens  whose  incomes  were  between 
$20,000  and  $100,000,  those  who  as  Simmons  put  it  "constitute  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  prosperous  and  successful  citizens  of  the 
United  States  who  are  themselves  actively  engaged  in  business"  and 
"the  great  rank  and  file  of  North  Carolina  industries."42 

Simmons'  support  of  this  reduction  in  surtaxes  upset  the  "Sons  of  the 
Wild  Jackasses,"  and,  also  the  News  and  Observer,  which  now  con- 
sidered him  a  traitor  to  the  cause  of  more  equitable  taxation.  Bis 

"News  and  Observer,  May  6,  1924. 

40  Hampton  to  H.  S.  Richardson,  Vick  Chemical  Company,  Greensboro,  July  28,  19  4, 
Simmons  Papers. 

41  Greensboro  Daily  News,  January  11,  1926. 

42  [Washington  Star],  clipping,  about  January  18,  1926,  Simmons  Papers. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  179 

position  on  inheritance  taxes  alienated  them  even  more.  A  provision 
of  the  bill,  for  which  Simmons  and  his  colleague  Overman  battled 
successfully,  reduced  the  high  rates  of  1924  on  inheritance  to  the 
lower  rates  of  1921  and  made  the  new  provision  retroactive  to  1924. 
Simmons  argued  on  this  point  that  he  was  not  opposed  to  estate  taxes; 
he  merely  thought  that  the  states  should  levy  such  taxes,  and  that  he 
thought  it  "inequitable  to  apply  the  high  rates  of  the  1924  law  to 
those  estates  where  the  decedent  happened  to  die  while  the  1924  law 
was  in  operation."43  Clearly  if  Simmons'  revisions  should  win,  the 
estates  of  those  who  had  died  between  1924  and  1926  would  receive  a 
neat  windfall.  An  interesting  thing  about  this  provision  was  that  of  the 
twenty-four  or  so  wealthy  men  who  had  died  between  1924  and  1926, 
the  largest  estate  was  that  of  the  entrepreneur,  James  B.  Duke.44 

Although  there  was  much  misinformation  abroad  at  that  time  about 
the  provisions  of  the  Duke  Endowment,  it  was  clear  that  the  retro- 
active provision  would  save  the  Duke  estate  many  millions  of  dollars. 
Simmons,  defending  the  provision,  pointed  out  x hat  in  the  case  of  the 
Duke  Endowment,  it  would  not  help  millionaires,  but  the  beneficiaries 
of  the  endowment,  and  that  those  aided  would  be  not  only  Duke 
University,  of  which  he  and  Senator  Overman  happened  to  be 
alumni,  but  also  various  other  educational  institutions,  as  well  as 
hospitals  and  "superannuated  Ministers."  Commented  Norris:  "And 
the  whole  fund  .  .  .  will  go  to  the  benefit  of  superannuated  million- 
aires"; yet  Simmons  and  his  supporters  had  the  regular  Republicans 
with  them  in  the  Senate  and  could  outvote  the  Republican  indepen- 
dents. In  the  House  the  opposition  was  outmaneuvered.4"'  As  Jonathan 
Daniels  described  it— when  the  vote  was  announced,  Simmons'  face 
was  lined  with  a  contented  grin.  "  1  knew  what  was  going  to  happen,' 
he  said  later.  'I  have  been  pretty  close  in  Conference  with  them  over 
there.'"46 

As  the  election  of  1928  approached,  Simmons'  prestige  was  high. 
Wrote  Cameron  Morrison  to  Simmons  in  1926,  "I  do  not  think  you 
ever  stood  higher  in  the  esteem  of  your  constituents,  or  of  the  whole 
country,  than  you  do  now." 47  Few  probably  doubted  that  he  would 

43  Greensboro  Daily  News,  January  17,  28,  1926. 

"Jonathan  Daniels  in  the  News  and  Observer,  February  22,  1926. 

45  Congressional  Record,  Sixty-ninth  Congress,  First  Session,  1925-1926,  3666-3706. 

48  Daniels  in  the  News  and  Observer,  February  24,  1926. 

47  Morrison  to  Simmons,  January  19,  1926,  Simmons  Papers.  Much  of  the  remainder 
of  this  essay  is  drawn  from  two  articles  by  Richard  L.  Watson,  Jr.,  "A  Political  Leader 
Bolts:  F.  M.  Simmons  in  the  Presidential  Election  of  1928,"  North  Carolina  Historical 
Review,  XXXVII  (October,  1960),  516-543,  and  "A  Southern  Democratic  Primary: 
Simmons  vs.  Bailey  in  1930,"  North  Carolina  Historical  Review,  XLII  (Winter,  1965), 
21-46. 


180  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

be  elected  for  another  six-year  term  in  1930.  In  fact,  however,  he  was 
not  safe  politically.  He  was  seventy-four  years  old  and  not  in  good 
health.  Many  of  his  ablest  friends  had  died;  young  politicians  were 
challenging  his  leadership.  In  1920  O.  Max  Gardner  had  run  a  sur- 
prising race  for  governor  against  Cameron  Morrison  whom  Simmons 
had  supported.  Josiah  Bailey,  articulate  and  brilliant,  although  claim- 
ing undying  loyalty  to  Simmons  personally,  had  kicked  over  the  traces 
and  run  for  governor  in  the  primary  of  1924,  even  though  he  knew 
that  Simmons  favored  Angus  W.  McLean.  McLean,  with  Simmons 
on  his  side,  won,  but  rumors  were  rife  that  Simmons  had  come  to  an 
understanding  with  Gardner  that  McLean  would  get  the  nod  in  1924— 
so  long  as  Gardner  could  have  a  clear  field  in  1928.  If  Simmons  had 
ever  had  a  high-powered  machine,  by  1928  it  was  certainly  not  hitting 
on  all  its  cylinders,  and  the  election  of  that  year  reduced  it  to  a  mis- 
cellaneous pile  of  nuts  and  bolts.  The  center  of  political  gravity  in 
North  Carolina  was  shifting  from  New  Bern  to  Shelby. 

Although  local  factors  explain  some  of  the  weaknesses  in  the 
Simmons  organization,  it  was  the  presidential  candidacy  of  Alfred  E. 
Smith  that  led  to  its  final  breakdown.  Simmons  had  supported  William 
G.  McAdoo  in  a  bitter  nominating  battle  against  Smith  in  1924.  In 
1927  McAdoo  withdrew  from  the  running— thus  removing  Smith's 
principal  antagonist  for  the  Democratic  nomination  in  1928.  Even  in 
Raleigh  a  huge  crowd  roared  its  approval  of  a  resolution  endorsing 
Smith's  candidacy. 

Simmons,  however,  refused  to  be  reconciled.  He  considered  Smith 
"the  weakest  candidate  the  Democrats  could  nominate,"48  and  he 
became  convinced  that  Smith's  followers  in  North  Carolina  were  out 
to  destroy  him.  Thus  in  bitter  local  battles  in  the  state  he  and  his 
friends  fought  Smith  and  succeeded  in  choosing  delegates  to  the 
Democratic  National  Convention  most  of  whom  were  pledged  to  Cor- 
dell  Hull.  Indeed,  Simmons  told  Senator  Walter  George  of  Georgia, 
a  day  or  two  before  the  convention,  that  Smith's  nomination  was  im- 
possible. When  pressed  by  George  as  to  what  he  would  do  if  Smith 
were  nominated,  Simmons  replied,  "I've  been  a  Democrat  too  long 
to  quit  the  party.  If  the  party  is  going  to  march  down  into  the  open 
grave,  I  who  have  been  a  Democrat  all  my  life,  will  march  down  into 
the  grave  with  it." 

And  he  seems  to  have  held  this  traditional  position  of  party 
regularity  even  after  Smith's  nomination  until  Smith  appointed  John  J. 
Raskob  as  chairman  of  the  Democratic  National  Committee.  Demo- 


Simmons  to  Edward  N.  Hahn,  February  25,  1928,  Simmons  Papers. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  181 

cratic  professionals  in  the  South  had  hoped  to  de-emphasize  the  facts 
that  Smith  was  a  wet  and  a  Roman  Catholic.  The  appointment  of 
Raskob  upset  that  strategy.  Raskob  was  not  only  a  Roman  Catholic 
and  a  wet— but  a  crusading  wet.  Moreover,  his  connections  with  the 
Du  Ponts  and  the  General  Motors  Corporation  made  it  difficult  to 
attract  the  anti-big-business  vote.  Then  to  cap  the  climax,  it  was  dis- 
covered that  Who's  Who  listed  Raskob  as  a  Republican! 

Raskob's  appointment  shocked  even  Smith's  supporters  such  as 
O.  Max  Gardner  and  Josiah  Bailey.  To  Simmons  it  was  the  last 
straw.  He  was  now  convinced  that  Smith  had  no  interest  in  the  posi- 
tion of  the  South  in  the  Democratic  party,  and  he  feared  that  the 
election  of  an  urban  northerner  with  Raskob  managing  the  party 
machinery  would  destroy  the  traditional  party.  Shortly  after  Raskob's 
appointment,  Simmons  came  into  the  office  of  a  young  New  Bern 
lawyer,  soon  to  be  elected  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  said: 
"For  thirty  years  I  have  been  loyal  to  my  people;  they  have  been  good 
to  me,  and  now  that  I  am  on  the  brink  of  the  grave,  before  I  would 
turn  on  them  and  put  a  ballot  in  the  box  for  Al  Smith,  I  would  suffer 
my  right  hand  to  be  severed." 

On  August  20  came  Simmons'  shocking  announcement:  he  would 
support  the  state  ticket— but,  as  he  put  it,  "the  party  platform  has 
been  repudiated,  the  party  rebuilt,  the  issues  reframed  and  forces  of 
privilege  and  license  now  are  dominating  and  controlling  the  national 
machinery."  To  Simmons,  Smith  had  bolted.  "Under  the  circum- 
stances," announced  the  Democratic  senior  senator  from  North  Caro- 
lina, "I  shall  vote  for  neither  candidate." 

Immediately,  Simmons  and  a  few  of  his  friends,  notably  his  secre- 
tary Frank  Hampton,  threw  themselves  into  putting  together  an  anti- 
Smith  organization  in  North  Carolina.  As  the  campaign  developed, 
some  made  it  a  battle  as  much  for  or  against  Simmons  as  for  or  against 
Smith.  Said  a  political  advertisement: 

SENATOR  SIMMONS  HAS  NEVER  LED  THE 
DEMOCRATS  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  WRONG  YET 

Keep  your  Ideals 

of  Southern  Democracy 

Support  Simmons 


Accept  His  Platform 
Vote 

the  Democratic  State  Ticket 
the  Democratic  District  Ticket 


182  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  Democratic  County  Ticket 
But  Vote  Against  Al  Smith 

AND  SENATOR  SIMMONS  ISN'T  LEADING  THE 
DEMOCRATS  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  WRONG  NOW! 49 

When  the  votes  were  counted,  Hoover  had  won  overwhelmingly 
and  had  carried  southern  states  which  had  not  gone  Republican  since 
Reconstruction.  In  North  Carolina  Smith  had  won  in  the  rural,  strongly 
Democratic  East,  but  Hoover  carried  the  state  by  62,000  votes  out  of 
635,000  cast. 

Unquestionably  the  three  factors  usually  given  to  explain  Smith's 
defeat— his  Catholicism,  his  hostility  to  prohibition,  and  his  association 
with  Tammany  Hall— played  a  significant  role  in  alienating  North 
Carolina  voters.  The  Ku  Klux  Klan  was  out  in  force  against  Smith; 
campaigning  by  some  church  leaders,  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  and 
the  WCTU  highlighted  sometimes  the  religious  issue,  sometimes  the 
prohibition  issue,  sometimes  both.  On  the  other  hand,  Smith  had 
thousands  of  enthusiastic  supporters  who  discounted  his  stand  on 
prohibition,  and  Democratic  professionals  such  as  O.  Max  Gardner 
and  Cameron  Morrison,  on  opposite  sides  in  1920,  and  A.  W.  McLean 
and  Josiah  Bailey,  rivals  in  1924,  eloquently  endorsed  Smith  and 
pleaded  the  cause  of  religious  toleration. 

But  these  factors  alone  are  not  enough  to  explain  Smith's  defeat. 
Indeed,  perhaps  of  most  significance  was  the  confusion  in  the  Demo- 
cratic state  organization.  Simmons'  anti-Smith  organization  may  have 
been  just  enough  to  turn  the  state  to  Hoover.  Yet  the  political  power 
of  Simmons  and  his  friends  had  never  been  complete,  and  diverse 
individuals  and  groups  were  ready  to  take  advantage  of  any  chance  to 
destroy  it.  Simmons'  refusal  to  support  Smith  was  the  chance,  and 
from  the  point  of  view  of  practical  politics,  Simmons'  action  seemed 
indefensible.  How  could  a  professional  politician  with  a  record  of  forty 
years  simply  reeking  with  regularity  fail  to  support  his  party's  presi- 
dential candidate? 

The  answer  is  probably  a  combination  of  politics,  pride,  and  prin- 
ciple. Simmons  seems  to  have  had  no  religious  bias,  so  the  Catholic 
question,  as  such,  was  insignificant  to  him.  On  the  other  hand,  al- 
though he  was  not  particularly  dogmatic  about  prohibition,  he  prided 
himself  on  his  record  on  that  issue  and  he  considered  Smith's  position 
on  it  immoral.  Simmons'  position,  however,  was  more  complex  than 

49  See  political  advertisement  in  Greensboro  Daily  News,  November  3,  1928. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  183 

his  stand  on  any  single  issue;  it  involved  what  he  saw  happening  to 
the  Democratic  party.  To  Simmons,  Smith  and  Raskob  represented  the 
growing  influence  of  the  urban  northeast  and  midwest.  Catholicism, 
repeal  of  prohibition,  immigration,  Tammany,  racial  equality— these 
were  largely  symbols  of  something  alien  to  a  man  who  had  been  a 
professional  Democratic  politician  for  more  than  forty  years  while  the 
South  was  the  dominant  element  in  the  national  party.  It  was  not  the 
Democratic  party  as  he  had  known  it,  and  he  did  not  propose  to  sup- 
port its  national  representative. 

Simmons  was  proud  of  his  record,  and  thought  that  it  was  strong 
enough  to  nullify  any  ill  effects  of  his  action  in  1928.  Yet  such  hopes 
were  vain;  before  the  votes  in  1928  had  been  counted,  he  had  alienated 
some  of  his  friends  and  thus  given  his  enemies  their  chance. 

Their  chance  lay  in  part  in  statistics  and  in  part  in  the  obvious  fact 
that  Smith's  defeat  was  in  a  presidential  election  in  which  both  Demo- 
crats and  Republicans  voted.  Republican  presidential  candidates  al- 
ways received  a  healthy  vote  in  North  Carolina.  In  1924,  for  example, 
Republicans  had  polled  190,000  votes.  In  1928,  with  a  total  of  635,000 
votes  cast,  Hoover  defeated  Smith  by  a  margin  of  62,000  votes.  A 
sizable  Republican  vote  plus  a  relatively  small  anti-Smith  Democratic 
vote  of  about  60,000  to  80,000  carried  the  state  for  Hoover  in  1928, 
but  a  whopping  286,000  Democrats  refused  to  follow  Simmons  and 
voted  for  Smith. 

Now  Simmons  faced  the  unpalatable  fact  that  in  less  than  two  years 
he  would  be  up  for  renomination,  and  in  the  primary  only  registered 
Democrats  could  vote.  If  he  was  to  win,  he  obviously  must  persuade 
100,000  or  so  Smith  voters  to  vote  for  him.  Thus  while  still  rejoicing 
over  Smith's  defeat,  he  announced  that  he  himself  was  "a  better  Demo- 
crat than  ever,"  that  he  planned  to  be  "buried  in  a  Democratic  coffin," 
and  that  what  was  needed  was  a  reorganization  of  the  party  "on  the 
basis  of  the  great  principles  of  Democracy  enunciated  by  Jefferson  .  .  . 
and  exemplified  by  Cleveland,  Tilden,  and  Wilson.  .  .  ." 50 

The  implied  assumption  that  he  was  the  one  to  take  the  lead  in 
reorganizing  the  party  was  accepted  by  his  friends  but  infuriated  his 
enemies.  Many  of  the  younger  Democrats,  and  some  of  the  older  ones, 
labeled  Simmons'  action  in  1928  as  plainly  a  bolt  and  considered  that 
his  long  record  in  the  party  simply  made  the  sin  unforgivable.  "Sim- 
mons has  passed  out  the  political  password  long  enough,"  growled  one 
party  worker.51 

60  News  and  Observer,  November  8,  19,  1928;  telegram  from  Simmons  to  Robin  King, 
November  7,  1928,  Simmons  Papers. 

61  S.  W.  Andrews  to  Bailey,  May  30,  1928,  Bailey  Papers. 


184  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

At  this  point  Josiah  W.  Bailey  entered  the  picture  once  more,  quietly 
taking  the  lead  in  sounding  out  anti-Simmons  sentiment.  Relations 
between  these  two  men  had  been  gradually  deteriorating  for  a  decade. 
Yet  as  late  as  mid- June,  1928,  Bailey  insisted  that  he  would  never  per- 
sonally oppose  Simmons.  Bailey  was  a  Smith  supporter  from  the  be- 
ginning, however,  and  he  became  increasingly  irritated  by  Simmons' 
actions.  Throughout  1929  Bailey  tried  to  get  others  to  oppose  Sim- 
mons, especially  Walter  P.  Stacy,  Chief  Justice  of  the  State  Supreme 
Court  and  W.  J.  Brogden  of  Durham.  Bailey  was  obviously  wrestling 
with  his  conscience  because  of  his  pledge  never  to  run  against  Sim- 
mons; yet,  as  he  put  it,  he  had  predicated  that  pledge  "upon 
[Simmons']  remaining  loyal  to  the  party/' 

On  January  2, 1930,  Bailey  announced  his  candidacy.  The  announce- 
ment was  greeted  enthusiastically  by  his  friends,  but  Simmons  too 
received  prompt  assurances  of  support.  Some  described  Bailey  as 
"easy  picking";  one  praised  Simmons  as  the  "leader  who  navigated  the 
ship  of  state  through  the  troubled  waters  of  the  nineties."3  "Stay  in 
Washington,  keep  your  money,  and  let  your  friends  .  .  .  look  after  the 
election,"  he  was  advised.  His  hopes  were  boosted  by  pledges  from 
former  Smith  supporters,  and  two  of  these,  Charles  Hines  of  Greens- 
boro and  John  Langston  of  Goldsboro,  he  put  at  the  head  of  his  cam- 
paign organization. 

Such  optimism  was  based  essentially  upon  the  assumptions  that 
Simmons'  services  to  the  party  would  be  remembered,  and  that  the 
"moral  forces,"  that  is,  the  dries,  women's  groups,  and  the  religious 
leaders,  would  rally  to  him  as  they  had  in  1928.  The  Anti-Saloon 
League  and  the  WCTU  did  support  Simmons,  some  quite  emotionally, 
in  some  fashion  associating  his  reelection  with  the  continuation  of 
Prohibition.  At  the  same  time,  Simmons'  followers  were  appealing  to 
religious  and  women's  groups;  "missionary  work"  as  a  member  of  his 
campaign  committee  who  was  also  secretary  of  a  woman's  missionary 
society  called  it.  Unfortunately  for  Simmons,  Bailey's  followers  could 
remind  the  ladies  of  the  record  of  the  two  men  on  woman  suffrage. 
Bailey  had  been  outspokenly  in  favor  of  it  in  1917,  at  a  time  when 
Simmons  had  forthrightly  told  the  advocates  of  the  woman  suffrage 
amendment  that  he  would  not  support  it.52 

An  important  part  of  Simmons'  campaign  technique  was  for  him 
personally  to  stay  above  the  campaign,  and  to  let  his  record  "speak 
for  itself."  He  did  have  a  legitimate  reason  for  staying  in  Washington. 

62  Simmons  to  Mrs.  T.  D.  Jones,  May  25,  1918,  Jones-Southgate  Family  Papers,  Duke 
Manuscript  Department. 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  185 

As  ranking  Democrat  on  the  Finance  Committee  he  would  play  a 
leading  role  in  the  special  session  of  Congress  which  Hoover  called 
in  1929  to  review  the  tariff  and  to  cope  with  the  agricultural  crisis. 
Frank  Hampton  made  sure  that  the  North  Carolina  press  described 
in  detail  Simmons'  leadership  in  revising  the  tariff,  gaining  new  ap- 
propriations for  improving  the  rivers  and  extending  the  intracoastal 
waterway,  supporting  various  projects  to  aid  the  depressed  farmer, 
and  at  a  time  when  there  was  a  veritable  crusade  against  chain  stores 
in  the  rural  areas,  urging  their  investigation  by  the  Federal  Trade 
Commission. 

He  was  standing  on  his  record,  but  as  a  professional  politician,  he 
must  have  known  that  his  record  alone  would  not  reelect  him.  In 
previous  elections,  he  could  rely  on  his  friends— "his  machine"  as  his 
enemies  called  it— but  those  of  his  friends  who  were  left  were  now 
divided— even  some  of  his  oldest  friends  such  as  Cameron  Morrison- 
were  now  bitterly  opposed  to  him.  And  very  few  of  the  young  hopefuls 
saw  their  future  in  the  party  with  him. 

Actually  the  new  Simmons  organization  worked  well  in  only  a  few 
sections.  As  the  primary  approached  even  Frank  Hampton  became 
pessimistic:  "ungrateful  skunks  .  .  .  who  have  eaten  bread  from  the 
Senator's  table,"  he  wrote  on  one  occasion,  "are  fighting  him  all  over 
the  state  and  trying  to  bring  a  career  to  a  close  in  humiliation  and  de- 
feat and  break  his  heart  and  throw  him  out  in  his  old  age." 

Hampton  and  some  others  of  his  friends  worked  day  and  night, 
writing  letters,  telephoning,  drafting  broadsides,  raising  money,  try- 
ing to  obtain  absentee  ballots,  hiring  workers,  claiming  that  Bailey's 
supporters  were  registering  Negroes  as  Democrats  in  Raleigh  and 
elsewhere,  and  that  Bailey  himself  was  neither  sound  on  prohibition 
or  on  the  racial  question.  Although  Bailey  denied  these  charges,  he 
himself,  advised  by  his  campaign  manager,  C.  L.  Shuping  of  Greens- 
boro, tried  to  alienate  as  few  Democrats  as  possible  and  let  his  sup- 
porters ring  the  changes  on  Simmons'  treachery  to  the  party. 

Primary  day,  June  7,  1930,  was  cloudy  and  stormy  in  North  Caro- 
lina. A  record  325,000  Democrats  voted.  Simmons  was  beaten  by 
70,000  votes— he  carried  only  16  of  the  100  counties.  Factors  too  num- 
erous to  mention  here  explain  Simmons'  defeat.  It  is  probably,  how- 
ever, that  had  he  not  helped  organize  the  anti-Smith  Democrats  in 
1928,  the  seventy-six  year  old  senator  would  have  begun  his  sixth 
term  in  1931.  In  any  case,  a  political  career  of  fifty  years  had  come  to 
an  end.53 


68  Overman  to  Bailey,  June  13,  1930,  Bailey  Papers. 


186  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

How  can  one  assess  the  career  of  this  man  who  held  the  office  of 
U.S.  senator  longer  than  has  any  other  North  Carolinian?  As  Cash  put 
it,  "In  him  one  discovers  nothing  of  the  flashing  eye,  the  craggy  mein, 
the  Bryanesque  shine  which  one  instinctively  associates  with  the  Lord 
God  Jehovah.  .  .  ."  He  was  a  small  man  physically,  with  rumpled 
clothes,  particularly  unprepossessing  in  his  later  years  when  illness  had 
emaciated  him,  and  though  he  could  speak  effectively,  he  was  cer- 
tainly no  spellbinder— yet  he  did  have  that  undefined  magnetism. 

To  say  though,  as  Cash  did,  that  his  salient  achievement  was  "to 
set  North  Carolina  on  a  path  that  .  .  .  must  lead  finally  to  Republican 
rule,"  was  ridiculous.  He  got  along  well  with  some  Republicans  but 
he  was  neither  the  first  nor  last  southern  Democrat  to  make  a  virtue 
of  that.  He  occasionally  did  not  vote  with  the  majority  of  his  party— 
but  American  political  parties  rarely  demand  bloc  voting.  No  one  who 
really  knows  his  record  could  accuse  him  of  being  a  Republican. 

By  focusing  on  idiosyncracies,  his  record  can  look  inconsistent- 
even  demagogic.  But  in  sum  it  was  a  constructive  record:  waterways, 
roads,  and  forest  reserves,  tariffs,  taxes,  the  postal  system,  and  agricul- 
ture benefited  from  his  effectiveness  as  a  legislator;  and  an  un- 
counted number  of  his  constituents  benefited  from  the  fact  that  his 
office  was  hospitable  and  sympathetic. 

He  miscalculated  badly  in  1928.  He  thought  that  he  would  be  re- 
nominated in  1930  even  if  he  refused  to  support  the  national  ticket.  He 
insisted  that  he  was  acting  on  principle,  and  his  friends  insisted  that 
he  was  acting  on  principle.  Yet,  it  was  principle  which  did  not  look  to 
the  future  but  was,  rather,  rooted  in  the  late  nineteenth  and  early 
twentieth  centuries;  principle  that  let  local  interests  take  precedence 
over  national  and  lacked  the  world  view;  that  did  not  understand  the 
complexities  of  such  a  limited  problem  as  alcohol  or  of  such  a  funda- 
mental one  as  that  of  the  city;  that  saw  no  incongruity  in  second-class 
citizens  in  a  democracy,  a  position  which  made  future  solution  of  the 
racial  problem  more  difficult;  that  accepted  a  political  philosophy  of 
rewards  and  punishments  and  the  electioneering  trickery  of  less  than 
fastidious  friends.  Yet  was  he  not  speaking  the  language  and  reflecting 
the  attitudes  of  his  generation?  How  many  of  his  political  contem- 
poraries approached  these  problems  differently? 

Although  he  had  his  enemies,  he  inspired  confidence  and  even 
affection  among  many  North  Carolinians  for  many  years— from  the 
practical  politicians  who  knew  all  the  courthouses  such  as  A.  D.  Watts 
and  Frank  Hampton,  to  the  industrialist  such  as  Junius  Parker  who 
described  his  achievements  as  being  "greater  and  more  admirable 


Furnifold  M.  Simmons  187 

than  those  of  any  North  Carolinian  ever  in  public  life," 54  to  the  urbane 
William  G.  McAdoo  who  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  he  deserved  to  be 
in  the  White  House.55 

Cash  sarcastically  explained  Simmons'  success  in  maintaining  his 
Jehovah-hood  by  his  skillful  use  of  white  supremacy  slogans  and 
"Great  Moral  Ideas,"  and  the  financial  support  received  from  indus- 
trialists for  favors  rendered.56  Admittedly  he  did  use  white  supremacy 
slogans  and  talked  about  his  support  of  the  moral  forces,  and  he  was 
friendly  with  some  industrialists;  yet  he  also  had  a  reputation  for 
friendliness  to  labor,  and  he  fought  the  power  companies  with  little 
less  fervor  than  George  Norris  when  it  appeared  that  the  farmers' 
interests  in  the  Tennessee  Valley  development  were  being  threatened.57 
It  is  clear  that  he  personally  did  not  profit  financially  from  his  poli- 
tics. He  left  office  a  poor  man. 

One  of  his  closest  associates  once  said  that  he  had  "never  known 
a  public  man  who  strove  more  earnestly  to  do  the  right  thing,"  and 
that  Simmons'  "great  influence  is  founded  upon  the  fact  that  our 
people  trust  his  judgment.  .  .  .  And  being  so  founded  ...  it  will  last 
the  length  of  his  life." 

How  events  change  the  mind  of  man!  It  was  Josiah  Bailey  who  so 
judged  Simmons  in  1914  and  he  had  added,  "He  is  the  one  public 
man  of  our  time  in  North  Carolina  whose  place  is  secure."  58 


M  Junius  Parker  to  Simmons,  June  9,  1930,  Simmons  Papers. 

66  McAdoo  to  Simmons,  June  16,  1930,  Simmons  Papers. 

M  Cash,  "Jehovah  of  the  Tar  Heels,"  312. 

w  News  and  Observer,  June  10,  1930. 

68  Bailey  to  the  editor  of  the  Greensboro  Daily  News,  August  14,  1914. 


MY  BROTHER'S  KEEPER:  WILLIAM  H.  POLK 
GOES  TO  SCHOOL 

Edited  by  Paul  H.  Bergeron* 


The  ties  of  family  relationships  have  served  as  a  hallmark  of  the 
American  scene  for  generations.  Especially  was  this  evident  in  the 
nineteenth  century  and  in  the  region  below  the  Mason-Dixon  line.  The 
letters  which  follow1  demonstrate  the  concern  within  a  family  for  the 
welfare  of  one  of  its  members. 

James  K.  Polk,  the  oldest  child  of  Samuel  and  Jane  Knox  Polk,  had 
upon  the  death  of  his  father  in  1827  inherited  responsibility  for  the 
well-being  and  education  of  three  brothers  and  an  unmarried  sister, 
all  minors.2  In  the  fall  of  1832,  before  returning  to  Washington,  D.  C, 
as  a  delegate  to  the  House  of  Representatives  from  Tennessee  to  the 
second  session  of  the  Twenty-second  Congress,  James  K.  Polk  made 
arrangements  for  his  brother,  seventeen-year-old  William  H.  Polk,  to 


*  Dr.  Bergeron  is  assistant  professor  of  history  at  Vanderbilt  University,  Nashville. 

*A11  of  the  letters  used  in  this  article  are  with  the  James  K.  Polk  Papers,  Manu- 
scripts Division,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.C.,  unless  otherwise  indicated. 
Five  of  the  letters  were  included  in  Elizabeth  Gregory  McPherson  (ed.),  "Unpublished 
Letters  from  North  Carolinians  to  Polk,"  North  Carolina  Historical  Review,  XVI 
(January,  April,  1939),  68-69,  72,  74,  77,  hereinafter  cited  as  McPherson,  "Letters  to 
Polk,"  and  are  being  reprinted  at  this  time  in  the  interest  of  continuity.  The  spelling 
and  punctuation  of  the  date  and  place  of  origin  of  each  letter  have  been  modernized 
and  standardized.  For  purposes  of  clarity  paragraph  divisions  and  punctuation  have 
been  supplied  in  certain  instances.  To  conserve  space,  complimentary  closes  and 
signatures  have  been  omitted.  Concluding  paragraphs  of  the  letters  dated  November 
28,  December  6,  and  December  13,  1832,  have  been  omitted  because  they  do  not  pertain 
to  William  H.  Polk's  schooling. 

2  Samuel  Polk  was  survived  by  his  widow,  Jane  Knox  Polk,  and  ten  children:  James 
Knox,  b.  1795;  Jane  Maria,  b.  1798;  Lydia  Eliza,  b.  1800;  Franklin  Ezekiel,  b.  1802; 
Marshall  Tate,  b.  1805;  John  Lee,  b.  1807;  Naomi  Tate,  b.  1809;  Ophelia  Clarissa,  b. 
1812;  William  Hawkins,  b.  1815;  Samuel  Washington,  b.  1817.  At  the  time  the  three  old- 
est girls  were  already  married.  James  K.  Polk  and  James  Walker,  the  husband  of  Jane 
Maria,  were  named  coexecutors  of  Samuel  Polk's  "large  estate,  including  over  fifty 
slaves  and  thousands  of  acres  of  land."  Mrs.  Frank  M.  Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North 
Carolina  and  Tennessee,"  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  LXXVII 
(1923),  221-223,  hereinafter  cited  as  Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and 
Tennessee"  (1923)  ;  Charles  Grier  Sellers,  Jr.,  James  K.  Polk,  Jacksonian,  1795-181*3 
(Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1957),  114-115,  hereinafter  cited  as  Sellers, 
James  K.  Polk. 


William  H.  Polk  Goes  to  School 


189 


William  H.  Polk,  a  younger  brother  of  James  K.  Polk,  who  came  to  North  Carolina  in 
the  fall  of  1832  to  enter  Hillsborough  Academy  in  anticipation  of  enrolling  at  the 
University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill.  Photograph  from  the  files  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Archives  and  History. 


go  to  North  Carolina  in  anticipation  of  enrolling  at  the  university  just 
as  he  himself  had  done  in  1815.3  In  preparation  for  joining  a  class  at 
Chapel  Hill,  William  first  went  to  Hillsborough  in  order  to  attend  the 
Hillsborough  Academy,  popularly  known  as  the  Bingham  School.4 


8  For  an  account  of  James  K.  Polk's  experiences  as  a  student  at  the  University  of 
North  Carolina,  see  Charles  Grier  Sellers,  Jr.,  "Jim  Polk  Goes  to  Chapel  Hill,"  North 
Carolina  Historical  Review,  XXIX  (April,  1952),  189-203,  hereinafter  cited  as  Sellers, 
"Jim  Polk  Goes  to  Chapel  Hill." 

4  After  serving  one  year  as  principal  of  the  Hillsborough  Academy,  the  Reverend 
William  Bingham,  an  honor  graduate  of  the  University  of  Glasgow,  moved  to  Mount 
Repose,  eleven  miles  northwest  of  Hillsborough,  and  opened  a  private  school.  Upon 
the  death  of  the  Reverend  Bingham  in  February,  1826,  his  son  William  James  Bing- 
ham, gave  up  his  profession  as  a  lawyer,  took  over  the  school  at  Mount  Repose,  and 
finished  out  the  term.  On  January  1,  1827,  William  James  Bingham  became  principal 
of  the  Hillsborough  Academy  and  served  in  that  capacity  until  1844.  It  was  during 
the  tenure  of  the  latter  that  the  academy  began  to  be  called  the  Bingham  School;  in 
1864  a  son  of  William  James  Bingham  and  two  other  relatives  secured  a  charter  from 
the  legislature  for  the  incorporation  of  "The  Bingham  School."  Charles  L.  Coon  (ed.)f 
North  Carolina  Schools  and  Academies,  1790-181*0:  A  Documentary  History  (Raleigh: 
North  Carolina  Historical  Commission  [State  Department  of  Archives  and  History], 
1915),  vi-viii,  280-295;  Ruth  Blackwelder,  The  Age  of  Orange:  Political  and  Intellectual 


190  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

James  K.  Polk  to    [William  Polk]  5 

Columbia,  November  2,  1832 

My  Dear  Sir 

On  monday  last  brother  William  started  to  Hillsborough  N.C.  to. school. 
He  set  out  and  will  travel  in  company  with  Laura  &  her  two  children 
(brother  Marshall's  widow  &  children)6  to  Charlotte,  &  will  there  take 
the  stage.  I  have  written  to  Mr  Bingham  to  take  charge  of  him  in  his 
school,  and  to  instruct  him  in  the  studies  preparatory  to  his  admission  into 
the  University — where  if  he  does  well,  I  intend  that  he  shall  graduate. 

In  your  letter  to  me  at  Washington  last  winter  in  answer  to  one  which 

I  had  written  to  you  upon  the  subject,  your  advice  was,  to  send  him  to  that 

Leadership  in  North  Carolina,  1752-1861  (Charlotte:  William  Loftin,  Publisher,  1961), 
122-123;  Samuel  A.  Ashe  and  Others  (eds.),  Biographical  History  of  North  Carolina: 
From  Colonial  Times  to  the  Present  (Greensboro:  Charles  L.  Van  Noppen,  8  volumes, 
1905-1917),  VI,  65-82,  passim,  hereinafter  cited  as  Ashe,  Biographical  History  of 
North  Carolina. 

6  Letter  is  in  possession  of  Mrs.  T.  P.  Yeatman  of  Mt.  Pleasant,  Tennessee.  William 
Polk  (1758-1834),  the  recipient  of  this  letter,  was  a  first  cousin  to  Samuel  Polk,  the 
father  of  James  K.  and  William  H.  Polk.  A  native  of  Mecklenburg  County,  William 
Polk  served  with  distinction  in  the  Continental  line  during  the  American  Revolution. 
After  the  battle  of  Guilford  Courthouse,  he  was  promoted  to  the  rank  of  lieutenant 
colonel  and  was  henceforth  known  as  "Colonel  Polk."  Colonel  Polk  was  an  active  and 
influential  member  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina  for 
forty-two  years  (1792-1834),  and  he  was  author  of  the  infamous  "monitor  law,"  which 
was  despised  by  students  and  faculty  alike.  He  moved  to  Raleigh  in  1800  and  died  there 
in  January,  1834.  The  probation  of  his  will  in  Columbia,  Tennessee,  revealed  that  he 
owned  100,000  acres  of  land  in  that  state.  According  to  a  granddaughter  "General 
Jackson  was  a  small  boy  at  school  with  Colonel  Polk  at  Charlotte,  North  Carolina.  They 
were  life-long  friends  in  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee."  Ashe,  Biographical  History 
of  North  Carolina,  II,  361-368,  passim;  Kemp  P.  Battle,  History  of  the  University  of 
North  Carolina  (Raleigh:  Edwards  and  Broughton,  2  volumes,  1907-1912),  I,  304-309, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Battle,  History  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina;  William 
Bruce  Turner,  History  of  Maury  County,  Tennessee  (Nashville:  Parthenon  Press,  c. 
1955),  244,  256,  hereinafter  cited  as  Turner,  Maury  County;  Mary  Polk  Branch, 
Memoirs  of  a  Southern  Woman  uWithin  the  Lines"  and  a  Genealogical  Record  (Chi- 
cago: Joseph  G.  Branch  Publishing  Company,  1912),  77,  80,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Branch,  Memoirs  of  a  Southern  Woman. 

6  Marshall  Tate  Polk  had  died  at  the  age  of  twenty-six  in  the  spring  of  1831,  leaving 
his  widow  and  two  children,  Roxana  (called  Eunice  Ophelia),  aged  eight,  and  Marshall 
Tate,  Jr.,  aged  eighteen  months.  Immediately  after  their  marriage  on  October  27, 
1827,  Marshall  and  his  bride,  Laura  Wilson  Polk,  had  moved  from  Charlotte  to  Ten- 
nessee. In  a  letter  to  J.  K.  and  Sarah  Polk  dated  January  5,  1828,  Jane  Polk  reported: 
"Your  brother  Marshall  and  sister  Laura  is  living  with  me.  I  think  Laura  is  a  very 
fine  agreeable  girl.  She  is  kind  and  good  to  me.  She  is  none  of  your  high  dashers,  she 
is  mild  and  modest,  converses  sencibly  and  loves  to  go  to  Church.  .  .  ."  Laura  was 
apparently  unhappy  in  Tennessee,  however;  in  a  letter  to  William  A.  Graham  dated 
March  31,  1829,  Alfred  Graham  reported  that  "Marshall  Polk  is  practicing  law  here 
and  is  living  with  Joe  Willson  at  Charlotte.  His  wife  is  determined  not  to  go  back  to 
Tennessee."  Marshall  was  the  second  son  Jane  Knox  Polk  had  lost  in  1831,  and  she 
would  lose  yet  another  before  the  year's  end.  Mrs.  Frank  M.  Angelotti,  "The  Polks 
of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee,"  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register, 
LXXVIII  (1924),  48,  hereinafter  cited  as  Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and 
Tennessee"  (1924);  J.  G.  de  Roulhac  Hamilton  (ed.),  The  Papers  of  William  Alex- 
ander Graham  (Raleigh:  State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  4  volumes,  1957- 
1961),  I,  170,  187;  Jane  Polk  letter  quoted  in  Sellers,  James  K.  Polk,  116;  Angelotti, 
"The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee"  (1923),  221-223. 


William  H.  Polk  Goes  to  School  191 

school,  &  if  sent  you  kindly  offered  to  exercise  over  him  whilst  there  a 
superintending  controul  &  guardianship.  I  have  now  to  ask  the  favour 
of  you  to  do  so,  as  far  as  may  be  necessary  and  your  convenince  will 
permit.  William  is  a  well  disposed  boy,  &  is  by  no  means  deficint  in  point 
of  intellect,  but  on  the  contrary  may  be  considered  a  boy  of  very  respect- 
able talents ;  With  proper  application  he  may  maintain  a  respectable  stand- 
ing at  any  institution.  I  am  not  aware  that  he  is  as  yet  addicted  to  any 
bad  habits — except  that  of  a  very  great  disposition  to  extravagance  in 
dress,  in  attending  theaters — and  other  places  of  light  amusement.  I  have 
written  to  Mr  Bingham  that  he  must  be  restrained  in  this  respect,  and 
with  a  view  more  effectually  to  accomplish  it  I  have  not  given  him  much 
money  to  start  with.  His  expenses  will  be  paid  to  Charlotte  &  he  will  have, 
when  he  takes  the  stage  at  that  place  $60. — to  bear  his  expenses  to  Hills- 
boro' — to  buy  such  books  as  he  may  need  &c.  He  has  his  winter  &  spring 
clothes  &  need  buy  none  before  summer  if  then.  I  am  thus  particlar, 
because  I  am  satisfied  his  inclination  to  extravagance  &  idleness  is  the 
point  of  danger.  To  give  you  some  idea  of  the  extent  of  these,  I  was  a 
few  days  before  he  left  home  astonishmnt  [sic]  to  learn  the  amt.  of  his 
accts.  in  the  stores  &  shops  in  town ;  For  a  period  of  but  little  more  than 
two  years  (since  July  1830)  his  accounts  amounted  to  near  $700.00.  He 
had  deatt  [?]  without  our  knowledge  in  almost  evry  store  in  town.  Upon 
making  the  discovry  I  gave  him  a  severe  reprimand,  &  he  promised  to 
reform  &  do  better.  He  promises  to  be  studies  [sic']  &  to  avoid  extrava- 
gance. Still  how[ev]er  I  do  not  think  it  prudent  to  rely  altogether  on  his 
promises.  I  wish  him  to  have  what  money  may  be  proper  &  necessary  for 
his  comfort,  &  no  more,  &  thus  put  it  out  of  his  power  to  spend.  With  a 
view  to  this  I  have  conversed  with  Lucius7  who  thinks  it  may  suit  you, 
for  me  to  pay  to  him  here,  such  amounts  from  time  to  time  as  may  be 
necessary,  and  for  you  to  advance  to  him  as  he  may  need.  Will  such  an 
arrangement  suit  you?  If  not  I  will  make  remittances  to  you,  if  I  can  get 
the  favour  of  you  to  control  him,  in  his  expenditures  &  furnish  him  money 
only  when  you  think  he  needs  it — &  ought  to  have  it.  I  feel  great  solicitude 
in  regard  to  him — &  if  he  can  be  restrained  from  extravagance,  by  de- 
priving him  of  the  possession  of  much  mony  at  a  time  he  may  &  I  hope 
will  become  studious  &  make  a  steady  respectable  man.  One  thing  is 
certain — that  if  he  is  not  restrained  in  this  respect,  there  is  evry  prospect 
that  he  will  be  a  spendth  [r]  if t — and  possibly  become  abandoned  to  other 
vices.  He  is  addicted  to  no  other  bad  habits — drinks  I  believe  not  a  drop. 
I  have  told  him  and  have  also  written  to  Mr  Bingham  that  he  is  not 
permitted  whilst  there  to  contract  a  single  account.  Wh  [atev]  er  he  needs 
he  must  pay  for  when  he  gets  it.  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Bingham  also  &  requested 
him  to  draw  on  you  for  money  for  him,  when  he  thought  it  necessary,  and 


7  Lucius  Polk,  a  son  of  Colonel  Polk,  had  gone  to  Tennessee  in  1823  to  manage  his 
father's  extensive  land  holdings  there.  At  the  time  of  this  letter  he  was  serving  as  a 
member  of  the  state  senate.  According  to  Mary  Polk  Branch,  "  'Hamilton  Place/  the 
residence  of  General  Lucias  [sic']  Polk  was  built  by  my  grandfather,  who  sent  work- 
men from  North  Carolina  in  wagons,  to  prepare  a  home  for  his  son  and  his  bride,  who 
was  to  be  Mary  Easton  [sic"\,  niece  of  Mrs.  Andrew  Jackson,  the  wife  of  the  president. 
The  marriage  took  place  at  the  'White  House,'  and  was  very  pleasing  both  to  General 
Jackson  and  my  grandfather.  .  .  ."  Sellers,  James  K.  Polk,  93 ;  Turner,  Maury  County, 
246;  Branch,  Memoirs  of  a  Southern  Woman,  77. 


192  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

that  he  must  be  the  judge  when  he  did  need  it.  I  told  William  this.  He 
said  he  was  perfectly  willing  that  you  should  be  the  judge  of  what  he 
ought  to  spend,  and  that  he  would  obey  you  in  that  respect,  and  also  in 
any  thing  else  that  you  directed, — but  was  unwilling  to  be  controlled  by 
Mr  Bingham.  You  can  manage  that  as  you  think  best, — and  can  make 
the  remittances  when  necessary — either  to  Mr  Bingham  (which  I  think 
safest  if  he  will  submit  to  it)  or  to  himself.  I  leave  that  to  you.  In  a  word, 
if  you  will  manage  and  controul  him  in  evry  respect  whilst  there  as  you 
would  your  own  son,  you  will  confer  an  additional  lasting  obligation.  I 
have  written  to  you  as  an  old  frind  of  the  family,  freely  in  regard  to  him, 
and  from  you  have  concealed  nothing.  I  have  thought  that  by  your  influ- 
ence &  control  over  him — he  might  be  reclaimed — and  I  doubt  not  he  will 
be.  Mr  Bingham  I  believe  takes  a  few  boarders  in  his  own  family  &  I  have 
written  to  him  (if  convenint)  to  take  William  as  one  of  them,  where  he 
can  be  under  his  immediate  observation. 

William  will  probably  be  at  Hillsboro'  about  the  time  this  reaches  you 
&  I  suggest  (if  it  be  not  too  much  trouble)  that  it  might  be  well  for  you 
to  write  to  him  &  give  him  such  advice,  (in  a  gentle  way)  as  you  might 
think  proper.  If  it  is  vacation  when  he  arrives,  I  have  instructed  him  to 
review  his  studies — &  be  prepared  to  enter  a  class  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Session. 

I  saw  Lucius  a  few  days  ago.  All  well. 

N  B  I  start  to  Washington  in  a  few  days.  Write  to  me  to  that  place. 

William  J.  Bingham  to  James  K.  Polk 

Hillsborough,  November  20,  1832 
Dr.  Sir 

Your  brother  Wm.  arrived  on  Sunday  last.  The  letter  in  advance  of  him 
had  reached  me  in  due  time.  I  regret  much  that  my  rooms  were  all 
occupied,  so  that  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  accommodate  him.  One  of 
my  boys  leaves  in  a  month,  and  Wm.  can  fill  the  vacancy.  Until  then,  I 
have  placed  him  at  Mrs.  Burgwin's,  where  his  cousin  George  Polk8  boards. 
I  think  it  rather  probable,  that  like  most  boys,  he  will  prefer  absence 
from  the  immediate  and  constant  supervision  of  his  teacher,  &  will  there- 
fore incline  to  remain  in  his  present  quarters.  In  which  event,  it  will  be 
necessary,  either  for  you  to  write  again  on  that  subject,  or  for  me  to  make 
use  of  your  first  communication. 

Of  Wm.'s  acquisitions  I  am  not  yet  able  to  speak  positively,  having 
given  him  a  very  slight  examination.9  He  wishes  to  enter  a  class  preparing 
for  the  Freshman  in  the  Univ. — next  July — The  effort  seems  rather  her- 


8  George  Washington  Polk  was  a  son  of  Colonel  Polk,  therefore  a  cousin  of  William 
H.  Polk.  Turner,  Maury  County,  247. 

9  As  one  of  the  state's  leading  educators  in  the  pre-college  schools,  William  James 
Bingham  was  well  versed  in  the  requirements  for  entrance  into  the  university.  He  was 
not  only  an  alumnus  but  was  an  active  participant  in  the  affairs  of  the  university.  See 
Battle,  History  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina,  I,  300,  339-340,  346,  618,  648,  694. 


William  H.  Polk  Goes  to  School  193 

culean;  but  energy  and  capacity  may  achieve  it.  At  all  events  the  effort 
will  be  of  service  to  him,  &  I  feel  disposed  to  encourage  it.  It  implies 
unremitted  labor  during  both  the  winter  and  summer  holidays,  and  this 
he  professes  willingness  to  encounter.  He  can  join  the  class  on  Latin,  and 
I  will  give  him  private  tuition  in  Greek.  The  necessity  of  his  taking 
private  tuition,  makes  it  additionally  desirable,  as  a  matter  of  convenience, 
that  he  should  be  an  inmate  in  my  family :  and  yet  I  should  be  unwilling 
to  receive  him,  were  he  not  perfectly  willing  to  come.  I  wish  this  matter 
settled  at  once,  as  there  are  already  two  applications  for  the  vacancy 
above  alluded  to,  and  I  am  disposed  (should  it  be  perfectly  agreeable  to 
himself)  to  give  the  preference  to  the  brother  of  my  departed  friend.10 

It  is  our  custom  to  require  board  &  tuition  by  the  session  in  advance. 
Board  is  10$  pr  month — $53.33%  for  the  first  session  of  the  year — 5% 
months — and  $46.66%  for  the  second  session — $%  months.  Tuition  is 
$15.50  a  session.  Vacation  tuition  is  equal  to  that  of  the  session.  However 
$15.50  shall  cover  your  brother's  tuition  for  the  remaining  month  of  the 
present  session  as  well  as  the  vacation.  The  next  session  will  commence 
about  the  20th  of  Jany.  His  board  &  tuition  charges  'till  then  will  amount 
to  $35.50. — for  the  next  session  $68.83%.  Books  will  not  cost  much,  &  you 
will  know  what  allowance  to  make  for  clothing.  From  the  above  data 
you  will  be  able  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  advance  proper  to  be  made 
at  the  beginning  of  the  next  session. 

May  I  request  you  to  inform  The  Hon  Wm.  B.  Shepard11  of  N.C. — 
that  his  letter  is  reed.  &  the  arrangement  made  perfectly  convenient  & 
satisfactory. 

P.S.   'Board'  including  lodging,  fuel,  candles  &  washing  $10  pr  month.12 


William  H.  Polk  to  James  K.  Polk 

Hillsborough,  November  21, 1832 
Dear  Brother 

I  arrived  here  last  Sunday  and  went  to  see  Mr  B.[ingham]  and  he  said 


10  The  allusion  here  is  probably  to  the  late  Marshall  Tate  Polk.  Marshall  and  William 
James  Bingham  graduated  from  the  university  together  in  the  class  of  1825,  with  first 
and  second  honors,  respectively.  Battle,  History  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina, 
I,  300. 

11  William  Biddle  Shepard  of  Elizabeth  City  served  four  terms  as  a  congressman, 
1829-1837.  Shepard  had  been  a  student  at  the  university  with  James  K.  Polk,  but  was 
expelled  in  September,  1816,  during  his  senior  year  for  publicly  attacking  President 
Robert  H.  Chapman's  policy  on  the  War  of  1812,  which  many  students  believed  to  be 
unpatriotic.  Shepard  moved  temporarily  to  Philadelphia,  the  home  of  his  cousin 
Nicholas  Biddle,  and  graduated  from  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Shepard  served 
as  a  member  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina  from  1838  to 
1852.  The  message  in  Bingham's  letter  may  have  reference  to  James  Biddle  Shepard, 
who  graduated  from  the  university  at  the  top  of  his  class  in  1834.  Biographical  Direc- 
tory of  the  American  Congress,  177U-1961  (Washington:  U.S.  Government  Printing 
Office,  1961),  1591;  Ashe,  Biographical  History  of  North  Carolina,  VII,  421-422;  Battle, 
History  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina,  I,  236;  Sellers,  "Jim  Polk  Goes  to  Chapel 
Hill,"  200-201. 

13  James  K.  Polk's  endorsement  on  the  envelope  of  this  letter  states  that  he  answered 
it  on  November  30,  1832.  Unfortunately  that  letter  is  not  available. 


194  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

that  there  was  a  class  that  would  enter  college  in  the  lowest  class  next 
June  and  that  he  would  put  me  in  it  and  if  I  could  keep  up  I  would  enter 
at  the  same  time.  I  spoke  to  him  about  Boarding;  he  said  that  he  could 
not  board  me  this  session  but  procured  it  for  me  at  a  place  about  a  mile 
from  town.  George  Polk  is  boarding  at  the  same  place  and  is  in  the  same 
class  and  I  would  prefer  boarding  at  the  same  place  next  session  with  him. 
He  says  that  he  has  been  boarding  there  for  two  years.  Write  me  if  you 
have  any  objections. 

Sister  Laura  found  her  mother13  very  ill  and  did  not  expect  her  to  live 
long  when  I  left  there.  Little  Marshal  [1]  improved  very  much  on  the  way. 
Mr  Fulsom  would  start  back  on  last  Monday.  The  horses  stood  the  trip  very 
well.  Write  me  as  soon  as  you  receive  this  so  I  will  get  it  before  the 
begining  of  next  session. 

P  S  Give  my  love  to  Sister  Sarah14  and  tell  her  she  must  write  to  me.15 


James  K.  Polk  to  William  Polk16 

Washington,  November  28,  1832 

My  Dear  Sir 

Since  my  arrival  here,  I  have  received  a  letter  from  brother  William 
advising  me  that  he  had  reached  Hillsborough  and  had  commenced  school 
with  Mr  Bingham.  Before  I  left  home  I  troubled  you  with  a  long  letter  in 
regard  to  him,  and  among  other  things  desired  to  know  whether  it  would 
be  convenint  for  you  to  furnish  the  funds  which  he  may  need  from  time 
to  time,  upon  our  paying  the  same  amounts  to  Lucius  in  Tennessee ;  or  if 
that  would  not  be  convenint,  whether  if  we  make  the  remittances  to  you, 
you  would  do  us  the  favour,  to  superintend  his  expenditures  &  controul 
him  in  that  respect,  as  well  as  in  evry  other  which  you  might  deem  ad- 
visable. I  wrote  to  you  fully  and  freely  what  our  fears  were  in  relation  to 
him,  and  that  our  wish  was  that  you  should  controul  him  whilst  at  school 
pr[e]cisely  as  you  would  your  own  son.  I  have  as  yet  received  no  answer, 
and  have  to  ask  the  favour  of  you  to  write  me  as  soon  as  convenint  on  the 
subject.  I  hope  in  the  request  which  I  make  I  do  not  impose  too  much 
trouble  upon  you ;  but  if  it  be  too  inconvenint  for  you  to  attend  to  it,  write 
to  me  immediately. 


13  Laura's  mother  was  Mary  Wood  Wilson,  the  wife  of  Judge  Joseph  Wilson.  Ange- 
lotti,  "The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee"  (1924),  48. 

14  Sarah  Childress  Polk,  a  native  of  Murf  reesboro,  Tennessee,  and  James  K. 
Polk  were  married  on  New  Year's  Day,  1824.  Sarah  Childress  was  a  student  at  the 
Moravian  Academy  in  Salem  for  one  year  but  was  called  home  in  1819  because  of 
the  death  of  her  father.  In  1844  Marshall  Tate  Polk,  Jr.,  went  to  live  with  the  James 
K.  Polks,  who  were  childless.  Laura  Wilson  Polk  had  in  the  meantime  married  Dr. 
W.  C.  Tate  of  Morganton.  Sellers,  James  K.  Polk,  93,  75-76,  459;  McPherson,  "Letters 
to  Polk,"  76n. 

15  James  K.  Polk  indicates  that  he  answered  this  letter  on  November  28,  1832;  his 
reply  has  not  been  uncovered,  however. 

18  Letter  is  in  the  Polk-Yeatman  Papers,  Southern  Historical  Collection,  University 
of  North  Carolina  Library,  Chapel  Hill. 


William  H.  Polk  Goes  to  School  195 

William  H.  Polk  to  James  K.  Polk 

Hillsborough,  December  5, 1832 


Dear  Brother 


I  received  your  letter  this  evening  in  which  you  stated  that  it  was  your 
opinion  that  it  would  be  to  my  advantage  to  board  with  Mr  Bingham. 
I  would  prefer  boarding  with  George  Polk  as  [  ?]  I  told  you  before  because 
I  know  no  persons  here  and  he  is  in  the  same  class  and  appears  a  little 
nearer  to  me  than  any  person  else.  He  has  been  very  clever  to  me  since 
I  have  been  here  and  Mr  Bingham  has  so  many  litle  boys  with  him  that 
I  could  not  study  half  as  well  as  I  can  where  I  am.  I  intended  to  go  down 
to  Raleigh  and  spend  a  few  days  while  the  asembly  was  in  session  and 
then  return  here  and  say  private  lessons  every  day  to  Mr  Bingham.  I  can 
study  better  here ;  there  will  be  no  persons  here  [to]  disturb  me.  I  know 
I  can  learn  as  much  here  as  I  could  at  Mr  Binghams  if  any  thing  more 
than  I  could  there. 

As  for  paying  the  $35.50  cts  I  have  not  got  that  much.  It  took  $13  to 
bring  me  from  Charlotte  here.  I  was  obliged  to  have  a  hat  when  I  got 
here  because  mine  was  worn  out  and  not  fit  to  ware.  That  cost  me  eight 
dollars  and  I  have  spent  ten  dollars  for  books  that  I  was  obliged  to  hav. 
I  hav  not  got  more  than  twenty  dollars  &  I  had  to  buy  a  pair  [of]  shoes 
when  I  got  here  for  I  forgot  a  pair  in  Charlotte  and  several  other  litle 
things  that  I  had  to  get.  I  hav  not  spent  a  cent  but  for  things  that  I  was 
obliged  to  have.  I  have  ben  as  saving  as  I  possibly  could  be.  You  must 
write  me  when  you  receive  this.  Give  my  respects  to  Sister  Sarah. 

P.  S.  I  am  determined  to  keep  up  with  the  class  if  stud[y]ing  will  do  it.17 


William  Polk  to  James  K.  Polk 

Raleigh,  December  6,  1832 

Dear  Sir 

I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letters  of  the  2d  and  27th  [28th]  of  Novr.  The 
former  would  have  been  answered  sooner  had  I  been  certain  as  to  where 
to  address  it.  The  latter  gave  me  the  first  information  of  Williams  having 
reached  Hillsborough.  Doctor  Polk18  leaves  th[e]n  in  the  morning,  by 
whom  I  write  to  my  Son  G  W.  P.  directing  him  to  ask  William  to  ac- 
company him  to  Raleigh,  to  spend  his  vacation  which  commences  some 
time  next  week. 


17  James  K.  Polk's  endorsement  on  the  envelope  indicates  that  he  answered  this 
letter  on  December  13,  1832.  The  written  reply  is  apparently  unavailable. 

wDr.  William  Julius  Polk  was  a  son  of  Colonel  Polk.  He  graduated  from  the  uni- 
versity in  1813  and  later  obtained  an  M.D.  degree  from  the  Philadelphia  Medical 
University.  Though  living  in  North  Carolina  at  this  time,  he  moved  to  Maury  County, 
Tennessee,  in  1836  and  settled  in  Columbia  in  1837.  Turner,  Maury  County,  245-246; 
Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee  (1923),  251;  Battle,  History 
of  the  University  of  North  Carolina,  I,  788. 


196  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

I  will  with  pleasure  take  charge  of  such  funds  as  may  be  placed  in  my 
hands  for  the  use  of  your  Brother;  and  will  deal  it  out  to  him  with  the 
liberality  &  eoconimy  as  I  do  to  my  Son,  which  has  been  sparing,  but 
sufficient  for  all  his  wants.  The  transmission  of  funds  from  Tennessee  to 
N.C.  are  entirely  stoped  except  through  some  friend  who  may  be  comning 
from  there  to  this  place — hence  it  will  not  be  convenient  to  make  the 
advances,  depending  on  the  uncertainty  of  a  regular  remnssion  [  ?] .  Checks 
on  the  Bank  of  N.C.  or  any  of  the  Eastern  U.S.  Banks  can  be  negoeiated 
here  without  dificulty. 


James  K.  Polk  to  William  Polk19 

Washington,  December  13,  1832 


Dear  Sir 


Enclosed  I  send  you  a  draft  on  the  U.S.  Bank  at  Philadelphia  for  one 
hundred  dollars — towards  defraying  brother  William's  expenses  at  the 
school  at  Hillsboro\  Mr  Bingham  writes  to  me  that  his  expenses — board 
&  tuition  both  included,  from  the  time  he  entered  school  until  the  20th  of 
Janry — at  which  time  the  next  Session  commences  will  be  $35.50 — and 
that  his  board  and  tuition  for  the  next  Session  will  be  $68.83%  cents. 
The  board  and  tuition  he  writes  to  me  are  by  the  rules  of  the  school  to 
be  paid  in  advance  at  the  commencement  of  each  Session.  William's 
expenses  from  home  to  Charlotte  were  paid,  by  the  man  I  employed  to 
drive  the  carriage,  and  at  that  place  he  had  $60.00  to  bear  his  expenses 
to  Hillsboro' — buy  books  &c.  He  writes  to  me  that  he  has  already  spent 
upwards  of  $40.  and  has  less  than  $20.  rema[i]ning.  I  mention  this,  that 
you  may  have  an  eye  to  him.  He  needed  [?]  no  clothing  and  I  apprehend 
he  may  have  commenced  a  scale  [?]  of  expenditures  corresponding  with 
that  in  which  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  indulging  for  the  last  year  or 
two.  I  am  much  gratified  that  you  are  willing  to  take  him  under  your 
controul  as  well  in  regard  to  his  expense  as  to  evry  thing  else.  He  is 
apprized  that  you  are  to  direct  him  in  all  things, — that  he  is  to  look  to  you 
for  money  when  he  needs  it,  and  professes  an  entire  willingness  to  obey 
you. 

I  wrote  to  Mr  Bingham  requesting  him  to  permit  him  to  board  in  his 
family.  In  his  answer  he  agrees  to  do  so  after  the  expiration  of  the  present 
Session,  and  states  that  in  the  meanwhile  he  had  placed  him  at  the  same 
boarding  house  at  which  your  son  is.  William  has  recently  written  me  a 
pressing  letter  to  permit  him  to  remain  at  the  same  boarding  house  with 
George  during  the  next  Session.  My  impression  is  that  it  would  be  to  his 
advantage  to  board  with  Mr.  Bingham,  but  like  most  other  boys  he  will 
probably  be  unwilling  to  be  constantly  under  the  eye  of  his  teacher.  I 
would  thank  you  to  direct  him  where  he  is  to  board, — and  he  will  I  have  no 
doubt  do  as  you  may  say. 

When  I  return  home  I  will  make  you  a  further  retainer. 


Letter  is  in  possession  of  Mrs.  T.  P.  Yeatman. 


William  H.  Polk  Goes  to  School  197 

William  Polk  to  James  K.  Polk 

Raleigh,  December  26,  1832 
Dear  Sir 

Your  letter  of  the  13th  instant  covering  a  check  on  the  U.S.  Bank  for 
$100  has  been  reed.  At  the  time  of  the  rect.  William  was  with  me  having 
come  down  with  George  when  the  Session  closed.  He  stayed  with  us  about 
ten  days,  and  returned  with  the  intention  of  attending  his  studies  so  as 
to  enable  him  to  enter  College  in  July  next,  and  assured  me  he  would  make 
every  exertion  to  accomplish  that  object.  He  informed  me  that  it  was 
your  wish  that  he  would  board  with  Mr.  Bingham  and  solicited  my  per- 
mission that  he  might  remain  where  he  had  been  at  Mr.  Burgwins.  He 
says  &  George  supports  the  fact;  that  at  Mr  Binghams  the  rooms  are 
small  and  uncomfortable;  &  that  a  great  proportion  of  the  boarders  are 
small  boys.  Under  these  representations,  I  gave  William  liberty  to  remain 
with  Mr.  Burgwin  at  where  he  had  been. 

William  informed  me  that  he  had  expended  all  the  money  that  was 
given  him,  but  about  $10  or  15  in  getting  to  Hillsbo.  &  in  the  purchase 
of  Books.  I  therefore  gave  him  the  100  sent  by  you  to  me  for  his  board  &c. 
for  the  next  Session  telling  him  that  it  behooved  him  to  act  eoconomcal 
[sic~\  for  that  unless  he  could  show  a  satisfactory  disbursement,  he  had 
got  all  that  he  might  expect  untill  next  Session.  I  think  he  promises  to  do 
well.  His  conduct  whilst  here,  was  such  as  entirely  to  meet  my  approbation. 

Mr.  Bingham's  misgivings  concerning  William  H.  Polk's  ability  to 
pass  the  entrance  examinations  at  the  university  as  expressed  in  his 
letter  of  November  20,  1832,  to  James  K.  Polk,  were  well  founded. 
Although  William's  name  appears  on  the  attendance  rolls  for  prayers 
and  classes  for  the  August,  1833,  and  the  January,  1834,  terms,  he  did 
not  matriculate.20  The  following  correspondence  took  place  after 
William  was  enrolled  at  the  university,  probably  classified  as  an  "ir- 
regular" student,21  and  apparently  after  Colonel  Polk  and  James  K, 


20  When  James  K.  Polk  took  the  entrance  examination  at  the  university  he  was  given 
credit  for  all  of  the  freshman  and  half  of  the  sophomore  year.  Sellers,  "Jim  Polk 
Goes  to  Chapel  Hill,"  191. 

21  The  university  faculty  reports  for  the  years  1833  and  1834  are  missing,  and  it  has 
not  been  possible  to  determine  precisely  what  were  William  H.  Polk's  scholastic 
deficiencies.  On  the  class  attendance  rolls  he  is  listed  for  the  August,  1833,  term  as  a 
student  in  the  classes  of  [James  Hogg]  Norwood,  [William  Nelson]  Mebane,  and 
[Thomas  Lapley]  Armstrong;  and  for  the  January,  1834,  term  as  a  student  in  the 
classes  of  [Walker]  Anderson,  [J.  DeBerniere]  Hooper,  Norwood,  and  Mebane.  All  of 
the  foregoing  were  classified  as  tutors  except  Anderson,  who  was  "Professor  of  Rheto- 
rick  and  Logick."  William  H.  Polk  was  not  listed  among  the  twenty-seven  regular 
students  of  the  freshman  class  who  were  examined  in  December,  1833,  and  June,  1834. 
George  W.  Polk  was  listed  as  a  regular  student  for  the  August,  1833,  term  but  during 
the  December,  1833,  examinations  he  was  "disapproved  on  Greek,"  and  his  name  was 
dropped  from  the  list  of  regular  students  for  the  January,  1934,  term.  See  University 
of  North  Carolina  Faculty  Reports,  1831-1841,  University  of  North  Carolina  Student 
Records,  1833-1849,  unnumbered  pages  157-163,  Southern  Historical  Collection;  Staff 
of  the  North  Carolina  Collection  (compilers),  "Register  of  the  Officers  and  Faculty  of 
the  University  of  North  Carolina,  1795-1945"  (Chapel  Hill:  unpublished  manuscript, 
1954),  North  Carolina  Collection,  University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill;  Battle, 
History  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina,  I,  421. 


198  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Polk  had  discussed  the  situation  vis-a-vis  in  Tennessee  during  the 
summer  or  early  fall  of  1833.22 

William  Polk  to  James  K.  Polk 

Raleigh,  October  22,  1833 
Dear  Sir 

On  my  getting  to  Chapel  Hill  I  sent  for  William,  and  upon  interogating 
him  with  regard  to  his  wants  and  debts,  I  found  both  to  be  considerable. 
Since  which  I  learn  that  he  is  quite  destitute  of  shirts  and  some  other 
cloathing:  which  I  deemed  necessary  he  should  be  furnished  with  im- 
mediately. I  wrote  him  last  week  to  come  down  and  to  bring  his  unpaid 
accounts.  He  has  done  so  and  I  find  his  debt  to  one  house  for  goods  &c. 
upwards  of  $80 — that  his  board  for  the  present  session  unpaid;  and  I 
presume  upon  some  other  small  debts.  He  has  an  account  with  a  Merchant 
Taylor  of  $40 — and  for  purchases  made  of  a  Merchant  about  $19,  making 
an  agregate  debt  due  of  about  $180.  His  want  of  cloathing  I  considered 
as  indespensable,  and  have  therefore  advanced  him  the  whole  of  the  money 
sent  by  me  viz.  $80  which  as  you  will  observe  not  half  meet  his  present 
wants. 

William  H.  Polk  to  James  K.  Polk 

Chapel  Hill,  November  25,  1833 
Dear  Brother 

I  received  your  letter  of  21st  Oct  in  which  you  said  you  did  not  know 
how  it  was  that  I  spent  more  money  than  Col  Polk's  son.  I  can  account 
for  that  very  easy.  He  gets  all  his  cloth's  from  home  and  I  have  to  buy 
mine.  If  you  will  send  me  money  enough  to  pay  all  my  debts  and  150  dollars 
at  the  begining  of  every  session  I  will  not  ask  you  for  any  more  and  I  think 
it  will  be  little  enough. 

I  owe  about  thirty  dollars  more  for  my  winter  cloths.23  I  would  not  have 
gone  in  debt  for  them  if  I  could  have  got  them  any  other  way.  If  you  intend 
to  let  me  have  money  to  pay  my  debts  you  must  send  it  to  me  as  soon  as 


"  In  the  letter  immediately  following  Colonel  Polk  mentions  "money  sent  by  me"  for 
William  H.  Polk;  see  also  the  next-to-the-last  paragraph  of  the  letter  from  James  K. 
Polk  to  Colonel  Polk  dated  January  5,  1834. 

23  At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  university  on  December  19,  1827,  an 
earlier  regulation  establishing  the  proper  habiliments  for  students  was  altered  to  pro- 
vide "That  the  dress  of  the  students  shall  be  uniform  and  shall  consist  in  summer  of 
a  Coatee  in  color  of  a  grey  mixture  and  of  waistcoat  and  trowsers  of  white,  and  in 
winter  of  Coatee,  waistcoast  and  trowsers  of  a  dark  grey  mixture. — The  use  of  Boots  is 
prohibited,  and  it  is  recommended  to  the  Students  to  consult  plainness,  economy  and 
neatness  in  every  part  of  their  apparel. — "  "Minutes  of  the  Trustees  of  the  University 
of  North  Carolina,"  December  4,  1823-December  19,  1840,  typed  transcript  in  the 
North  Carolina  Collection,  82-83. 


William  H.  Polk  Goes  to  School  199 

you  can  for  they  are  pushing  me  for  it  and  I  canot  study  when  I  have 
such  things  on  my  mind. 

Genl  Polk  of  Salsbury24  passed  through  here  on  yesterday  and  said  that 
he  saw  sister  Laura  and  the  children  and  they  was  very  well.  Give  my 
love  to  sist  [sic]  Sarah  and  tell  her  she  must  excuse  me  for  not  answering 
her  letter  and  I  will  write  to  her  in  a  few  days. 


James  K.  Polk  to  William  Polk25 

Washington,  January  5,  1834 

Dear  Sir 

I  have  received  several  letters  from  brother  William  since  I  have  been 
here,  the  last  of  which  was  written  at  Raleigh  on  the  26th  ult.  Supposing 
it  possible  that  he  might  still  be  at  Raleigh  I  inclose  to  you  a  letter  for 
him.  If  he  has  returned  to  the  University,  will  you  forward  it  to  him. 

In  regard  to  his  debts  contracted  without  my  authority  and  against  my 
express  order,  I  have  written  to  him,  that  I  have  no  authority  as  executor 
to  pay  them,  but  that  if  he  will  write  to  me  that  he  will  contract  no  more 
debts,  and  that  the  excess  over  $300  pr.  annum  shall  be  paid  out  of  his 
own  estate,  that  I  would  make  arrangements  to  have  the  money  forwarded 
to  you  for  him.  I  have  written  to  him,  that  for  the  future  he  must  limit 
his  expenses  within  $300  pr.  year  and  that  if  he  exceeds  that  sum  the 
excess  must  be  paid  out  of  his  own  estate. 

I  have  to  request  you  however  to  furnish  him  with  the  amount  which 
may  be  necessary  for  his  next  Session's  tuition,  board  and  other  necessary 
expenses.  His  debts  already  contracted  must  remain  over  until  I  hear  from 
him.  If  it  is  convenint  for  you  to  make  the  advance  to  him — of  the  amt. 
which  may  be  necessary  for  the  next  Session — I  will  thank  you  [to]  do  so, 
and  write  to  me  the  amt.  that  I  may  cause  it  to  be  remitted  to  you. 

William  writes  to  me  that  he  wishes  to  leave  the  University  and  go  to 
Nashville.  I  have  answered  him  that  he  cannot  be  permitted  [to]  do  so, 
but  must  remain.  I  have  written  him  further,  as  indeed  I  had  before  done, 
that  he  must  employ  his  vacations  in  bringing  up  his  Greek  studies — so  as 
to  enable  him  to  be  in  regular  standing  in  his  class.  I  hope  he  will  do  so, 
though  I  confess  I  have  my  fears  he  will  not.  I  hope  you  will  give  him 
such  advice  and  directions  as  you  may  think  right. 

Your  son  Rufus2*  spent  a  few  days  here  during  the  holidays.  I  took  him 
to  the  President's  who  treated  him  with  great  kindness,  invited  [him]  to 
dine,  &c.  and  I  dined  with  him  at  the  President's.  He  was  very  well  and 
is  I  think  a  very  promising  boy. 


81  Thomas  Gilchrist  Polk  was  a  brigadier  general  in  the  state  militia  and  was  quite 
active  in  politics  at  this  time.  Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee," 
(1923),  261. 

36  Letter  is  in  the  Polk  Family  of  North  Carolina  Papers,  Library  of  Congress. 

28  Rufus  King  Polk  was  nineteen  years  of  age  at  the  time.  After  Colonel  Polk's 
death  he  moved  to  Tennessee.  Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee" 
(1923),  215. 


200  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


'iiite  -cjfe,  ;^lilllllllfcv-  .  jllill|.:      ■:.;.';.,::'■■■■  •••■■■■■■.',:■. 

<V^tS«2i?    ttsvt^J  s2s&t-tf  ^<$*&/tD    €*s-?tfs*L*>  ?&  *9~*'<?*i*A*-<y     sZs*&v*zt£&t<c* 


^^^«*««4E      CastZ*!^    cU-*-*-*       ***ASL,     &>. 


K. 


£l>*i*isy 


'o>-a.t^. 


Pictured  above  is  a  partial  reproduction  of  William  H.  Polk's  letter  to  James  K.  Polk 
dated  "January  16th  1834"  and  transcribed  in  full  in  this  article.  The  original  letter 
is  in  the  Library  of  Congress. 


William  H.  Polk  Goes  to  School  201 

I  am  sorry  to  learn  that  you  have  been  in  feeble  health  since  you  left 
Tennessee,  but  hope  when  I  next  hear  from  you  to  learn  that  your  health 
is  restored. 

Mrs.  P.  desires  to  be  kindly  remembered  to  Mrs.  P.  and  yourself. 


William  H.  Polk  to  James  K.  Polk 

Chapel  Hill,  January  16,  1834 

Dear  Brother 

I  received  your  letter  before  I  left  Raleigh  and  the  ten  dollars  which  you 
inclosed  and  if  I  had  not  have  got  that  I  would  have  been  in  a  bad  way 
for  Col  Polk  was  very  sick  when  he  received  your  letter  to. furnish  me 
with  money  for  the  presant  session  and  was  not  able  to  transact  any  buis- 
ness  [sic]  whatever.  And  I  remained  several  days  thinking  that  he  would 
get  better  and  be  able  to  furnish  me  with  the  money  but  he  died  on  the 
13th.  He  had  a  continual  vometing  so  that  nothing  would  lay  on  his 
stomach.  He  died  very  easy  and  retained  his  senses  till  the  last  moment 
and  I  thought  that  it  would  be  better  for  me  to  return  to  Chapel  Hill  and 
study  by  myself  so  as  I  would  not  be  to[o]  far  behind  my  class.  And  I 
will  not  be  able  to  join  college  until  I  receive  money  from  you  to  pay  my 
expences.  I  owe  the  dialectic  society  $15  for  my  entrence  in  the  society 
which  canot  be  postponed27  and  I  would  be  very  much  obliged  to  you  if 


27  Since  1796  there  had  existed  on  the  campus  of  the  university  two  literary  societies 
which  eventually  assumed  the  permanent  names  of  the  Dialectic  and  the  Philanthropic. 
Although  organized  primarily  to  encourage  students  to  form  lasting  friendships  and 
to  promote  useful  knowledge  by  development  of  proficiency  in  the  arts  of  debating, 
composing,  and  declaiming,  the  societies  for  all  practical  purposes  exercised  control 
over  the  entire  student  body  and  demonstrated  "one  of  the  earliest  successful  examples 
of  student  government."  A  student  was  virtually  obligated  to  join  and  maintain  mem- 
bership in  one  of  the  societies  in  order  to  reside  on  the  campus.  In  addition  to  the 
entrance  dues,  which  were  $8.00  at  the  time  William  H.  Polk  became  a  member  in 
August,  1833,  the  societies  assessed  and  collected  fines  from  members  for  every 
infraction  of  the  rules  of  the  university  and  of  the  society.  Fines  were  graduated 
upward  in  accordance  with  the  seriousness  of  the  infraction,  the  heaviest  penalty, 
$6.00,  being  levied  for  not  wearing  the  society's  badge.  Some  of  the  other  fines  were: 
laughing  so  as  to  be  heard  by  his  neighbor,  talking  without  permission  or  excuse, 
leaning  his  chair  upon  any  part  of  the  Hall,  10  cents;  taking  more  than  one  volume 
from  the  library  under  one  envelope,  being  absent  from  prayers  without  good  excuse, 
being  unnecessarily  absent  from  recitation,  throwing  hard  substances  in  passages,  25 
cents;  playing  ball  in  the  passages  or  in  the  student  rooms,  sitting  in  the  windows  of 
the  Hall,  reading  the  same  composition  twice  in  the  Hall,  50  cents;  being  absent  from 
the  society's  weekly  meeting  without  sufficient  excuse,  casting  personal  reflections  on 
any  member,  not  paying  arrears  to  the  society  before  entering  at  the  commencement 
of  college,  $1.00;  playing  cards  (except  during  exams)   or  being  intoxicated,  $5.00. 

The  minutes  of  the  Dialectic  Society  and  the  society's  account  book  reveal  that 
William  H.  Polk  was  fined  frequently  from  August,  1833,  to  June,  1834,  and  while  no 
specific  descriptions  of  the  infractions  are  given  in  the  minutes,  the  attendance  books 
for  prayers  and  classes  indicate  that  for  one  or  both  he  was  absent  or  tardy  many 
times.  At  the  society's  meeting  of  May  28,  1834,  William  and  three  others  were  re- 
ported for  intoxication  and  fined  $5.00;  at  the  next  meeting,  however,  on  June  4,  1834, 
all  four  of  the  fines  were  repealed. 

At  the  March  5,  1834,  meeting  of  the  society,  William  Polk  and  William  Hooper 
were  chosen  for  vacancies  on  the  library  committee;  on  March  26,  1834,  William  and 


202  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

you  will  send  it  on  to  me  when  you  send  me  the  money  to  pay  my  tuition 
board  et  cetera  which  will  amount  to  $101.00  including  the  fifteen  dollars 
for  the  Society  which  you  must  send  on  as  soon  as  you  can  conveintly 
[sic~\.  I  received  a  letter  from  Samuel  and  he  said  all  was  well  and  the 
Jackson  College28  had  166  scollars.  Give  my  love  to  sister  Sarah  and  tell 
her  she  must  excuse  me  for  not  writing  to  her — and  I  will  give  her  my 
reasons  for  not  doing  so  in  a  letter  before  long. 

P.S.  I  would  not  request  you  to  send  me  the  $15  for  the  society  if  I  could 
dispence  with  it  on  any  terms. 


James  K.  Polk  and  James  Walker  to  William  H.  Polk29 

Washington,  April  16,  1834 

Dear  William 

We  have  consulted  together  much,  and  anxiously  endeavored  to  come  to 
a  conclusion  in  relation  to  you  that  we  hope  may  have  a  beneficial  influence 
on  you  now  &  on  your  destiny  through  life.  In  reading  over  your  letters  it  is 
painful  to  perceive  that  your  whole  mind  seems  to  be  ingrossed  to  effect 
the  object  of  getting  money.  We  unfortunately  too  perceive  that  you  seem 

George  Polk  were  chosen  committeemen;  and  on  May  21,  1834,  William  was  elected  to 
the  office  of  censor-morum. 

The  Dialectic  and  Philanthropic  societies  each  provided  a  private  library  for  the  use 
of  its  members,  and  the  societies  competed  enthusiastically  in  the  matter  of  acquiring 
and  maintaining  the  largest  number  of  books.  Not  only  were  society  funds  used  to 
finance  the  purchase  and  binding  of  books,  the  members  took  it  upon  themselves 
individually  and  in  groups  to  donate  books  to  the  society's  library.  Among  the  titles 
contributed  to  the  Dialectic  Society  library  by  William,  alone  or  with  others,  were  the 
novels,  Delaware  or  the  Ruined  Family  and  Emma;  a  nine-volume  set  of  Hume's 
History  of  England;  and  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  Revolutionary  War. 

On  November  6,  1833,  William  Polk  was  assigned  to  open  a  debate  the  following 
week  in  the  affirmative  on  the  topic,  "Is  the  Salic  Law  Either  Wise  or  Just?,"  and 
Hamilton  Hargrove  was  instructed  to  take  the  opposing  side.  The  debate  was  postponed 
at  the  next  meeting  in  order  that  the  members  might  hear  a  reading  of  the  laws,  and 
there  is  no  indication  in  the  minutes  that  the  debate  was  ever  held  and,  if  so,  whether 
the  vote  was  in  the  affirmative  or  the  negative. 

The  society's  account  book  shows  that  William  made  a  payment  of  $15.00  on  January 
30,  1834,  and  that  when  he  left  the  campus  in  June,  1834,  he  still  had  a  debit  balance 
of  $4.56. 

See  Dialectic  Society  Papers  (Minutes,  Treasurers'  Reports,  Addresses,  Dues  Book, 
By-Laws),  Southern  Historical  Collection;  Hallie  S.  McLean,  "The  History  of  the 
Dialectic  Society,  1795-1860  (unpublished  master's  thesis,  University  of  North  Carolina 
at  Chapel  Hill,  1950),  passim. 

28  Samuel  Washington  Polk  was  the  youngest  child  of  Samuel  and  Jane  Knox  Polk. 
He  died  in  February,  1839,  at  the  age  of  twenty-one.  Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North 
Carolina  and  Tennessee"   (1923),  221-223. 

In  1829  the  Manual  Labor  Academy,  located  in  Maury  County,  was  granted  a  char- 
ter by  the  state  legislature.  It  opened  in  1830  at  a  location  about  two  miles  south  of 
Spring  Hill.  In  1833,  when  the  school  moved  to  another  location,  its  name  was  changed 
to  Jackson  College.  Finally  in  1836  the  school  was  moved  to  Columbia,  where  it  re- 
mained until  it  was  destroyed  by  fire  in  1863.  In  1848  the  Masonic  lodges  of  Maury 
County  took  over  the  management  of  the  school.  Turner,  Maury  County,  129-130. 

29  James  K.  Polk  and  James  Walker  were  brothers-in-law  and  coexecutors  of  Samuel 
Polk's  estate.  This  letter,  written  in  Walker's  hand,  is  probably  a  copy  of  the  original. 


William  H.  Polk  Goes  to  School  203 

to  think  that  the  money  you  ask  for  is  your  own,  and  that  you  have  a  right 
to  do  as  you  please  with  it,  and  pledge  yourself  to  account  fully  when  you 
are  of  age.  It  is  true  that  if  we  were  to  yield  to  your  wishes  we  would  be 
but  permitting  you  to  spend  your  own  money,  but  we  should  violate  a  most 
sacred  duty,  which  we  owe  you,  our  own  family  reputation,  and  betray 
the  confidence  reposed  in  us  by  your  father.  You  may  think  this  strange 
language — it  is  nevertheless  true,  and  if  you  come  to  be  the  man  we  yet 
hope  you  will,  in  after  life  you  will  be  satisfied  that  the  course  we  find  it 
necessary  and  our  duty  now  to  pursue,  although  it  causes  you  present 
mortification,  is  the  only  one  calculated  to  promote  your  real  interests  and 
to  make  you  a  valuable  man.  You  have  strength  of  mind  and  talents  to 
make  you  an  ornament  to  our  family,  if  your  energies  and  faculties  are 
properly  applied  and  directed.  It  is  with  pain  we  perceive  that  your  whole 
mind  seems  to  be  engaged  in  extravagant  desires  to  spend  money  and  from 
the  amount  you  request  to  pay  off  your  debts,  we  fear  that  you  are  getting 
into  habits  that  must  inevitably  destroy  you. 

We  have  upon  deliberation  concluded  upon  a  course  that  imperious  duty 
and  necessity  rend  us  necessary  to  pursue  towards  you.  We  propose  to  in- 
form you  what  that  course  is,  and  to  assure  you  that  we  are  unalterably 
determined  to  adhere  to  it — we  will  endeavor  to  do  you  all  the  kindness 
we  can  until  you  come  of  age — then  what  you  are  to  be  depends  on  your- 
self. 

In  the  first  place  then  we  yield  to  your  wishes  to  leave  Chappel  Hill  at 
the  end  of  the  present  session,30  and  go  to  Nashville,  there  enter  College 
regularly  with  a  view  to  graduate  at  that  or  some  other  good  institution — 
as  to  money  we  will  be  rigid,  we  will  under  no  circumstances  permit  you 
to  have  more  than  $300  pr  year— which  must  pay  for  your  education,  and 
all  expenses — our  own  experience  satisfies  us  that  this  amount  of  money  is 
sufficient  to  render  your  appearance  genteel  and  you  in  every  way  comfort- 
able. This  sum  will  be  annually  furnished  you  by  Mr.  Walker  in  such  man- 
ner as  you  may  need,  and  will  you  may  rely  on  it  not  be  exceeded.  As  we 
deem  this  amount  sufficient,  and  that  more  would  be  injurious  to  you,  we 
shall  take  pains  to  prevent  your  mother  from  letting  you  have  even  a  cent 
and  all  others  from  advancing  with  a  hope  of  your  repaying  when  of  age. 
We  have  also  consulted  upon  the  propriety  of  paying  your  present  debts  in 
North  Carolina  incurred  without  our  sanction,  and  have  concluded  not  to 
do  so31 — your  creditors  must  wait  until  you  are  of  age,  and  then  depend  on 
your  honor — we  are  aware  that  this  decision  will  be  mortifying  to  you,  but 
it  is  one  produced  by  painful  necessity.  If  mortification,  and  want  of  money 
will  alone  teach  you  the  proper  use  and  value  of  money  and  time  we  must 
inflict  the  pain.  When  you  left  Tennessee  for  North  Carolina  we  informed 
you  that  we  could  not  sanction  or  furnish  the  means  of  spending  more 


30  A  local  resident  of  Chapel  Hill  reported  that  William  left  about  the  middle  of 
June,  1834.  See  letter  from  Benton  Utley  to  James  K.  Polk,  February  6,  1835,  quoted 
in  McPherson,  "Letters  to  Polk,"  191. 

31  At  least  one  Chapel  Hill  merchant  suffered  because  of  this  decision.  In  a  letter 
to  James  K.  Polk  dated  February  6,  1835,  Benson  Utley  complained  that  William's 
account  had  been  running  since  March,  1833,  and  that  William  had  not  remitted  the 
balance  of  $125.99  upon  reaching  Nashville  as  he  had  promised.  See  McPherson,  "Let- 
ters to  Polk,"  191. 


204  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

than  $250 — which  we  considered  sufficient  for  a  decent  support  with  proper 
care  at  the  school  at  Hillsborough.  If  when  we  lay  down  rules  of  ex- 
penditure, you  totally  disregard  our  wishes  and  injunctions  mortifica- 
tions arrives  [?]  to  us  all  it  must  be  borne.  And  your  pledge  to  pay  all 
excess  honorably  when  of  age  does  not  relieve  us  of  the  duty  to  withhold 
the  means  of  your  destruction.  You  may  think  it  strange  that  we  say  that 
furnishing  you  money  agreeably  to  your  wishes  would  destroy  you — but 
the  fact  is  so,  if  you  were  furnished  money  freely,  or  your  contracted  debts 
paid — the  time  you  ought  to  employ  in  hard  study  would  be  taken  up  in 
extravigance  [sic]  and  frolic  &  the  acquisition  of  destructive  habits. 

We  fondly  hope  that  you  will  yet  live  to  see  the  day,  when  by  the  salu- 
tary influence  of  the  rigid  course  we  have  deemed  it  our  duty  to  pursue, 
you  will  have  arrived  at  a  station  in  society,  to  feel  the  benefit  of  it  and 
properly  appreciate  our  motives. 

The  sequel  to  the  story  revealed  in  these  letters  must  be  told  briefly. 
William  later  graduated  from  the  University  of  Tennessee  and  was 
admitted  to  the  bar  at  Columbia,  Tennessee,  in  1839.  He  became  a 
prominent  lawyer  m  Columbia  and  represented  Maury  County  in 
the  lower  house  of  the  General  Assembly  for  two  terms,  1841-1845. 
On  March  13,  1845,  President  Polk  made  his  first  three  diplomatic 
appointments,  one  of  which  went  to  William  as  charge  d'affaires  to  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies.32  He  resigned  that  post  in  1847  and 
served  in  the  Mexican  War  as  a  major  in  the  Third  Dragoons.  After- 
ward William  resumed  his  law  practice  in  Columbia  and  won  a  con- 
gressional seat  in  1851.  He  served  one  term  in  the  House  and  returned 
to  Tennessee.  In  1861  he  made  an  unsuccessful  bid  against  Isham 
Harris  for  the  governor's  chair.  William  was  married  three  times,  his 
third  wife  having  been  Lucy  Eugenia  Williams  of  Warren  County.33 
Death  came  in  December,  1862,  at  the  age  of  forty-seven,  thirty  years 
after  he  entered  Mr.  Bingham's  school  at  Hillsborough.  William  H. 
Polk  was  the  last  surviving  son  of  Samuel  and  Jane  Knox  Polk. 


34 


83  "Credences,   1789-1906,"  III,   116,   123,   Department  of   State,   Record    Group   59, 
National   Archives,  Washington,   D.C. 

"Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee"   (1924),  48-49. 
3*Angelotti,  "The  Polks  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee"   (1923),  221-223. 


NORTH  CAROLINA  BIBLIOGRAPHY,  1965-1966 1 

By  William  S.  Powell* 

Bibliography  and  Libraries 

EBERT,  MYRL.  An  introduction  to  the  literature  of  the  medical  sciences. 
Chapel  Hill :  University  of  North  Carolina  Book  Exchange,  1965.  106p. 
$3.00. 

Philosophy  and  Religion 

ASBURY,  FRANCIS.  Francis  Asbury  in  North  Carolina,  the  North  Caro- 
lina portions  of  the  Journal  of  Francis  Asbury,  with  introductory  notes 
by  Grady  L.  E.  Carroll.  Nashville,  Tenn. :  Parthenon  Press,  1965.  300p. 
$3.75. 

BRADLEY,  DAVID  G.  Circles  of  faith.  New  York:  Abingdon  Press,  1966. 
239p.  $4.50. 

CLELAND,  JAMES  T.  He  died  as  He  lived,  meditations  on  the  seven  words 
from  the  Cross.  New  York :  Abingdon  Press,  1966.  79p.  $2.00. 

GATEWOOD,  WILLARD  B.,  JR.  Preachers,  pedagogues  &  politicians,  the 
evolution  controversy  in  North  Carolina,  1920-1927.  Chapel  Hill:  Uni- 
versity of  North  Carolina  Press  1966.  268p.  $5.95. 

GRAHAM,  WILLIAM  FRANKLIN.  World  aflame  [by]  Billy  Graham. 
Garden  City,  N.Y.:  Doubleday,  1965.  267p.  $3.95. 

HILLSBOROUGH  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  One  hundred  and  fifty 
years  of  service,  1816-1966.  Hillsborough:  Hillsborough  Presbyterian 
Church,  1966.  28p.  Free. 

JOHANSSON,  CATHERINE  B.  Concepts  of  freedom  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. New  York :  Vantage  Press,  1965.  92p.  $2.50. 

KELLAM,  IDA  BROOKS.  St.  James  Church,  Wilmington,  North  Carolina, 
historical  records,  1737-1852,  by  Ida  Brooks  Kellam  and  Elizabeth 
Francenia  McKby.  Wilmington:   [Compilers?],  1965.  158p.  $10.00. 

LACY,  CREIGHTON,  editor.  Christianity  amid  rising  men  and  nations. 
New  York:  Association  Press,  1965.  192p.  $2.25. 

LOEB,  BEN  F.,  JR.  ABC  officers'  guide  to  regulation  of  intoxicating 
liquors  in  North  Carolina.  Chapel  Hill :  Institute  of  Government,  1965. 
52p.  $1.00. 

McCURDY,  HAROLD  GRIER.  Personality  and  science,  a  search  for  self- 
awareness.  Princeton,  N.J. :  Van  Nostrand,  1965.  151p.  $1.45. 


1  Books  dealing  with  North  Carolina  or  by  North  Carolinians  published  during  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1966. 

*  Mr.  Powell  is  librarian  of  the  North  Carolina  Collection,  University  of  North 
Carolina  Library,  Chapel  Hill. 


206  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

SHRIVER,  DONALD  W.,  editor.  The  unsilent  South,  prophetic  preaching 
in  racial  crisis.  Richmond :  John  Knox  Press,  1965.  169p.  $2.25. 

WALLACE,  LILLIAN  PARKER.  Leo  XIII  and  the  rise  of  socialism.  Dur- 
ham :  Duke  University  Press,  1966.  464p.  $10.00. 


Economics  and  Sociology 

ASHMAN,  ALLAN.  Enforcing  municipal  ordinances  in  North  Carolina. 

Chapel  Hill:  Institute  of  Government,  1966.  50p.  $2.50. 
EAST,    JOHN    PORTER.    Council-manager    government,    the    political 

thought  of  its  founder,  Richard  S.  Childs.  Chapel  Hill:  University  of 

North  Carolina  Press,  1965.  183p.  $4.50. 
FISHER,  BEN  COLEMAN.  A  manual  for  college  trustees.  Raleigh :  Coun- 
cil on  Christian  Education,  Baptist  State  Convention,  1965.  67p.  $2.50. 
GIL,  FEDERICO  GUILLERMO.  The  political  system  of  Chile.  Boston: 

Houghton  Mifflin,  1966.  323p.  $4.95. 
GOLDEN,  HARRY  LEWIS.  A  little  girl  is  dead.  Cleveland,  Ohio:  World 

Publishing  Co.,  1965.  363p.  $5.00. 
HOOVER,  CALVIN  BRYCE.  Memoirs  of  capitalism,  communism,  and 

nazism.  Durham:  Duke  University  Press,  1965.  302p.  $8.50. 
HUNTER,  FLOYD.  The  big  rich  and  the  little  rich.  Garden  City,  N.  Y. : 

Doubleday,  1965.  181p.  $4.50. 
KWEDER,  B.  JAMES.  The  roles  of  the  manager,  mayor,  and  councilmen 

in  policy  making:  A  study  of  twenty-one  North  Carolina  cities.  Chapel 

Hill :  Institute  of  Government,  1965.  138p.  $2.50. 
LARKINS,  JOHN  RODMAN.  Alcohol  and  the  Negro,  explosive  issues. 

Zebulon:  Record  Publishing  Co.,  1965.  251p.  $5.00. 
LEWIS,  HENRY  WILKINS.  The  property  tax,  an  introduction  for  North 

Carolina  mayors  and  councilmen.  Chapel  Hill:  Institute  of  Government, 

1965.  lOlp.  Free. 
LOGAN,  ANDY.  The  man  who  robbed  the  robber  barons.  New  York: 

W.  W.  Norton,  1965.  260p.  $4.75. 
McKINNEY,  JOHN   C,  editor.   The   South  in  continuity  and  change, 

edited  by  John  C.  McKinney  and  Edgar  T.  Thompson.  Durham:  Duke 

University  Press,  1965.  511p.  $10.00. 
MARKHAM,  ALLAN  W.  Pupil  transportation  in  North  Carolina.  Chapel 

Hill:  Institute  of  Government,  1966.  24p.  $1.00. 
PHAY,  ROBERT  E.  Eminent  domain  powers  for  cities  and  counties. 

Chapel  Hill:  Institute  of  Government,  1966.  48p.  $1.00. 
RANKIN,  HUGH  FRANKLIN.  Criminal  trial  proceedings  in  the  General 

Court  of  Colonial  Virginia.  Williamsburg,  Va. :  Colonial  Williamsburg, 

1965.  240p.  $3.00. 
RICHARDSON,  WILLIAM  PERRY.  The  handicapped  children  of  Ala- 
mance County,  North  Carolina,  a  medical  and  sociological  study  by 

William  P.  Richardson  and  A.  C.  Higgins,  in  collaboration  with  Richard 

G.  Ames.  Wilmington,  Del. :  Nemours  Foundation,  1965.  157p. 


North  Carolina  Bibliography  207 

SANFORD,  TERRY.  But  what  about  the  people?  New  York:  Harper  & 
Row,  1966.  172p.  $4.50. 

SCOTT,  ANDREW  M.,  and  Margaret  A.  Hunt.  Congress  and  lobbies, 
image  and  reality.  Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press, 
1966.  106p.  $4.50. 

TATE,  THADDEUS  W.  The  Negro  in  eighteenth-century  Williamsburg. 
Williamsburg,  Va. :  Colonial  Williamsburg,  1965.  256p.  $3.00. 

WICKER,  WARREN  JAKE.  Arrangements  for  water  and  sewerage  ser- 
vices. Chapel  Hill :  Institute  of  Government,  1966.  HOp.  $2.00. 

WITT,  RAYMOND  H.  It  ain't  been  easy,  Charlie.  New  York:  Pageant 
Press,  Inc.,  1965.  105p.  $2.75. 

Science 

CLAYTON,  JOHN.  The  Reverend  John  Clayton,  a  parson  with  a  scientific 
mind,  his  scientific  writings  and  other  related  papers,  edited,  with  a 
short  biographical  sketch  by  Edmund  Berkeley  and  Dorothy  Smith 
Berkeley.  Charlottesville,  Va. :  University  Press  of  Virginia,  1965.  170p. 
$6.50. 

HERRING,  ETHEL.  About  turtles  and  things— near  Fort  Caswell.  Win- 
ston-Salem: Author,  1965.  40p. 

STUCKEY,  JASPER  LEONIDAS.  North  Carolina,  its  geology  and  min- 
eral resources.  Raleigh :  Department  of  Conservation  and  Development, 
1965.  550p.  $5.00. 

Applied  Science  and  Useful  Arts 
KELLY,  PHILIP  J.  The  making  of  a  salesman.  New  York:   Abelard- 

Schuman,  1965.  241p.  $5.00. 
WASHBURN,  BENJAMIN  EARLE.  A  history  of  the  North  Carolina 

State   Board   of   Health,    1877-1925.    Raleigh:    North    Carolina   State 

Board  of  Health,  1966.  102p.  Free. 

Fine  Arts 

CRAIG,  JAMES  H.  The  arts  and  crafts  of  North  Carolina,  1699-1840. 
Winston-Salem :  Museum  of  Early  Southern  Decorative  Arts,  Old  Salem, 
Inc.,  1965.  480p.  $8.00. 

MARKMAN,  SIDNEY  DAVID.  Colonial  architecture  of  Antigua  Guate- 
mala. Philadelphia :  American  Philosophical  Society,  1966.  335p.  $10.00. 

STIPE,  ROBERT  E.  Perception  and  environment :  Foundations  of  urban 
design,  proceedings  of  a  1962  seminar  on  urban  design.  Chapel  Hill: 
Institute  of  Government,  1966.  lllp.  $2.50. 

THOMPSON,  DOROTHEA  SCHNIBBEN.  Creative  decorations  with  dried 
flowers.  New  York :  Hearthside  Press,  1965.  125p.  $6.95. 

Poetry 
BALLANCE,  MILFORD  R.  Poems,  words  of  wisdom.  [Raleigh:  Edwards 
&  Broughton,  1965].  84p.  $3.00. 


208  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

CHUNN,  LEONA  HAYES.  Rouse  with  the  dawn.   Birmingham,   Ala.: 

Banner  Press,  1965.  60p.  $3.00. 
DENNY,  ROBERT  EVANS.  A  triangle  of  life,  poems.  New  York :  Expo- 
sition Press,  1965.  64p.  $3.00. 
GARNER,  EDWARD  DIXON.  For  all  the  lost  and  lonely.   [No  place:] 

Poetry  Council  of  North  Carolina,  1965.  54p.  $2.95. 
KAUFFMAN,  DOROTHY  BELL.  The  inheritance  of  my  fathers,  poems 

of  North  Carolina  and  others.  New  York:  Vantage  Press,  1965.  70p. 

$2.50. 
MANNING,  BILL.  Poems,  booklet  one.    [Windsor:   Gatling  &  Gatling, 

1966.]  20p.  $1.00. 
MERCHANT,  FRANCIS.  Symbol  and  fantasy,  plays  and  poems.  Fayette- 

ville :  College  Press,  1965.  126p. 
NIXON,  SALLIE.  Surely,  goodness  and  mercy.  Stanley:  Author,  1965. 

45p. 
NORTH  CAROLINA  POETRY  SOCIETY.  Award  winning  poems,  1964- 

1965.  Burlington:  N.C.  Poetry  Society,  1965.  29p.  $1.00. 
Past  the  flame  of  words.  Burlington:  Poetry  Society  Books, 

1965.  29p.  $1.00. 

RAMSEY,  PAUL.  In  an  ordinary  place.  Raleigh :  Southern  Poetry  Review 

Press,  1965.  43p.  $1.25. 
SCHORR,  LAURA  HOWELL.  In  company,  poems  for  devotional  use.  New 

York:  Exposition  Press,  1965.  69p.  $3.00. 
STEM,  THAD,  JR.2  Spur  line.  Charlotte:  McNally  and  Loftin,  Publisher, 

1966.  84p.  $4.00. 

STOFFEL,  BETTY  W.  Splendid  moments.  Richmond :  John  Knox  Press, 
1965.  64p.  $2.00. 

Drama 

GREEN,  PAUL  ELIOT.  Cross  and  sword,  a  symphonic  drama  of  the 
Spanish  settlement  of  Florida.  New  York :  Samuel  French,  1966.  107p. 

Fiction3 

BARNWELL,  D.  ROBINSON.  Head  into  the  wind.  New  York :  D.  McKay 

Co.,  1965.  247p.  $4.50. 
BELL,  THELMA  HARRINGTON.  A  dash  of  pepper.  New  York:  Viking 

Press,  1965.  159p.  $3.50. 
BETTS,  DORIS.  The  astronomer,  and  other  stories.  New  York :  Harper  & 

Row,  1965.  242p.  $5.95. 
CARROLL,  RUTH  ROBINSON.  What  Whiskers  did.  New  York:  H.  Z. 

Walck,  1965.  Unpaged.  $3.00. 
CHAPPELL,  FRED.  The  inkling.  New  York:  Harcourt,  Brace  &  World, 

1965.  153p.  $3.95. 


2  Winner  of  the  Roanoke-Chowan  Award  for  poetry,  1966. 

8By  a  North  Carolinian  or  with  the  scene  laid  in  North  Carolina. 


North  Carolina  Bibliography  209 

DAVIS,  BURKE.  The  summer  land.  New  York:  Random  House,  1965. 
242p.  $4.95. 

DAVIS,  PAXTON.  One  of  the  dark  places.  New  York:  Morrow,  1965. 
342p.  $4.95. 

DYKEMAN,  WILMA.  The  far  family.  New  York:  Holt,  Rinehart  and 
Winston.  1966.  372p.  $5.95. 

FARRAR,  ROWENA  RUTHERFORD.  Bend  your  heads  all.  New  York: 
Holt,  Rinehart  and  Winston,  1965.  288p.  $5.95. 

FLORA,  JOSEPH  M.  Vardis  Fisher.  New  York:  Twayne  Publishers, 
1965.  158p.  $1.95. 

GREEN,  LEWIS  W.  The  year  of  the  swan.  Asheville:  Author,  1966.  29p. 
$3.50. 

HOFFMANN,  MARGARET  JONES.  A  forest  of  feathers,  by  Peggy  Hoff- 
mann. New  York :  Harcourt,  Brace  &  World,  1966.  181p.  $3.95. 

HYMAN,  MAC.  Take  now  thy  son.  New  York:  Random  House,  1965.  240p. 
$4.95. 

LINNEY,  ROMULUS.  Slowly,  by  thy  hand  unfurled.  New  York:  Har- 
court, Brace  &  World,  1965.  214p.  $4.50. 

MILLER,  HEATHER  ROSS.4  Tenants  of  the  house.  New  York:  Harcourt, 
Brace  &  World,  1966.  119p.  $3.75. 

PRICE,  REYNOLDS.  A  generous  man.  New  York :  Atheneum,  1966.  275p. 
$4.95. 

RUARK,  ROBERT  CHESTER.  The  honey  badger.  New  York :  McGraw- 
Hill,  1965.  569p.  $6.50. 

SLAUGHTER,  FRANK  GILL.  Constantine:  The  miracle  of  the  flaming 
cross.  Garden  City,  N.Y. :  Doubleday,  1965.  430p.  $5.95. 

TYLER,  ANNE.  The  tin  can  tree.  New  York:  Knopf,  1965.  273p.  $4.95. 

WELLMAN,  MANLY  WADE.  Battle  at  Bear  Paw  Gap.  New  York: 
Washburn,  1966.  184p.  $3.75. 

Mystery  at  Bear  Paw  Gap.  New  York :  Washburn,  1965.  179p. 

$3.50. 

WERTENBAKER,  LAEL  TUCKER.  The  afternoon  women.  Boston:  Lit- 
tle, Brown,  1966.  312p.  $4.95. 

Literature,  Other  Than  Poetry,  Drama,  or  Fiction 

BREWER,  JOHN  MASON.  Worser  days  and  better  times,  the  folklore  of 

the  North  Carolina  Negro.   Chicago:   Quadrangle  Books,   1965.   192p. 

$5.00. 
GASKIN,  JAMES  R.  A  language  reader  for  writers  by  James  R.  Gaskin 

and  Jack  Suberman.  Englewood  Cliffs,  N.J. :  Prentice-Hall,  1966.  251p. 

$2.95. 
HARDISON,  OSBORNE  BENNETT,  JR.  Christian  rite  and  Christian 

drama  in  the  Middle  Ages,  essays  in  the  origin  and  early  history  of 

modern  drama.  Baltimore:  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  1965.  328p.  $7.50. 
HARRIS,  WILLIAM  OLIVER.  Skelton's  Magnyfycence  and  the  cardinal 

virtue  tradition.  Chapel  Hill :  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1965. 

177p.  $5.00. 


*  Winner  of  the  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  Award  for  fiction,  1966. 


210  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

HARTLEY,  LODWICK  CHARLES.  Laurence  Sterne  in  the  twentieth 
century.  Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1966.  189p. 
$5.00. 

HUBBELL,  JAY  BROADUS.  South  and  Southwest,  literary  essays  and 
reminiscences.  Durham:  Duke  University  Press,  1965.  369p.  $10.00. 

MARTIN,  LISTER  ALLEN.  Wayside  reflections.  Lexington :  Green  Print- 
ing Co.,  1966.  96p.  $1.50. 

MITCHELL,  JOSEPH.  Joe  Gould's  secret.  New  York :  Viking  Press,  1965. 
181p.  $4.50. 

NASH,  LOU  A.  The  crewcut.  New  York :  Vantage  Press,  1966.  151p.  $3.75. 

PATTERSON,  DANIEL  W.,  editor.  Folklore  studies  in  honor  of  Arthur 
Palmer  Hudson.  Chapel  Hill:  North  Carolina  Folklore  Society,  1965. 
157p.  $3.00. 

Genealogy 

DUNSTAN,  EDYTHE  SMITH,  compiler.  The  Bertie  index,  for  courthouse 
records  of  Bertie  County,  North  Carolina,  1720-1874.  Windsor: 
[Author?],  1966.  Unpaged.  $25.00. 

HARDEE,  DAVID  LYDDALL.  The  Eastern  North  Carolina  Hardy- 
Hardee  family  in  the  South  and  Southwest.  [Raleigh:  Author,  1965?] 
302p.  $6.00. 

HUMMEL,  ELIZABETH  HICKS.  Hicks  history  of  Granville  County, 
North  Carolina.  Oxford:  [Coble  Printing  Co.],  1965.  219p.  $15.00. 

History  and  Travel 

COULTER,  ELLIS  MERTON.  Old  Petersburg  and  the  Broad  River  Valley 
of  Georgia,  their  rise  and  decline.  Athens,  Ga. :  University  of  Georgia 
Press,  1965.  228p.  $6.00. 

CURTISS,  JOHN  SHELTON.  The  Russian  army  under  Nicholas  I,  1825- 
1855.  Durham:  Duke  University  Press,  1965.  386p.  $10.00. 

DURDEN,  ROBERT  FRANKLIN.  The  climax  of  populism,  the  election 
of  1896.  Lexington,  Ky. :  University  of  Kentucky  Press,  1965.  190p. 
$5.00. 

JOHNSON,  F.  ROY.  The  Nat  Turner  slave  insurrection.  Murf reesboro : 
Johnson  Publishing  Co.,  1966.  248p.  $6.50. 

LAMB,  SARAH  CHAFFEE.  Letters  from  the  colonel's  lady:  correspond- 
ence of  Mrs.  William  Lamb  written  from  Fort  Fisher,  N.C.,  C.S.A.,  to 
her  parents  in  Providence,  R.I.,  U.S.A.,  December  1861  to  January  1865, 
edited  by  Cornelius  M.  Dickinson  Thomas.  [Winnabow,  N.C. :  Charles 
Towne  Preservation  Trust,  1965].  97p.  $10.00. 

McPHERSON,  HOLT.  Round-the-world  report,  1965.  High  Point:  Phoeni- 
cian Press,  1965.  131p.  $1.50. 

MARSH,  KENNETH  FREDERICK.  Colonial  Bath,  North  Carolina's  old- 
est town.  [Asheville:  Biltmore  Press],  1966.  64p. 

MEDFORD,  W.  CLARK.  Land  o'  the  sky:  history-stories-sketches. 
Waynesville:  [Author?],  1965.  173p.  $5.25. 

MITCHELL,  MEMORY  FARMER.  Legal  aspects  of  conscription  and 
exemption  in  North  Carolina,  1861-1865.  Chapel  Hill:  University  of 
North  Carolina  Press,  1965.  103p.  $2.50. 


North  Carolina  Bibliography  211 

PENDER,  WILLIAM  DORSEY.  The  general  to  his  lady,  the  Civil  War 

letters  of  William  Dorsey  Pender  to  Fanny  Pender,  edited  by  William 

W.  Hassler.  Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,   1965. 

271p.  $6.00. 
POWELL,  WILLIAM  STEVENS.  North  Carolina.  New  York:  Franklin 

Watts,  1966.  92p.  $2.65. 
Paradise  preserved.  Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Caro- 
lina Press,  1965.  259p.  $4.75. 
ROSS,  MALCOLM  HARRISON.  The  Cape  Fear.  New  York :  Holt,  Rine- 

hart  and  Winston,  1965.  340p.  $7.00. 
RUTLEDGE,  WILLIAM  EDWARD,  JR.  An  illustrated  history  of  Yadkin 

County,  1850-1965.  [Yadkinville :  William  E.  Rutledge,  Jr.,  and  Max  O. 

Welborn,  1965.]  180p.  $4.50.  » 

SHARPE,  WILLIAM  P.  A  new  geography  of  North  Carolina.  Vol.  IV. 

Raleigh:  Sharpe  Publishing  Co.,  1965.  pp.  1681-2277.  $7.50. 
THOMASSON,  LILLIAN  FRANKLIN.  Swain  County,  early  history  and 

educational  development.  Bryson  City:  [Author?],  1965.  144p. 
WALSER,  RICHARD  GAITHER,  and  Julia  Montgomery  Street.5  North 

Carolina  parade,  stories  of  history  and  people.  Chapel  Hill :  University 

of  North  Carolina  Press,  1966.  209p.  $4.50. 
WANG,  YI  CHU.  Chinese  intellectuals  and  the  West,  1872-1949.  Chapel 

Hill :  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1966.  557p.  $10.00. 


Autobiography  and  Biography 

BAILEY,  HUGH  C.  Hinton  Rowan  Helper,  abolitionist-racist.  University, 

Ala. :  University  of  Alabama  Press,  1965.  256p.  $6.95. 
BAXTER,  STEPHEN  BARTOW.  William  III.  London :  Longmans,  1966. 

460p.  £3. 
BLYTHE,  LeGETTE.  Robert  Lee  Stowe,  pioneer  in  textiles.  Belmont, 

N.C.:  [Publisher  not  reported],  1965.  288p.  $4.95. 
DEWSNAP,  TERENCE.  Thomas  Wolfe's  Web  and  the  rock  and  You  can't 

go  home  again.  New  York:  Monarch  Press,  1965.  68p.  $1.00. 
KROLL,  HARRY  HARRISON.  Riders  in  the  night.  Philadelphia:  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  Press,  1965.  301p.  $6.00. 
LINK,  ARTHUR  S.  Wilson,  campaigns  for  progressivism  and  peace,  1916- 

1917.  Princeton,  N.J. :  Princeton  University  Press,  1965.  464p.  $8.50. 
MASTERSON,  WILLIAM  H.,  editor.  The  John  Gray  Blount  Papers.  Vol. 

III.  Raleigh:  State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  1965.  621p. 

$5.00. 
NIFONG,   DOROTHY   R.   Brethren  with   stethoscopes.   Winston-Salem: 

Hunter  Publishing  Co.,  1965.  57p. 
SEVERN,  WILLIAM.  In  Lincoln's  footsteps,  the  life  of  Andrew  Johnson, 

by  Bill  Severn.  New  York:  Washburn,  1966.  215p.  $3.59. 
TODD,  GLENN  HAYWOOD.  The  immortal  Nick  Arrington.  Chicago: 

Adams  Press,  1965.  190p.  $3.80. 


5  Winner  of  the  AAUW  Award  for  juvenile  literature,  1966. 


212  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

TUCKER,  GLENN.6  Zeb  Vance,  champion  of  personal  freedom.  Indiana- 
polis :  Bobbs-Merrill,  1966.  564p.  $8.50. 

VINING,  ELIZABETH  GRAY.  Flora,  a  biography.  Philadelphia :  Lippin- 
cott,  1966.  208p.  $4.95. 

ZUBER,  RICHARD  L.  Jonathan  Worth,  a  biography  of  a  Southern  Union- 
ist. Chapel  Hill :  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1965.  351p.  $7.50. 

New  Editions  and  Reprints 

BYRD,  WILLIAM.  Prose  works,  narratives  of  a  colonial  Virginian,  edited 
by  Louis  B.  Wright.  Cambridge,  Mass. :  Harvard  University  Press, 
1966.  438p.  $9.75. 

CLYDE,  PAUL  HIBBERT.  The  Far  East,  a  history  of  the  Western  im- 
pact and  the  Eastern  response,  1830-1965,  by  Paul  H.  Clyde  and  Burton 
F.  Beers.  Englewood  Cliffs,  N.J. :  Prentice-Hall,  1966.  511p.  $8.50. 

CRAVEN,  AVERY  ODELLE.  Edmund  Ruffin,  Southerner,  a  study  in 
secession.  Baton  Rouge,  La. :  Louisiana  State  University  Press,  1966. 
283p.  $1.95. 

DOUGLASS,  ELISHA  P.  Rebels  and  Democrats,  the  struggle  for  equal 
political  rights  and  majority  rule  during  the  American  Revolution. 
Chicago:  Quadrangle  Books,  1965.  368p.  $2.25. 

DRAUGHON,  WALLACE  R.  North  Carolina  genealogical  reference.  Dur- 
ham: Author,  1966.  571p.  $15.00. 

DYKEMAN,  WILMA.  The  French  Broad.  Knoxville :  University  of  Ten- 
nessee Press,  1965.  371p.  $5.50. 

EATON,  WILLIAM  CLEMENT.  A  history  of  the  Old  South.  New  York : 
Macmillan,  1966.  562p.  $8.95. 

GREEN,  PHILLIP  P.,  JR.  Planning  legislation  in  North  Carolina.  Chapel 
Hill :  Institute  of  Government,  1965.  Various  paging.  $2.00. 

GRIFFIN,  JESSE  C.  Special  services  arranged  for  ministers  and  others 
who  prefer  to  use  them  for  helpful  services.  [No  place:]  Free  Will  Bap- 
tist Press,  1965.  144p.  $1.25. 

HAAS,  BEN.  Look  away,  look  away.  New  York :  Pocket  Books,  1965.  534p. 
75^. 

HAMMER,  CARL.  Rhinelanders  on  the  Yadkin,  the  story  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Germans  in  Rowan  and  Cabarrus  Counties,  North  Carolina. 
[Salisbury:  Rowan  Printing  Co.?,  1965].  134p.  $5.00. 

JOHNSON,  GUION  GRIFFIS.  Ante-Bellum  North  Carolina.  Chapel  Hill: 
University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1965.  952p.  $8.50. 

LACY,  DAN  MABRY.  Freedom  and  communications.  Urbana :  University 
of  Illinois  Press,  1965.  108p.  95^. 

LEFLER,  HUGH  TALMAGE.  North  Carolina  history  told  by  contem- 
poraries. Chapel  Hill :  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1965.  580p. 
$7.50. 

LINK,  ARTHUR  S.  American  epoch,  a  history  of  the  United  States  since 
the  1890's.  New  York:  Knopf,  1966.  917p.  $9.00. 


6  Winner  of  the  Mayflower  Award,   1966. 


North  Carolina  Bibliography  213 

Wilson,  the  diplomatist,  a  look  at  his  major  foreign  policies. 

Chicago:  Quadrangle  Books,  1965.  165p.  $1.65. 

LINKER,  ROBERT  WHITE.  Aucassin  et  Nicolete.  Chapel  Hill :  Univer- 
sity of  North  Carolina  Press,  1965.  60p.  $2.50. 

MARSHALL,  EDISON.  The  lost  colony.  New  York:   Popular  Library, 
1965.  448p.  95^. 

PACE,  ELIZABETH.  County  salaries  in  North  Carolina.   Chapel  Hill: 
Institute  of  Government,  1966.  72p.  $1.00. 

PHILLIPS,  ANN  H.  Notary  public  guidebook.  Chapel  Hill :  Institute  of 
Government,  1965.  124p.  $3.00. 

RAY,  WORTH  STICKLEY.  Colonial  Granville  County  and  its  people. 
Baltimore:  Genealogical  Publishing  Co.,  1965.  pp.  193-312.  $7.50. 

SELLERS,  CHARLES  GRIER,  editor.  The  Southerner  as  American.  New 
York:  E.  P.  Dutton  &  Co.,  1966.  216p.  $1.45. 

SHEPPARD,  MURIEL  EARLEY.  Cabins  in  the  laurel.  Chapel  Hill :  Uni- 
versity of  North  Carolina  Press,  1965.  456p.  $5.95. 

SLAUGHTER,  FRANK  GILL.  Constantine :  The  miracle  of  the  flaming 
cross.  London:  Hutchinson,  1966.  415p.  30/. 

SMITH,  BETTY.  Maggie-Now.  New  York:  Harper  &  Row,  1966.  346p. 
95f 

Al  mattino  viene  la  gioia,  romanzo.  Verona,  Italy:  Arnoldo 

Mondadori,  1965.  381p.  L[ire]  2000. 

..  Tomorrow  will  be  better.  New  York:  Harper  &  Row,  1965. 


247p.  60f 

TYLER,  ANNE.  If  morning  ever  comes.  New  York:  Bantam  Books,  1965. 
184p.  60f 


BOOK  REVIEWS 

North  Carolina  in  Maps.  By  William  P.  Cumming.  (Raleigh:  Department 
of  Archives  and  History,  1966.  Brochure.  Pp.  36.  Fifteen  maps :  White 
1585  MS,  White-De  Bry  1590,  Mercator-Hondius  1606,  Comberford  1657 
MS,  Ogilby-Moxon  ca.  1672,  Moseley  1733,  Collet  1770,  Mouzon  1775, 
Price-Strother  1808,  MacRae-Brazier  1833,  Colton  1861,  Bachmann 
1861,  U.S.  Coast  Survey  1865,  Kerr-Cain  1882,  and  Post  Route  1896. 
$5.00.) 

This  valuable  and  attractive  contribution  is  certain  to  appeal  to  an 
extremely  large  and  varied  audience.  It  consists  of  a  handsome  set  of 
fifteen  large  facsimile  maps  varying  in  size  from  12&"  x  15%"  to 
35/T  x  17/s",  printed  singly  on  heavy  parchment-like  paper,  plus  a 
well-illustrated  and  meticulously  documented  explanatory  essay.  The 
maps,  described  as  "a  series  of  maps  significant  to  the  history  of  North 
Carolina,"  were  selected  by  Dr.  William  P.  Cumming,  who  also  pre- 
pared the  accompanying  explanatory  essay. 

Dr.  Cumming  is  regarded  internationally  as  the  foremost  expert  on 
the  historical  cartography  of  the  Southeast,  having  authored  The 
Southeast  in  Early  Maps  as  well  as  numerous  articles  on  the  subject. 
He  has  chosen  wisely  and  well  from  the  vast  number  of  maps  which 
are  illustrative  of  phases  of  North  Carolina's  rich  historical  develop- 
ment. The  reader  is  led  through  the  centuries  beginning  with  the  six- 
teenth, when  the  lineaments  of  the  New  World  were  still  matters  of 
conjecture,  to  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  when  "every  part  of  [North 
Carolina]  had  been  not  only  explored  but  also  surveyed  and  mapped" 
by  a  most  well-informed  and  eloquent  guide. 

Only  a  person  with  Dr.  Cumming's  broad  knowledge  of  North 
Carolina's  historical  cartography  could  have  brought  together  such  a 
representative  and  valuable  set  of  maps  of  the  state.  His  many  years 
of  wide-ranging  research  have  not  only  led  him  to  the  most  crucial  of 
the  early  maps,  it  has  also  equipped  him  to  select  those  extant  copies 
which  were  in  the  best  physical  condition  for  reproduction.  As  a  re- 
sult, the  quality  of  the  facsimiles  is  as  near  perfect  as  possible. 

While  of  more  modest  dimensions,  the  paperbound  book,  North 
Carolina  in  Maps,  which  accompanies  and  explains  the  maps,  is  no 


Book  Reviews  215 

less  valuable.  It  is  here  that  the  reader  perceives  the  author's  abundant 
expertise.  Dr.  Cumming  provides  a  brief  but  essential  introductory 
essay  which  reviews  the  highlights  of  the  discovery,  exploration,  and 
mapping  of  that  part  of  the  New  World  which  became  North  Carolina. 
Following  this  introduction  is  a  series  of  short  discussions  devoted  to 
each  of  the  fifteen  maps  in  the  series.  These  discussions  are  rich  sources 
of  information  which  help  to  insure  a  clear  understanding  and  appre- 
ciation of  the  maps.  The  book  and  maps  together  form  a  source  of 
inestimable  value  to  all  who  are  interested  in  North  Carolina's  history 
whether  schoolchildren,  laymen,  scholars,  or  professional  historians. 
In  addition,  the  maps  should  find  wide  favor  as  interesting  and  at- 
tractive wall  decorations  admirably  suited  for  framing. 

Louis  De  Vorsey,  Jr. 

University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


Josephus  Daniels:  The  Small-d  Democrat.  By  Joseph  L.  Morrison.  (Chapel 
Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1966.  Illustrations,  notes, 
index.  Pp.  xvi,  316.  $7.50.) 

A  generation  reaching  maturity  over  the  past  twenty-odd  years  may 
not  recall  just  how  large  a  figure  Josephus  Daniels  cut  on  the  na- 
tional scene  in  his  heyday.  This  reviewer  as  a  youngster  once  proudly 
named  his  dog  for  the  great  secretary  who  did  so  much  to  democratize 
the  Navy.  Here  was  a  man  to  reckon  with.  He  was  indeed  a  thorough- 
going small-d  democrat,  the  living  embodiment  of  a  small-town  pro- 
gressive. What  made  him  remarkable  was  the  way  he  carried  his 
egalitarianism  and  his  moral  fervor  to  the  federal  arena  and  applied 
them  there  with  consistency  and  often  with  success. 

As  a  representative  progressive,  Josephus  Daniels  can  be  studied 
with  much  profit  and  no  little  pleasure.  Joseph  Morrison,  professor  of 
journalism  at  the  University  of  North  Carolina,  has  written  an  easy- 
to-read  study  that  successfully  captures  his  man— as  impoverished  son 
of  a  Civil  War  widow,  editor  of  the  Raleigh  News  and  Observer,  Dem- 
ocratic party  committeeman,  Woodrow  Wilson's  Secretary  of  Navy, 
Franklin  D.  Roosevelt's  longtime  friend  and  ambassador  to  Mexico. 

To  be  sure,  one  may  fault  the  volume.  Morrison  tends  to  measure 
all  men  by  Daniels'  yardstick.  If  they  disagree— Admirals  Fiske  and 
Sims,  for  example— they  appear  in  largely  negative  terms.  Moreover, 
the  author  is  inclined  to  minimize  Daniels'  more  notable  instances  of 


216  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

shortsightedness,  underplaying  if  not  excusing  his  disgraceful  role  in 
the  Wilmington  race  riots,  his  failure  to  grasp  the  implications  of 
aviation  for  seapower,  and  his  "our-country-right-or-wrong"  isolation- 
ism prior  to  World  War  II.  But  against  these  flaws  must  be  set  major 
assets.  If  the  book  never  goes  far  below  the  surface  on  any  single 
issue,  one  must  recall  that  the  author  offers  a  convenient  one-volume 
survey  in  competition  with  his  own  earlier  and  more  specialized  book 
as  well  as  Daniels'  multivolume  memoirs.  Despite  the  compression, 
a  significant  portrait  emerges.  The  reader  sees  a  man  who  continues 
to  grow  throughout  his  long  career.  Abandoning  his  earlier  bigotry, 
by  1925  he  was  couragously  resisting  the  KKK  and  fighting  against  an 
antievolution  statute  for  North  Carolina.  He  is  seen  as  a  realistic  poli- 
tical leader;  though  a  lifelong  dry,  he  abandoned  a  lost-cause  liquor 
referendum  in  return  for  wet  votes  in  favor  of  the  nine-month  school 
term  he  had  fought  so  hard  to  secure.  Daniels  is  portrayed  as  a  fair- 
minded  prolabor  editor  whose  employees  accepted  him  as  an  arbi- 
trator in  a  wage  dispute  with  his  own  newspaper.  Above  all,  one  sees 
an  old-fashioned  editor  who  had  a  conscious  political  philosophy  and 
acted  upon  it.  As  he  himself  put  it,  "righteous  wrath"  is  essential  to 
editorial  influence;  if  columnists  flourish,  it  is  only  because  "editors 
are  lazy." 

I.   B.   Holley,   Jr. 
Duke  University 

Colonial  South  Carolina:  A  Political  History,  1663-1763.  By  M.  Eugene 
Sirmans.  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press  for  the 
Institute  of  Early  American  History  and  Culture,  1966.  Foreword,  pre- 
face, bibliographical  essay,  index.  Pp.  xvi,  394.  $10.00.) 

Marion  Eugene  Sirmans,  Jr.,  was  born  in  Georgia  in  1934.  He  earned 
one  degree  at  Emory  and  two  at  Princeton,  showing  special  interest 
in  Colonial  South  Carolina  in  graduate  school.  From  1959  to  1962  he 
was  a  fellow  of  the  Institute  of  Early  American  History  and  Culture 
and  instructor  at  the  College  of  William  and  Mary.  Returning  to 
Emory  as  assistant  professor  of  history  in  1962,  he  died  three  years 
later.  From  his  short  but  productive  life  as  a  professional  historian 
came  five  articles  and  this  book,  all  dealing  with  the  early  history  of 
South  Carolina. 

Colonial  South  Carolina  is  a  political  history  in  three  parts.  The  first 
forty-two  years  of  the  proprietary  period  are  traced  in  a  perfunctory 
manner.  Dr.  Sirmans  was  unable  to  finish  this  section  before  he  died, 


Book  Reviews  217 

and  his  editors  had  to  make  some  revisions  in  these  chapters.  In  the 
hectic  three  decades  from  1712  to  1743  Indian  uprisings,  economic 
chaos,  currency  problems,  and  the  overthrow  of  proprietary  govern- 
ment were  the  chief  problems  in  South  Carolina.  Sirmans  does  full 
justice  to  these  issues.  The  third  era  covered  by  this  study  encom- 
passes the  two  decades  from  the  arrival  of  Governor  James  Glen  in 
Charles  Town  in  1743  to  the  end  of  the  French  and  Indian  War.  Here 
the  author  deals  with  the  struggle  of  the  Commons  House  to  gain 
control  over  the  Colonial  government.  Although  concerned  with  the 
shortest  period,  this  is  by  far  the  most  rewarding  part  of  the  book. 
The  Bibliographical  Essay  is  a  valuable  conclusion. 

For  over  sixty  years  the  works  of  Edward  McCrady  and  William  R. 
Smith  have  been  the  standard  authorities  on  the  political  history  of 
Colonial  South  Carolina.  Now  their  work  is  superseded  by  that  of 
M.  Eugene  Sirmans.  The  maturity  and  quality  of  the  contribution 
Sirmans  has  made  are  especially  noteworthy  because  his  career  as 
a  scholar  was  compressed  within  one  decade. 

Daniel  M.  McFarland 
Madison  College 

The  Nat  Turner  Slave  Insurrection  (Together  with  Thomas  R.  Gray's  The 
Confession,  Trial,  and  Execution  of  Nat  Turner  as  a  Supplement).  By 
F.  Roy  Johnson.  (Murfreesboro:  Johnson  Publishing  Company,  1966. 
Illustrations,  maps,  appendixes,  and  index.  Pp.  viii,  248.  $6.50.) 

On  the  night  of  August  21,  1831,  in  Southampton  County,  Virginia, 
Nat  Turner,  a  slave  who  as  a  lay  preacher  exercised  a  strong  influence 
over  his  race  and  apparently  believed  that  he  was  a  supernatural 
instrument  chosen  to  lead  his  people  out  of  bondage,  led  a  band  of 
slaves  to  a  number  of  plantations  and  in  a  period  of  twenty-four  hours 
horribly  butchered  and  mangled  the  bodies  of  fifty-five  white  persons 
before  the  community  could  act  in  defense  and  retaliation.  Following 
closely  upon  slave  insurrections  in  Martinique,  Antigua,  and  other 
Caribbean  areas,  this  revolt  caused  a  profound  shock  in  the  slavehold- 
ing  states  and  raised  southern  fears  of  a  general  servile  war  to  their 
highest  point.  As  a  result  legislation  was  enacted  in  nearly  every 
southern  state  greatly  increasing  the  severity  of  the  slave  codes;  a 
death  blow  was  dealt  to  the  organized  emancipation  movement  in 
the  South;  and  never  again  would  the  slaveholding  South  be  free 
from  some  fear  of  a  wholesale  and  successful  slave  uprising,  a  fact 
potent  in  the  history  of  the  republic  for  the  next  thirty  years. 


218  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  most  important  sources  of  information  on  this  episode  are  ( 1 ) 
the  Southampton  County  court  records;  (2)  the  "Confessions"  of  Nat 
Turner,  dictated  on  the  eve  of  his  execution  to  Thomas  R.  Gray,  one 
of  the  lawyers  who  had  participated  in  the  trial  of  the  insurgents;  and 
(3)  William  Sidney  Drewry's  The  Southampton  Insurrection,  com- 
piled in  1900  from  interviews  with  surviving  members  of  each  family 
that  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  insurgents,  persons  who  guarded  the 
prisoners,  relatives  of  Nat  Turner,  and  other  Negroes.  On  the  basis 
of  these  and  certain  other  sources  Mr.  Johnson  has  placed  the  revolt 
in  its  proper  setting  and  has  related  in  sequence  the  essential  facts 
regarding  the  event  and  its  consequences.  It  is  obvious  that  this  is 
a  book  written  by  a  man  who  is  well  informed  on  the  subject  and 
also  at  home  in  the  locale  in  which  the  action  took  place. 

Unfortunately,  these  complimentary  remarks  cannot  be  extended  to 
the  authors  grammar,  syntax,  and  citation  of  sources.  The  volume 
abounds  in  lack  of  agreement  of  verbs  and  subjects,  wrong  tenses,  and 
misplaced  and  dangling  modifiers.  The  footnote  citations  are  neither 
in  standard  form  nor,  in  some  instances,  accurately  stated.  The  Index 
is  fairly  satisfactory. 

James  W.  Patton 
University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


Henry  Newman's  Salzburger  Letterbooks.  Transcribed  and  edited  by 
George  Fen  wick  Jones.  (Athens :  University  of  Georgia  Press  [Worms- 
loe  Foundation  Publications  Number  Eight],  1966.  Map,  endpapers, 
illustration,  index.  Pp.  xi,  626.  $12.00.) 

Among  the  first  settlers  of  the  Georgia  colony,  brought  over  on  the 
"Anne"  in  1733,  was  a  carpenter  named  Noble  Jones  who  quickly 
acquired  position  and  rank  in  the  colony— and  an  estate  known  as 
Wormsloe.  Soon  after  the  founding  of  the  colony,  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  Christian  Knowledge,  which  had  been  founded  by 
the  Reverend  Thomas  Bray,  originally  to  aid  Anglican  ministers  in 
obtaining  books  for  their  meager  libraries,  concerned  itself  with  the 
project  of  helping  German  Lutherans  to  flee  from  religious  persecu- 
tion in  Salzburg  and  to  settle  in  the  new  colony  of  Georgia. 

The  Secretary  of  the  SPCK  was  Henry  Newman,  and  his  letters  to 
and  from  such  individuals  as  the  Reverend  Samuel  Urlsperger  at 
Augsburg,  Baron  George  Philip  Frederick  Von  Reck,  and  Jean  Vat, 


Book  Reviews  219 

leaders  who  brought  over  the  early  emigrants,  John  Martin  Bolzius 
and  Israel  Christian  Gronau,  ministers  at  Ebenezer,  Georgia,  and 
others  provide  a  detailed  record  of  the  Salzburgers  in  flight,  their 
problems  after  leaving  Germany,  and  the  difficulties  encountered  in 
establishing  homes  in  a  new  world. 

These  letters  are  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  society  in  London, 
but  since  most  of  them  were  written  in  the  German  language  and 
some  in  French  they  were  useful  only  to  scholars  able  to  translate 
them  in  London  or  read  photoduplications.  Professor  George  Fenwick 
Jones,  head  of  German  Studies  at  the  University  of  Maryland  has  now 
transcribed  and  edited  them.  They  consist  of  two  letter  books  of 
outgoing  correspondence  and  three  of  incoming  correspondence. 

Students  of  the  subject  are  fortunate  to  have  the  fruit  of  the  labor 
of  a  descendant  of  Noble  Jones;  and  fortunate  it  is,  too,  for  Georgia 
historiography  that  the  Wormsloe  Foundation  has  made  it  possible 
for  the  University  of  Georgia  Press  to  publish  this  voluminous  work. 
Professor  Jones,  in  addition  to  his  inherited  interest  in  the  story  of 
the  merging  of  English  and  German  cultures  in  Georgia  so  long  ago, 
has  all  the  qualifications  necessary  for  his  tedious  but  worthwhile 
task.  Having  already  written  three  major  books  in  his  field,  he  has 
published  more  than  forty  articles  in  Medieval  French  and  German 
literature.  He  is  currently  editing  the  Urlsperger  Tracts  which  is 
planned  for  release  soon  as  Volume  IX  in  the  Wormsloe  Foundation 
Publication  series. 

Spencer  King 
Mercer  University 


Georgia  Voices:  A  Documentary  History  to  1872.  By  Spencer  Bidwell 
King,  Jr.  (Athens:  University  of  Georgia  Press,  1966.  Notes,  index. 
Pp.  vi,  370.  $6.95.) 

Professor  Spencer  Bidwell  King,  Jr.,  of  Mercer  University,  has  con- 
centrated his  considerable  talents  on  fashioning  a  documentary  his- 
tory of  the  state  of  Georgia  to  the  year  1872.  The  guiding  concept 
behind  the  volume  has  been  to  let  the  Georgia  voices  speak  for  them- 
selves. King  contends  that  such  voices  "could  always  be  easily  identi- 
fied" as  distinct  from  those  of  other  states  or  of  the  nation.  It  is  up  to 
the  individual  reader  to  decide  if  he  makes  good  this  claim.  The 
present  reviewer  must  demur.  Particularly  concerning  the  coming  of 
the  Civil  War  and  the  Reconstruction  experience,  Georgia  Voices  is 


220  The  Nokth  Carolina  Historical  Review 

largely  a  catalog  of  events  of  the  national  level  upon  which  Georgians 
simply  comment  or  pass  judgment.  Though  the  observations  are 
pertinent  and  occasionally  acutely  perceptive,  there  is  nothing  unique- 
ly Georgian  about  them.  Also,  though  indeed  many  Georgia  voices 
are  included,  the  most  cogent  remarks  are  generally  made  by  out- 
siders, such  as  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  who  visited  or  passed  through 
Georgia  and  kept  records  of  their  impressions. 

Unfortunately,  too,  the  proofreading  has  been  inadequate  and  the 
indexing  is  not  complete.  Even  selections  included  in  the  text— Wil- 
liam Bartram's  passage  on  page  43  and  the  excerpt  from  J.  E.  D. 
Shipp's  biography  of  William  H.  Crawford— find  no  place  in  the 
Index.  And  the  entire  work  badly  needs  a  map  to  which  perplexed 
readers  not  intimate  with  Georgia's  plethora  of  counties  might  refer. 

Still  Dr.  King's  volume  has  positive  aspects  that  tend  to  offset  the 
book's  shortcomings.  Georgia  Voices  is  well  organized  and  utilizes 
where  practicable  a  topical  rather  than  a  strictly  chronological  ap- 
proach. His  chapter  on  the  Negro  before  1860  leaves  the  reader  with 
a  vivid  and  intense  impression.  Particularly,  though,  in  his  handling 
of  the  Civil  War  experiences  of  Georgia  and  Georgians  is  the  grandeur 
and  the  grimness  of  the  struggle  unfolded.  For  here  in  this  brilliantly 
compressed  section  of  twenty-five  pages  the  tragedy  on  the  land  and 
on  the  people  of  the  state  is  dramatically  and  effectively  portrayed. 
This  chapter  is  unquestionably  the  highlight  of  the  book,  and  the 
volume  should  have  been  permitted  to  end  on  this  note.  The  conclud- 
ing chapter,  touching  Reconstruction  and  its  overthrow,  is  distinctly 
anticlimactic. 

Though  one  might  occasionally  quibble  with  Professor  King's  em- 
phasis and  deplore  certain  technical  deficiencies  that  tend  to  detract 
from  the  whole  picture,  Georgia  Voices  is  a  sound  piece  of  scholar- 
ship and  demonstrates  King's  deep  understanding  of  and  sympathy 
for  his  adopted  home  state.  He  is  to  be  commended. 

Phinizy  Spalding 
University  of  Georgia 

The  Indian  Boundary  in  the  Southern  Colonies,  1763-1775.  By  Louis  De 
Vorsey,  Jr.  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1966. 
Maps,  bibliography,  index.  Pp.  xii,  267.  $7.50.) 

Over  much  of  its  great  extent  the  southern  Indian  Boundary  Line, 
which  separated  the  limits  of  Colonial  settlement  from  the  Indian 
hunting  grounds,  developed  from  a  hazy  administrative  policy  of 


Book  Reviews  221 

the  Board  of  Trade  at  the  beginning  of  the  1760's  to  a  geographical 
reality  less  than  fifteen  years  later.  The  location  of  the  southern 
Indian  Boundary  was  of  crucial  importance  and  significance  to  the 
Indians,  to  the  pioneer  settlers,  and  to  the  British  administrators  con- 
cerned with  the  military  and  political  problems  of  the  expanding 
frontier.  The  French  and  Indian  War  had  taught  the  British  the  im- 
portance of  amicable  relations  with  the  Indians  and  of  the  accompany- 
ing need  of  moderating  the  pace  or  altering  the  direction  of  Colonial 
settlements. 

The  Proclamation  Line  of  1763  promulgated  by  the  Board  of  Trade 
was  a  temporary  expedient;  the  location  of  the  line  in  much  of  its 
length  was  uncertain,  and  no  adequate  map  of  the  back  country 
existed.  The  agreements  reached  at  the  Congress  of  Augusta,  Georgia, 
between  the  attending  Colonial  governors  and  the  Indian  tribal  repre- 
sentatives later  in  the  same  year  attempted  to  clarify  and  settle  some 
of  the  chief  issues.  The  truculent  and  expansionist  attitude  of  the 
white  pioneers,  unauthorized  cessions  of  lands  by  Indians  to  traders, 
and  violent  reactions  of  other  Indians  to  these  territorial  intrusions 
resulted  in  a  series  of  further  congresses  and  westward  modifications 
of  the  line.  These  changes  were  numerous,  complicated,  and  serious 
in  their  implications  and  extent.  They  still  have  relevance  now,  two 
hundred  years  later,  as  in  the  still  pending  multimillion  dollar  suit  of 
the  Seminole  Indians  against  the  United  States,  a  case  specifically 
involving  the  validity  of  some  of  these  pre-Revolutionary  treaties  and 
the  boundary  lines. 

Dr.  De  Vorsey's  work  is  a  thorough  study  of  the  intricate  evolution 
of  the  southern  Indian  Boundary  from  its  inception  as  a  vaguely 
stated  and  ill-defined  method  of  alleviating  military,  political,  and 
economic  problems  to  a  "geographical  reality  boldly  demarcated 
across  the  landscape  of  America's  new  West"  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
Revolutionary  War.  The  study  is  based  primarily  on  exhaustive  exami- 
nation of  the  reports  to  the  Board  of  Trade  and  maps  in  the  Public 
Record  Office;  Dr.  De  Vorsey  has  also  investigated  carefully  the  maps 
and  documents  in  the  British  Museum  and  in  this  country. 

One  of  the  most  valuable  results  of  the  dispute  concerning  the 
Boundary  Line  was  the  enormous  increase  in  detailed  knowledge  and 
accuracy  of  the  maps  of  the  Southeast  which  were  prepared  for  the 
Board  of  Trade  by  John  Stuart,  Joseph  Purcell,  and  the  surveyors 
assisting  them.  Dr.  De  Vorsey  has  uncovered  hitherto  unnoted  maps 
and  identified  the  provenance  of  others.  He  has  analyzed  and  inter- 
preted the  information  on  these  maps,  correlating  their  eighteenth- 


222  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

century  delineations  of  the  various  boundary  lines  on  a  series  of 
twenty-nine  maps  with  a  modern  basis. 

This  work  is  an  excellent  example  of  the  fruitful  field,  still  largely 
unexplored,  of  North  American  historical  geography.  Dr.  De  Vorsey 
has  clarified  the  locations  of  the  southern  Indian  Boundary  Line  in 
its  development;  in  so  doing,  he  has  unraveled  the  tangled  web  of  a 
significant  phase  of  southern  Colonial  history.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that 
he  will  in  time  produce  a  companion  volume  on  the  Boundary  Line 
from  the  Ohio  northward  to  Canada. 

William  P.  Cumming 
Davidson  College 

A  History  of  the  Old  South.  By  Clement  Eaton.  (New  York:  Macmillan 
Company  [Second  Edition] ,  1966.  Illustrations,  bibliography,  index.  Pp. 
xiv,  562.  $8.95.) 

In  1950  Professor  Dumas  Malone  wrote  of  the  first  edition  of  this 
history  that  it  could  be  "commended  with  confidence  both  to  students 
and  general  readers."  This  judgment  of  sixteen  years  ago  can  be  re- 
peated in  praise  of  this  extensively  revised  edition  of  Clement  Eaton's 
original  book.  This  reviewer  was  greatly  impressed  with  the  improved 
literary  quality  of  the  revised  edition.  Almost  every  page  shows  the 
careful  rereading  and  rethinking  which  must  have  gone  into  its  prep- 
aration. New  paragraphs  frequently  have  been  inserted  and  old  ones 
have  been  rearranged.  Here  an  adjective  has  been  added,  there  one 
has  been  struck  out;  here  a  comma  has  been  added,  there  a  singular 
noun  becomes  a  plural.  In  all  these  extensive  and  minute  alterations 
can  be  seen  the  subtle  changes  in  the  author's  views  of  southern  his- 
tory which  have  taken  place  through  the  years.  Not  only  do  the  re- 
visions reflect  the  author's  more  mature  scholarly  judgments,  they  also 
reflect  changing  emphases  in  historical  interpretation  and  the  influence 
of  contemporary  racial  developments.  In  regard  to  the  latter,  experi- 
ence with  twentieth  century  race  prejudice  has  brought  Professor 
Eaton  to  more  pessimistic  views  about  the  attitudes  of  antebellum 
southerners  toward  slavery. 

Though  there  are  twenty-seven  chapters  in  this  new  edition  as  con- 
trasted to  twenty-three  in  the  earlier  one,  most  of  the  new  material 
has  been  added  at  the  beginning  of  the  book.  Eaton  has  expanded  his 
treatment  of  the  Colonial  and  Revolutionary  periods  and  a  more  bal- 
anced, pluralistic  interpretation  of  the  factors  leading  to  the  Revolution 
is  presented.  These  new  chapters  give  more  emphasis  to  the  role  of  the 


Book  Reviews  223 

lower  classes  in  southern  society.  Later  chapters  also  give  more  atten- 
tion to  the  role  of  women  in  southern  history. 

All  in  all,  this  new  version  of  Eaton's  History  of  the  Old  South  pre- 
serves most  of  the  author  s  penetrating  insights,  adds  new  materials 
and  new  interpretations,  and  vastly  enhances  the  literary  charm  of  the 
treatment.  Fussy  historians,  like  this  reviewer,  will  be  happy  to  see 
that  footnotes  in  this  edition  are  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  instead  of 
at  the  ends  of  the  chapters. 

Herbert  J.  Doherty,  Jr. 

University  of  Florida 

James  K.  Polk,  Continentalist,  1843-1846.  By  Charles  Sellers.  (Princeton: 
Princeton  University  Press,  1966.  Illustrations,  notes,  index.  Pp.  x,  513. 
$12.50.) 

This  second  volume  of  the  James  K.  Polk  biography  is  a  study  in 
depth  of  the  years  1843-1846,  representing  the  lowest  and  the  highest 
points  in  Polk's  political  fortunes.  Twice  defeated  for  reelection  to  the 
governorship  of  Tennessee,  he  doubted  that  he  could  achieve  his  am- 
bition to  become  Democratic  nominee  for  the  vice-presidency  in  1844. 
That  he  should  receive  the  presidential  nomination  was  a  remarkable 
example  of  the  importance  of  availability  in  American  politics.  At  no 
time  before  or  after  that  moment  would  he  have  had  a  ghost  of  a 
chance  for  the  party's  highest  honor.  When  Martin  Van  Buren  finally 
came  out  against  the  annexation  of  Texas  which  Henry  Clay,  the  Whig 
nominee,  also  opposed,  the  way  was  open  for  the  Democrats  to  nomi- 
nate a  strong  annexationist,  and  the  dark  horse  was  at  hand  ready  for 
the  race. 

John  C.  Calhoun  was  pushing  annexation  primarily  as  a  proslavery 
measure,  but  as  the  title  adjective  "continentalist"  suggests,  Polk  had  a 
broader  vision,  for  he  asserted  a  strong  claim  to  Oregon  and  revealed 
to  George  Bancroft  his  purpose  to  acquire  California  and  other  West 
Coast  territory.  Professor  Sellers  points  out  that  this  was  more  than 
traditional  agrarian  expansionism;  that  it  involved  also  a  new  com- 
mercial expansionism  that  dreamed  of  dominating  Asiatic  trade  from 
bases  on  the  Pacific  coast— all  buttressed  by  a  compelling  sense  of 
Manifest  Destiny  that  included  the  right  to  any  land  which  might  be 
needed  to  realize  its  dreams. 

If  anyone  has  doubts  that  this  little-known  president  deserves  a 
three-volume  biographical  treatment,  the  reading  of  this  second  vol- 
ume will  remove  them,  for  many  of  the  personalities  and  issues  of  the 


224  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

day  are  introduced  in  a  fashion  to  provide  a  backdrop  to  the  impend- 
ing crisis  over  slavery.  Nor  does  the  subject  of  the  biography  always 
come  out  very  well.  Polk  was  frequently  so  intent  upon  his  own  end 
that  his  friends  and  political  associates  felt  themselves  misled  and  at 
times  misused— a  possibility  that  apparently  did  not  occur  to  him. 
Manifest  Destiny  again  justified  the  means. 

Charlton  W.  Tebeau 
University  of  Miami 


Competition  and  Cooperation:  The  Emergence  of  a  National  Trade  Asso- 
ciation. By  Louis  Galambos.  (Baltimore:  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  1966. 
Notes,  bibliography,  index.  Pp.  xii,  329.  $7.50.) 

The  author  presents  a  scholarly  history  of  the  development  of  tex- 
tile trade  associations  with  especial  emphasis  on  the  Cotton  Textile 
Institute  ( C.T.I. ).  In  the  book  one  sees  businessmen  meeting  for  dis- 
cussions at  supper  clubs  in  the  late  nineteenth  century.  In  time,  as 
with  any  amateurs  who  find  themselves  serving  useful  purposes,  full- 
time  employees  to  handle  clerical  and  then  administrative  work  be- 
came necessary.  By  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century  several 
service  associations  had  evolved  to  fulfill  the  needs  of  the  textile  com- 
panies for  joint  action. 

This  industry  faced  rather  unusual  conditions.  It  had  the  usual 
problems  with  suppliers  of  raw  materials,  railroads,  and  customers. 
But  within  itself  it  contained  a  multitude  of  small  companies,  each 
competing  with  every  other  in  an  era  when  "rugged  individualism" 
was  an  accepted  reality  rather  than  a  catch  phrase.  Furthermore,  the 
textile  mills  were  located  in  two  widely  different  areas  of  the  country, 
and  intersectional  rivalry  abounded. 

The  book  shows  how  the  trade  associations  attempted  to  develop 
uniform  financial  and  business  practices  in  order  to  achieve  economic 
stability  and,  in  turn,  produce  regular  profits.  It  was  under  these  con- 
ditions that  the  Cotton  Textile  Institute  was  created  and  under  strong 
leadership  was  forged  into  a  policy  making  body.  Nevertheless,  in  an 
atomistic  industry  small  minorities  were  able  to  prevent  concerted 
action  even  when  trouble  developed.  With  the  birth  of  the  National 
Recovery  Act  (NRA)  the  executives  of  the  C.T.I,  were  provided  with 
an  opportunity  to  bring  the  power  of  law  to  bear  on  recalcitrant  com- 
panies, and  although  stability  was  obtained,  profitability  was  still 
elusive.  When  the  NRA  was  declared  to  be  unconstitutional,  the  vain 


Book  Reviews  225 

attempt  to  operate  the  textile  industry  on  a  modernized  guild  system 
came  to  an  end,  and  the  trade  association  returned  to  where  it  had 
been  ten  years  before.  Perhaps  this  was  a  good  place  for  the  author 
to  leave  his  audience,  since  the  industry  also  returned  to  its  old 
cyclical  economic  behavior  pattern. 

Future  scholars  who  delve  into  the  area  which  the  author  has 
searched  so  well  will  be  rewarded  by  his  diligence  in  finding  pertinent 
information  in  original  source  material.  For  them  he  has  organized 
and  interrelated  his  data  in  a  manner  which  tends  to  allow  facts  to 
speak  for  themselves.  But  this  reviewer  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  live- 
liness, the  use  of  the  striking  sentence  and  the  apt  phrase,  the  painting 
rather  than  the  drawing  of  history,  which  appears  in  certain  sections 
toward  the  end  of  the  book,  could  have  been  used  advantageously 
throughout. 

The  Index  is  adequate  and  the  Bibliography  is  voluminous,  al- 
though one  may  wonder  why  no  mention  is  made  in  it  of  Competition 
in  the  Rayon  Industry,  by  Jesse  W.  Markham,  which  was  published  by 
the  Harvard  University  Press  in  1952.  In  Tables  10  and  14  where 
figures  on  spindle  hours  have  been  rounded  off,  billions  were  in- 
advertently reduced  to  millions. 

Robert  W.  Work 
North  Carolina  State  University 


OTHER  RECENT  PUBLICATIONS 

An  Outwork  at  Fort  Raleigh:  Further  Archeological  Excavations  at 
Fort  Raleigh  National  Historic  Site,  North  Carolina,  is  Jean  Carl 
Harringtons  fascinating  report  of  his  most  recent  (1965)  study  of 
an  archaelogical  feature  accidentally  discovered  on  Roanoke  Island 
by  a  utility  workman  in  1959.  The  study  was  begun  as  a  part  of  the 
archaeological  program  of  the  National  Park  Service  and  was  com- 
pleted through  a  grant  from  the  Eastern  National  Park  and  Monu- 
ment Association,  the  publisher  of  this  report.  Although  the  new  site 
could  not  be  identified  with  certainty,  the  archaeologist  concluded 
that  it  had  a  military  function  and  for  purposes  of  this  report 
designated  it  as  an  outwork.  In  his  preface  Mr.  Harrington  says  that 
the  study  revealed  "possibly  the  most  important  new  information 
that  has  come  to  light  on  the  Raleigh  colonizing  venture  in  recent 
years."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  investigation,  which  was  carried  out 
with  the  close  cooperation  of  Dr.  Sam  H.  Patterson  of  the  United 


226  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

States  Geological  Survey,  raises  many  interesting  new  questions  about 
what  might  have  happened  on  Roanoke  Island  when  the  first  settlers 
arrived  almost  four  centuries  ago.  This  66-page  volume  is  paperbound 
and  includes  photographs,  sketches,  maps,  and  a  brief  bibliography. 
There  are  two  appendixes:  a  report  by  Dr.  Patterson  on  the  labora- 
tory investigation  of  the  brick,  tile,  and  "mortar"  samples,  and  a 
report  by  Ivor  Noel  Hume  of  Colonial  Williamsburg  on  an  unusual 
ceramic  vessel,  all  artifacts  uncovered  at  the  excavations.  Copies  of 
the  book  may  be  purchased  from  Eastern  National  Park  &  Monu- 
ment Association,  420  Chestnut  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania, 
19106,  at  $1.75,  plus  25  cents  for  postage  and  handling.  For  an  article 
on  a  special  aspect  of  this  study,  see  J.  C.  Harrington,  "The  Manu- 
facture and  Use  of  Bricks  at  the  Raleigh  Settlement  on  Roanoke 
Island,"  in  the  Winter,  1967,  North  Carolina  Historical  Review. 

The  Genealogical  Publishing  Company  has  made  available  two 
hard-cover  reprints  which  will  be  of  interest  to  genealogists,  students, 
and  historians.  The  first  is  Marriage  and  Death  Notices  from  [the] 
Raleigh  Register  and  North  Carolina  State  Gazette,  1799-1825,  com- 
piled by  Carrie  L.  Broughton,  a  former  state  librarian,  and  first 
published  as  a  part  of  the  Report  of  the  State  Library  of  North 
Carolina  for  the  Riennium  1942-1944.  Of  the  5,000  entries  in  the  178- 
page  volume,  approximately  two-thirds  are  marriage  notices  and 
one-third  death  notices.  The  notices  relate  to  the  entire  state  and 
not  to  one  area.  Although  the  print  is  small,  it  is  clear  and  legible. 
Unfortunately  the  same  cannot  be  said  for  the  second  title,  Mecklen- 
burg Signers  and  Their  Neighbors,  by  Worth  S.  Ray.  In  the  Preface 
to  the  original  edition  published  in  1946,  of  which  the  present  edition 
is  a  facsimile  reprint,  the  editor  advised  that  the  type  had  been  kept 
small  to  avoid  manufacture  of  an  unwieldly  volume.  Since  the  work 
is  more  likely  to  be  used  for  reference  than  for  cover-to-cover  read- 
ing, the  advantages  of  its  availability  outweigh  the  disadvantages  of 
poor  legibility.  Approximately  one  half  of  the  book  is  composed  of 
miscellaneous  data  taken  from  tombstones,  wills,  deeds,  marriage 
and  death  notices,  and  the  like;  the  remainder  is  made  up  of  bio- 
graphical and  genealogical  sketches.  Mecklenburg  Signers  and  Their 
Neighbors  is  Part  III  of  a  longer  work  by  Mr.  Ray  entitled  The  Lost 
Tribes  of  North  Carolina,  which  accounts  for  the  pagination  from 
313  to  558.  This  volume  includes  name,  subject,  and  place  indexes, 
several  maps,  and  a  list  of  sources  and  authorities.  Both  the  Broughton 
and  Ray  compilations  may  be  purchased  at  $7.50  each  from  the 
publisher  at  521-23  St.  Paul  Place,  Baltimore,  Maryland,  21202. 


Book  Reviews  227 

The  Brunswick  County  Historical  Society  has  published  Bicen- 
tennial: Brunswick  County,  North  Carolina,  a  souvenir  booklet  com- 
memorating the  bicentennial  celebration  held  at  Brunswick  Town 
State  Historic  Site  on  November  15,  1964.  Included  in  the  19-page 
paperbound  booklet  are  brief  histories  of  the  county  and  the  society, 
a  list  of  officers  and  members  of  the  society,  the  addresses  made  at 
the  event  by  Stanley  South  and  Judge  Rudolph  I.  Mintz,  several  maps, 
including  "A  New  Map  of  Historic  Brunswick  County,"  drawn  by 
R.  V.  Asbury,  Jr.,  in  1961,  and  an  excerpt  from  the  first  federal 
census  of  1790.  For  information  as  to  how  copies  of  the  booklet  may 
be  obtained,  write  to  Miss  Helen  F.  Taylor,  Secretary,  Brunswick 
County  Historical  Society,  Box  22,  Winnabow,  N.  C. 


Mrs.  Dora  Adele  Padgett,  of  1601  Argonne  Place,  N.  W.,  Washing- 
ton, D.C.,  20009,  has  recently  published  a  genealogical  study  entitled 
The  Styron  (Styring)  Family  in  America,  copies  of  which  are  avail- 
able from  the  author  for  $7.50.  Edited  with  skill  and  apparent 
thoroughness,  illustrated  with  a  variety  of  halftone  engravings  of 
pertinent  maps,  documents,  and  photographs  of  churches,  and  printed 
by  letterpress  on  good  quality  paper,  this  volume  should  serve  as  an 
excellent  example  for  others  who  undertake  to  publish  family  history. 
The  book  is  attractively  bound  in  a  heavy  paper  cover,  and  a  large 
genealogical  chart  of  the  family  is  included  with  each  copy. 


Dr.  C.  Hugh  Holman,  Kenan  Professor  of  English  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill,  is  the  general  editor  of  the 
Odyssey  Surveys  of  American  Writing,  which  will  be  composed  of 
four  anthologies  encompassing  selected  writings  from  the  Colonial 
period  to  the  1960's.  The  first  volume,  Colonial  and  Federalist  Ameri- 
can Writing,  edited  by  Drs.  George  D.  Horner  and  Robert  A.  Bain 
of  the  English  faculty  at  Chapel  Hill,  is  now  available.  The  editors 
have  included  representative  samples  from  every  type  of  writing 
produced  during  the  two  centuries  from  1607  to  1830,  beginning  with 
the  writings  of  John  Smith  and  concluding  with  those  of  James 
Fenimore  Cooper.  This  anthology  should  prove  invaluable  to  teachers 
and  students  of  English  and  history  for  text  and  collateral  reading, 
particularly  because  library  facilities  are  frequently  inadequate  for 
this  historical  era.  For  the  study  of  southern  literature  and  history, 
attention  is  called  to  the  inclusion  of  selections  from  the  works  of 
John  Smith,  John  Lawson,  Robert  Beverley,  Thomas  Godfrey,  William 


228  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Byrd  II,  William  Bartram,  Thomas  Jefferson,  John  Woolman,  William 
Dawson,  and  John  Hammond,  as  well  as  excerpts  from  the  Burwell 
Papers,  the  South  Carolina  Gazette,  and  the  Virginia  Gazette.  One 
might  quibble  about  the  broken  type,  feathering  print,  and  evidences 
of  printing  carelessness;  however,  gratitude  to  the  publisher  and 
editors  for  making  such  a  fine  collection  available  at  the  modest 
prices  of  $4.50  and  $3.50  for  the  hard-cover  and  paperbound  editions, 
respectively,  mitigates  criticism  of  the  technical  deficiencies.  The 
945-page  volume  includes  an  introduction  for  each  of  the  three  major 
divisions,  a  brief  biographical  sketch  and  bibliography  which  pre- 
cedes each  selection,  and  an  index  to  authors,  titles,  and  first  lines 
of  poems.  Copies  may  be  purchased  from  the  Odyssey  Press,  Inc.,  55 
Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City. 


The  Naval  History  Division  of  the  Department  of  the  Navy  has 
completed  publication  of  its  highly  commendable  six-volume  series 
entitled  Civil  War  Chronology,  1861-1865.  Parts  I  through  V  of  the 
series  present  in  summary  form  a  day-by-day  account  of  the  important 
naval  happenings  for  the  year  1861  through  1865,  respectively.  Part 
VI,  which  has  recently  been  issued,  is  subtitled  Special  Studies  and 
Cumulative  Index.  The  special  studies  are  composed  of  chapters 
on  such  miscellany  as  "Naval  Sheet  Music  of  the  Civil  War,"  Ship- 
board Life  During  the  Civil  War,"  "Civil  War  Blockade  Runners," 
"Confederate  Forces  Afloat,"  "The  Navy  in  the  Defense  of  Washing- 
ton," and  others.  In  addition  to  the  66-page  cumulative  index,  there 
is  a  "Table  of  Illustrations,"  which  lists  sources  for  illustrative  material 
used  in  the  series.  Each  of  the  six  parts  is  illustrated  profusely  with 
copies  of  photographs,  letters,  orders,  maps,  engravings,  etc.  The 
director  of  naval  history,  Rear  Admiral  E.  M.  Eller,  U.S.  Navy  (Ret.), 
has  written  introductions,  prefaces,  or  summaries  for  each  volume. 
An  8"  x  10M"  format  is  used,  and  each  part  is  paperbound.  The  entire 
set  may  be  purchased  for  a  total  of  $5.85,  or  the  volumes  may  be 
purchased  individually  as  follows:  Part  1—1861,  41  pages,  25  cents; 
Part  11-1862,  117  pages,  60  cents;  Part  III-1863,  169  pages,  $1.00; 
Part  IV-1864,  151  pages,  75  cents;  Part  V-1865,  149  pages,  75  cents; 
and  Part  VI— Special  Studies  and  Cumulative  Index,  477  pages,  $2.50. 
Prepaid  orders  should  be  sent  to  the  Superintendent  of  Documents, 
U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C.,  20402. 


Book  Reviews  229 

National  Archives  Publication  No.  67-1,  Federal  Population  Cen- 
suses, 1790-1890:  A  Price  List  of  Microfilm  Copies  of  the  Schedules, 
is  a  154-page  paperbound  volume  which,  as  the  title  indicates,  pro- 
vides a  listing  of  postive  microfilm  copies  currently  available  for 
the  original  federal  population  census  schedules  for  the  eleven-year 
period,  1790-1890.  The  listing  is  arranged  chronologically,  then  alpha- 
betically by  state  and  county  or  counties.  The  increase  in  population 
enumerated  and  the  sophistication  of  the  questionnaires  is  reflected 
in  the  escalating  cost  of  the  prints:  microfilm  for  the  entire  states 
of  North  Carolina,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  for  the  Census  of 
1790  is  available  on  one  roll  for  $8.00,  while  a  print  for  North  Caro- 
lina alone  for  the  Census  of  1880  is  $294.  Beginning  with  the  Census 
of  1800  prints  are  available  in  county  segments,  at  prices  ranging 
from  $2.00  to  $11.00.  Most  of  the  1890  census  records  were  destroyed 
by  fire  in  1921,  and  for  this  state  only  portions  of  Gaston  and  Cleveland 
counties  are  available.  Somewhat  compensating  for  that  loss  is  the 
microfilm  of  "Special  Schedules  of  the  Eleventh  Census  (1890) 
Enumerating  Union  Veterans  and  Widows  of  Union  Veterans  of  the 
Civil  War."  A  microfilm  copy  of  this  schedule  for  North  Carolina  is 
$4.00.  Microfilm  must  be  ordered  by  number  on  special  forms  pro- 
vided with  the  Price  List.  Copies  of  the  book  may  be  acquired  free  of 
charge  from  the  General  Services  Administration,  National  Archives 
and  Records  Service,  Washington,  D.C.,  20408. 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review  is  printed  on  Permalif e,  a  text 
paper  developed  through  the  combined  efforts  of  William  J.  Barrow 
of  the  Virginia  State  Library,  the  Council  on  Library  Resources,  Inc., 
and  the  Standard  Paper  Manufacturing  Company.  Tests  indicate  that 
the  paper  theoretically  has  a  useful  life  of  at  least  300  years. 


THE  NORTH  CAROLINA  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 
EDITORIAL  POLICY 

The  Editorial  Board  of  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Review  is 
interested  in  articles  and  documents  pertaining  to  the  history  of  North 
Carolina  and  adjacent  states.  Articles  on  the  history  of  other  sections 
may  be  submitted,  and,  if  there  are  ties  with  North  Carolinians  or 
events  significant  in  the  history  of  this  state,  the  Editorial  Board  will 
give  them  careful  consideration.  Articles  on  any  aspect  of  North  Caro- 
lina history  are  suitable  subject  matter  for  the  Review,  but  materials 
that  are  primarily  genealogical  are  not  accepted. 

In  considering  articles,  the  Editorial  Board  gives  careful  attention 
to  the  sources  used,  the  form  followed  in  the  footnotes,  and  style  in 
which  the  article  is  written,  and  the  originality  of  the  material  and  its 
interpretation.  Clarity  of  thought  and  general  interest  of  the  article 
are  of  importance,  though  these  two  considerations  would  not,  of 
course,  outweigh  inadequate  use  of  sources,  incomplete  coverage  of 
the  subject,  and  inaccurate  citations. 

Persons  desiring  to  submit  articles  for  the  North  Carolina  Historical 
Review  should  request  a  copy  of  The  Editors  Handbook,  which  may 
be  obtained  free  of  charge  from  the  Division  of  Publications  of  the  De- 
partment of  Archives  and  History.  The  Handbook  contains  informa- 
tion on  footnote  citations  and  other  pertinent  facts  needed  by  writers 
for  the  Review.  Each  author  should  follow  the  suggestions  made  in 
The  Editors  Handbook  and  should  use  back  issues  of  the  North  Caro- 
lina Historical  Review  as  a  further  guide  to  the  accepted  style  and 
form. 

All  copy  should  be  double-spaced;  footnotes  should  be  typed  on 
separate  sheets  at  the  end  of  the  article.  The  author  should  submit  an 
original  and  a  carbon  copy  of  the  article;  he  should  retain  a  second 
carbon  for  his  own  reference.  Articles  accepted  by  the  Editorial  Board 
become  the  property  of  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Review  and 
may  not  have  been  or  be  published  elsewhere.  The  author  should  in- 
clude his  professional  title  in  the  covering  letter  accompanying  his 
article. 

Following  acceptance  of  an  article,  publication  will  be  scheduled  in 
accordance  with  the  established  policy  of  the  Editorial  Board.  Since 
usually  a  large  backlog  of  material  is  on  hand,  there  will  ordinarily  be 
a  fairly  long  period  between  acceptance  and  publication. 

The  editors  are  also  interested  in  receiving  for  review  books  relating 
to  the  history  of  North  Carolina  and  the  surrounding  area. 

Articles  and  books  for  review  should  be  sent  to  the  Division  of 
Publications,  State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  Box  1881, 
Raleigh,  North  Carolina. 


r1 

14/3 


North  Carotin*  Slat,  uormy 
Raleigrt 


N.  C. 

Doc. 


umtnen 


1967 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


Christopher  Crittenden,  Editor  in  Chief 

Mrs.  Memory  F.  Mitchell,  Editor 
Miss  Marie  D.  Moore,  Editorial  Associate 

ADVISORY  EDITORIAL  BOARD 


John  Fries  Blair 
Miss  Sarah  M.  Lemmon 


William  S.  Powell 
David  Stick 


Henry  S.  Stroupe 


STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  ARCHIVES  AND  HISTORY 
EXECUTIVE  BOARD 


Josh  L.  Horne,  Chairman 
Miss  Gertrude  Sprague  Carraway 
T.  Harry  Gatton 
Fletcher  M.  Green 

Christopher  Crittenden,  Director 


Ralph  P.  Hanes 

Hugh  T.  Lefler 

Edward  W.  Phifer 


This  review  was  established  in  January,  192U,  as  a  medium  of  publication  and  dis- 
cussion of  history  in  North  Carolina.  It  is  issued  to  other  institutions  by  exchange, 
but  to  the  general  public  by  subscription  only.  The  regular  price  is  $b..00  per  year. 
Members  of  the  North  Carolina  Literary  and  Historical  Association,  Inc.,  for  which 
the  annual  dues  are  $5.00,  receive  this  publication  without  further  payment.  Back 
numbers  still  in  print  are  available  for  $1.00  per  number.  Out-of-print  numbers  may 
be  obtained  from  Kraus  Reprint  Corporation,  16  East  46th  Street,  New  York,  New 
York,  10017,  or  on  microfilm  from  University  Microfilms,  313  North  First  Street,  Ann 
Arbor,  Michigan.  Persons  desiring  to  quote  from  this  publication  may  do  so  without 
special  permission  from  the  editors  provided  full  credit  is  given  to  the  North  Caro- 
lina Historical  Review.  The  Review  is  published  quarterly  by  the  State  Department 
of  Archives  and  History,  Education  Building,  Corner  of  Edenton  and  Salisbury  Streets, 
Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  27601.  Mailing  address  is  Box  1881,  Raleigh,  North  Carolina, 
27602.  Second  class  postage  paid  at  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  27602. 


COVER — A  Sloane  copy  after  a  John  White  watercolor  of  a  bird  not  posi- 
tively identifiable,  but  perhaps  meant  to  be  a  female  red-eyed  towhee.  The 
maize  is  probably  an  example  of  the  "Eastern  8-  to  10-rowed  flint  and  flour 
corn/'  cultivated  by  the  Indians  in  Colonial  America.  For  an  article  on 
"Indian  Agriculture  in  the  Southern  Colonies,"  see  pages  283  to  297.  The 
cover  illustration  is  taken  from  The  American  Drawings  of  John  White, 
1577-1590,  edited  by  Paul  Hulton  and  David  Beers  Quinn  (Chapel  Hill: 
University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1964). 


H6e   %vttfi  ganditta, 
*i¥i4to>Ucal  Review 

Volume  XLIV  Published  in  July,  1967  Number  3 


CONTENTS 

SOUTHERN  PRESBYTERIANS  IN  THE  CONFEDERACY  _____  231 

W.  Harrison  Daniel 

REVOLUTIONARY  ORIGINS  OF  THE  SOUTHS 
CONSTITUTIONAL  DEFENSES  256 

David  L.  Smiley 


THE  "TAR  HEEL  EDITOR"  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA'S 
CRISIS,  1929-1932 270 

Joseph  L.  Morrison 


INDIAN  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  SOUTHERN  COLONIES  ___  283 

G.  Melvin  Herndon 

BOOK  REVIEWS 298 


BOOK  REVIEWS 


JONES,  For  History's  Sake:  The  Preservation  and  Publication  of 

North  Carolina  History,  1663-1903,  by  Hugh  T.  Lefler   298 

Roberts  and  Griffin,  Old  Salem  in  Pictures, 

by  Mary  Claire  Engstrom 299 

Blythe,  38th  Evac:  The  Story  of  the  Men  and  Women  Who  Served 
in  World  War  II  with  the  38th  Evacuation  Hospital  in  North 
Africa  and  Italy,  by  Sarah  McCulloh  Lemmon 300 

Edmunds,  Tar  Heels  Track  the  Century,  by  Blackwell  P.  Robinson  .  .  .  301 

Rouse,  North  Carolina  Picadillo,  by  Charles  R.  Holloman  302 

Manarin,  Richmond  at  War:  The  Minutes  of  the  City  Council, 

1861-1865,  by  Haskell  Monroe   303 

Thompson,  Robert  Toombs  of  Georgia,  by  Horace  H.  Cunningham  .  .  .  305 

Rosenberger,  Records  of  the  Columbia  Historical  Society  of 

Washington,  D.C.,  by  Mattie  Russell  306 

Brandfon,  Cotton  Kingdom  of  the  New  South:  A  History  of  the 
Yazoo  Mississippi  Delta  from  Reconstruction  to  the  Twentieth 
Century,  by  John  Edmond  Gonzales 307 

Clark,  The  South  Since  Appomattox:  A  Century  of  Regional 

Change,  by  Vincent  P.  De  Santis 309 

Hindle,  Technology  in  Early  America:  Needs  and  Opportunities 

for  Study,  by  James  F.  Doster 310 

Clark,  Naval  Documents  of  the  Revolution,  Volume  2, 

by  A.  M.  Patterson  311 

Herrick,  The  American  Naval  Revolution,  by  Thornton  W.  Mitchell  .  .  312 

Public  Papers  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States:  Lyndon  B. 
Johnson,  Containing  the  Public  Messages,  Speeches,  and 
Statements  of  the  President,  1965,  by  Robert  Moats  Miller   313 

Other  Recent  Publications  314 


SOUTHERN  PRESBYTERIANS  IN  THE 
CONFEDERACY 

By  W.  Harrison  Daniel* 

There  were  approximately  104,000  Presbyterians  in  the  South  the 
year  Abraham  Lincoln  was  elected  President  of  the  United  States,1 
and  prior  to  the  election  denominational  spokesmen  had  been  vitally 
concerned  about  the  mounting  political  passions  and  their  possible 
results.  Early  in  September  the  Central  Presbyterian,  a  weekly  news- 
paper published  in  Richmond,  Virginia,  had  cautioned  southerners  to 
be  wary  of  secession  sentiment  and  warned  that  the  inevitable  result 
of  secession  and  disunion  would  be  a  "horrible  civil  war/' 2  A  month 
later  the  Fayetteville  Presbytery  adopted  a  resolution  which  recom- 
mended a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  to  God  "to  continue  us  [a]  happy, 
united,  and  prosperous  people";  this  same  statement  was  adopted  by 
the  North  Carolina  Synod  when  it  met  near  the  end  of  October.3  The 
Synod  of  Virginia,  which  met  shortly  before  the  election,  designated 
the  first  Sunday  in  November  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  and  sug- 
gested that  Presbyterian  clergymen  preach  on  the  duty  of  Christians 
as  peacemakers.4  On  this  occasion  Robert  Lewis  Dabney,  moderator 
of  the  Synod  of  Virginia^preached  a  sermon  in  which  he  denounced 


*  Dr.  Daniel  is  associate  professor  of  history  at  the  University  of  Richmond,  Rich- 
mond, Virginia. 

1  Actually  there  were  five  different  bodies  of  Presbyterians  in  the  South:  The 
regular  or  old  school  Presbyterians,  who  were  affiliated  with  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  and  numbered  ap- 
proximately 104,000  members;  the  United  Synod  of  new  school  Presbyterians,  which 
claimed  a  membership  of  approximately  12,000;  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Synod  of  the  South,  with  a  membership  approaching  10,000;  the  Independent  Presby- 
terian Church,  made  up  of  1,000  members;  and  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church, 
which  claimed  a  membership  of  approximately  47,000.  See  Joseph  M.  Wilson,  The 
Presbyterian  Historical  Almanac  and  Annual  Remembrancer  of  the  Church  for  1860 
(Philadelphia:  Joseph  M.  Wilson,  1860),  192;  Joseph  M.  Wilson,  The  Presbyterian 
Historical  Almanac  and  Annual  Remembrancer  of  the  Church  for  1861  (Philadelphia: 
Joseph  M.  Wilson,  1862),  120-121,  170-172,  193,  327.  Attention  in  this  article  is  focused 
upon   the   old    school    Presbyterians. 

2  Central  Presbyterian  (Richmond,  Virginia),  September  8,  1860,  hereinafter  cited 
as  Central  Presbyterian. 

3 North  Carolina  Presbyterian  (Fayetteville),  October  13,  November  3,  1860,  here- 
inafter cited  as  North  Carolina  Presbyterian. 

*  Thomas  C  Johnson,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Robert  Lewis  Dabney  (Richmond: 
Presbyterian  Committee  of  Publication,  1903),  212,  hereinafter  cited  as  Johnson, 
Dabney. 


232  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  passionate  men  who  were  "stirring"  the  country  and  he  advised 
his  listeners  that  they  should  pray  for  peace,  vote  for  virtuous  men, 
and  be  calm  in  language  and  manner.5 

After  the  election  of  Lincoln— which  one  Presbyterian  newspaper 
described  as  an  outrage  to  southern  sentiment  and  feeling6— but  prior 
to  the  secession  of  South  Carolina,  some  Presbyterian  ministers  and 
denominational  agencies  publicly  advocated  disunion.  The  Southern 
Presbyterian,  a.  weekly  newspaper  published  in  Columbia,  South  Caro- 
lina, was  the  first  religious  newspaper  in  the  South  to  espouse  seces- 
sion.7 It  was  claimed  that  secession  was  the  only  means  of  preserving 
southern  rights  and  liberties.8  On  November  21  James  Henly  Thorn- 
well,  the  most  influential  person  in  southern  Presbyterianism  and  pro- 
fessor of  theology  at  the  denomination's  seminary  at  Columbia,  de- 
livered a  fast  day  sermon  in  that  city.  He  declared  that  Union,  a  name 
"once  dear  to  our  hearts,  has  become  intolerable  and  is  now  synony- 
mous with  oppression,  treachery,  falsehood,  and  violence/'  He  de- 
nounced Congress  as  being  corrupt  and  described  it  as  a  "den  of 
robbers  and  bullies."  He  was  convinced  that  it  was  no  longer  possible 
to  live  with  self-respect  in  a  Union  governed  by  the  Republican  party. 
He  believed  that  the  government  of  the  nation  needed  a  "reconstruc- 
tion" and  that  nothing  would  bring  this  about  except  secession.  He 
was  in  favor  of  South  Carolina's  showing  the  way  in  this  movement 
by  seceding  at  once.9  W.  C.  Dana,  pastor  of  the  Central  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Charleston,  also  delivered  a  fast  day  sermon  on  November 
21.  He  claimed  that  the  election  of  Lincoln  had  brought  to  power  "a 
foreign  and  hostile  government,"  because  the  Republican  party  was 
foreign  to  southern  soil  and  was  hostile  to  the  southern  way  of  life.  He 
asserted  that  people  in  the  South  owed  no  fealty  to  a  government 
dominated  by  this  party  and  declared  that  only  southerners  should 
govern  the  South.  He  was  in  favor  of  immediate  secession.10  The  Synod 
of  South  Carolina  met  during  the  last  week  in  November  and  avowed 
that  a  hostile  extremism— represented  by  the  election  of  Lincoln— domi- 
nated the  North  and  the  federal  government  and  was  determined  to 
destroy  southern  social  institutions.  This  ecclesiastical  gathering  called 

5  James  H.  Thornwell  and  Others,  Fast  Day  Sermons:  On  The  State  of  the  Country 
(New  York:  Rudd  and  Carleton,  1861),  83-96,  hereinafter  cited  as  Thornwell, 
Fast  Day  Sermons. 

0  North  Carolina  Presbyterian,  November  24,   1860. 

7  This  claim  was  made  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  ( Columbia,  South  Carolina) , 
November  10,  1864,  hereinafter  cited  as  Southern  Presbyterian. 

8  Southern  Presbyterian,  November  17,  1860. 

9  Thornwell,  Fast  Day  Sermons,  28,  55 ;   Johnson,  Dabney,  224. 

10  W.  C.  Dana,  A  Sermon  Delivered  in  the  Central  Presbyterian  Church,  Charleston, 
South  Carolina,  November  21,  1860,  Being  the  Day  Appointed  by  State  Authority  for 
Fasting,  Humiliation,  and  Prayer  (Charleston:  Evans  and  Cogswell,  1860),  6-8. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  233 

upon  the  people  of  South  Carolina  to  imitate  their  Revolutionary 
forefathers,  to  stand  up  for  their  rights,  and  to  declare  their  independ- 
ence from  the  North.11  On  November  29  Benjamin  Morgan  Palmer, 
pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  New  Orleans,  preached  a 
Thanksgiving  Day  sermon.  He  echoed  the  sentiments  of  his  former 
mentor,  Thornwell,  and  explained  that  the  Union  which  their  fore- 
fathers had  formed  no  longer  existed,  since  mutual  respect  and  confi- 
dence had  been  destroyed.  He  asserted  that  the  Union  had  become  a 
yoke  upon  the  South  and  should  be  thrown  off  as  their  ancestors  had 
thrown  off  the  yoke  of  George  III.  He  urged  that  secession  begin 
immediately.12  On  December  9  the  Reverend  R.  K.  Porter  of  Waynes- 
boro, Georgia,  expressed  the  belief  that  peace  was  possible  only  if  the 
Union  was  dissolved  and  he  suggested  a  "speedy  dissolution/'13  The 
discussion  of  political  questions  in  the  pulpit  and  by  ecclesiastical 
gatherings  was  a  departure  for  southern  clergymen.  The  practice, 
however,  was  defended  on  the  grounds  that  the  rights,  liberties,  and 
religion  of  the  South  were  imperiled.14 

Although  the  Presbyterian  press  in  North  Carolina,  Virginia,  and 
Louisiana  never  questioned  the  right  of  a  state  to  secede,  the  editors 
were  more  moderate  in  their  views  than  were  Palmer  and  Porter  and 
their  South  Carolina  colleagues.  The  North  Carolina  Presbyterian 
claimed  that  three  fourths  of  the  people  in  that  state  wished  to  pre- 
serve the  Union  but  it  also  noted  that  these  same  people  believed  that 
a  state  possessed  the  right  to  leave  the  Union  if  it  so  desired.15  The 
Central  Presbyterian  echoed  this  sentiment  and  declared  that  any 
attempt  by  the  federal  government  to  coerce  a  state  to  remain  in  the 
Union  would  result  in  war.16  In  New  Orleans  the  True  Witness  and 
Sentinel  sought  to  present  a  position  of  neutrality  and  did  not  espouse 
southern  nationalism  until  after  the  secession  of  Louisiana.17 

Robert  L.  Dabney  was  critical  of  the  secession  sentiments  of  his 
Presbyterian  colleagues  in  the  deep  South  and  of  the  precipitate  politi- 


11  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  held  at  Charleston,  November  28-Decem- 
ber  1,  1860,  Historical  Foundation  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Churches, 
Montreat. 

13  Thornwell,  Fast  Day  Sermons,  73-77. 

13  R.  K.  Porter,  Christian  Duty  in  the  Present  Crisis:  The  Substance  of  A  Sermon 
Delivered  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  Waynesboro,  Georgia,  December  9,  1860 
(Savannah:   Steam  Press  of  John  M.   Cooper  and   Company,   1860),  20. 

14 Southern  Presbyterian,  December  15,  1860;  Christian  Observer  (Richmond,  Vir- 
ginia, and  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania),  January  10,  1861,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Christian  Observer. 

15  North  Carolina  Presbyterian,   November   24,   1860. 

16  Central  Presbyterian,  December  1,  1860. 

"Haskell  Monroe,  "Southern  Presbyterians  and  the  Secession  Crisis,"  Civil  War 
History,  VI  (December,  1960),  355,  hereinafter  cited  as  Monroe,  "Southern  Presby- 
terians." 


234  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

cal  action  of  South  Carolina.  Early  in  December  he  wrote,  "I  am  sure 
that  trouble  is  unnecessary.  If  the  Southern  states  would  be  quiet  .  .  . 
but  firm,  claiming  their  rights  in  the  Union,  all  would  blow  over." 
His  reaction  to  the  secession  of  South  Carolina  was  expressed  in  a 
letter  to  his  mother,  dated  December  28,  1860.  "The  impudent  little 
vixen  [South  Carolina] ,"  he  wrote,  "has  gone  beyond  all  patience. 
She  is  as  great  a  pest  as  the  abolitionists.  And  if  I  had  my  way,  they 
might  whip  her  to  their  heart's  content,  so  they  would  only  do  it  by 
sea  and  not  pester  us." 18  His  views  on  secession  were  expressed  more 
fully  in  a  pamphlet,  A  Pacific  Appeal  to  Christians,  which  was  pub- 
lished in  January,  1861,  and  also  printed  in  the  Central  Presbyterian. 
He  did  not  consider  the  election  of  Lincoln  a  cause  for  secession  and 
he  regarded  the  conduct  of  South  Carolina  as  unjustifiable  and  as 
weakening  the  position  of  the  South.  He  believed  that  if  secession 
occurred,  it  should  be  the  united  action  of  the  entire  South  and  not 
state  by  state.  He  urged  calmness  and  Christian  patience  and  implored 
the  people  to  be  temperate  in  their  language.19  In  March,  however, 
after  various  compromise  schemes  to  guarantee  southern  rights  had 
failed,  Dabney  called  upon  Virginians  to  leave  the  Union  as  soon  as 
possible.20  Nearly  a  month  before  Fort  Sumter  a  Baptist  editor  re- 
marked "there  is  a  remarkable  unanimity  among  the  Presbyterian 
ministers  of  the  South  in  favor  of  a  separation  from  the  North/'21 

The  Fort  Sumter  incident  and  Lincoln's  proclamation  for  troops 
were  denounced  by  southern  Presbyterians  as  an  invasion  of  their 
homeland  and  a  violation  of  the  principle  of  self-government  and  of 
the  Constitution.22  After  the  secession  of  Virginia,  Dabney  wrote  an- 
other pamphlet;  he  defended  secession  and  castigated  the  fanatics  in 
the  North,  claiming  that  they  controlled  the  federal  government  and 
wished  to  enslave  the  people  of  the  South.23  During  the  summer  and 
fall  of  1861  all  (forty-seven)  of  the  southern  presbyteries  expressed 
their  sympathy  for  the  Confederate  cause  and  in  December,  1861,  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate 
States  declared  its  allegiance  to  the  Confederate  government.  The 

18  Robert  L.  Dabney  to  his  sister,  December  7,  1860 ;  Robert  L.  Dabney  to  his  mother, 
December  28,  1860,  Robert  L.  Dabney  Papers,  Union  Theological  Seminary  Library, 
Richmond,  Virginia. 

19  Peyton  H.  Hoge,  Moses  Drury  Hoge:  Life  and  Letters  (Richmond:  Presbyterian 
Committee  of  Publications,  1899),  140-142,  hereinafter  cited  as  Hoge,  Moses  Drury 
Hoge;  Johnson,  Dabney,  215-217. 

^Monroe,   "Southern   Presbyterians,"   358. 

21  Tennessee  Baptist   (Nashville,  Tennessee),  March  23,  1861. 

22  F.  D.  Jones  and  W.  H.  Mills  (eds.),  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  South 
Carolina  Since  1850  (Columbia:  R.  L.  Bryan  Company,  1926),  77,  hereinafter  cited 
as  Jones  and  Mills,  Presbyterian  Church  in  South  Carolina;  Hoge,  Moses  Drury  Hoge, 
145. 

23  Johnson,  Dabney,  223. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  235 

statement  of  the  general  assembly,  entitled  "An  Address  to  All  of  the 
Churches  of  Jesus  Christ  Throughout  the  Earth,"  was  prepared  by  a 
committee  under  the  chairmanship  of  James  H.  Thornwell.  It  traced 
the  growing  tensions  between  North  and  South  for  the  past  thirty 
years  and  presented  an  extended  argument  justifying  slavery  and  the 
position  of  the  South.  It  explained  that  southerners  needed  no  apology 
in  withdrawing  their  country  from  the  government  of  the  United 
States.24 

Blame  for  the  disruption  of  the  Union  was  placed  on  the  North. 
Northern  states  were  accused  of  violating  the  Constitution  by  the  en- 
actment of  liberty  laws,  and  the  people  in  the  North  were  depicted  as 
wishing  to  deny  southerners  equal  opportunity  in  the  territories.25  It 
was  maintained  that  secession  was  the  only  course  available  for  a 
peace-loving  people  to  insure  their  rights  of  property,  person,  home, 
and  church  from  the  "fanatics"  who  were  in  control  of  the  government 
at  Washington.26  Northern  abolitionists  were  accused  of  interjecting  a 
"moral  element"  into  the  sectional  struggle  which  excited  public  senti- 
ment and  made  it  more  aggressive  and  rendered  compromise  impos- 
sible.27 

The  North  was  accused  of  initiating  a  cruel  and  relentless  war  upon 
the  South.28  Presbyterian  spokesmen  assured  the  people  of  the  South 
that  in  the  "eyes  of  God  and  man"  their  cause  was  just,  since  they 
were  attempting  to  maintain  their  institutions  against  a  despotic 
power,  and  they  were  urged  to  pray  for  the  welfare  of  the  Confed- 


24  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate 
States  of  America,  With  an  Appendix,  1861  (Augusta,  Georgia:  Steam  Power  Press 
Chronicle  and  Sentinel,  1861),  9,  52-60,  hereinafter  cited  as  Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly,  1861;  Haskell  M.  Monroe,  Jr.,  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate 
States  of  America"  (unpublished  doctoral  dissertation,  Rice  University,  1961),  129, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Monroe,  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate  States." 

25  Thornwell,  Fast  Day  Sermons,  36;  North  Carolina  Presbyterian,  November  24, 
1860;  Central  Presbyterian,  December  1,  1860. 

28  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  Charleston,  November  6,  1861,  Historical 
Foundation  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Churches;  Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly,  1861,  56;  unsigned  article,  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  Georgia  on  Seces- 
sion and  Slavery,"  Georgia  Historical  Quarterly,  I  (September,  1917),  263;  Joseph 
C  Stiles,  The  National  Controversy ;  or  The  Voice  of  the  Fathers  Upon  the  State  of 
the  Country   (New  York:   Rudd  and  Carleton,  1861),  1,  7,  15,  47. 

27  Central  Presbyterian,  December  29,  1860. 

28  Southern  Presbyterian,  August  24,  1861;  T.  S.  Winn,  The  Great  Victory  at 
Manassas  Junction.  God  The  Arbiter  of  Battles,  A  Thanksgiving  Sermon,  Preached  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  at  Concord,  in  Greene  County,  Alabama,  July  28,  1861 
(Tuskaloosa,  Alabama:  J.  F.  Warren,  1861),  6,  hereinafter  cited  as  Winn,  The  Great 
Victory;  Benjamin  M.  Palmer,  The  Rainbow  Round  the  Throne;  or  Judgement  Tem- 
pered With  Mercy,  A  Discourse  Before  the  Legislature  of  Georgia,  Delivered  on  the 
Day  of  Fasting,  Humiliation,  and  Prayer,  Appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Con- 
federate States  of  America,  March  27,  1863  ( Milledgeville,  Georgia:  Boughton,  Nisbet 
and  Barnes,  1863),  34,  37,  hereinafter  cited  as  Palmer,  Rainbow  Round  the  Throne. 


236  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

erate  government  and  armies.29  Some  churchmen  interpreted  the  war 
as  being  the  chastisement  of  God.  It  was  His  method  of  disciplining 
the  people  so  that  they  would  be  more  appreciative  of  independence.30 
Benjamin  Palmer,  in  a  sermon  before  the  Georgia  legislature,  said 
that  God  was  using  the  war  as  a  disciplinary  action  on  the  southern 
people,  preparing  them  for  a  great  future.31  There  were  others  who 
saw  the  war  as  God's  punishment  for  sins.  Amasa  Converse,  a  promi- 
nent Presbyterian  minister  and  editor,  said  that  the  South  had  been 
guilty  of  idleness  and  intemperance,  had  been  a  proud  and  ungrateful 
people,  and  that  these  sins  were  partially  responsible  for  the  war.32 
The  Reverend  T.  V.  Moore  of  Richmond  declared  that  the  war  was 
God's  way  of  "breaking  up  mammon  worship"  and  of  teaching  men 
the  Christian  virtues  of  humility  and  patience.33 

Throughout  the  war  the  hand  of  God  was  read  into  every  military 
victory  and  defeat.  Thomas  Smyth  declared  that  the  Confederate 
triumph  at  the  first  battle  of  Manassas  was  due  to  a  "wonder-work- 
ing Providence,"  and  T.  S.  Winn  said  that  God's  assistance  to  the 
Confederacy  was  similar  to  His  aiding  the  Israelites  against  the  Philis- 
tines.34 It  was  claimed  that  McClellan's  failure  to  take  Richmond  in 
the  spring  of  1862  was  because  of  the  intervention  of  deity.35  Success 
in  battle  was  considered  a  gift  of  God,  the  evidence  of  His  pleasure 
toward  the  South;  and  ecclesiastical  gatherings  thanked  Him  for  their 
blessings  and  beseeched  His  salvation  for  the  final  victory.36 

Military  defeats  were  often  portrayed  as  necessary  preparation  for 
peace  and  prosperity.  Without  reverses,  the  people  were  told,  they 

29  North  Carolina  Presbyterian,  April  27,  1861;  Central  Presbyterian,  March  26, 
1863;  James  A.  Millard,  Jr.,  A  Digest  of  the  Acts  and  Proceedings  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  1861-1944  (Richmond: 
Presbyterian  Committee  of  Publications,  1945),  159,  hereinafter  cited  as  Millard, 
Digest;  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville,  at  Their  Ninety -seventh  Session, 
Held  at  Mt.  Horeb  Church,  Bladen  County,  North  Carolina,  October  10-11,  1861 
(Fayetteville:   Printed  at  the  Presbyterian   Office,   1861),   13. 

30  Central  Presbyterian,  December   7,   1861. 

31  Christian  Index  (Macon,  Georgia),  April  6,  1861,  hereinafter  cited  as  Christian 
Index. 

32  Christian  Observer,  April   17,   1862. 

33  T.  V.  Moore,  God  Our  Refuge  and  Strength  in  This  War;  A  Discourse  Before 
the  Congregations  of  the  First  and  Second  Presbyterian  Churches,  on  the  Day  of 
Humiliation,  Fasting  and  Prayer  Appointed  by  President  Davis,  Friday,  November 
15,  1861    (Richmond:    n.p.,   1861),   7. 

34  Thomas  Smyth,  "The  Victory  of  Manassas  Plains,"  Southern  Presbyterian  Review, 
XIV    (January,    1862),    599;    Winn,    The    Great    Victory,    6. 

35  North  Carolina  Presbyterian,  July   12,   1862. 

36  This  was  a  characteristic  practice  of  ecclesiastical  meetings  during  the  war. 
For  examples  see  Millard,  Digest,  160;  Minutes  of  the  Forty-ninth  Session  of  the 
Synod  of  North  Carolina,  Held  in  the  Church  at  Goldsboro,  October  29,  1862  (Fayette- 
ville: Printed  at  the  Presbyterian  Office,  1863),  17;  Minutes  of  the  One  Hundred 
and  Third  Session  of  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville,  At  Union  Church,  Duplm  County, 
North  Carolina,  October  6-8,  1864  (Fayetteville:  Printed  at  the  Presbyterian  Office, 
1865),  5.  ' 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  237 

would  have  no  true  conception  of  their  condition.  The  would  become 
"puffed  up  like  a  bubble,  would  burst  and  scatter  into  nothingness"; 
reverses  would  prevent  this  from  happening  because  through  them  God 
tested  and  developed  the  character  of  a  people.37  Attention  was  called 
to  the  biblical  teaching,  "God  always  chastises  those  whom  He  loves 
the  most."38  When  the  Federal  forces  penetrated  into  middle- Ten- 
nessee and  occupied  Nashville  early  in  1862,  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian explained  that  the  losses  were  acts  of  divine  discipline  against 
sloth,  selfishness,  love  of  ease,  and  the  worship  of  material  things.39 
The  fall  of  New  Orleans  was  called  a  "cup  of  bitterness"  which  it  was 
God's  will  for  the  South  to  take.40  The  disaster  at  Gettysburg  was 
attributed  not  to  the  failure  of  certain  of  Lee's  corps  commanders 
to  move  at  a  given  time  but  to  the  sin  of  pride.  One  Presbyterian 
editor  commented  that 

.  .  .  probably  no  offense  to  God  has  been  more  conspicuous  in  our  history 
than  our  pride  .  .  .our  self-confidence.  ...  As  we  marched  into  Pennsyl- 
vania our  people  were  vainly  puffed  up  with  pride.  .  .  .  How  shamefully 
we  forgot  God.  We  believe  it  was  in  mercy,  He  frowned  upon  this  attempt 
to  do  without  Him.41 

As  the  war  was  prolonged  and  Confederate  losses  increased,  Presby- 
terian spokesmen  implored  southerners  not  to  be  discouraged  and 
assured  them  that  if  they  trusted  in  God  and  repented  of  their  sins 
they  would  receive  the  blessing  of  independence.42 

Throughout  the  war  Christian  faith  and  patriotism  were  practically 
synonymous  in  the  thinking  of  most  Presbyterians.  Denominational 
newspapers  and  church  leaders  never  permitted  Presbyterians  to 
forget  their  patriotic  duty.  The  sermons  of  some  Presbyterian  clergy- 
men to  recruits  departing  for  the  theater  of  war  depicted  the  will  of 
God  as  synonymous  with  the  cause  of  the  South.  The  Reverend  John 
Jones  of  Rome,  Georgia,  informed  the  Rome  Light  Guards  that  they 
were  embarking  upon  a  holy  war  and  that  they  should  never  waver 
in  their  loyalty  to  the  South.43  Benjamin  Palmer  told  members  of  the 

37 Southern  Presbyterian,  January  12,  1865;  Soldier's  Visitor  (Richmond,  Virginia), 
January,   1865,   hereinafter   cited   as   Soldier's   Visitor. 

38  Southern  Presbyterian,   March   1,   1862. 

39  Southern  Presbyterian,  February  22,  1862;  R.  H.  Lafferty,  Fast  Day  Sermon 
Preached  in  the  Church  of  Sugar  Creek,  Mecklenburg  County,  North  Carolina,  Feb- 
ruary 28,  1862   (Fayetteville:   Printed  at  the  Presbyterian  Office,  1862),  5-14. 

40  Central  Presbyterian,  May  1,  1863. 

41  Central  Presbyterian,   August   13,   1863. 

42  J.  C.  Stiles,  National  Rectitude  the  Only  True  Basis  of  National  Prosperity 
(Petersburg,  Virginia:  Evangelical  Tract  Society,  1863),  6,  28;  J.  C.  Stiles,  Captain 
Thomas  E.  King;  or  A  Word  to  the  Army  and  the  Country  (Atlanta:  J.  J.  Toon  and 
Company,  1864),  52;  Southern  Presbyterian,  December  29,  1864. 

43  J.  Jones,  The  Southern  Soldier's  Duty.  A  Discourse  Delivered  to  the  Rome  Light 
Guards  and  Miller  Rifles,  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Rome,  Georgia,  on  Sabbath 
Morning,  May  26,  1861    (Rome:   Steam  Power  Press  of  D.  H.  Mason,   1861),  5-11. 


238  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Washington  Artillery  before  leaving  New  Orleans  that  they  were 
entering  a  war  of  southern  civilization  versus  northern  barbarism,  and 
he  assured  them  that  they  had  the  blessings  of  deity.44  Another  Louisi- 
ana contingent  of  troops  heard  a  sermon  by  Palmer  on  the  text,  Psalms 
144:1,  "Blessed  be  the  Lord,  my  strength,  which  teacheth  my  hands 
to  war  and  my  fingers  to  fight." 45  The  press  advised  men  to  fulfill  their 
patriotic  duty  by  enlisting  in  the  army,  and  ministers  were  urged  to 
enter  the  chaplaincy.  Southerners  from  the  Potomac  to  the  Rio  Grande 
were  implored  to  be  of  one  heart  against  the  invader  and  were  assured 
that  there  was  nothing  "in  Christianity  opposed  to  .  .  .  patriotism." 46 
Those  who  were  not  able  to  participate  in  military  campaigns  were 
advised  that  they  might  purchase  bonds  and  send  books,  tracts,  food, 
clothing,  and  medical  supplies  to  the  soldiers,  and  pray  for  the  south- 
ern cause.47  Congregations  were  informed  that  they  might  display  their 
patriotic  sympathies  by  donating  the  church  bell  to  be  made  into  arma- 
ments.48 During  the  war  some  clergymen  made  patriotic  speeches  on 
behalf  of  the  Confederacy.  In  1861  Benjamin  Palmer  was  asked  by 
the  governor  of  Louisiana  to  speak  in  that  state  and  to  urge  the  people 
to  support  the  Confederate  government;  several  years  later  Joseph  C. 
Stiles  traveled  throughout  Georgia  and  spoke  to  the  citizens  on  behalf 
of  the  southern  cause.49 

Unpatriotic  behavior  such  as  desertion,  speculation  in  food  and 
clothing,  and  subscribing  to  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  federal  gov- 
ernment were  condemned  as  wicked  and  sinful.50  Persons  in  areas 
occupied  by  federal  authorities  were  advised  not  to  take  an  oath  of 
loyalty  to  the  United  States  government.  It  was  explained  that  if  one 
took  such  an  oath  it  would  be  an  endorsement  of  the  "crimes  of  the 
Lincoln  government"  and  would  make  one  "an  accomplice  in  mur- 
der." It  was  also  claimed  that  taking  the  oath  would  ostracize 
one's  family  from   society  because   it  would  be   interpreted  as   an 

**  Thomas  C.  Johnson,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Benjamin  Morgan  Palmer  (Rich- 
mond: Presbyterian  Committee  of  Publication,  1906),  238,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Johnson,  Palmer. 

"Johnson,  Palmer,  237. 

"North  Carolina  Presbyterian,  April  27,  1861;  Central  Presbyterian,  March  12, 
1863. 

"Central  Presbyterian,  November  1,  1861,  September  11,  1862;  Journal  of  William 
H.  Foote,  December  29,  1863,  Union  Theological  Seminary  Library,  Richmond, 
Virginia. 

"John  A.  Inglish  to  Allan  MacFarlane,  May  26,  1862,  Allan  MacFarlane  Papers, 
Manuscript  Department,  Duke  University  Library,  Durham;  Robert  Stiles,  Four 
Years  Under  Marse  Robert  (New  York:  Neale  Publishing  Company,  1903),  119. 

"Margaret  B.  DesChamps,  "Benjamin  Morgan  Palmer,  Orator-Preacher  of  the 
Confederacy,"  Southern  Journal  of  Speech,  XIX  (September,  1953),  19;  Southern 
Christian  Advocate  (Augusta,  Georgia),  February  11,  1864,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Southern  Christian  Advocate. 

60  Central  Presbyterian,  April  9,  1863,  March  20,  1864. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  239 

act  of  treason.51  Benjamin  Palmer  proclaimed  that  duty  to  race  and 
country  forbade  one  to  subscribe  to  an  oath  of  loyalty  to  the  United 
States  government,  and  he  urged  southerners  in  occupied  areas  to 
choose  the  scaffold  or  dungeon  rather  than  the  dishonor  which  would 
accompany  oath  taking.52  Palmer  chose  neither  the  scaffold  nor  the 
dungeon;  when  Federal  troops  approached  his  area  he  fled. 

Numerous  Presbyterian  clergymen  heeded  the  advice  of  denomi- 
national spokesmen  and  entered  the  army  as  chaplains  and  as  officers. 
The  army  was  described  as  a  place  where  the  "field  was  ripe  for  the 
harvest"  and  ministers  were  needed  to  take  the  word  of  God  to  men 
who  were  exposed  to  danger  and  death,  and  to  save  them  from  such 
evils  of  camp  life  as  gambling,  drinking,  and  cursing.53  During  the 
war  approximately  one  hundred  Presbyterian  clergymen  entered  the 
chaplaincy.54  Presbyterian  leaders  were  more  active  than  other  church- 
men in  trying— albeit  unsuccessfully— to  persuade  the  Confederate  gov- 
ernment to  make  adequate  provisions  for  chaplains.55  Therefore,  in 
1862  the  Synod  of  Virginia  appointed  Moses  Drury  Hoge  to  correspond 
with  chaplains  and  colonels  concerning  chaplain  vacancies  and  to 
work  with  mission  committees  in  local  presbyteries  in  trying  to  secure 
able  ministers  for  the  chaplaincy.56  In  May,  1863,  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate  States  decided  to 
supplement  the  government  salary  of  Presbyterian  chaplains  so  that 
they  would  have  an  income  of  one  thousand  dollars  a  year.57  The  fol- 
lowing year  it  was  reported  that  80  percent  of  the  Presbyterian  chap- 
lains received  partial  or  entire  support  from  the  denomination.58  The 
efforts  of  this  church  to  provide  chaplains  elicited  praise  from  a 
Baptist  editor  who  said,  "The  Presbyterians  are  more  zealous  in  sup- 
plying chaplains  than  any  other  [denomination]  .  .  .  and  they  are  men 
of  the  best  intellects  and  attainments." 59 


61  Central  Presbyterian,  April  17,  1862. 

62  Central   Presbyterian,    March    12,    1863. 

53  Southern   Presbyterian,    February    22,    1862. 

54  Herman  A.  Norton,  "The  Organization  and  Function  of  the  Confederate  Military- 
Chaplaincy,  1861-1865"  (unpublished  doctoral  dissertation,  Vanderbilt  University, 
1956),  96-98,  states  that  the  Presbyterians  had  approximately  one  hundred  chaplains; 
Monroe,  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate  States,"  336-338,  lists  seventy- 
two  Presbyterian  clergymen  who  were  commissioned   chaplains   during  the  war. 

55  Moses  D.  Hoge  to  W.  P.  Miles,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Military  Affairs, 
May  7,  1862,  Moses  D.  Hoge  Papers,  University  of  Virginia  Library,  Charlottesville. 

66  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  at  Their  Session  in  Staunton,  October,  1862 
[cover  to  this  publication  is  missing;  copy  may  be  found  in  Duke  Universitv  Librarvl. 
310. 

57  Central  Presbyterian,  November  5,   1863,   November   7,   1864. 

58 Religious  Herald  (Richmond,  Virginia),  February  18,  1864,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Religious  Herald. 

59  Central  Presbyterian,  October  1,  1863.  Quoted  from  the  Confederate  Baptist 
(Columbia,   South   Carolina). 


240 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


'A  Service  Interrupted,"  an  illustration  from  Christ  in  the  Camp,  by  J.  William  Jones. 


Other  Presbyterian  clergymen  served  in  the  Confederate  forces  as 
officers,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  southern  Presbyterians  ques- 
tioned the  propriety  of  ministers'  bearing  arms.60  Robert  L.  Dabney 
served  as  aide-de-camp  to  "Stonewall"  Jackson  during  the  summer  of 

60  The  Southern  Presbyterian,  September  7,  1861,  declared  that  ministers  were 
justified  in  bearing  arms. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  241 

1862,  and  preached  to  the  troops  whenever  conditions  permitted.  One 
colonel  said  of  him,  "our  parson  is  not  afraid  of  Yankee  bullets,  and  I 
tell  you  he  preached  like  hell."  61  111  health  forced  Dabney's  retirement 
before  the  end  of  the  year.62  The  Reverend  J.  M.  P.  Atkinson,  presi- 
dent of  Hampden-Sydney  College,  was  elected  captain  of  a  military 
company  of  students  and  pledged  to  "lead  them  wherever  duty 
calls." 63  Other  Presbyterian  ministers  who  served  as  officers  included 
J.  H.  McNeill,  F.  McMurray,  L.  L.  Miller,  and  J.  J.  McMahon.  Mc- 
Neill, an  officer  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  resigned  his  position 
when  the  war  began,  returned  to  North  Carolina  and  became  a  lieu- 
tenant colonel  in  the  Confederate  army.64  McMurray  was  the  pastor 
of  a  Presbyterian  church  in  Union  Springs,  Alabama,  and  entered  the 
army  as  the  captain  of  a  company  composed  almost  entirely  of  his 
church  members.65  L.  L.  Miller  was  elected  captain  of  the  Thomasville 
Rifles  in  North  Carolina,66  and  J.  J.  McMahon  served  as  a  colonel  in 
Floyd's  Brigade.67  Among  the  Presbyterian  ministers  killed  in  battle 
were  Dabney  Carr  Harrison,  Robert  L.  McLain,  James  M.  Richardson, 
and  W.  P.  Hickman.  Harrison,  the  captain  of  a  company  in  the  Forty- 
sixth  Virginia  Brigade,  was  killed  at  Fort  Donelson.68  McLain,  a  colo- 
nel in  the  Thirty-seventh  Mississippi  Regiment,  died  from  wounds 
suffered  at  Shiloh;69  Richardson  was  killed  when  he  led  a  company  of 
troops  against  Federal  forces  at  Marietta,  Georgia,70  and  Hickman  was 
killed  at  Cloyd's  Farm  in  Virginia  on  May  9,  1864.71 

Although  the  vast  majority  of  Presbyterian  clergymen  were  vigorous 
advocates  of  the  southern  cause,  a  few  of  them— scattered  from  Vir- 
ginia to  Texas— were  opposed  to  secession  and  were  Unionist  in  senti- 
ment. At  least  two  Presbyterian  ministers  in  Virginia,  Orr  Swanson 
and  Arthur  Mitchell,  were  removed  from  church  membership  because 


01  Johnson,  Dabney,  264. 

62  Johnson,   Dabney,   263. 

63  Religious  Herald,   April   25,    1861. 

64  R.  L.  Stanton,  The  Church  and  the  Rebellion,  A  Consideration  of  the  Rebellion 
Against  the  Government  of  the  United  States;  and  the  Agency  of  the  Church,  North 
and  South,  in  Relation  Thereto    (New  York:    Derby  and  Miller,   1864),   175. 

65 James  Stacy,  A  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Georgia  (Atlanta:  West- 
minster Company,  1912),  181,  hereinafter  cited  as  Stacy,  Presbyterian  Church  in 
Georgia. 

66 North  Carolina  Christian  Advocate    (Raleigh),  April  29,   1861. 

^Christian  Observer,  September  11,  1862. 

"  William  J.  Hoge,  Sketch  of  Dabney  Carr  Harrison,  Minister  of  the  Gospel  and 
Captain  in  the  Army  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America  (Richmond:  Presbyterian 
Committee  of  Publications,  1862),  17-20. 

™  Christian   Observer,   September   11,   1862. 

'° Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Mississippi,  1861-1867  (Jackson:  Clarion  Steam  Publi- 
cation Establishment,  1880),  51,  hereinafter  cited  as  Synod  of  Mississippi,  1861-1867. 
tt  .Mll™tes  of  the  Montgomery  Presbytery,  Christiansburg,  Virginia,  June  1-3,  1865, 
Union  Theological  Seminary  Library. 


242  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

they  left  the  state  and  went  north.72  J.  R.  Graves,  a  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter in  North  Carolina,  was  once  accused  of  treason  because  of  his 
Union  sympathies,  and  Eli  Caruthers  was  forced  to  resign  from  his 
pulpit  in  Greensboro  because  of  his  pro-Union  views.73  William  Blount 
Carter,  Presbyterian  minister  at  Elizabethton,  Tennessee,  was  per- 
haps the  most  active  pro-Union  clergyman  in  the  South.  In  the  sum- 
mer of  1861,  he  conferred  in  Washington  with  President  Lincoln, 
Secretary  William  H.  Seward,  and  General  George  B.  McClellan  con- 
cerning a  plan  to  wreck  Confederate  railway  communications  and 
capitalize  on  Union  sentiment  in  the  East  Tennessee  area.  The  plan, 
approved  and  financed  by  Federal  authorities,  called  for  Carter  and 
other  Unionists  to  arrange  for  a  simultaneous  destruction  of  the  nine 
railroad  bridges  from  Bristol,  Tennessee,  to  Bridgeport,  Alabama.  The 
bridge  burning  was  to  be  accompanied  by  the  invasion  of  a  Federal 
army  into  East  Tennessee.  It  was  later  agreed  that  the  plan  be  exe- 
cuted on  the  night  of  November  6,  1861.  On  this  date  five  bridges  were 
destroyed  and  telegraph  lines  from  Bristol  to  Chattanooga  were 
wrecked.74 

The  most  prominent  Presbyterian  clergyman  who  criticized  slavery, 
secession,  and  the  role  assumed  by  many  ministers  during  the  war 
was  James  A.  Lyon.  Lyon  was  a  native  of  East  Tennessee  and  had 
preached  at  Columbus,  Mississippi,  since  1841.  Throughout  the  war 
he  was  a  critic  of  the  course  of  action  adopted  by  the  South  but  he 
did  not  leave  the  area  nor  was  he  molested.  One  historian  has  written 
that  Lyon's  long  tenure  of  service  at  Columbus  had  given  him  a  posi- 
tion of  leadership  and  respect  in  society  that  transcended  political 
differences.75  Other  Presbyterian  clergymen  of  Union  sympathies  were 
beaten,  imprisoned,  forced  from  their  homes,  and  even  murdered.76 

The  war  created  new  problems  for  the  church  as  it  sought  to  minister 
effectively  to  the  religious  needs  of  its  membership.  Paramount  among 

"Minutes  of  the  Lexington  Presbytery,  November  22,  1864;  Minutes  of  the  United 
Presbyterian  Church,  Richmond,  October  31,  1861,  Union  Theological  Seminary 
Library. 

73  Central  Presbyterian,  December  25,  1862,  June  18,  1863;  Sketch  of  Caruthers  by 
J.  C.  Wharton,  6,  8,  Eli  W.  Caruthers  Papers,  Duke  Manuscript  Department. 

74  Oliver  P.  Temple,  East  Tennessee  and  the  Civil  War  (Cincinnati:  Robert  Clarke 
Company,  1899),  368-371,  379,  388;  Georgia  Lee  Tatum,  Disloyalty  in  the  Confederacy 
(Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1934),  146;  J.  Reuben  Sheeler, 
"The  Development  of  Unionism  in  East  Tennessee,  1860-1866,"  Journal  of  Negro 
History,  XXIX    (April,  1944),  189,  190. 

75  Journal  of  the  Reverend  James  A.  Lyon,  1861-1870,  Mississippi  Department  of 
Archives  and  History,  Jackson,  9,  39,  40-41;  John  K.  Bettersworth  (ed.),  "Mississippi 
Unionism:  The  Case  of  the  Reverend  James  A.  Lyon,"  Journal  of  Mississippi  History, 
I    (January,   1939),   37,   52. 

78  John  H.  Aughey,  Tupelo  (Lincoln,  Nebraska:  State  Journal  Company,  1888),  69- 
72,  109,  144,  280;  William  S.  Red,  A  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Texas 
(n.p.:  The  Steck  Company,  1936),  188. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  243 

these  problems  was  the  need  to  provide  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of 
the  soldiers.  Since  the  government  never  made  more  than  token  efforts 
to  provide  chaplains,  the  denominations  embarked  upon  programs  of 
army  missions.  At  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  Confederate  States  in  the  spring  of  1863,  the 
church  combined  its  domestic  and  foreign  mission  boards.  John  L. 
Wilson  was  made  secretary  and  attention  was  to  center  on  army  mis- 
sions.77 Wilson's  initial  task  was  to  mail  a  circular  letter  to  eighty  min- 
isters, asking  if  they  would  enter  the  army  and  labor  as  missionaries. 
In  less  than  two  months  sixty  were  serving  in  the  army.78  The  General 
Assembly  also  appointed  commissioners  to  the  different  divisions  of 
the  army.  These  men  were  to  serve  as  chaplains,  aid  in  securing  chap- 
lains for  vacant  regiments,  circulate  religious  literature,  and  make 
reports  to  the  secretary  of  the  mission  board.  The  men  appointed  to 
the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia  were  B.  T.  Lacy  and  Theodorick  Pry  or. 
John  N.  Waddel  was  appointed  to  the  Army  of  Mississippi,  Drury  Lacy 
to  the  Army  of  Eastern  North  Carolina,  John  Douglas  to  the  Army  of 
South  Carolina,  Rufus  Porter  to  the  Army  of  Georgia  and  Florida, 
Henry  M.  Smith  to  the  army  west  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  Ben- 
jamin Palmer  to  the  Army  of  Tennessee.79  Palmer,  because  of  illness, 
was  shortly  replaced  by  William  Flinn.80  The  Presbyterian  press  and 
local  synods  and  presbyteries  suggested  that  ministers  visit  the  army 
for  two-  or  four-week  periods  annually  and  preach  to  the  troops.81  The 
commissioners  and  missionaries  were  supported  by  funds  locally  col- 
lected and  sent  to  Wilson  at  Columbia,  South  Carolina.  A  Presbyterian 
missionary  was  paid  $2,400  a  year;  and  the  last  two  years  of  the  war 
this  denomination  spent  over  $100,000  annually  on  army  missions.82 

77  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate 
States  of  America,  with  an  Appendix,  1863  (Columbia,  South  Carolina:  Southern 
Guardian  Steam-Power  Press,  1863),  164,  hereinafter  cited  as  General  Assembly, 
1863. 

78  Hampden  C.  DuBose,  Memoirs  of  Rev.  John  Leighton  Wilson  (Richmond:  Presby- 
terian Committee  of  Publication,   1895),  253. 

79  Central  Presbyterian,  September  10,  1863;   General  Assembly,  1863,  139. 

80  Henry  A.  White,  Southern  Presbyterian  Leaders  (New  York:  Neale  Publishing 
Company,   1911),   341. 

81  Minutes  of  the  One  Hundred  and  First  Session  of  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville. 
Held  at  Pike  Church,  New  Hanover  County,  North  Carolina,  October  8-10,  1863 
(Fayetteville:  Printed  at  the  Presbyterian  Office,  1863),  10;  Minutes  of  the  Synod 
of  Virginia.  Held  at  Lexington,  in  October  1864  [cover  to  this  publication  is  missing; 
copy  may  be  found  in  Duke  University  Library],  355;  Minutes  of  the  Fall  Session 
of  the  Presbytery  of  South  Carolina.  Held  at  Upper  Long  Cane  Church,  Abbeville, 
September  23-26,  1863   (Greenville:  G.  E.  Elford's  Press,  1863),  14,  15. 

82  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate 
States  of  America,  with  an  Appendix,  186U  (Columbia,  South  Carolina:  Steam  Power 
Presses  of  Evans  and  Cogswell,  1864),  317,  hereinafter  cited  as  General  Assembly, 
186 U;  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  with  an  Appendix,  1865  (Augusta,  Georgia:  Constitutionalist  Job  Office,  1865), 
390;  hereinafter  cited  as  General  Assembly,  1865. 


244  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Under  the  program  of  army  missions  the  ablest  clergymen  in  the 
church  visited  the  camps  and  conducted  worship  services.83  In  Janu- 
ary, 1865,  it  was  reported  that  112  Presbyterian  ministers  were  serving 
in  camps  and  hospitals.84 

A  significant  feature  of  religious  activity  during  the  war  was  the 
degree  of  interdenominational  cooperation.  The  spirit  of  Christian 
harmony,  which  had  often  been  absent  prior  to  1860,  manifested  itself 
in  the  religious  press,  in  the  camp  activities  of  chaplains  and  mis- 
sionaries, and  in  publishing  ventures.  During  the  war  arguments  of 
theology  and  polity  were  dropped,  and  the  overall  tone  of  religious 
discussions  was  one  of  optimism,  hope,  and  confidence.  One  news- 
paper editor  noted  "the  entente  cordiale  prevails  in  [the]  denomina- 
tional press"  and  explained  that  "these  are  times  when  all  hearts  and 
hands  should  be  united  .  .  .  and  church  controversies  should  not  divide 
the  people." 85  Robert  L.  Dabney  asserted  that  "by  a  common  and  silent 
consent,  all  subjects  of  sectarian  debate  were  excluded"  from  religious 
discussions  during  the  war,  and  churchmen  confined  their  delibera- 
tions "to  the  interests  of  our  common  Christianity."86  Union  prayer 
meetings  and  fast  day  observances  were  common  practices  on  the 
home  front,87  and  the  sermons  preached  in  camp  were  described  as 
being  suitable  for  any  congregation  in  the  country  since  they  focused 
on  "Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified."  88 

The  formation  of  chaplains'  associations,  army  churches,  and  Chris- 
tian associations  illustrate  the  ecumenical  spirit  of  the  southern 
churches  in  wartime.  The  Chaplain's  Association  of  the  Army  of 
Northern  Virginia— the  first  organization  of  its  kind  in  the  army— was 
organized  on  March  16,  1863.  This  agency  was  suggested  by  the 
Presbyterian  deacon,  "Stonewall"  Jackson,  and  was  formed  by  B.  T. 
Lacy,  a  Presbyterian  clergyman  who  was  elected  the  first  president 
of  the  association.89  The  purpose  of  this  organization  was  to  consoli- 
date and  coordinate  religious  work  in  the  various  army  corps  and  to 


83  Robert  L.  Dabney,  Life  and  Campaigns  of  Lieut.-Gen.  Thomas  J.  Jackson  (New 
York:  Blelock  and  Company,  1866),  584,  hereinafter  cited  as  Dabney,  Jackson. 

84  Religious  Herald,  January  12,  1865;  Benjamin  R.  Lacy,  Jr.,  Revivals  in  the  Midst 
of  the  Years   (Richmond:  John  Knox  Press,  1943),  137. 

85  Christian  Advocate   (Nashville,  Tennessee),  December  12,  1861. 

87Willard  E.  Wight  (ed.),  "The  Diary  of  the  Reverend  Charles  S.  Vedder,  May- 
July,  1861,"  Georgia  Historical  Quarterly,  XXXIX  (March,  1955),  71-73,  77,  80,  82, 
84;  Central  Presbyterian,  October  29,  April  2,  1863;  North  Carolina  Presbyterian, 
March  4,  1864. 

88  J.  William  Jones,  Christ  in  the  Camp,  or  Religion  in  Lee's  Army  (Richmond: 
B.  F.  Johnson  and  Company,  1887),  14-15,  hereinafter  cited  as  Jones,  Christ  in  the 
Camp;  John  B.  McFerrin,  "Religion  in  the  Army  of  Tennessee,"  Home  Monthly,  IV 
(January,  1868),  27,  hereinafter  cited  as  McFerrin,  "Religion  in  the  Army  of 
Tennessee." 

89  Jones,  Christ  in  the  Camp,  230;    Dabney,  Jackson,   651. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  245 

try  to  provide  worship  services  for  the  troops  in  all  of  the  regiments. 
The  chaplains  held  weekly  meetings  at  which  times  they  would  dis- 
cuss their  activities  and  problems,  arrange  to  concert  their  labors,  and 
devise  means  for  supplying  those  regiments  without  chaplains.  They 
also  corresponded  with  ministers  and  arranged  for  them  to  visit  the 
camp  and  preach  to  the  soldiers,  and  they  sought  to  recruit  chaplains.90 
Chaplains'  associations  were  effective  agencies  and  were  later  formed 
in  all  divisions  of  the  army.91 

The  preaching  of  the  chaplains  and  missionaries  resulted  in  a  series 
of  revivals  in  the  armies  which  began  in  1862  and  continued  inter- 
mittently throughout  the  war.92  To  preserve  the  interest  in  religion  and 
to  hold  new  converts  firm  in  the  faith,  clergymen  in  the  camps  or- 
ganized army  churches  and  Christian  associations.  The  first  army 
church  was  formed  in  the  winter  of  1863-1864  in  Sterling  Price's 
command.  The  Reverend  Enoch  Marvin  and  other  chaplains  drew 
up  the  articles  of  faith  and  a  constitution  for  this  church.  Men  of  any 
denominational  preference  were  admitted  and  the  only  occasion  when 
denominationalism  was  noted  was  at  the  baptism  of  new  converts. 
Those  who  expressed  a  Methodist  or  Presbyterian  preference  were 
sprinkled,  and  those  who  expressed  a  preference  for  the  Baptist  church 
were  immersed.  It  was  the  custom  for  chaplains  to  give  to  all  mem- 
bers of  the  army  church  certificates  which  were  usually  recognized  by 
the  home  churches  of  the  converts  when  they  were  presented  for 
membership.93  The  idea  of  the  army  church  became  popular  and  spread 
to  other  areas;  churches  similar  to  the  one  in  Price's  command  were 
organized  in  the  Army  of  Tennessee  and  in  the  Army  of  Northern 
Virginia.94 

Christian  associations  were  not  the  same  as  army  churches.  One 
did  not  have  to  express  the  desire  of  becoming  a  church  member  to 


90  Dabney,  Jackson,  648;  Central  Presbyterian,  September  10,  1863;  Religious  Herald, 
September  3,  1863. 

91  Army  and  Navy  Messenger  (Petersburg,  Virginia),  February  1,  1864,  hereinafter 
cited  as  Army  and  Navy  Messenger;  McFerrin,  "Religion  in  the  Army  of  Tennessee," 
28;  William  W.  Bennett,  A  Narrative  of  the  Great  Revival  Which  Prevailed  in  the 
Southern  Armies  During  the  Late  Civil  War  Between  the  States  of  the  Federal 
Union  (Philadelphia:  Claxton,  Remsen  and  Haffelfinger,  1877),  245,  347,  hereinafter 
cited   as   Bennett,    The   Great  Revival. 

92  The  story  of  the  army  revivals  has  been  told  in  detail  by  two  ministers  who 
participated  in  them.  W.  W.  Bennett,  a  Methodist,  has  told  the  story  in  his  book, 
The  Great  Revival,  and  J.  W.  Jones,  a  Baptist,  has  described  the  revivals  in  his 
Christ  in  the  Camp. 

93  Horace  Jewell,  History  of  Methodism  in  Arkansas  (Little  Rock:  Press  Printing 
Company,  1892),  178-179. 

94  Albert  T.  Goodloe,  Confederate  Echoes:  A  Voice  From  the  South  in  the  Days  of 
Secession  and  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  (Nashville:  Publishing  House  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  1907),  401,  hereinafter  cited  as  Goodloe,  Con- 
federate Echoes;  McFerrin,  "Religion  in  the  Army  of  Tennessee,"  28;  Richmond 
Christian  Advocate  (Richmond,  Virginia),  February  19,  1863,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Richmond  Christian  Advocate;  Soldier's  Visitor,  January,  1865. 


246 


The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


"Lee  at  the  Soldiers'  Prayer  Meeting,"  an  illustration  from  A  Narrative  of  the 
Great  Revival  Which  Prevailed  in  the  Southern  Armies  during  the  Late  Civil  War, 
by  William  W.  Bennett. 

belong  to  that  type  of  organization.  The  Soldier  s  Christian  Associa- 
tion of  the  Tenth  Virginia  Regiment  proclaimed  that  "all  who  desire 
to  do  better,  whether  church  member  or  not"  were  welcome.95  William 
Flinn,  a  Presbyterian  chaplain  stationed  near  Fredericksburg,  read  the 
preamble  and  purpose  of  the  Christian  association  of  his  North 
Carolina  troops. 

We  .  .  .  desiring  to  secure  to  ourselves  while  in  the  army,  the  comforts 
and  benefits  of  Christian  fellowship,  to  promote  our  own  spirituality  and 
growth  in  grace,  and  to  increase  our  usefulness  as  Christians  to  those 
around  us,  agree  to  form  an  association.  All  who  are  members  of  any 
branch  of  the  Church  are  entitled  to  admittance.  .  .  .  All  from  the  world 
who  profess  their  faith  in  Christ  and  their  purpose  to  lead  a  Godly  life 
are  received.96 


Members  of  these  nondenominational  organizations  conducted  prayer 
meetings  when  the  chaplain  was  absent,  strove  to  form  associations 
in  other  regiments,  and  helped  to  circulate  religious  readings  among 

95  Richmond  Christian  Advocate,  May  7,  1863. 

98  Reverend  William  Flinn  to  W.  L.  Mitchell,  April  24,   1863,  William  L.   Mitchell 
Papers,  Southern  Historical  Collection,  University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  247 

the  troops.97  They  also  sought  to  discourage  insubordination  and  deser- 
tion.98 Christian  associations  were  found  in  all  departments  of  the 
army.99 

Southern  Presbyterians  were  diligent  in  their  efforts  to  provide 
Christian  reading  materials  for  the  people  of  the  South,  especially  for 
the  men  in  uniform.  Alone  and  in  cooperation  with  other  denomina- 
tions, Presbyterians  sought  to  provide  Bibles,  New  Testaments,  tracts, 
and  religious  newspapers  for  the  people.  At  the  first  meeting  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate 
States,  there  was  created  the  Assembly's  Executive  Committee  of 
Publications  with  headquarters  in  Richmond.100  This  committee  con- 
sisted of  a  secretary  and  ten  other  members,  and  the  approval  of  seven 
members  was  required  of  all  manuscripts  accepted  for  publication.101 
It  was  requested  that  the  local  churches  make  special  contributions  to 
support  this  agency,  whose  purpose  was  to  provide  books  and  pamph- 
lets for  the  membership  of  the  denomination.102  By  1863  the  commit- 
tee was  concerned  primarily  with  providing  reading  matter  for  the 
soldiers.  It  published  tracts,  hymn  books,  and  a  semimonthly  news- 
paper for  the  soldiers  entitled  the  Soldiers  Visitor.  This  paper,  edited 
by  John  Leyburn,  was  printed  in  Richmond;  the  first  issue  appeared  in 
August,  1863,  and  the  last  edition  was  that  of  February,  1865.  The 
paper  contained  sermons,  reprints  of  tracts,  devotional  readings,  let- 
ters, and  news;  each  issue  consisted  of  8,000  copies  which  were  distri- 
buted gratis  to  the  soldiers.103  Voluntary  donations  permitted  the 
publishers  of  the  different  Presbyterian  newspapers  to  send  copies  to 
the  camps  for  free  distribution.  In  1863  it  was  reported  that  2,000 
copies  of  the  Central  Presbyterian  were  sent  to  the  army  each  week; 
and  that  3,000  and  4,000  copies  respectively  of  the  Christian  Observer 
and  the  Southern  Presbyterian  were  distributed  in  the  army  each 
week.104 

A  valiant  effort  was  made  in  1863  by  Moses  Hoge,  pastor  of  the 
Second  Presbyterian  Church  in  Richmond,  to  secure  Bibles  and  tracts 
in  England.  Hoge  was  sent  to  Britain  as  an  emissary  of  the  Virginia 

97  Goodloe,  Confederate  Echoes,  378,  384,  391,  420. 

98  David  E.  Johnston,  The  Story  of  A  Confederate  Boy  in  the  Civil  War  (Portland, 
Oregon:    Glass    and    Prudhomme,    1914),    291-292. 

00  Richmond  Christian  Advocate,  May  7,  1863;  Central  Presbyterian,  March  5,  1863; 
Southern  Christian  Advocate,  April  13,  1865. 

100  General  Assembly,  1861,  40. 

101  General   Assembly,    1861,    40. 

102  General  Assembly,  1861,  40. 

103  General  Assembly,  1863,  147;  General  Assembly,  1864,  308;  Christian  Observer, 
August  13,  1863;  Henry  S.  Stroupe,  The  Religious  Press  in  the  South  Atlantic 
States,  1802-1865:  An  Annotated  Bibliography  with  Historical  Introduction  and  Notes 
(Durham:    Duke   University   Press,    1956),    103. 

104  Monroe,   "The   Presbyterian   Church   in   the    Confederate    States,"    255. 


248  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 


Moses  Drury  Hoge,  D.D.,  pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church  in  Richmond, 
traveled  to  England  in  1863  to  purchase  Bibles,  New  Testaments,  and  tracts  for 
distribution  in  the  Confederacy.  Photograph  from  Christ  in  the  Camp. 

Bible  Society  and  of  the  Presbyterian  Committee  of  Publications  to 
purchase  a  supply  of  Bibles,  New  Testaments,  and  tracts.  He  was  to 
ship  those  items  to  Nassau,  and  from  there  southerners  were  to  try  to 
bring  them  through  the  blockade.  Hoge  was  well  received  in  England; 
the  board  of  managers  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  gave 
him  a  grant  of  10,000  Bibles,  50,000  New  Testaments,  and  250,000 
portions  of  Psalms  and  Gospels,  and  the  Religious  Tract  Society  gave 
him  tracts  and  pamphlets  valued  at  £300.  This  literature  was  brought 
to  Nassau  but  only  a  fraction  of  it  escaped  the  blockade  and  reached 
the  Confederacy.105 

Presbyterian  representatives  were  present  at  Augusta  in  March, 
1862,  when  a  group  of  churchmen,  representing  all  of  the  major 
Protestant  denominations,  met  and  organized  the  Bible  Society  in 
the  Confederate  States  of  America.  Although  the  Bible  Society  was 
hampered  by  a  shortage  of  materials  it  published  several  printings 
of  the  New  Testament  and  was  ably  supported  by  the  southern  Pres- 
byterians.106 Presbyterians  were  also  active  in  at  least  four  nondenomi- 
national  organizations  whose  purpose  was  to  provide  religious  litera- 

105  Central  Presbyterian,  April  16,  December  17,  1863;  Christian  Observer,  July  23, 
1863;  Hoge,  Moses  Drury  Hoge,  169,  180;  W.  Edwin  Hemphill,  "Bibles  Through  the 
Blockade,"  Commonwealth,  XVI    (August,  1949),  9-12,  30-32. 

io6  Proceedings  of  the  Bible  Convention  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America,  Includ- 
ing the  Minutes  of  the  Organization  of  the  Bible  Society,  Augusta,  Georgia,  March 
19-21,  1862,  and  Also  A  Sermon  Preached  Before  The  Convention  by  the  Rev.  George 
F.  Pierce,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South  (Augusta:  Printed  at  the  Con- 
stitutionalist Office,  1862),  9;  First  Annual  Report  of  the  Bible  Society  of  the  Confeder- 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  249 

ture  for  the  people  of  the  South.  The  Evangelical  Tract  Society  was 
formed  by  a  committee  of  Christians  in  Petersburg  in  the  summer  of 
1861.  A  publishing  committee,  created  to  determine  which  manuscripts 
should  be  printed,  included  a  Presbyterian,  a  Methodist,  a  Baptist, 
and  an  Episcopalian.  During  the  war  this  society  printed  over  one 
hundred  different  tracts  which  totaled  in  excess  of  60  million  pages, 
and  published  a  semimonthly  newspaper,  the  Army  and  Navy  Mes- 
senger.107 In  June,  1861,  a  group  of  ministers  representing  the  different 
churches  in  Raleigh,  established  the  General  Tract  Agency.  The  pub- 
lications of  this  organization  were  praised  by  Presbyterian  clergymen 
and  chaplains.108  The  South  Carolina  Tract  Society  and  the  Tract  So- 
ciety of  Houston  were  also  supported  by  the  Presbyterians.109 

The  widely  held  view  that  the  war  was  partly  the  judgment  of  God 
upon  the  people  of  the  South  for  failure  to  Christianize  the  Negro 
prompted  a  reevaluation  of  certain  aspects  of  slavery  during  the  war.110 
In  1861  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Con- 
federate States  appointed  a  three-man  committee,  made  up  of  James 
A.  Lyon,  Charles  C.  Jones,  and  T.  Pryor,  to  prepare  a  report  on  reli- 
gious instruction  for  colored  people.111  This  committee  asserted  that 
slaves  had  the  same  claim  upon  their  masters  for  religious  instruction 
as  did  the  masters'  children,  and  slaveowners  were  urged  to  provide 
religious  instruction  for  them  and  to  permit  them  to  attend  worship 
services.  It  was  also  the  duty  of  large  planters,  the  committee  affirmed, 
to  provide  chapels  for  their  slaves.112  Presbyterians  believed  that  there 
were  certain  abuses  in  the  slave  system  which  were  contrary  to  biblical 
teachings  and  should  be  corrected.  A  committee  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  reported  in  1863  that  there  should 
be  laws  to  protect  the  marriage  and  family  life  of  slaves.  "To  ignore 
such  legislation,"  it  was  claimed,  "sets  at  defiance  the  precepts  of  the 

ate  States  of  America,  1863  (Augusta:  Printed  at  the  Constitutionalist  Office,  1863),  6, 
11 ;  Second  Annual  Report  of  the  Bible  Society  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America, 
186U  (Augusta:  Steam  Power  Press  of  Stockton  and  Company,  1864),  8;  Christian 
Observer,  May  21,  1863. 

107  Christian  Observer,  July  10,  1862;   Army  and  Navy  Messenger,  March  16,  1865. 

108  W.  J.  W.  Crowder,  General  Tract  Agency,  Raleigh,  North  Carolina  (Raleigh: 
General  Tract  Agency,  1862),  1-4. 

109  Descriptive  Catalogue  of  the  Tracts  Published  by  the  South  Carolina  Tract  Society 
(Charleston:  Evans  and  Cogswell,  n.d.),  19-23;  Christian  Observer,  January  21,  1864. 

110  Joseph  B.  Cheshire,  The  Church  in  the  Confederate  States:  A  History  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Confederate  States  (New  York:  Longmans,  Green, 
and  Company,  1914),  117;  Christian  Index,  March  23,  1863;  Southern  Christian 
Advocate,  January  14,  1864. 

111  General  Assembly,  1861,  15. 

112  J.  Leighton  Wilson,  "Religious  Instruction  of  the  Colored  People,"  Southern  Pres- 
byterian Review,  XVI  (October,  1863),  191,  194;  Central  Presbyterian,  February  19, 
1863. 


116 


250  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Bible,  the  dictates  of  nature,  and  the  moral  sentiments  of  humanity." 113 
The  Presbyterians  in  Georgia  petitioned  the  legislature  of  that  state 
to  enact  legislation  legalizing  slave  marriages.114  Laws  which  forbade 
the  teaching  of  slaves  to  read  and  write  were  also  considered  abuses 
of  the  slave  system,  since  they  interfered  with  the  master's  duty  to 
Christianize  his  slaves;  and  in  1863  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  recommended  that  all  laws  prohibiting  the  teach- 
ing of  a  slave  to  read  and  write  be  repealed.115 

There  was  some  private  discussion  among  Presbyterian  leaders  dur- 
ing the  war  concerning  the  propriety  of  emancipation.  In  1861  James 
H.  Thornwell  informed  Benjamin  Palmer  that  while  in  Europe  the 
previous  summer  he  had  decided  to  advocate  the  gradual  emancipa- 
tion of  slaves.  He  believed  that  emancipation  would  restore  harmony 
to  the  nation;  however,  when  he  returned  to  South  Carolina  in  Septem 
ber,  1860,  he  decided  that  it  was  too  late  to  offer  such  a  proposal. 
Robert  L.  Dabney  claimed  that  the  South  should  have  begun  gradual 
emancipation  following  the  defeats  at  Vicksburg  and  Gettysburg;  such 
a  policy,  he  believed,  would  have  prompted  assistance  from  France 
and  England.117  The  opinions  of  Thornwell  and  Dabney  were  not 
publicly  expressed  and  were  suggested  as  a  course  of  expedient  action 
rather  than  reflecting  a  belief  in  the  evils  of  slavery.  When  news  of 
the  Emancipation  Proclamation  reached  the  South  it  was  denounced  by 
spokesmen  in  all  of  the  major  denominations.  The  Presbyterian  press 
labeled  the  Proclamation  an  invitation  to  the  slaves  to  rise  up  en 
masse  and  spread  murder,  arson,  and  desolation  throughout  the  land; 
it  was  also  claimed  that  the  Proclamation  proved  the  hypocrisy  of  the 
North— which  maintained  it  was  fighting  to  preserve  the  Union  but  was 
actually  fighting  to  destroy  southern  institutions  and  property.118  In  a 
fast  day  sermon  Benjamin  Palmer  claimed  that  the  North  was  fighting 
"to  put  the  descendants  of  Ham  over  us." 119  In  the  spring  of  1863,  a 
group  of  ministers  in  Richmond  prepared  a  document  which  was 
signed  by  ninety-eight  clergymen,  including  forty-one  Presbyterians. 
Entitled  An  Address  to  Christians  Throughout  the  World,  it  was  a 
protest  against  the  Emancipation  Proclamation.  The  Proclamation  was 

113  James  A.  Lyon,  "Slavery  and  the  Duties  Growing  Out  of  the  Relation,"  Southern 
Presbyterian  Review,  XVI  (July,  1863),  25,  hereinafter  cited  as  Lyon,  "Slavery  and 
the   Duties." 

114  Southern  Presbyterian,   December  1,   1864. 

115  Lyon,  "Slavery  and  the  Duties,"  19. 

116  Benjamin  M.  Palmer,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  James  Henley  Thornwell  (Rich- 
mond: Whittet  and  Shepperson,  1875),  482-483,  hereinafter  cited  as  Palmer,  Thorn- 
well. 

111  Johnson,  Dabney,  283. 

118  Central  Presbyterian,  October  2,  1862;   Christian  Observer,  January  15,   1863. 

119  Benjamin   M.   Palmer,  Rainbow   Round   the    Throne,   38. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  251 

described  as  a  political  document  designed  to  placate  fanatics  in  the 
North  and  an  invitation  to  slave  revolts.  It  was  asserted  that  the  Procla- 
mation was  not  a  show  of  mercy  toward  the  slave  but  of  malice  toward 
the  master.120 

Secession  and  the  war  had  certain  immediate  and  pronounced 
effects  upon  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  South.  The  most  signifi- 
cant was  the  disruption  of  the  church  into  two  sectional  bodies.  As 
early  as  November  28,  1860,  some  members  of  the  Synod  of  South 
Carolina  wished  to  dissolve  their  connections  with  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  and 
form  a  separate  general  assembly  in  the  South.121  From  December, 
1860,  the  Presbyterian  press  in  the  South  discussed  the  possibility  of 
a  split  in  the  church.  In  South  Carolina,  Thornwell  predicted  "a  great 
and  terrible  division,"  in  the  church  and  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
declared  "there  .  .  .  ought  to  be  ...  a  division." 122  In  the  months  prior 
to  Fort  Sumter  a  number  of  southern  presbyteries  met  but  some  of 
them  did  not  elect  delegates  to  attend  the  General  Assembly,  which 
was  scheduled  to  meet  at  Philadelphia  in  mid-May.123 

When  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  met  on  May  16,  1861,  the  war  had  begun, 
and  few  southerners  were  present.  Some  presbyteries  had  refused  to 
elect  delegates,  and  most  of  those  who  had  been  elected  refused  to 
attend.  The  dangers  of  travel,  the  fear  that  they  would  not  be  received 
in  a  friendly  manner,  and  the  belief  "that  Southern  men  had  no  busi- 
ness in  such  an  assembly"  were  among  the  reasons  given  for  their 
absence.124  There  were  sixteen  commissioners  from  the  South  and 
they  represented  only  thirteen  of  the  forty-seven  southern  presbyteries; 
no  delegates  were  present  from  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Geor- 
gia, Alabama,  or  Arkansas.125  It  appeared,  in  fact,  that  the  southern 
Presbyterians  had  already  withdrawn  from  the  General  Assembly; 
however,  it  was  the  adoption  by  the  assembly  of  a  resolution,  intro- 
duced by  Gardiner  Spring  of  New  York,  which  pledged  allegiance 
and  loyalty  to  the  federal  government  and  the  Constitution,  that  per- 


120  Edward  McPherson,  The  Political  History  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
During  the  Great  Rebellion  .  .  .  (Washington,  D.  C:  Solomons  and  Chapman,  1876), 
520-521. 

121  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  November  28,  1860,  Historical  Founda- 
tion of  the   Presbyterian   and   Reformed   Churches. 

122  Monroe,  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate  States,"  96,  120. 

123  rp  Watson  Street,  The  Story  of  Southern  Presbyterians  (Richmond:  John  Knox 
Press,   1960),  56,  hereinafter  cited   as   Street,   Southern  Presbyterians. 

124  Street,  Southern  Presbyterians,  56 ;  Ernest  Trice  Thompson,  Presbyterians  in 
the  South,  1607-1861  (Richmond:  John  Knox  Press  [Volume  I  of  a  projected  multi- 
volume  series,  1963 — ]),  I,  563-564,  hereinafter  cited  as  Thompson,  Presbyterians  in 
the  South. 

135  Street,    Southern    Presbyterians,    56. 


252  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

mitted  southern  Presbyterians  to  claim  that  they  were  "forced  out  of 
the  church."126 

In  the  summer  and  fall  of  1861,  forty-seven  southern  presbyteries 
dissolved  their  connection  with  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  and  many  of  them 
suggested  that  a  convention  of  southern  Presbyterian  delegates  meet 
and  form  a  new  denominational  organization.127  The  first  Presbyterian 
bodies  to  take  this  action  were  the  presbyteries  of  Orange  and  Mem- 
phis. On  June  14  the  Orange  Presbytery  in  North  Carolina  adopted  a 
resolution  that  favored  the  establishment  of  a  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  Confederate  States,  and  recommended  that  all  of  the  southern 
presbyteries  send  delegates  to  a  convention  in  Augusta  on  December  4 
to  form  such  an  organization.  The  Memphis  Presbytery  met  June 
13-14  and  denounced  the  Gardiner  Spring  resolution,  dissolved  all 
connection  with  the  General  Assembly,  and  suggested  a  special  meet- 
ing of  church  leaders  to  discuss  the  future  of  southern  Presbyterian- 
ism.128  These  appeals,  together  with  those  of  other  presbyteries,  re- 
sulted in  a  convention  of  churchmen,  which  met  in  Atlanta  on  August 
15.  Delegates  to  this  meeting  renounced  all  association  with  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  and  asked  that  all  southern  presbyteries  send  commissioners 
to  a  general  assembly  which  was  to  be  held  in  Augusta  on  December 
4,  1861. 129  At  the  December  meeting  the  representatives  of  the  forty- 
seven  presbyteries  in  the  Confederate  States  formed  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate  States  of 
America  and  elected  Benjamin  Morgan  Palmer  as  its  first  moderator.130 
This  church  adopted  the  same  creedal  statements  and  polity  as  the 
older  assembly,  but  affirmed  its  allegiance  to  the  Confederate  govern- 
ment. 

Although  secession  and  the  war  resulted  in  a  split  in  the  Presby- 
terian church,  these  same  forces  contributed  to  the  unity  of  Presby- 
terianism  in  the  South  and  helped  to  effect  the  merger  of  three  differ- 
ent ecclesiastical  organizations  into  one  church.  In  October,  1861, 
the  Synod  of  Nashville  suggested  the  possibility  of  union  among  the 
various  Presbyterian  factions,  and  the  Synod  of  Virginia  expressed 
the  desire  for  "fraternal  correspondence"  of  all  southern  Presbyterian 
bodies.  From  the  fall  and  winter  of  1861-1862,  the  possibilities  and 

126  Johnson,  Palmer,  242 ;  Thompson,  Presbyterians  in  the  South,  564-567 ;  Street, 
Southern  Presbyterians,  57-59;  Thomas  C.  Johnson,  History  of  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian Church   (New  York:   Charles  Scribner's   Sons,  1911),  325ff. 

127  Palmer,  Thornwell,  502. 

^Monroe,    "The    Presbyterian    Church    in    the    Confederate    States,"    122-123. 

129  Thompson,  Presbyterians  in  the  South,   567. 

130  Thompson,  Presbyterians  in   the  South,   571. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  253 

problems  of  church  union  were  discussed  in  the  denominational  news- 
papers, with  most  of  the  comment  being  favorable  to  union.131  In  the 
fall  of  1863  the  Independent  Presbyterian  Church,  which  was  repre- 
sented by  thirteen  congregations,  merged  with  the  Bethel  Presbytery 
of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  and  became  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  Confederate  States  of  America.132  In  1863  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate  States  and 
the  United  Synod  of  new  school  Presbyterians  appointed  commis- 
sioners to  formulate  a  plan  of  merger.  Representatives  of  both 
groups  met  in  Lynchburg  on  July  24,  1863,  and  agreed  on  a  plan. 
After  minor  alterations  the  plan  was  approved  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly and  the  meeting  of  the  United  Synod,  and  in  1864  the  12,000 
United  Synod  Presbyterians  became  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  Confederate  States  of  America.133  Discussions  of  merger  with 
the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  were  cordial  but  did 
not  result  in  union. 

Presbyterian  churches  in  areas  which  were  invaded  by  the  enemy 
suffered  property  damage  and  desecration.  Church  buildings,  equip- 
ment, records,  and  parsonages  were  often  attacked  and  destroyed;134 
a  recent  study  claims  that  more  than  sixty  Presbyterian  church  build 
ings  were  either  destroyed  or  seriously  damaged  during  the  war. 
Some  church  buildings  were  taken  over  by  military  authorities  and 
converted  into  hospitals,  and  the  basement  of  one  Presbyterian  church 
in  Atlanta  was  used  as  a  slaughterhouse  after  that  city  fell  to  Sher- 
man.136 The  denomination  suffered  a  severe  property  loss  when  the 
trustees  of  the  Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia,  South 
Carolina,  invested  over  $250,000  of  the  institution's  endowment  in 
Confederate  bonds.137 

Another  consequence  of  the  war  was  the  loss  of  membership  and  a 
decline  in  the  number  of  clergymen.  The  absence  of  ministers,  the 
scattered  nature  of  many  congregations,  the  draft  policies  of  the  Con- 
federate government,  and  the  destruction  wrought  by  the  invaders 
impeded  the  program  of  the  church.138  Numerous  references  mention 


135 


131  Monroe,  "The  Presbyterian   Church  in  the   Confederate   States,"   142-143,   211. 

132  Monroe,  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the   Confederate   States,"   5,   251. 

133  Monroe,  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate   States,"  244-269. 

134  Christian  Observer,  March  5,  1863;  Central  Presbyterian,  December  10,  1863; 
J.  B.  Jones,  A  Rebel  War  Clerk's  Diary  at  the  Confederate  States  Capital  (Phila- 
delphia: J.  B.  Lippincott  Company,  2  volumes,  1866),  II,  469. 

135  Monroe,  "The   Presbyterian   Church  in   the   Confederate   States,"   311. 

138  Monroe,  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate  States,"  312 ;  Minutes  of 
the  Hanover  Presbytery,  Salem  Church,  October  24,  1862,  Union  Theological  Seminary 
Library. 

137  Christian  Index,   May  20,   1864;    General  Assembly,   1865,   365. 

138  Robert  E.  Thompson,  A  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  United  States 
(New  York:  Christian  Literature  Company,  1895),  163;  General  Assembly,  1863,  155; 


254  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  loss  of  members;  the  membership  of  Presbyterian  churches  in 
North  Carolina  declined  by  more  than  two  thousand  during  the  war, 
and  the  loss  was  greater  elsewhere.139  The  denomination's  program  of 
higher  education  was  interrupted  by  the  war  and  practically  all  college 
level  instruction  ceased.  The  refusal  of  the  Confederate  government  to 
exempt  ministerial  students  from  military  service  caused  a  decline  in 
the  number  of  clergymen  during  the  war  years.  The  faculties  of  the 
Presbyterian  seminaries  in  South  Carolina  and  Virginia  petitioned 
Confederate  authorities  to  change  this  policy  and  to  permit  young 
men  who  were  preparing  for  the  ministry  to  forego  military  service, 
but  their  petitions  were  ignored.140  The  effects  of  this  policy  were 
noted  when  it  was  reported  that  the  Presbytery  of  Charleston  ordained 
only  one  man  during  the  four  war  years,  and  in  North  Carolina  the 
church  gained  only  eight  clergymen,  some  of  whom  moved  into  the 
state  from  other  areas.141 

The  war  also  prevented  the  meeting  of  numerous  presbyteries  and 
synods.  In  some  areas  ecclesiastical  meetings  were  suspended  entirely. 
The  Synod  of  Nashville,  which  embraced  middle  and  eastern  Tennes- 
see and  northern  Alabama,  did  not  meet  in  1862,  1863,  and  1864;  the 
Texas  Synod  did  not  meet  in  1863,  since  a  quorum  was  not  present, 
and  the  1864  meeting  was  cancelled.  Most  presbyteries  in  Mississippi 
did  not  meet  in  1863  and  1864. 142  Denominational  communications 
were  interrupted  on  occasions  when  the  Presbyterian  weekly  news- 
papers were  forced  to  suspend  publication.  In  many  areas  of  the  South 
all  that  could  be  expected  was  to  preserve  a  semblance  of  denomina- 
tional organization,  and  church  elders  were  requested  to  supply  vacant 
pulpits.143 

In  conclusion  it  might  be  noted  that  leaders  in  the  Presbyterian 
church  were  perhaps  more  outspoken  and  articulate  in  their  pro- 
secession  sentiments  than  other  southern  churchmen.  The  Southern 

Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  at  its  Sessions  in  1862  and  1863  (Camden, 
South  Carolina:   W.  K.  Rodgers,  1864),  19;   Synod  of  Mississippi,  1861-1867,  34,  49. 

139  Stacey,  Presbyterian  Church  in  Georgia,  182;  Jones  and  Mills,  Presbyterian 
Church  in  South  Carolina,  372;  D.  I.  Craig,  A  History  of  the  Development  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  North  Carolina  (Richmond:  Whittet  and  Shepperson,  1907), 
34,  hereinafter  cited  as  Craig,  Presbyterian  Church  in  North  Carolina;  H.  M.  White 
(ed.),  Rev.  William  S.  White,  D.D.,  and  His  Times:  An  Autobiography  (Richmond: 
Presbyterian  Committee  of  Publication,  1891),  175. 

140  Francis  R.  Flournoy,  Benjamin  Mosby  Smith,  1811-1893  (Richmond:  Richmond 
Press,  1947),  78. 

141  General  Assembly,  1865,  366;  Craig,  Presbyterian  Church  in  North  Carolina,  34. 

142  Synod  of  Mississippi,  1861-1867,  34,  49;  Minutes  of  the  Texas  Synod,  1863,  1864, 
Historical  Foundation  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Churches;  Minutes  of  the 
Synod  of  Nashville,  Historical  Foundation  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed 
Churches;  Minutes  of  the  Session  of  the  Piedmont  Presbyterian  Church,  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary;  Christian  Observer,  September  29,  1864. 

143  Southern   Presbyterian,    October    6,    1864. 


Presbyterians  in  the  Confederacy  255 

Presbyterian  and  prominent  clergymen  such  as  James  H.  Thornwell 
and  Benjamin  M.  Palmer  were  vigorous  exponents  of  southern  nation- 
alism, but  none  of  the  Presbyterian  apologists  for  the  southern  cause 
championed  secession  until  after  the  election  of  Lincoln  and  the  call 
for  a  state  convention  by  the  governor  of  South  Carolina.  The  argu- 
ments of  Presbyterian  spokesmen,  who  advocated  secession,  were  those 
made  familiar  by  states'  rights  politicians  who  had  voiced  them  in  the 
Missouri  Compromise  debates  forty  years  earlier.  The  influence  of 
Presbyterian  clergymen  on  the  course  of  secession  seems  to  have  been 
minimal.  The  secession  movement  was  essentially  a  political  move- 
ment and  was  publicly  embraced  by  religious  leaders  only  in  late  1860 
and  early  1861.  Evidence  indicates  that  churchmen  were  followers 
of  the  movement  rather  than  leaders.  Blame  for  secession,  the  war,  and 
the  splitting  of  the  denomination  was  placed  on  northerners.  The 
church  informed  the  people  of  the  South  that  their  war  was  a  just  and 
holy  one,  and  all  Christians  were  urged  to  pray  for  the  welfare  of  the 
Confederate  government  and  its  armies.  The  Presbyterian  church  made 
valiant  efforts  to  minister  to  the  spiritual  needs  of  the  soldiers,  to  pro- 
vide religious  readings  for  the  people  of  the  South,  and  to  continue  an 
effective  ministry  on  the  home  front.  Numerous  ministers  served  as 
chaplains  and  missionaries  in  the  army,  and  the  Presbyterians  labored 
diligently,  both  on  the  denominational  level  and  with  others,  to  pro- 
vide Bibles,  New  Testaments,  tracts,  and  other  items  for  the  people  of 
the  Confederacy.  The  church  suffered  heavy  material  losses  during 
the  war,  and  when  hostilities  ceased  countless  churches  had  to  be 
rebuilt  or  repaired,  educational  endowments  had  to  be  restored, 
clergymen  had  to  be  recruited  and  trained,  and  organizational  ties 
had  to  be  reformed.  The  task  of  rebuilding  faced  Presbyterians  in  the 
South. 


REVOLUTIONARY  ORIGINS  OF  THE  SOUTH'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL  DEFENSES 

By  David  L.  Smiley* 

"The  American  Revolution,  with  its  foreign  and  future  conse- 
quences," James  Madison  declared  in  1790,  "is  a  subject  of  such  mag- 
nitude that  every  circumstance  connected  with  it,  more  especially 
every  one  leading  to  it,  is  already  and  will  be  more  and  more  a  matter 
of  investigation."  For  that  reason  he  regarded  the  proceedings  in 
Virginia  during  the  Stamp  Act  crisis  a  quarter-century  earlier  as 
peculiarly  significant.  Information  about  those  events,  he  said,  was 
"a  sort  of  debt  due  from  her  contemporary  citizens  to  their  successors." 
He  asked  elder  statesman  Edmund  Pendleton,  therefore,  to  write  out 
his  recollections  of  the  Stamp  Act  resolves  of  1765— "by  whom  and  how 
the  subject  commenced  in  the  Assembly;  where  the  resolutions  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Henry  really  originated;  what  was  the  sum  of  the  argu- 
ments for  and  against  them,  and  who  were  the  principal  speakers  on 
each  side." 1 

Madison's  interest  in  1790  in  the  background  to  the  Revolution 
was  no  idle  antiquarian  speculation.  Expressed  when  Congress  was 
debating  the  question  of  state  debt  assumption,  and  only  a  few  months 
prior  to  adoption  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions  on  that  subject,  it  was 
an  implied  recognition  of  the  continuity  of  constitutional  arguments 
in  America.  As  Madison  came  to  realize,  there  were  fundamental 
similarities  between  the  legal  defenses  employed  to  justify  opposition 
to  Acts  of  Parliament  in  the  Revolutionary  generation  and  those  heard 

*  Dr.  Smiley  is  professor  of  history  at  Wake  Forest  University,  Winston-Salem. 
This  paper  was  read  at  a  meeting  of  the  Southern  Historical  Association  in  Rich- 
mond, Virginia,  November  18,  1965. 

1  Madison  to  Pendleton,  April  4,  1790,  in  Gaillard  Hunt  (ed.),  The  Writings  of 
James  Madison  (New  York:  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  9  volumes,  1900-1910),  VI,  9-10, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Hunt,  Writings  of  James  Madison.  Compare  the  opinion  of  the 
editor  of  the  Times  (London)  :  "The  rebels  or  patriots  of  1772  [sic]  invoked  rights 
and  asserted  principles  which  could  not  fail  to  be  serviceable  to  any  rebels  or  patriots 
of  future  times."  Noting  that  the  Revolutionaries  of  1776  searched  diligently  through 
Puritan  histories  seeking  the  "forms  of  revolution,"  he  said  that  "the  Seceders  of  the 
present  day  may  turn  to  the  records  of  the  American  Revolution  with  far  greater 
success.  .  .  .  We  think  the  Seceding  States  might  appeal  with  some  plausibility  in 
defense  of  their  proceedings  to  the  precedents  of  the  Revolutionary  War.  .  .  ." 
Times   (London,  England),  May  24,  1861,  hereinafter  cited  as   Times    (London). 


The  South's  Constitutional  Defenses  257 

under  the  Constitution  in  supporting  resistance  to  national  legislation. 
Though  it  would  be  years  before  James  Madison  used  constitutional 
contentions  with  which  he  had  become  familiar  in  1776,  others  were 
already  renewing  the  struggle. 

As  the  timing  of  Madison's  request  to  Pendleton  indicated,  the  Vir- 
ginia Assembly's  response  to  the  Stamp  Act  in  1765  and  to  the  assump- 
tion of  state  debts  in  1790  offered  an  example  of  such  continuity.  In 
the  earlier  year  Patrick  Henry's  resolutions  marked  the  prologue  to  the 
Revolution;  twenty-five  years  later  the  same  man's  resolutions,  ad- 
dressed to  a  similar  grievance  and  couched  in  comparable  language, 
sounded  the  alarm  which  initiated  a  new  conflict  over  constitutional 
interpretation  and  expressed  a  philosophy  which  in  the  nineteenth 
century  became  characteristically  southern.  Far  from  being  original 
in  their  efforts  to  circumvent  a  hostile  majority,  the  apologists  for 
southern  rights  from  1790  to  1860  were  but  adapting  a  constitutional 
mechanism  which  had  served  Americans  once  before.  The  intellectual 
preparation  and  legal  vindication  of  resistance  in  the  War  for  Ameri- 
can Independence  supplied  the  origins  of  the  Old  South's  constitu- 
tional rationale.  The  leaders  of  the  Revolution  evolved  a  set  of  con- 
stitutional principles  which  patriots  in  all  parts  of  the  country  could 
accept  as  a  means  of  preserving  human  liberty,  and  these  same  prin- 
ciples were  adapted  by  a  sectional  minority  in  defense  of  states'  rights 
and  southern  institutions,  including  slavery.  This  shift  in  attitudes  was 
a  significant  development  in  American  thought. 

Those  impassioned  southerners  who  chose  secession  in  1860  were 
fully  aware  of  the  similarities  between  their  actions  and  those  of  the 
Revolutionary  patriots.  As  they  saw  themselves,  they  were  but  fol- 
lowing in  the  footsteps  of  the  Founding  Fathers.  A  New  Orleans  editor 
contended  that  "the  Confederate  States  are  acting  over  again  the  his- 
tory of  the  American  Revolution  of  1776." 2  The  South  Carolina  Con- 
vention of  1860  declared  that  the  South  stood  "exactly  in  the  same 
position  toward  the  Northern  States  that  our  ancestors  did  toward 
Great  Britain,"3  and  a  delegate  to  that  convention  evoked  patriotic 
emotions  when  he  shouted  that  "the  tea  has  been  thrown  overboard; 
the  Revolution  of  1860  has  begun." 4  Even  volunteer  versifiers,  answer- 

2 Daily  Picayune  (New  Orleans,  Louisiana),  hereinafter  cited  as  Daily  Picayune, 
in  Frank  Moore  (ed.),  The  Rebellion  Record  (New  York:  G.  P.  Putnam  and  D.  Van 
Nostrand,  11  volumes  and  supplement,  1861-1868),  II,  252. 

3  "Address  of  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  Assembled  in  Convention,  to  the 
People  of  the  Slaveholding  States  of  the  United  States,"  in  Journal  of  the  Convention 
of  the  People  of  South  Carolina  (Columbia,  S.C.:  Gibbes,  1862),  467-476.  The  quotation 
is  on  page  468. 

4  Quoted  in  Alan  Barker,  The  Civil  War  in  America  (Garden  City,  N.Y.:  Double- 
day  and   Company,   Inc.,   1961),   93. 


258  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

ing  the  call  to  the  colors  with  poetry,  often  bad,  sang  of  the  resem- 
blances between  1776  and  1860.  As  one  expressed  it: 

Yes,  call  them  rebels!  'tis  the  name 

Their  patriot  fathers  bore, 
And  by  such  deeds  they'll  hallow  it, 

As  they  have  done  before.5 

But  for  all  their  proud  assumption  of  the  patriots'  mantle,  the  nine- 
teenth century  defenders  of  local  autonomy  would  have  strengthened 
their  case  had  they  known  and  followed  Madison's  injunction  to  study 
carefully  the  coming  of  the  American  Revolution.  Every  one  of  their 
constitutional  arguments  had  its  counterpart  in  the  Revolutionary 
quarrel  with  Britain.  Even  the  editor  of  the  London  Times,  with  an 
ill-concealed  malicious  glee,  noted  the  comparisons  clearly.  The  North 
had  a  good  case,  but  it  was  "surprisingly  like  the  cause  of  England," 
he  said.  "By  substituting  the  words  'British  Empire'  for  'American 
Union'  we  shall  get  very  nearly  the  case  of  George  III  and  his  minis- 
ters." Defenders  of  the  Union  had  not  advanced  a  single  argument 
against  secession,  he  asserted,  "which  could  not  have  been  employed 
with  equal  justice  by  Lord  North." 6 

In  spite  of  the  proud  southern  recognition  and  the  somewhat  spite- 
ful English  corroboration  of  the  similarities  between  1776  and  1860, 
there  were  basic  differences  between  the  two  American  "secessions" 
and  the  two  civil  wars  for  independence.  Beyond  the  fact  that  each 
historical  event  is  unique,  perhaps  the  most  obvious  disparity  was 
the  difference  between  the  constitutions  to  which  each  group  appealed. 
The  British  Constitution  and  the  United  States  Constitution  were  alike 
in  that  each  was  susceptible  to  different  interpretations  so  that  each 
side  in  both  conflicts  could  clothe  itself  in  the  garments  of  legality.  But 
the  nebulous  nature  of  the  British  Constitution  as  compared  to  the 
definite  written  instrument  of  1787  made  the  tasks  of  the  Revolutionary 
generation  more  difficult.  Though  they  remained  convinced  that  they 
were  preserving  ancient  English  rights  granted  under  a  specific  and 
long-established  Constitution  against  the  perversions  of  a  tyrannical 
King  and  Parliament,  ultimately  the  1776  rebels  reduced  their  em- 
phasis upon  the  Constitution  in  favor  of  an  equally  nebulous  doctrine 

6  Daily  Picayune,  May  26,  1861,  quoted  in  E.  Merton  Coulter,  The  Confederate 
States  of  America,  1861-1865,  Volume  VII  of  A  History  of  the  South,  edited  by 
Wendell  Holmes  Stephenson  and  E.  Merton  Coulter  (Baton  Rouge:  Louisiana  State 
University  Press  [projected  10  volumes,  1948 — ],  1950),  60. 

6  Times  (London),  May  24,  1861.  For  a  dissenting  view  of  the  two  rebellions,  see 
George  Fitzhugh,  "The  Revolutions  of  1776  and  1861  Contrasted,"  in  Southern 
Literary  Messenger,  XXXVII  (November  and  December,  1863),  718-726. 


The  South's  Constitutional  Defenses  259 

of  "natural  rights"  as  their  primary  defense.  There  were  other  im- 
portant differences.  Changes  in  communications,  in  values,  and  in 
personalities  contributed  unique  characteristics  to  each  event. 

Still,  stripped  of  their  superficial  trappings,  the  two  sets  of  Ameri- 
can rebels  gave  considerable  substance  to  the  observations  of  the 
London  editor.  The  constitutional  bases  of  both  civil  wars  were  argu- 
ments which  displayed  similar  verbiage  if  not  always  exactly  com- 
parable meanings.  Each  contended  that  legitimate  governments  were 
compacts  between  principals;  that  certain  legislation  had  violated 
fundamental  charters— the  products  of  compact  agreements— and  was 
therefore  null  and  void;  that  local  governments  were  supreme  in  their 
political  spheres  and  could  judge  the  actions  of  the  general  govern- 
ment in  the  light  of  the  fundamental  law;  and  that  any  change  in  the 
essentially  federal  nature  of  government  was  destructive  of  human 
liberty.  Considered  broadly,  even  the  grievances  voiced  in  the  two 
rebellions— tariff  s  or  commercial  regulation,  taxation,  home  rule  and  in- 
dividual rights,  and  the  control  of  western  territory— demonstrated  a 
startling  similarity.  Constitutional  theorists  and  publicists  in  both 
camps,  confronted  with  a  hostile  majority  whether  in  the  British 
Parliament  or  in  the  United  States  Congress  and  the  Electoral  College, 
fell  back  upon  arguments  and  devices  which  had  much  in  common. 

Each  group  began  with  the  compact  theory  of  government.  The 
colonials,  utilizing  European  political  writers  such  as  John  Milton 
and  John  Locke,  James  Harrington  and  Algernon  Sidney,  had  long 
asserted  the  contractual  nature  of  the  state.  To  the  Puritans  it  was 
but  the  extension  of  covenant  Calvinism  into  the  secular  sphere.  "It 
is  of  the  nature  and  essence  of  every  society,"  John  Winthrop  declared, 
"to  be  knitt  together  by  some  Covenant,  either  expressed  or  implyed."  7 
Similar  views  appeared  in  the  Mayflower  Compact,  the  Fundamental 
Orders  of  Connecticut,  and  in  the  frontier  charters  such  as  that  of 
Watauga.  Patrick  Henry,  in  his  argument— or  that  of  his  biographers— 
in  the  Parson's  Cause,  extended  the  compact  idea  to  include  the 
colony's  connection  with  Britain.8  James  Otis  declared  that  "the  form 
and  mode  of  government  is  to  be  settled  by  compact,"  and  Samuel 
Adams  was  sure  that  "whatever  Government  in  general  may  be 
founded  in,  Ours  was  manifestly  founded  in  Compact." 9  In  1776  the 

7  Quoted  in  Edmund  S.  Morgan,  The  Puritan  Dilemma:  The  Story  of  John  Win- 
throp  (Boston:  Little,  Brown  &  Company,  1958),  93. 

8  William  Wirt,  The  Life  of  Patrick  Henry  (Hartford,  Connecticut:  S.  Andrus 
and  Son  [Tenth  Edition],  1850),  46-47. 

9  James  Otis,  The  Rights  of  the  British  Colonies  Asserted  and  Proved  (Boston:  n.p. 
[Third  Edition,  Corrected],  1766),  22;  this  pamphlet  is  reprinted  in  Charles  F. 
Mullett,  "Some  Political  Writings  of  James  Otis,"  University  of  Missouri  Studies, 
IV  (July  1,  1929),  45-101.  Harry  A.  Cushing  (ed.),  The  Writings  of  Samuel  Adams 
(New  York:  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  4  volumes,  1904-1908),  I,  29,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Cushing,    Writings   of   Samuel   Adams. 


260  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Continental  Congress  was  therefore  on  familiar  ground  when  it  de- 
clared that  governments  were  instituted  among  men,  "deriving  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed."  10 

The  compact  theory  of  government  was  a  part  of  the  Americans' 
heritage  from  the  eighteenth  century,  and  they  continued  it  in  the 
process  by  which  the  state  conventions  ratified  the  Constitution  of 
1787.  That  method  of  approval,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  Con- 
stitution itself  established  a  government  partly  national  and  partly 
federal,  made  the  compact  idea  a  fundamental  defense  in  later  oppo- 
sition to  national  legislation.  "By  compact  under  the  style  and  title  of 
a  Constitution  for  the  United  States,"  ran  Jefferson's  classic  statement 
in  1798,  "they  constituted  a  general  government  for  special  pur- 
poses. ...  To  this  compact  each  State  acceded  as  a  State,  and  is  an 
integral  party,  its  co-States  forming,  as  to  itself,  the  other  party."  n 

In  Jefferson's  verbal  footsteps  followed  other  publicists  who  found 
acts  of  national  legislation  distasteful.  Defined  as  an  agreement  be- 
tween coeval  states  united  in  a  league  or  confederation,  the  phrase 
"compact  theory"  rolled  easily  off  the  tongues  of  southern  leaders.  In 
1831  John  C.  Calhoun  declared  that  "the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is,  in  fact,  a  compact,  to  which  each  State  is  a  party." 12  And  in 
a  Senate  speech  in  1860  Jefferson  Davis  demonstrated  the  tenacity  of 
the  idea:  "the  States  were  the  grantors,"  he  said;  "they  made  the  com- 
pact; they  gave  the  Federal  agent  its  powers."13  So  close  were  the 
theoretical  connections  between  the  two  revolutions  that  in  1798  Jef- 
ferson could  assert  that  he  had  not  departed  from  the  principles  he 
followed  in  1775,  and  in  1831  Calhoun  could  claim  that  he  was  true  to 
the  republican  spirit  of  1798.14 

If  the  compact  idea  gave  continuity  to  a  set  of  constitutional  argu- 
ments, in  other  aspects  of  the  minority's  defenses  the  nineteenth  cen- 

10  Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress  (Washington:  Government  Printing  Office, 
34  volumes,  1904-1937),  V,  510,  hereinafter  cited  as  Journals  of  the  Continental 
Congress.  See  Andrew  C.  McLaughlin,  "Social  Compact  and  Constitutional  Con- 
struction," American  Historical  Review,  V  (April,  1900),  467-490,  for  an  argument 
that  the  idea  of  compact  underwent  a  change  in  meaning  between  1776  and  1860. 

11  "The  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798,"  in  Saul  K.  Padover,  The  Complete  Jefferson 
(New  York:  Duell,  Sloan  and  Pearce,  1943),  128-129. 

12  Richard  K.  Cralle  (ed.),  The  Works  of  John  C.  Calhoun  (New  York:  Appleton, 
6  volumes,  1853-1855),  VI,  60,  hereinafter  cited  as  Cralle,  Works  of  Calhoun.  See 
also  Calhoun's  statement  in  the  South  Carolina  Exposition,  quoted  in  Cralle,  Works 
of  Calhoun,  VI,  36. 

"Jefferson  Davis,  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government  (New  York: 
Appleton,  2  volumes,  1881),  I,  585,  hereinafter  cited  as  Davis,  Rise  and  Fall. 

"Jefferson  to  Samuel  Smith,  August  22,  1798,  in  Henry  Augustine  Washington 
(ed.),  The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson  (Washington:  Taylor  &  Maury,  9  volumes, 
1853-1854),  IV,  254;  Calhoun  to  Christopher  Van  Deventer,  August  5,  1831,  in  J. 
Franklin  Jameson  (ed.),  Correspondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun  (Washington:  Govern- 
ment Printing  Office  [Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association  for  the 
Year  1899,  Volume  II],  1899),  296. 


The  South's  Constitutional  Defenses  261 

tury  drew  heavily  upon  Revolutionary  pamphleteers.  Upon  the  pre- 
mise of  the  compact  theory,  expanded  to  include  the  local  govern- 
ment's relationship  to  the  general,  both  groups  defined  their  union  as  a 
federal  one  of  political  members  possessing  certain  features  of  sov- 
ereignty. Federalism,  the  idea  that  there  were  two  levels  of  govern- 
ment, one  general  and  the  other  local,  lay  at  the  roots  of  Colonial 
resistance  to  Parliament.  However  real  may  have  been  the  economic 
pressures,  the  heady  content  of  the  intellectual  currents  sweeping  out 
of  Enlightenment  Europe,  or  the  popular  demands  for  social  change, 
Colonial  American  spokesmen  were  careful  to  express  their  opposition 
to  British  legislation  in  constitutional  and  federal  terms.15 

The  defenders  of  Colonial  rights  asserted  that  their  charters  granted 
them  legislative  supremacy  over  their  internal  matters.  "By  this  Char- 
ter," said  Samuel  Adams  in  Massachusetts,  "we  have  an  exclusive 
Right  to  make  Laws  for  our  own  internal  Government  and  Taxation." 
Distance  rendered  it  impractical  for  Americans  to  be  represented  in 
Parliament,  he  continued,  speculating  that  it  was  "very  probable  that 
all  subordinate  legislative  powers  in  America,  were  constituted  upon 
the  Apprehension  of  this  Impracticability." 16  The  American  govern- 
ments, Massachusetts'  Governor  Francis  Bernard  confirmed,  "claim  to 
be  perfect  states,  not  otherwise  dependent  upon  Great  Britain  than  by 
having  the  same  king."  17  Rhode  Island's  Governor  Stephen  Hopkins, 
defining  the  Empire  as  a  federal  union,  declared  that  "each  of  the 
colonies  hath  a  legislature  within  itself,  to  take  care  of  its  Interests . . . 
yet  there  are  things  of  a  more  general  nature,  quite  out  of  reach  of 
these  particular  legislatures,  which  is  necessary  should  be  regulated, 
ordered,  and  governed." 18 

Colonial  opposition  to  imperial  taxation  brought  forth  only  an 
immediate  manifestation  of  a  prior  belief  in  a  federal  Empire.  The 
Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives,  in  a  debate  with  Governor 


15  Daniel  J.  Boorstin,  The  Genius  of  American  Politics  (Chicago:  University  of 
Chicago  Press,  1953),  Chapter  III.  In  Chapter  IV  Professor  Boorstin  argues,  in 
general  terms,  the  continuity  of  constitutional  thought  between  the  Revolution  and  the 
Confederacy.  See  also  Thad  W.  Tate,  "The  Coming  of  the  Revolution  in  Virginia: 
Britain's  Challenge  to  Virginia's  Ruling  Class,  1763-1776,"  William  and  Mary 
Quarterly,  XIX  (July,  1962),  323-343,  for  an  argument  that  constitutional  issues 
combined  with  a  threat  to  Virginia's  power  structure  brought  on  revolution — a  thesis 
which  might  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  Confederates.  Additional  interpretive 
matter  on  this  point  is  in  R.  G.  Adams,  Political  Ideas  of  the  American  Revolution 
(New  York:  Facsimile  Library,  1939)  and  Charles  F.  Mullett,  Fundamental  Law 
and  the  American  Revolution,  1760-1776  (New  York:  Columbia  University  Press, 
1933) . 

16Cushing,    Writings   of  Samuel  Adams,   I,   29. 

"Quoted  in  Claude  H.  Van  Tyne,  The  Causes  of  the  War  of  Independence  (Boston: 
Houghton   Mifflin,   1922),   218. 

"Quoted  in  Alfred  H.  Kelly  and  Winfred  A.  Harbison,  The  American  Constitution 
(New  York:   W.  W.  Norton,  1948),  69-70. 


262  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Bernard  over  the  Stamp  Act,  asserted  "that  the  charter  of  this  province 
invests  the  General  Assembly  with  the  power  of  making  laws  for  its 
internal  government  and  taxation"— obviously  taking  its  language  from 
Samuel  Adams.19  Perhaps  the  clearest  Colonial  statement  of  federalism 
appeared  in  the  Declaration  and  Resolves  of  the  First  Continental 
Congress.  In  an  appeal  based  upon  "the  immutable  laws  of  nature, 
the  principles  of  the  English  constitution,  and  the  several  charters  or 
compacts,"  they  petitioned  for  redress  of  grievances  "as  Englishmen 
their  ancestors  in  like  cases  have  usually  done."  They  declared  that  the 
foundation  of  English  liberty  was  the  right  of  popular  participation 
in  government.  Since  they  could  not  properly  be  represented  in  the 
British  Parliament,  they  asserted  their  right  to  a  "free  and  exclusive 
power  of  legislation  in  their  several  provincial  legislatures,  where 
their  right  of  representation  can  alone  be  preserved,  in  all  cases  of 
taxation  and  internal  polity,  subject  only  to  the  negative  of  their 
sovereign,  in  such  manner  as  has  heretofore  been  used  and  accus- 
tomed." But  at  the  same  time  they  would  "cheerfully  consent"  to  Par- 
liamentary regulation  of  external  commerce.  In  these  resolutions  the 
Continental  Congress  explicitly  stated  its  view  of  the  Empire  as  a 
federal,  rather  than  a  unitary,  political  organization.20 

The  states'  rights  dogma,  characteristically  a  fundamental  element 
in  the  Old  South' s  constitutional  defenses,  thus  had  roots  in  Revolu- 
tionary thought.  Though  most  southern  spokesmen  went  no  further 
back  than  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1787,  a  few  recognized  the 
Colonial  origins  of  American  federalism.  Governor  Littleton  W.  Taze- 
well of  Virginia  was  one  who  did.  "In  their  colonial  state,  they  con- 
stituted several  distinct  Societies,  whose  affairs  were  regulated  by 
governments  absolutely  independent  of  each  other,"  he  said.  "In 
throwing  off  their  former  governments  they  did  not  dissolve  their 
former  associations— the  Societies  remained,  after  the  governments 
were  no  more."  The  Declaration  of  Independence,  Tazewell  declared, 
"far  from  proclaiming  that  they  were  One  People  or  One  Nation,  in 
its  own  terms  declared  them  to  be  free  and  Independent  States/ 


"21 


19Alden  Bradford  (ed.),  Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Massachusetts  from  1765  to 
1775  (Boston:  Russell  and  Gardner,  1818),  45,  quoted  in  Edmund  S.  Morgan  and 
Helen  M.  Morgan,  The  Stamp  Act  Crisis:  Prologue  to  Revolution  (Chapel  Hill: 
University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1953),  101,  hereinafter  cited  as  Morgan,  Stamp 
Act  Crisis. 

20  Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  I,  67-69.  For  a  discussion  of  the  impli- 
cations of  the  Declaration  and  Resolves,  see  Charles  H.  Mcllwain,  The  American 
Revolution:  A  Constitutional  Interpretation  (New  York:  Macmillan  Company,  1923; 
and  Ithaca:   Cornell  University  Press,  1958),  114-137. 

a  Littleton  W.  Tazewell,  A  Review  of  the  Proclamation  of  President  Jackson  of 
the  10th  of  December,  1832  (Norfolk,  Virginia:  J.  D.  Ghiselin,  1888),  53.  See  also 
Cralle,  Works  of  Calhoun,  I,  188-193. 


The  South's  Constitutional  Defenses  263 

Other  opponents  of  national  power  also  called  upon  the  pre-Revolu- 
tionary  past  to  justify  their  present  contentions.  James  Madison,  a 
youthful  participant  in  the  Revolution,  saw  the  continuity  between 
Colonial  theory  and  states'  rights  under  the  Constitution.  "The  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  Revolution  was,  that  the  Colonies  were  co- 
ordinate members  with  each  other  and  with  Great  Britain,  of  an  Em- 
pire united  by  a  common  executive  sovereign,  but  not  united  by  any 
common  legislative  sovereign,"  he  said  in  1800.  "The  legislative  power 
was  maintained  to  be  as  complete  in  each  American  Parliament,  as 
in  the  British  Parliament.  ...  A  denial  of  these  principles  by  Great 
Britain,  and  the  assertion  of  them  by  America,"  Madison  concluded, 
"produced  the  Revolution." 22  In  1844  Robert  Barnwell  Rhett  praised 
the  sense  of  independence  "which  prompted  our  ancestors  to  enter 
the  field  in  1776,"  and  said  the  same  spirit  would  make  southerners 
"warm  now,  and  watchful,  to  resent  every  assault  upon  the  province 
of  our  local  government  and  from  whatever  quarter  it  may  come." 23 

Building  upon  the  conviction  that  local  governments  were  supreme 
in  their  own  domains,  the  next  step  in  the  minority's  defense  was  to 
assert  the  limited  nature  of  the  general  government.  In  placing  limi- 
tations upon  the  legislative  powers  of  their  unions,  both  groups  urged 
a  strict  construction  of  their  constitutions.  The  claim  that  the  British 
constitution  put  limits  upon  the  powers  of  Parliament  appeared  fre- 
quently in  the  quarrel  with  the  mother  country.  It  was  heard  in  Vir- 
ginia in  1753,  when  the  Assembly  declared  that  "the  Rights  of  the 
Subject  are  so  secured  by  Law,  that  they  cannot  be  deprived  of  the 
least  Part  of  their  Property,  but  by  their  own  Consent:  Upon  this 
excellent  Principle  is  our  Constitution  founded."24  In  Massachusetts 
Samuel  Adams  could  become  quite  academic  in  expounding  the  idea 
of  constitutional  limitations.  "If  then  according  to  Lord  Coke,  Magna 
Charta  is  declaratory  of  the  principal  grounds  of  the  fundamental  laws 
and  liberties  of  the  people,  and  Vatel  is  right  in  his  opinion,  that  the 
supreme  legislature  cannot  change  the  constitution,"  he  wrote,  "I  think 
it  follows,  whether  Lord  Coke  has  expressly  asserted  it  or  not,  that 
an  act  of  Parliament  made  against  Magna  Charta  in  violation  of  its 
essential  parts,  is  void." 25 

22  Hunt,  Writings  of  James  Madison,  VI,  373. 

23  Mercury  (Charleston,  S.C.),  August  1,  1844,  quoted  in  William  R.  Taylor, 
Cavalier  and  Yankee  (New  York:  George  Braziller,  1961),  265.  In  "The  Spirit  of 
76,"  262-270,  Professor  Taylor  discusses  efforts  of  South  Carolinians  to  relate  them- 
selves  to   the   Revolutionary   patriots. 

24  Quoted  in  David  J.  Mays,  Edmund  Pendleton,  1721-1803  (Cambridge:  Harvard 
University  Press,  2  volumes,  1952),  I,  76,  hereinafter  cited  as  Mays,  Edmund 
Pendleton. 

85  Cushing,  Writings  of  Samuel  Adams,  II,  325-326. 


264  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Other  Colonial  leaders  agreed  that  the  British  Constitution  placed 
limits  upon  Parliament  and  thereby  substantiated  their  claims  to  Eng- 
lish political  rights.  John  Rutledge  of  South  Carolina  assured  the  First 
Continential  Congress  that  "our  claims,  I  think,  are  well  founded  on 
the  British  Constitution/'  And  to  the  same  gathering  Joseph  Galloway 
of  Pennsylvania  said  that  he  had  sought  the  basis  of  American  rights 
"in  the  constitution  of  the  English  government,  and  there  found  them. 
We  may  draw  them  from  this  source  securely/'26 

British  taxation  of  their  American  colonies  brought  forth  the  most 
vigorous  appeals  to  the  Constitution.  The  Virginia  Assembly  attacked 
the  Stamp  Act  as  contrary  to  a  "fundamental  principle  of  the  British 
Constitution,  without  which  Freedom  can  no  Where  exist/'27  The 
Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives  went  even  further.  "It  by  no 
means  appertains  to  us  to  presume  to  adjust  the  boundaries  of  the 
power  of  Parliament;  but  boundaries  there  undoubtedly  are,"  its  mem- 
bers declared.  "We  beg  leave  just  to  observe  that  the  charter  of  this 
province  invests  the  General  Assembly  with  the  power  of  making  laws 
for  its  internal  government  and  taxation,  and  that  this  charter  has 
never  yet  been  forfeited/'28  In  a  protest  to  the  Townshend  Acts  the 
Massachusetts  House  resolved  that  "In  all  free  states,  the  constitution 
is  fixed;  it  is  from  thence,  that  the  legislative  derives  its  authority; 
therefore  it  cannot  change  the  constitution  without  destroying  its  own 
foundation." 29  Samuel  Adams  defined  the  Townshend  duties  as  "In- 
fringements of  their  natural  and  constitutional  Rights,"  and  James 
Otis  expressed  the  opinion  that  "there  are  Limits,  beyond  which  if 
Parliaments  go,  their  Acts  bind  not." 30 

With  these  constitutional  appeals  as  precedents,  after  1789  it  was 
easy  for  the  opponents  of  national  legislation  to  continue  the  tradition. 
In  1790  the  Virginia  delegates  could  "find  no  clause  in  the  constitution 
authorizing  Congress  to  assume  the  debts  of  the  states,"  and  a  decade 
later  asserted  "the  authority  of  constitutions  over  governments,  and 
.  .  .  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  over  constitutions."31  Thomas  Jef- 

26  Quoted  in  Mays,  Edmund  Pendleton,  I,  287-288.  See  also  Andrew  C.  McLaughlin, 
The  Foundations  of  American  Constitutionalism  (New  York:  New  York  University 
Press,  1932),  140-142,  hereinafter  cited  as  McLaughlin,  Foundations  of  American 
Constitutionalism. 

27  Mays,  Edmund  Pendleton,  I,  158. 

28  Quoted  in  Morgan,  Stamp  Act  Crisis,  101. 

29  Massachusetts  House  to  the  Earl  of  Shelburne,  January  15,  1768,  in  Alden 
Bradford  (ed.),  Massachusetts  State  Papers,  reprinted  in  Henry  S.  Commager, 
Documents  of  American  History  (New  York:  Appleton-Century-Crofts  [Fourth  Edi- 
tion], 1948),  65,  hereinafter  cited  as  Commager,  Documents,  as  a  convenient  source 
for  pertinent  materials. 

80  Cushing,  Writings  of  Samuel  Adams,  I,  184-185,  reprinted  in  Commager,  Docu- 
ments, 66;  Otis  quoted  in  Morgan,  Stamp  Act  Crisis,  140. 
31  "Virginia  Resolutions  on  Debt  Assumption,"  in  W.  W.  Hening   (ed.),  Statutes  at 


The  South's  Constitutional  Defenses  265 

ferson  regarded  it  as  axiomatic  that  acts  of  the  general  government  not 
specifically  granted  in  the  constitution  were  without  authority.32  Into 
the  nineteenth  century  the  minority,  whether  in  New  England  after 
1801  or  later  in  the  South,  insisted  upon  retaining  the  letter  of  the 
Constitution  as  the  preserver  of  their  liberties.  John  C.  Calhoun,  who 
had  learned  his  constitutional  theory  in  Tapping  Reeve's  law  school 
in  Litchfield,  Connecticut,  in  the  days  of  Federalist  eclipse,  based 
his  complicated  minority-defense  mechanism  upon  the  Constitution, 
which  he  declared  had  established  a  federal  union  of  sovereign  en- 
tities. To  prevent  the  dread  alternatives  of  centralization  or  disunion, 
he  set  himself  the  objective  "that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
should  be  restored  to  its  federal  character.  Nothing  short  of  a  perfect 
restoration,"  he  said,  "as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  its  framers,  can 
avert  them/'33  After  Calhoun  many  others,  including  Jefferson  Davis 
and  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  employed  similar  arguments.  Their  think- 
ing, however,  was  original  not  so  much  in  their  basic  premises  as  in 
their  adaptation  of  a  well-defined  Revolutionary  constitutional  inter- 
pretation to  meet  their  contemporary  needs.34 

In  their  appeal  to  the  Constitution  the  colonials  anticipated  an  idea 
later  celebrated  as  the  doctrine  of  state  interposition.  In  1771  Samuel 
Cooper  said  of  the  people  of  Boston  that  "the  greater  Part  have  a 
settled  persuasion  .  .  .  that  our  Parliament  here  ought  to  come  between 
the  sovereign  and  the  American  subject,  just  in  the  same  Manner  that 
the  British  Parliament  does  with  respect  to  the  British  subject. . . ." 35 
Nineteen  years  later,  when  the  Virginia  delegates  opposed  the  assump- 
tion of  state  debts,  they  declared  themselves  the  "guardians  then  of 
the  rights  and  interests  of  their  constituents,  as  sentinels  placed  by 
them  over  the  ministers  of  the  federal  government,  to  shield  it  from 
their  encroachments."  Twenty-seven  years  later,  when  the  Virginians 
objected  to  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts,  they  declared  that  the  states 
"have  the  right  and  are  in  duty  bound  to  interpose  for  arresting  the 

Large  of  Virginia  (Richmond:  Printed  for  the  editor  at  Franklin  Press,  13  volumes, 
1819-1823),  XIII,  238,  hereinafter  cited  as  Hening,  Statutes.  The  resolutions  also 
appear  in  Commager,  Documents,  155.  The  "Virginia  Report  of  1800,"  is  in  Hunt, 
Writings  of  James  Madison,  VI,  352. 

32  Dumas  Malone,  Jefferson  and  the  Ordeal  of  Liberty,  Volume  III  of  Jefferson  and 
His  Time  (Boston:  Little,  Brown  [projected  multivolume  work,  1948 — ],  1962), 
403-404,  hereinafter  cited  as  Malone,  Jefferson  and  the  Ordeal  of  Liberty. 

33  Margaret  L.  Coit,  John  C.  Calhoun,  American  Portrait  (Boston:  Houghton 
Mifflin,  1950),  42.  The  quotation  is  in  Cralle,  Works  of  Calhoun,  I,  381.  For  a  study  of 
differences  between  Madison's  and  Calhoun's  concepts  of  the  Union,  see  Edward  S. 
Corwin,  "National  Power  and  State  Interposition,  1787-1861,"  Michigan  Law  Review, 
X   (May,  1912),  535-551. 

34  Davis,  Rise  and  Fall;  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  A  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late 
War  Between  the  States    (Philadelphia:   National   Publishing  Co.,  2  volumes,   1868). 

35  Samuel  Cooper  to  Thomas  Pownall,  November  14,  1771,  in  Frederick  Tuckerman 
(ed.),  "Letters  of  Samuel  Cooper  to  Thomas  Pownall,  1769-1777,"  American  Historical 
Review,  VIII    (January,  1903),  325. 


266  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

progress  of  the  evil.  .  .  ." 36  Under  the  Constitution  the  defense  ma- 
neuver of  state  interposition  to  protect  the  citizens  from  outside  en- 
croachments was  an  important  aspect  of  the  South's  particularistic 
philosophy,  but  it  had  roots  in  the  earlier  debate  with  Britain. 

Along  with  interposition  went  the  claim  that  a  state  had  the  power 
to  judge  the  constitutionality  of  national  legislation  and  to  nullify 
within  its  borders  measures  which  a  strict  reading  of  the  fundamental 
law  did  not  justify.  Usually  regarded  as  having  its  beginnings  in  the 
South  Carolina  Nullification  Convention  of  1832,  or  in  Calhoun's 
Exposition  of  1828,  or  even  in  the  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1799,  the 
doctrine  of  nullification  had  its  counterpart  in  the  prologue  to  the 
Revolution.  However  often  the  colonials  may  have  nullified  commer- 
cial measures  by  smuggling,  it  was  the  Stamp  Act  which  brought  from 
them  statements  of  the  constitutional  idea  of  nullification. 

The  Stamp  Act  was  the  first  British  effort  to  tax  the  colonists  di- 
rectly, so  it  was  an  open  challenge  to  American  constitutional  theories. 
Though  Colonial  agents  and  assemblies  petitioned  against  the  meas- 
ure, they  had  no  vote  in  Parliament.  Subjected  to  the  legislation  of 
an  unfriendly  majority,  they  fell  back  upon  constitutional  defenses. 
Patrick  Henry,  a  newcomer  to  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses,  intro- 
duced a  set  of  resolutions  designed  to  nullify  the  act  within  the  pro- 
vince. The  right  of  the  people  to  determine  their  own  taxes,  he  said, 
"is  the  only  security  against  a  burdensome  taxation,  and  the  distin- 
guishing characteristick  of  British  freedom,  without  which  the  ancient 
constitution  cannot  exist."  According  to  tradition,  one  of  his  resolu- 
tions included  the  assertion  that  the  Virginians  were  "not  bound  to 
yield  obedience"  to  an  unconstitutional  law.37 

Colonial  response  to  Henry's  resolutions  was  important  not  only  in 
the  coming  of  the  Revolution  but  also  in  later  constitutional  defenses. 
Regardless  of  what  actually  happened  in  the  Virginia  House  in  May, 
1765— and  the  truth  may  never  be  known— the  doctrine  of  nullification 
spread  rapidly  in  newspaper  accounts.  Upon  publication  of  the  Vir- 
ginia "Resolves,"  groups  in  other  colonies  endorsed  them  and  issued 
statements  often  bolder  in  tone.  The  Sons  of  Liberty  in  Portsmouth, 
New  Hampshire,  for  example,  declared  that  the  Stamp  Act  violated 
fundamental  rights  of  British  subjects  and  was  "Therefore  void  of  all 
Lawfull  Authority,  so  that  depending  upon  Meer  Force  it  may  Law- 

86  "Virginia  Resolutions  on  Debt  Assumption,"  in  Hening,  Statutes,  XIII,  238; 
"Virginia  Resolutions  of  1798,"  in  Hunt,  Writings  of  James  Madison,  VI,  326, 
and  reprinted  in  Commager,  Documents,  182-183.  See  also  the  South  Carolina  Ex- 
position, in  Cralle,  Works  of  Calhoun,  VI,  55-57. 

37  "Virginia  Stamp  Act  Resolves,"  in  Morgan,  Stamp  Act  Crisis,  91-92,  and  also  in 
Commager,  Documents,  56.  For  confusion  over  the  resolves,  see  Morgan,  Stamp  Act 
Crisis,  89-94. 


40 


The  South's  Constitutional  Defenses  267 

fully  be  oppos'd  by  Force."38  The  Northampton  County  Court  in 
Virginia  asserted  that  "the  said  act  did  not  bind,  affect  or  concern  the 
inhabitants  of  this  colony,  in  as  much  as  they  conceive  the  same  to  be 
unconstitutional.  .  .  ."39  The  Rhode  Island  Assembly  appealed  for  re 
sistance  to  the  Act  and  directed  the  colony's  officials  to  ignore  it. 
John  Adams  in  Massachusetts  defined  the  Act  as  "utterly  void,  and  of 
no  binding  Force  upon  us." 41  With  their  leaders  expressing  such  views, 
Colonial  mob  violence  effectively  nullified  the  offending  Act.  Non- 
importation agreements  and  the  Continental  Association  intended 
similar  treatment  for  other  British  imperial  actions. 

From  these  beginnings  the  doctrine  of  nullification  emerged  as  a 
weapon  of  the  minority  under  the  Constitution.  As  Madison's  1790 
letter  to  Edmund  Pendleton  implied,  there  was  a  close  theoretical 
relationship  between  Patrick  Henry's  resolutions  on  the  Stamp  Act 
and  his  remarks  on  the  assumption  of  state  debts.  A  few  years  later, 
when  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts  extended  the  powers  of  the  federal 
judiciary  to  include  common  law  jurisdiction  in  criminal  cases,  Thomas 
Jefferson  wanted  his  state  to  declare  that  the  "acts  are,  and  were  ab 
initio,  null,  void,  and  of  no  force  or  effect."  The  1799  Kentucky 
Resolutions  made  it  explicit  that  the  states  "being  sovereign  and  in- 
dependent, have  the  unquestionable  right  to  judge  of  the  infraction," 
and  that  a  "nullification"  of  the  offending  measures  "is  the  rightful 
remedy."  It  was  on  the  basis  of  these  precedents,  reaching  back  to 
pre-Revolutionary  ideas,  that  John  C.  Calhoun  recommended  that 
South  Carolina  could  constitutionally  nullify  a  tariff  measure.42 

Thus,  from  compact  theory  and  strict  construction  to  nullification 
and  secession,  there  were  close  similarities  between  the  constitutional 
defenses  of  both  the  Revolutionary  generation  and  the  planter-politi- 
cians of  the  Old  South.  In  both  cases,  when  men  judged  the  power  at 
the  center  to  be  too  great,  they  declared  the  compact  to  be  broken. 
And  in  each  instance  they  employed  similar  devices  to  correct  the 
errors  they  decried.  Each,  acting  upon  constitutional  premises,  sought 
to  block  the  majority  by  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  fundamental 
law;  each  solemnly  declared  "unconstitutional"  legislation  to  be  null 
and  void.  When  their  petitions  failed  to  bring  redress,  each  turned  to 
secession  and  a  movement  for  independence  as  the  means  of  preserv- 

38  Quoted  in  Morgan,  Stamp  Act  Crisis,  203. 

39  Quoted  in  McLaughlin,  Foundations  of  American  Constitutionalism,  126n,  and  in 
Commager,  Documents,  59. 

40  Morgan,  Stamp  Act  Crisis,  98-99. 

41  Morgan,  Stamp  Act  Crisis,   140. 

42Malone,  Jefferson  and  the  Ordeal  of  Liberty,  407;  Cralle,  Works  of  Calhoun, 
VI,  159.  See  also  Chauncey  S.  Boucher,  The  Nullification  Controversy  in  South 
Carolina   (Chicago:    University  of  Chicago   Press,   1916),   33,   105-106. 


268  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

ing— or  of  restoring— constitutional  liberties.  Given  the  opportunity  to 
draw  up  a  frame  of  government  according  to  their  own  standards,  each 
group— one  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  of  1781  and  the  other  in 
the  Confederate  Constitution  of  1861— closely  copied  what  it  imagined 
or  desired  the  original  constitution  to  be. 

The  close  agreement  between  the  two  sets  of  constitutional  defenses 
did  not  mean  that  the  nineteenth-century  defenders  of  the  plantation 
and  slavery  possessed  more  patriotism  or  longer  memories  than  did 
their  northern  opponents.  It  did  suggest  that  they,  like  their  eigh- 
teenth-century predecessors,  were  in  a  minority.  It  meant  that  in  the 
Anglo-Saxon  tradition  there  had  developed  an  orthodox  process  by 
which  a  minority  could  protect  itself:43  Any  group  of  leaders,  powerful 
in  its  own  region  but  a  minority  in  the  larger  political  unit,  immedi- 
ately adopted  a  program  to  restrict  the  majority's  actions.  It  contained 
the  ideas  of  local  sovereignty,  or  federalism;  strict  construction  of  the 
Constitution  which  bound  the  union  together;  the  doctrines  of  sentinel- 
ship  and  interposition;  nullification;  and  secession.  Against  these 
minority  defenses  the  majority  in  both  cases  also  followed  a  recog- 
nizable pattern  of  action:  national  sovereignty,  loose  construction  of 
the  Constitution,  and  the  coercion  of  rebellious  or  dissident  elements. 

There  were  other  reasons,  apart  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  tradition  of 
constitutionalism,  which  lay  behind  the  southern  emulation  of  Revolu- 
tionary opinions.  The  rural  nature  of  the  planters'  society,  and  their 
insistence  upon  clinging  to  a  Colonial  economy  and  an  outdated  labor 
system,  made  them  sensitive  to  outside  criticisms.  Outstripped  in  the 
population  race  and  with  the  frontier  closed  by  what  they  regarded 
as  "natural  limits"  to  slavery  expansion,44  they  emphasized  the  federal 
aspects  of  the  Union  as  a  means  of  preserving  their  regional  way  of 
life.  But  more  important  was  a  continuity  of  leadership  which  served 
as  a  bridge  between  the  two  American  rebellions.  The  same  men- 
Patrick  Henry,  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  James  Madison,  among  others- 
appeared  as  contributors  in  the  formulation  of  both  constitutional 
defenses.  Memories  of  the  methods  of  one  revolutionary  era  served  as 
guideposts  for  another,  and  subsequent  southern  leaders  adopted  the 
weapons  and  philosophy  of  government  of  an  older  generation.  In 
1800,  when  Madison  attacked  the  claim  that  a  law  could  be  "binding 
on  these  States  as  one  society"  as  a  doctrine  "evidently  repugnant  to 
the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Revolution,"45  he  was  but  trans- 

43  See  John  C.  Calhoun,  Address  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  in  Cralle,  Works 
of  Calhoun,  VI,  136,  139,  for  evidences  of  minority  sentiment.  For  a  discussion  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  tradition  of  rebellion,  see  Roy  F.  Nichols,  "1461-1861:  The  American 
Civil  War  in  Perspective,"  Journal  of  Southern  History,  XVI   (May,  1950),  143-160. 

44  Charles  W.  Ramsdell,  "The  Natural  Limits  of  Slavery  Expansion,"  Mississippi 
Valley  Historical  Review,  XVI  (September,  1929),  151-171. 

46  Hunt,  Writings  of  James  Madison,  VI,  374. 


The  South's  Constitutional  Defenses  269 

mitting   a  minority   constitutional   defense   from   the   Revolutionary 
generation  to  its  successors. 


THE  "TAR  HEEL  EDITOR"  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA'S 

CRISIS,  1929-1932 

By  Joseph  L.  Morrison* 


The  bitterness  of  the  Alfred  E.  Smith-Herbert  Hoover  presidential 
campaign  and  Hoover's  capture  of  North  Carolina  in  1928  made  in- 
evitable a  Tar  Heel  political  showdown  in  1930.  It  was  then  that 
Furnifold  M.  Simmons,  in  the  United  States  Senate  since  1901  and 
a  party  man  of  strictest  sect,  would  have  to  defend  his  desertion  of 
the  Al  Smith  candidacy.  The  actual  confrontation  came  in  a  Demo- 
cratic primary  contest  between  Simmons  and  Josiah  W.  Bailey,  his 
one-time  follower,  who  had  led  the  state's  pro-Smith  effort.  Between 
the  two,  Editor  Josephus  Daniels  of  the  Raleigh  News  and  Observer 
found  little  to  choose.  He  had  lambasted  Simmons  in  1909  for  cham- 
pioning the  Payne-Aldrich  Tariff  but  had  appreciated  the  way  Sim- 
mons, as  chairman  of  the  Senate  Finance  Committee,  had  gone  down 
the  line  for  President  Woodrow  Wilson.  True,  Simmons  had  been 
the  patron  of  the  unfortunate  Revenue  Commissioner,  A.  D.  Watts, 
but  Simmons  had  also  pleased  Daniels  latterly  by  voting  for  govern- 
ment ownership  and  operation  of  Muscle  Shoals.  The  Bailey-Daniels 
relationship  was  somewhat  similar,  hostility  before  and  conciliation 
during  the  Wilson  days.  What  finally  inclined  Daniels  to  Simmons 
was  not  the  past  but  the  future  of  the  Democratic  party;  like  Simmons, 
Daniels  insisted  that  the  national  leadership  of  Al  Smith  and  John  J. 
Raskob  must  go.  Simmons  had  not  committed  the  ultimate  treason 
of  personally  voting  for  Herbert  Hoover,  so  the  Senator  had  returned 
to  the  Democratic  party  fold  in  1929  along  with  uncounted  thou- 
sands of  other  southerners. 

"In  spite  of  our  differences  over  regularity  in  1928,  I  supported 
Simmons  for  re-election  in  1930,"  Josephus  Daniels  recalled.  "I  felt 
that  for  one  lapse  he  ought  not  to  be  repudiated  by  the  party  he  had 


*  Dr.  Morrison  is  professor  of  journalism  at  the  University  of  North  Carolina  at 
Chapel  Hill.  This  paper  was  read  at  a  meeting  of  the  Watauga  Club  in  Raleigh, 
November  15,  1966. 


The  "Tar  Heel  Editor/'  1929-1932  271 

served  so  long  and  so  well."  *  As  the  primary  election  day  approached, 
Daniels'  attitude  was  summarized  in  an  editorial  entitled  "The  Ides 
of  November,"  in  which  he  warned  that  it  was  more  important  that 
a  Democrat  be  elected  in  November  than  which  Democrat  be  pre- 
ferred in  June.2  Daniels  wrote  H.  E.  C.  Bryant:  "Though  I  disagree 
with  both  of  them  in  some  respects,  I  can  support  either  in  a  general 
election.  Like  you,  1  had  no  druthers/"3  What  really  concerned 
Daniels  was  the  future  of  his  state's  Democratic  party  in  the  light  of 
the  rancor  that  had  lingered  after  the  Smith-Hoover  campaign.  Sim- 
mons was  denounced  as  a  traitor  on  the  one  hand  but  championed  by 
others  who  insisted  that  he  should  not  be  punished  for  repudiating 
a  wet  Roman  Catholic  Tammanyite  like  Al  Smith.  In  the  course  of  the 
campaign  Daniels  questioned  one  of  the  knowledgeable  party  ob- 
servers, who  informed  him  that  Bailey  was  then  leading  Simmons.  It 
was  not  like  the  ebullient  editor  to  do  so,  but  Daniels  then  turned 
wordlessly  away  from  Raleigh's  strategic  corner  of  Fayetteville  and 
Martin  Streets.4  Simmons'  defeat  came  as  no  great  surprise,  to  be 
sure,  and  the  huge  majority  rolled  up  against  him  bore  witness,  partly, 
to  the  premium  then  placed  on  party  regularity.  Even  more  likely,  it 
testified  to  Simmons'  "guilt  by  association"  with  President  Hoover, 
who  was  now  widely  blamed  for  the  nationwide  depression. 

In  writing  sympathetically  to  Simmons'  campaign  manager,  Daniels 
tried  to  explain  his  own  political  impotence.  "All  my  life  I  have  been 
an  anti-machine  Democrat,"  he  wrote,  "even  when  I  was  in  perfect 
accord  with  what  the  machine  was  doing.  And  lacking  any  organized 
backing,  I  have  not  been  able  to  do  many  things  that  I  wished  to  do." 5 
To  a  seasoned  politician  like  his  former  fellow  Cabinet  member,  A.  S. 
Burleson,  however,  Daniels  got  down  to  cases.  First  off,  he  explained 
that  Simmons  had  been  physically  unable  to  make  a  campaign  and 
did  not  speak  in  his  own  behalf;  furthermore,  "most  of  his  old  strong 
leaders  deserted  him  and  he  had  to  depend  upon  amateurs  so  that  he 
never  had  a  chance." 6  Daniels  knew  full  well  that  Simmons,  as  incum- 
bent, had  had  to  bear  the  brunt  of  much  rural  discontent  with  the 
Hoover  administration  in  general  and  with  the  agricultural  depression 
in  particular.  When  Daniels  closed  Democratic  ranks  with  Bailey, 


^osephus  Daniels,  "Life  Begins  at  Seventy,"  unpublished  manuscript,  Jonathan 
Daniels  Papers,  Southern  Historical  Collection,  University  of  North  Carolina  at 
Chapel  Hill,  hereinafter  cited  as  Daniels,  "Life  Begins  at  Seventy." 

2 "Ides  of  November,"  News  and  Observer  (Raleigh),  June  4,  1930,  hereinafter 
cited  as  News  and  Observer. 

3  Daniels  to  H.  E.  C.  Bryant,  June  7,  1930,  Josephus  Daniels  Papers,  Manuscripts 
Division,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C,  hereinafter  cited  as  Daniels  Papers. 

*  Author's  interview  with  John  W.  Umstead,  Jr.,  Chapel  Hill,  December  7,  1962. 

6  Daniels  to  Frank  A.  Hampton,  June  26,  1930,  Daniels  Papers. 

6  Daniels  to  Burleson,  October  16,  1930,  Daniels  Papers. 


272  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

preparing  for  the  "Ides  of  November,"  he  addressed  him  as  "Dear 
Will"  and  outlined  the  campaign  issues  he  thought  the  other  should 
stress.  Bailey  had  written  Daniels  a  similar  "unity"  letter  in  1928, 
promising  to  attack  the  Republicans  for  venturing  to  question  Daniels' 
record  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy.7 

To  Daniels'  mind  a  much  more  agreeable  election  contest  took 
place  that  year  when  a  replacement  had  to  be  found  for  Harry  Wood- 
burn  Chase  as  president  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina.  Early 
the  previous  year,  on  February  4,  1929,  the  News  and  Observer  pub- 
lished a  rumor  that  President  Chase  might  resign,  a  report  that  caused 
Daniels,  as  a  prominent  university  trustee,  considerable  embarrass- 
ment.8 He  had  known  of  the  possibility  but  engaged  to  publish 
nothing;  apparently  reporter  Ben  Dixon  MacNeill  came  upon  the 
news  independently.  By  February  7,  in  response  to  a  friend's  query, 
Daniels  was  already  writing,  "I  have  the  highest  opinion  of  Frank 
Graham.  I  like  his  spirit."9  The  next  month  the  editor  made  a  speech 
of  introduction  for  Professor  William  E.  Dodd,  whp  was  addressing  a 
session  of  the  North  Carolina  Conference  for  Social  Welfare.  The 
conference  president,  reelected  at  that  time,  was  Professor  Frank 
Porter  Graham.  Daniels  wrote  his  regrets  to  Graham  for  not  being  of 
more  service  during  the  1929  conference  which  was  held  during  the 
strenuous  days  of  the  General  Assembly.  As  to  the  1929  legislature, 
Daniels  advised  Graham  that  they  ought  to  congratulate  themselves 
on  having  gotten  a  tolerably  good  Workmen's  Compensation  Act.10  In 
editorially  congratulating  the  legislature  the  next  day,  Daniels  added 
mention  of  the  secret  ballot  law:  "The  big  thing  is  that  the  era  of 
static  in  human  welfare  and  in  ballot  reform  has  been  given  a  decent 
burial  in  North  Carolina."  n 

The  conference  headed  by  Frank  Graham  was  begun  in  1912  and 
served  as  the  vanguard  of  North  Carolina's  socially  conscious  leader- 
ship. It  responded  to  the  challenge  of  industrial  unrest  in  its  session 
of  1930,  following  upon  the  killings  in  the  textile  strikes  at  Gastonia 
and  at  Marion  which  had  made  worldwide  newspaper  headlines. 
Frank  Graham,  whom  some  friends  were  advancing  for  the  next  presi- 

7  Daniels  to  Bailey,  September  13,  1930;  Bailey  to  Daniels,  April  25,  1928,  Daniels 
Papers.  On  the  Bailey- Simmons  campaign,  see  Elmer  L.  Puryear,  Democratic  Party 
Dissension  in  North  Carolina,  1928-1936  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina 
Press  [Volume  44  of  James  Sprunt  Studies  in  History  and  Political  Science],  1962), 
21-46,   hereinafter   cited   as    Puryear,   Democratic   Party   Dissension. 

*News  and  Observer,  February  4,  1929;  on  Daniels'  embarrassment  and  MacNeill's 
innocence,  author's  interview  with  Edwin  Gill,  Raleigh,  March  20,  1963,  hereinafter 
cited  as  Gill  interview. 

9  Daniels  to  Arnold  A.  McKay,  February  7,  1929,  Daniels  Papers. 

10  Daniels  to  Graham,  March  9,   1929,   Daniels   Papers. 

11  News  and  Observer,  March  10,  1929. 


The  "Tar  Heel  Editor,"  1929-1932  273 

dent  of  the  university,  wrote  the  manifesto12  signed  by  more  than 
four  hundred  prominent  Tar  Heels,  a  manifesto  looked  upon  with 
horror  by  many  conservatives  of  the  time.  The  statement  held  for 
nothing  more  subversive  than  ( 1 )  reaffirmation  of  the  Bill  of  Rights 
without  need  of  anything  resembling  a  criminal  syndicalism  bill;  and 
(2)  social  adjustments  including  a  reduction  of  the  sixty-hour  work 
week,  gradual  abolition  of  night  work  for  women  and  young  people, 
amelioration  of  the  limited  state  child  labor  law,  plus  supervision  and 
enforcement  of  the  aforementioned  code.  The  publication  of  the 
manifesto  made  headlines,  and  so  did  its  immediate  support  by  Jose- 
phus  Daniels  in  a  two-column  editorial  on  February  18,  1930.  He 
wrote,  in  part: 

Even  though  there  may  be  dissent  from  those  called  "radicals,"  meaning 
those  who  are  in  such  a  big  hurry  for  reforms  they  are  tempted  to  dig  up 
more  snakes  than  they  kill  by  their  methods,  and  "conservatives,"  meaning 
those  who  act  as  if  the  great  textile  industry  was  still  located  in  the  woods 
and  was  not  affected  with  a  public  interest,  the  great  liberal,  common- 
sense,  forward-looking  public  will  rejoice  that  these  four  hundred  have 
pointed  the  way  to  sensible  and  practicable  reforms,  just  alike  to  labor 
and  capital.13 

Within  a  week  of  the  Graham-authored  manifesto  came  the  official 
resignation  of  President  Chase14  and  the  appointment  of  a  trustees' 
committee  (Daniels  was  not  a  member)  to  bring  forward  names  of 
possible  successors.  Graham  trailed  on  the  first  ballot  taken  at  Chapel 
Hill  June  9,  1930,  but  when  he  forged  ahead  and  finally  won  election 
on  the  fourth  ballot,  Josephus  Daniels  successfully  moved  that  the 
election  be  made  unanimous.15  Graham's  real  reluctance  to  take  the 
position  was  worn  down  by  the  pleas  of  leading  trustees  like  Governor 
O.  Max  Gardner,  Federal  Judge  John  J.  Parker,  and  Josephus  Daniels, 
who  confided  to  him  the  crisis  the  university  was  then  facing.16  On 
June  10  Daniels  wrote  to  his  son  Jonathan,  then  on  the  editorial  staff 
of  Fortune  in  New  York,  of  "the  two  big  elections  in  these  latter  days," 
the  Bailey-Simmons  race  for  United  States  senator  and  the  competition 
for  the  university  presidency.  Of  Graham's  reluctance  Daniels  said,  "I 
believe  it  is  the  only  time  I  ever  truly  saw  the  office  seek  the  man  and 


12  Author's  interview  with  Frank  P.  Graham,  Chapel  Hill,  April  7,  1963,  hereinafter 
cited  as  Graham  interview;  release  of  the  manifesto,  News  and  Observer,  February 
16,  1930;  text  of  the  manifesto  in  Frank  P.  Graham  file,  North  Carolina  Collection, 
University  of   North   Carolina   at   Chapel   Hill. 

13  News  and  Observer,   February  18,   1930. 
uNews  and  Observer,  February  21,  1930. 

"Minutes  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  University  of  North  Carolina,  June  9,   1930, 
University  Archives,  Library,  University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill. 
16  Graham  interview. 


274  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

have  to  throw  him  down  and  make  him  take  it." 17  The  next  day,  when 
he  wrote  a  warm  letter  of  support  to  President  Graham,  Daniels  also 
sent  a  letter  of  congratulations  to  Graham's  father.18 

When  the  fellow-trustees,  Editor  Daniels  and  Judge  Parker,  ex- 
pressed unanimity  in  June,  they  were  again  together  after  the  political 
fight  which  led  in  the  previous  month  to  the  defeat  of  Judge  Parker's 
nomination  to  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.19  A  perennially  un- 
successful Tar  Heel  Republican  candidate,  Parker  had  lost  a  campaign 
for  governor  in  1920  and  had  been  appointed  to  the  Fourth  Circuit 
Court  of  Appeals  in  1925.  Josephus  Daniels  had  even  recommended 
an  honorary  LL.D.  for  Judge  Parker  in  1927,  explaining  to  the  univer- 
sity's President  Chase,  "I  always  feel  that  the  University  in  case  of 
the  occasional  North  Carolina  Republican  who  makes  good,  should  be 
careful  to  render  as  much  honor  as  to  the  member  of  the  dominant 
party.  "Particularly  so,"  he  joked,  "when  he  is  safely  immured  on  the 
bench  where  he  can  do  the  Democrats  no  harm."20  Like  other  Demo- 
cratic leaders  in  the  state,  Daniels  preferred  Chief  Justice  Walter  P. 
Stacy  for  the  Supreme  Court  vacancy,  but  readily  agreed  on  Parker's 
acceptability  when  President  Hoover  nominated  him  on  March  21, 
1930. 

What  at  first  appeared  a  routine  confirmation  ran  into  trouble  when 
opposition  developed  in  two  important  political  quarters,  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  and  the  National  Association  for  the  Ad- 
vancement of  Colored  People.  Judge  Parker  had  offended  the  AFL 
by  upholding  a  "yellow  dog"  labor  contract  and  the  NAACP  by  avow- 
ing during  the  1920  campaign  that  the  "lily  white"  Republican  party 
did  not  want  Negro  votes.  Daniels  still  said  nothing  publicly.  But 
when  a  letter  from  a  Tar  Heel  Republican  to  one  of  President  Hoo- 
ver's secretaries  was  published  urging  Judge  Parker's  nomination  in 
the  interest  of  political  expediency,  Daniels  broke  his  silence  and  in 
successive  editorials  the  first  three  days  of  May,  1930,  openly  op- 
posed Parker's  confirmation.  The  dramatic  roll  call  in  the  United 
States  Senate  May  7  resulted  in  the  refusal  to  confirm,  after  which 
Daniels  editorialized  that  it  all  betokened  a  liberal  challenge  to  the 
Republican  administration.  He  spoke  also,  however,  "of  the  deep 
personal  sympathy  for  an  upright  man  subjected  to  the  humiliation 
he  must  have  felt  during  the  course  of  the  prolonged  controversy. 


"21 


17  Daniels  to  his  son  Jonathan,  June  10,  1930,  Jonathan  Daniels  Papers. 

18  Daniels  to  Dr.  Alexander   Graham,  June   11,   1930,   Daniels   Papers. 

19  See  Richard  L.  Watson,  Jr.,  "The  Defeat  of  Judge  Parker:  A  Study  in  Pressure 
Groups  and  Politics,"  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  L  (September,  1963), 
213-234,  hereinafter  cited  as  Watson,  "The  Defeat  of  Judge   Parker." 

20  Daniels  to  Chase,  March  2,  1927,  University  Papers,  University  Archives. 
81  News  and  Observer,  May  8,  1930. 


The  "Tar  Heel  Editor,"  1929-1932  275 

Judge  Parker  managed  to  repress  his  bitterness  and  closed  ranks  with 
Daniels  on  the  university  board  of  trustees,  where  the  passage  of  time 
saw  them  become  the  most  cordial  of  colleagues.  Judge  Parker's  repu- 
diation by  the  Senate  was  in  later  years  termed  a  great  mistake  by  the 
American  Bar  Association  Journal,22  and  Josephus  Daniels  probably 
agreed.  In  early  1941,  following  President  Roosevelt's  appointment  of 
Republicans  Henry  L.  Stimson  and  Frank  Knox  to  the  Cabinet,  Daniels 
came  forward  with  the  name  of  John  J.  Parker  for  a  vacancy  on  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court.  After  Daniels'  death,  Parker  served  as 
chairman  of  the  trustee  committee  named  to  draw  up  a  memorial 
resolution  in  Daniels'  honor.  Judge  Parker  delivered  the  oral  tribute 
personally.23 

The  Democratic  state  administration,  elected  triumphantly  in  1928 
despite  the  Al  Smith  disaster,  predictably  caught  the  blows  of  a  pro- 
fessional critic  like  Josephus  Daniels  who  was  anti-organization  on 
principle.  The  able  Governor  O.  Max  Gardner,  who  had  enjoyed 
Daniels'  strong  support,  had  no  more  than  a  brief  honeymoon  before 
the  News  and  Observer  opened  fire  on  him.  In  the  very  month  of  his 
election  Gardner  got  from  Daniels  a  long  letter  on  needed  reforms 
in  the  state  administration,  and  before  his  inauguration  another  on 
Daniels'  chief  concern  in  the  oncoming  legislative  session— an  eight- 
month,  state-supported  school  term.24  The  session  closed  with  Daniels 
generally  happy  with  Gardner's  own  program  as  enacted,  especially 
the  secret  ballot  and  workmen's  compensation  laws.  The  honeymoon 
was  over,  however,  insofar  as  it  concerned  education  and  a  lower 
statewide  property  tax,  the  latter  having  been  one  of  Gardner's  avowed 
aims  which  was  not  realized.  By  the  time  the  1929  legislature  ad- 
journed, having  put  off  the  eight-month  school  term,  Daniels  criticized 
that  element  in  the  General  Assembly  determined  to  stand  fast  on 
appropriations  and  revenues  and  backed  by  a  lobby  representing  every 
industry  fearing  a  tax  increase.  As  he  saw  it,  the  1928  election  had 
frightened  some  of  them  and  they,  in  turn,  succeeded  in  frightening 
many  revenue-conscious  legislators  with  the  threat  of  a  Republican 
victory  next  time.25 

The  eight-month  school  fight  dominated  the  session  as  it  dominated 
the  pages  of  the  News  and  Observer.  The  reform  was  embodied  in  a 
House  bill  introduced  by  A.  D.  MacLean,  whose  measure  also  ap- 
pealed to  Josephus  Daniels,  because  it  provided  at  first  for  a  reduction 

28  See   Watson,   "The   Defeat   of  Judge    Parker,"   234. 

83  Minutes  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  the  Consolidated  University  of  North 
Carolina,  February  16,  1948,  University  Archives. 

24  Daniels  to  Gardner,  November  22,  December  31,  1928,  Daniels  Papers. 
26  News  and  Observer,  March  19,  1929. 


276  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

in  ad  valorem  property  taxes.  Daniels  saw  no  tax  reform  more  neces- 
sary than  easing  the  burden  from  the  small  farmers  of  a  rural  state 
and  shifting  it  by  means  of  luxury  sales  taxes  and  taxes  on  industry. 
At  first  the  bill  had  the  support  of  nobody  but  its  sponsor  and  Josephus 
Daniels.  Then  the  editor  got  the  support  of  the  State  Superintendent 
of  Public  Instruction,  Dr.  Arch  T,  Allen,  whom  he  invited  to  press  for 
the  eight-month  bill  by  writing  a  News  and  Observer  article.  In  his 
invitation  to  Allen,  Daniels  took  note:  "The  opponents  of  the  eight 
months'  school  term  are  trying  to  use  the  negro  issue  as  a  red  her- 
ring."26  The  industry  lobbyists  made  the  point  that  the  majority  of 
children  to  be  benefited  were  Negroes,  since  most  schools  in  the  state 
already  had  an  eight-month  term  and  the  underprivileged  remainder 
lived  mostly  in  the  rural  areas.  When  the  Senate  provided  for  a  too- 
small  public  school  equalization  fund  of  $6.5  million,  Daniels  edi- 
torialized that  "The  children's  eight  months  right  to  schools  was  post- 
poned to  the  pleadings  of  those  able  to  pay  taxes  that  they  be 
excused." 2T 

The  rear  guard  battle  to  resist  the  scuttling  of  the  measure  was 
made  by  Representative  F.  D.  Winston  after  MacLean  had  given  up. 
Daniels  wrote  Winston  hopefully  but  realistically,  "I  hope  you  are 
going  to  win  but  the  odds  are  terrible." 28  He  was  right.  The  resulting 
measure,  although  foreshadowing  eventual  state  assumption  of  sup- 
port of  all  public  schools,  did  not  provide  the  eight-month  school 
term.  Its  doubling  of  the  public  school  equalization  fund  in  the  last 
"prosperity"  legislature  would  have  comforted  Daniels  more,  if  it  had 
provided  tax  relief  for  the  small  farmers  of  the  state.  In  a  prosperous 
year  the  legislature  had  failed  to  reduce  the  thirty-cent  ad  valorem 
property  tax.  Throughout  the  session  Daniels'  News  and  Observer  agi- 
tated for  raising  the  needed  revenue  on  a  fifty-fifty  basis  from  an  equal 
statewide  ad  valorem  tax  ( now  widely  unequal  because  property  was 
long  overvalued )  and  from  commercial  and  industrial  activities  which, 
Daniels  claimed,  were  not  paying  their  fair  share. 

The  stock  market  crash  of  1929  acted  merely  as  a  punctuation  mark 
in  the  story  of  North  Carolina's  deepening  agricultural— and  now  total 
—depression.  The  state  Democratic  platform  of  1930  recognized  the 
need  for  substantial  reduction  of  taxes  on  property  and  pledged  the 
party  to  work  for  it.  By  the  end  of  that  year  it  was  widely  apparent  that 
farms  in  the  state  could  not  be  rented  for  enough  to  pay  taxes  on  them, 
that  industries  were  shutting  down  right  and  left.  At  that  time  delin- 


88  Daniels   to   Allen,  January   30,   1929,   Daniels   Papers. 
27 News   and   Observer,   March   13,    1929. 

28  Daniels  to  Winston,  March  15,  1929,  F.  D.  Winston  Papers,  Southern  Historical 
Collection. 


The  "Tar  Heel  Editor,"  1929-1932  277 

quent  taxes  on  real  property  came  to  nearly  $7.5  million,  and  more 
than  150,000  parcels  of  property  were  advertised  for  tax  sales.29  Resist- 
ing the  anxious  calls  for  a  special  session  of  the  legislature,  Governor 
Gardner  set  up  a  series  of  tax  and  revenue  investigations  plus  a  com- 
plete study  of  state  and  county  government  by  the  Brookings  Institu- 
tion of  Washington.  Its  year-end  report  recommended  a  sweeping 
centralization  of  state  government  functions  ( including  a  consolidated 
university),  and  elimination  of  unnecessary  state  offices  and  county 
units.  Josephus  Daniels  quarreled  with  none  of  this  but,  as  usual,  got 
down  to  cases.  Like  presidential  aspirant  Franklin  Roosevelt,  he 
wanted  reform  and  relief  quickly  lest  the  men  in  the  streets  take  mat- 
ters into  their  own  hands;  Daniels  recognized  the  need  to  forestall  a 
new  populist  revolt— or  worse.30  To  Governor  Gardner,  with  whom  he 
was  no  longer  so  close,  Daniels  wrote  a  long  letter  suggesting  three 
revenue  principles  to  stress  in  approaching  the  new  General  Assem- 
bly: (1)  revaluing  and  thus  equalizing  disparate  property  valuations 
throughout  the  state;  (2)  taxing  foreign  corporations  doing  business 
in  the  state;  and  (3)  taxing  the  untaxed.31  Some  of  his  spirit  on  this 
last-named  point  may  be  gained  from  his  words  to  Senator  Carter 
Glass:  "The  Duke  Power  Co.  is  charging  high  rates  and  making  big 
money  in  North  Carolina  and  poses  as  a  religious  organization 
[through  the  benefactions  of  the  Duke  Endowment  tied  to  company 
profits]!  Isn't  that  the  limit?"32 

For  the  one  hundred  and  forty  days  of  the  "Long  Parliament"  of 
1931,  the  News  and  Observer  unceasingly  proclaimed,  "Taxes  on  prop- 
erty must  be  reduced."  The  Governor  agreed,  but  he  and  Daniels 
differed  on  procedure;  he  looked  to  retrenchment  and  Daniels  sought 
new  sources  of  revenue.  Two  proposals  for  the  latter  deeply  divided 
the  legislators,  who  fought  so  unceasingly  that  neither  proposal  was 
adopted  that  session— a  general  sales  tax  and  a  luxury  sales  tax.  Daniels 
ranged  himself  against  a  general  sales  tax,  regarding  it  as  an  indefensi- 
ble imposition  on  the  people  least  able  to  pay.  He  supported  instead 
the  Hinsdale  bill,  which  proposed  taxes  on  a  list  of  enumerated  items 
it  designated  luxuries,  such  as  tobacco,  playing  cards,  chewing  gum, 
automobiles,  and  admission  to  commercial  entertainment.  Needless 
to  say,  additional  items  came  under  scrutiny  and  it  was  not  long 
before  the  tobacco,  power,  and  bottling  interests  joined  in  a  bitter 
fight  against  any  luxury  tax.  Daniels  fought  just  as  bitterly,  because 

29  Report  of  the  Tax  Commission,  1932,  cited  in  Puryear,  Democratic  Party  Dissen- 
sion, 60. 

30  Daniels  to  L.  A.  Bethune,  November  25,  1930,  Daniels  Papers. 

31  Daniels  to  Gardner,  December  23,  1930,  Daniels  Papers. 

32  Daniels   to    Glass,    February   26,   1931,    Daniels    Papers. 


278  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

the  luxury  tax  was  needed  to  implement  the  state's  taking  over,  operat- 
ing, and  maintaining  the  public  school  system.  One  way  or  another  this 
had  to  be,  for  many  of  the  counties  were  now  unable  to  support  public 
education.  In  an  attempt  to  defeat  the  interests  Daniels,  along  with 
state  Grange  Master  W.  Kerr  Scott,  tried  to  rally  the  farm  people 
and  printed  in  the  News  and  Observer  a  petition  to  be  signed  and 
sent  to  the  legislators.  The  petition  supported  the  school  take-over  in 
the  MacLean  Bill  "for  relieving  the  present  crushing  tax  burden  on 
the  houses  and  farms  of  North  Carolina.  We  call  for  the  proper  taxa- 
tion of  the  most  prosperous  interests  in  the  state  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  make  them  bear  their  fair  and  just  share  of  taxation,  supplemented 
by  a  luxury  tax  to  insure  the  operation  of  the  MacLean  Law." 33 

Hammering  away  at  privilege,  Daniels  hit  out  repeatedly  at  the 
Duke  Power  Company.  He  tried  mightily  to  dissociate  it  from  Duke 
University,  of  which  he  was  now— as  of  all  educational  institutions— a 
warm  friend.  ( He  and  Mrs.  Daniels  often  drove  over  to  visit  on  the  new 
West  Durham  campus. )  For  example,  on  April  22,  1931,  he  wrote  an 
enthusiastic  report  from  Duke  University,  "A  Significant  Advance  and 
Novel  Experiment,"  about  the  new  Duke  Hospital  and  School  of 
Medicine.  Yet  in  that  same  spring  of  1931  he  published  one  of  his  most 
trenchant  editorials,  "The  Duke  Threat."  An  official  of  the  company 
had  let  it  be  known  to  the  South  Carolina  legislature,  then  contem- 
plating a  power  company  tax,  that  such  an  enactment  would  cause 
the  Duke  Foundation  to  cut  down  its  benefactions  in  the  Palmetto 
State.  In  North  Carolina  a  Durham  legislator  warned  that  a  "recapture 
clause"  sought  in  the  General  Assembly  against  power  companies 
"would  be  taxing  retired  Methodist  ministers  and  charity  wards."  In 
another  editorial  on  April  2,  "Blessing  or  Curse,"  Daniels  put  it  most 
bluntly:  "The  Duke  Foundation  is  a  noble  benefaction.  If  the  Duke 
Power  Company  should  be  permitted  to  use  its  [The  Duke  Founda- 
tion's] good  name  to  escape  just  taxation  in  the  Carolinas  it  would  be 
a  curse.  .  .  .  The  other  power  companies  swing  onto  the  coat-tails 
of  this  company,  part  of  whose  earnings  go  to  the  holiest  purposes, 
and  thereby  escape  just  taxation  and  all  are  enabled  to  charge  exces- 
sive prices  for  light  and  power."  Lobbying  in  the  1931  legislature 
probably  was  the  most  frenzied  in  the  state's  history,  and  in  those 
troubled  times  there  was  apparently  more  distrust  of  the  legislators 
than  usual.  Before  the  "Long  Parliament"  came  to  a  close,  Josephus 
Daniels  had  received  a  great  volume  of  laudatory  mail.  The  disillu- 
sioned former  state  leader  of  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  of  the  twenties,  Judge 

83  News   and  Observer,   March   29,   1931. 


The  "Tar  Heel  Editor,"  1929-1932  279 

Henry  A.  Grady,  expressing  a  rural  and  populistic  outrage  at  the 
lobbies  and  their  corrupting  influence,  suggested  the  announcement 
of  A.  D.  McLean  or  of  Josephus  Daniels  as  candidate  for  governor.34 
The  linking  of  the  two  names  did  not  do  Daniels  full  justice.  Unlike 
A.  D.  MacLean,  who  had  extensive  commercial  property,  the  editor 
could  not  be  charged  with  a  conflict  of  interest  in  seeking  a  lower  ad 
valorem  property  tax. 

The  marathon  legislative  session  of  1931  accomplished  sweeping 
reform  in  the  state.35  North  Carolina  took  over  the  county  roads  and 
schools,  merged  the  three  leading  state  educational  institutions  into 
the  Consolidated  University  of  North  Carolina,  and  stabilized  the 
credit  of  smaller  governmental  units  through  a  Local  Government 
Act.  The  revenue  bill  was  a  compromise  that  pleased  nobody.  Cor- 
porate income  and  franchise  taxes  were  raised  by  $2.25  million.  These 
were  somewhat  offset  by  the  reduction  in  local  taxes  made  possible  by 
state  maintenance  and  operation  of  roads  and  schools.  The  compro- 
mise called  for  a  fifteen-cent  ad  valorem  tax  for  the  schools,  but  this 
apparent  halving  of  the  property  tax  was  a  mirage  effected  through 
further  postponement  of  a  revaluation  of  property.  In  addition,  the 
revenue  bill  provided  for  a  known  biennial  deficit  of  some  $5  million. 
Josephus  Daniels  editorialized  in  his  legislative  review: 

The  deficit-breeding  revenue  measure  was  rushed  through  under  the 
whip  and  spur  of  those  who  preferred  to  deal  a  staggering  blow  to  educa- 
tion and  to  issue  bonds  for  current  expenses  than  to  impose  just  taxation 
on  millions  of  dollars  worth  of  property  untaxed  or  undertaxed  or  let  the 
users  of  non-essentials  bear  a  fair  part  of  the  burdens  of  government.  .  .  . 
No  such  lobby  has  been  seen  in  Raleigh  since  1887  (and  that  was  smaller 
and  gave  less  display  of  extravagance)  when  it  maintained  an  open  bar 
for  legislators  in  the  Yarborough  House.36 

In  later  years  Daniels  acknowledged  Governor  Gardner's  constructive 
leadership,  recalling  of  him:  "He  held  the  rudder  true  in  progress  in 
education,  roads,  and  devised  ways  to  carry  on  every  state  function 
in  a  day  of  distress  and  depression." 3T  But  the  bitter  political  fights 
of  those  days  probably  helped  stimulate  Daniels'  only  known  use  of 
profanity.  As  reporter  Ben  Dixon  MacNeill  recalled  it,  Daniels  would 
then  say,  at  the  mention  of  one  of  three  Tar  Heel  politicians,  "Mac- 
Neill, he  is  a  son-of-a-bitch,  net." 38 


34  Grady  to  Daniels,  May  5,  1931,  Daniels  Papers. 

35  On  the  North  Carolina  legislature  of  1931,  see  Puryear,  Democratic  Party  Dis- 
sension, 59-91;  Gill  interview.  Gill  represented  Scotland  County  in  the  1931  General 
Assembly. 

36  News  and  Observer,  May  31,  1931. 

37  Daniels,  "Life  Begins  at  Seventy." 

^MacNeill  to  Jonathan  Daniels   [June  30,  1950],  in  Jonathan  Daniels  Papers. 


280  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

There  was  a  great  deal  of  discontent  in  the  depression-stricken 
state,  and  there  was  apparently  much  grass  roots  support  for  Josephus 
Daniels  for  governor.39  His  collected  papers  bear  witness  to  it.  From 
Scotland  County  in  the  East  came  promise  of  widespread  support 
because  "Josephus  Daniels  ...  is  not  stuck  up  and  understands  poor 
folks.  .  .  ."  From  Rutherford  County  in  the  West  came  a  plea  that 
Daniels  as  governor  could  defend  the  small  taxpayers  from  "the  domi- 
nation of  the  public  utilities  and  other  big  interests,  in  our  political 
affairs.  .  .  ." 40  Daniels  had  a  long  record  of  declining  to  offer  for  elected 
office,  but  he  was  now  tempted  more  than  at  any  time  in  his  life. 
Delegations  came  to  see  him  throughout  the  fall  of  1931,  and  he  was 
his  usually  cautious  self  with  these  admirers.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
he  put  great  reliance,  as  always,  on  the  advice  of  his  older  brother 
Judge  Frank  A.  Daniels,  who  openly  disapproved  and  who  begged 
him  not  to  "weaken  your  influence  and  that  of  your  paper  which  is 
to  be  left  as  an  inheritance  to  your  children/' 41  Nevertheless,  the  sur- 
prise withdrawal  of  one  of  the  most  promising  gubernatorial  hopefuls, 
Attorney  General  Dennis  G.  Brummitt,  on  November  2,  1931,  put 
additional  pressure  on  Daniels  to  make  an  announcement.  So  did  the 
possible  gubernatorial  hopes  of  his  own  political  ally,  A.  D.  MacLean. 
But  Daniels'  serious  injury  in  an  automobile  accident  on  January  13, 
1932,  turned  the  tide.  A  month  later  he  made  a  formal  withdrawal 
from  the  approaching  contest,  to  the  unanimous  applause  of  his  wife, 
"Miss  Addie,"  and  the  other  Danielses.  He  was  in  his  seventieth  year, 
and  it  was  generally  concluded  that  he  was  too  old  and  battered  for 
hard  political  service.  Daniels  would  show  them. 

The  automobile  injury  might  have  daunted  the  will  to  recover  of  an 
old  man  who  was  not  morally  certain,  like  Daniels,  that  1932  was  the 
year  of  destiny  for  Franklin  D.  Roosevelt.  Daniels  rode  as  a  passenger 
—in  fact  he  never  learned  to  drive  a  car— in  the  automobile  of  a  promi- 
nent Atlanta  attorney  when  their  car  was  sideswiped,  forced  down  an 
embankment  and  into  a  tree.  It  occurred  in  an  Atlanta  suburb  on  the 
return  from  Mount  Berry,  Georgia,  where  Daniels  had  helped  cele- 
brate the  thirtieth  anniversary  of  the  Berry  Schools  for  underprivi- 
leged youngsters.  "I'm  just  a  scarred  soldier,"  he  murmured  to  friends 
during  the  long  wait,  in  good  spirits,  to  enter  the  X  ray  and  operating 
rooms  at  St.  Joseph's  Infirmary.  Actually  his  head  was  cut  open,  leav- 


39  See  E.  David  Cronon,  "Josephus  Daniels  as  a  Reluctant  Candidate,"  North  Caro- 
lina Historical  Review,  XXXIII  (October,  1956),  458-465,  hereinafter  cited  as  Cronon, 
"Josephus   Daniels." 

*°H.  O.  Covington  to  Daniels,  undated  [1931],  and  0.  R.  Coffield  to  Daniels,  June 
3,  1931,  quoted  in  Cronon,  "Josephus  Daniels." 

41  Judge  Frank  A.  Daniels  to  Daniels,  October  4,  1931,  Daniels  Papers. 


The  "Tar  Heel  Editor,"  1929-1932  281 

ing  that  most  vivid  of  several  scars  on  his  forehead;  his  left  arm 
broken  in  several  places  between  elbow  and  wrist,  leaving  the  hand 
somewhat  stiffened  for  life;  and  his  left  leg  badly  cut  by  glass.42  Upon 
release  from  the  operating  room,  X-rayed  and  stitched  up,  the  old 
warrior  almost  immediately  dictated  a  letter  to  President  Herbert 
Hoover  on  behalf  of  another  try  for  a  Supreme  Court  nomination  for 
North  Carolina's  Chief  Justice  Walter  P.  Stacy.43  The  Commercial 
National  Bank  had  failed  with  Daniels'  savings,  depressed  busi- 
ness conditions  threatened  the  very  existence  of  the  News  and 
Observer,  and  the  editor  was  now  laid  up  in  St.  Joseph's  Infirmary. 
At  this  juncture,  January  18,  1932,  his  wartime  friend  Bernard  Baruch 
voluntarily  came  forward  with  a  providential  loan  of  $25,000— truly 
a  fortune  in  those  days.44 

"Miss  Addie"  hurried  to  her  husband's  bedside,  she  who  was  always 
his  best  restorative,  where  she  mixed  "love  and  tenderness  and  disci- 
pline in  equal  proportions,"  as  Daniels  wrote  home  to  his  sons.45  Mar- 
tha Berry,  who  was  understandably  distressed  at  Daniels'  injury  while 
in  Atlanta  to  visit  her  school,  came  in  with  chicken  and  custard.  One 
of  the  editor's  first  acts  on  returning  to  Raleigh  for  convalescence  was 
to  write  Miss  Berry,  whose  educational  efforts  he  so  admired  and 
whose  efforts  at  providing  equal  opportunity  tallied  so  well  with 
his  own  ideals: 

...  I  am  home  again  bringing  back  with  me  beautiful  and  lasting  memories 
I  spent  at  Mount  Berry  with  you.  Nothing,  not  even  an  automobile  acci- 
dent, can  ever  efface  the  happy  memories  and  the  inspiration  of  that  day, 
and  my  admiration  for  the  demonstration  of  the  great  things  you  have 
done  there,  the  stimulus  it  has  brought  elsewhere,  the  log  houses  and  the 
cathedral  effects  seen  nowhere  else,  all  topped  with  the  scores  and  scores 
of  bright  faced  youths  who  had  entered  the  Door  of  Opportunity  you  had 
opened  to  them.  And  the  beauty  of  the  lovely  girls  cannot  be  effaced  or 
the  echoes  of  the  beautiful  songs.  They  are  mine  now  and  forever  more 
truly  than  any  material  possession.46 

After  some  additional  hesitation  on  the  editor's  part,  the  importunities 
of  his  family  and  friends  now  held  sway— he  decided  not  to  compete 
for  governor.  On  February  15,  the  News  and  Observer  carried  "A 


42  Associated  Press  dispatch,  News  and  Observer,  January  14,  1932. 

43  Daniels  to  Hoover,  January  16,  1932,  Daniels   Papers. 

44  On  the  amount  of  the  loan,  see  letter  from  the  office  of  Baruch  to  Daniels,  April 
29,  1936,  Daniels  Papers;  the  circumstances  concerning  the  loan  were  described  in  a 
letter  from  Bernard  M.  Baruch  to  the  author,  September  25,  1962. 

45  Daniels  to  his  sons,  January  20,  1932,  Bagley  Family  Papers,  Southern  Historical 
Collection. 

46  Daniels  to  Martha  Berry,  January  29,  1932,  Bagley  Family  Papers. 


282  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

Statement  by  the  Editor,"  in  which  Daniels  recognized  that  his  support 
came  because  of  program  and  not  personal  popularity,  and  that  the 
program,  which  he  restated  at  length,  could  get  his  more  effective 
long-term  support  in  the  newspaper  than  in  the  executive  mansion. 
Nevertheless,  on  the  very  day  of  the  announcement,  he  opined  to  a 
supporter  in  Charlotte,  "I  have  no  doubt  that  I  would  have  been 
nominated.  .  .  ." 4T  And  it  was  a  conviction  the  editor  held  all  his  life. 
In  the  unpublished  memoir  composed  shortly  before  his  death,  Daniels 
wrote  of  1932  when  "I  was  urged  and  tempted  to  become  a  candidate 
for  Governor,  when  the  nomination  was  assured."  Also  from  the  un- 
published memoir,  "'You  are  one  North  Carolinian,'  said  Governor 
O.  Max  Gardner,  perhaps  the  only  one,  who  can  say  that  when  the 
Governorship  was  practically  in  his  grasp  he  "declined  the  crown."" 
By  now  Gardner  and  Daniels,  who  liked  one  another  personally,  were 
congenial  allies  in  the  task  of  making  Franklin  D.  Roosevelt  President 
of  the  United  States. 


47  Daniels  to  E.  Randolph  Preston,  February  15,  1932,  Daniels  Papers. 


INDIAN  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  SOUTHERN 

COLONIES 

By  G.  Melvin  Herndon* 

Agriculture  was  a  conspiciously  essential  part  of  Indian  subsistence 
in  southeastern  North  America.  The  natives  were  hunters,  but  they 
were  also  agriculturists.  They  lived  in  fixed  habitations,  tilled  the  soil, 
and  subsisted  as  much,  if  not  more,  on  their  agricultural  products  than 
they  did  from  those  of  the  chase;  scarcity  of  food  in  the  winter,  soil 
depletion,  hostile  Indian  tribes,  or  white  settlers  forced  the  Indians  to 
move  about. 

The  early  accounts  contain  numerous  references  to  the  "Indian 
fields"  and  villages.  William  Strachey  mentioned  Kecoughtan,  Vir- 
ginia, where  a  large  concentration  of  Indians  displayed  great  skill  as 
husbandmen  on  land  suitable  for  cultivation.1  The  German  traveler, 
John  Lederer,  in  1670,  found  a  group  of  Siouan  Indians  living  near 
present  Clarksville,  Virginia,  that  put  in  an  immense  store  of  corn,  and 
he  observed  that  they  always  had  a  year's  supply  of  provisions  in  re- 
serve.2 In  1775  James  Adair  wrote:  "And  their  tradition  says  they  did 
not  live  straggling  in  the  American  woods,  as  do  the  Arabians,  and 
rambling  Tartars;  for  they  made  houses  with  the  branches  and  bark  of 
trees  for  the  summer-season;  and  warm  mud-walls,  mixt  with  soft 
dry  grass,  against  the  bleak  winter." 3  From  the  experience  of  the  In- 
dians the  colonists  learned  how  to  live  in  Colonial  America.  The  na- 
tives taught  the  white  settlers  how  to  clear  the  land,  what  seeds  to 
plant,  what  soils  to  cultivate  and  how  to  plant  and  cultivate  their 
crops.  There  is  little  doubt  that  the  Indian  contributed  much  to  the 
survival  of  the  early  colonists  and  to  American  agriculture. 

*  Dr.  Herndon  is  associate  professor  of  history,  University  of  Georgia,  Athens. 

1  Louis  B.  Wright  and  Virginia  Freund  (eds.),  The  Historie  of  Travell  into  Virginia 
Britania  (1612),  by  William  Strachey,  gent.  (London:  Hakluyt  Society  [Second  Series, 
•No.  CIII],  1953),  67,  hereinafter  cited  as  Strachey,  Virginia  Britania. 

2  Clarence  W.  Alvord  and  Lee  Bidgood,  First  Explorations  of  the  Trans-Allegheny 
Region  by  the  Virginians,  1650-1674  (Cleveland:  Arthur  H.  Clark  Company,  1912), 
154. 

3  James  Adair,  The  History  of  the  American  Indians;  Particularly  Those  Nations 
Adjoining  to  the  Missis[s~\ippi,  East  and  West  Florida,  Georgia,  South  and  North 
Carolina  and  Virginia  .  .  .  (London:  Printed  for  Edward  and  Charles  Dilly  in  the 
Poultry  [sic],  1775),  405,  hereinafter  cited  as  Adair,  History  of  the  American  Indians. 


284  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  first  task  performed  by  the  Indian  farmer  was  that  of  clearing 
the  land  of  trees  and  bushes.  He  usually  selected  the  most  fertile  soil 
for  cultivation,  which  was  generally  along  river  bottoms  or  near  other 
bodies  of  water.  The  advantages  for  hunting  and  fishing  probably  had 
something  to  do  with  the  selection  of  a  site  for  planting,  but  no  doubt 
the  Indians  understood  the  value  of  good  soil.  The  method  of  clearing 
seems  to  have  been  the  same  from  Virginia  to  Florida.  Adair  wrote 
that  "In  the  first  clearings  of  their  plantations,  they  only  bark  the 
large  timber,  cut  down  the  sapplings  and  underwood,  and  burn  them 
in  heaps;  as  the  suckers  shoot  up,  they  chop  them  off  close  to  the 
stump,  of  which  they  make  fires  to  deaden  the  roots,  till  in  time  they 
decay." 4  This  process  is  almost  identical  with  that  described  by  Cap- 
tain John  Smith,  Robert  Beverley,  John  Lawson,  and  Alanson  Skinner.5 
Lawson  noted  that  in  North  Carolina  the  best  lands  were  not  always 
used  because  of  the  size  of  the  trees  on  them,6  while  Henry  Spelman 
affirmed  a  more  robust  treatment  than  Adair:  "the[y]  cutt  doune  the 
greate  trees  sum  half  a  yard  aboue  the  ground,  and  ye  smaller  they 
burne  at  the  roote  pullinge  a  good  part  of  barke  from  them  to  make 
them  die.  .  .  ."7 

The  Indians  usually  built  their  villages  of  varying  sizes  in  the  midst 
of  these  clearings.8  Smith  says,  "Their  houses  are  in  the  midst  of  their 
fields  or  gardens,  which  are  small  plots  of  ground.  Some  20  acres,  some 
40.  some  100.  some  200.  some  more,  some  lesse.  In  some  places  [there 
were]  from  2  to  50  of  those  houses  together,  or  but  a  little  separated 
by  groues  of  trees."  9  According  to  Strachey,  the  village  of  Kecoughtan 
contained  about  1,000  Indians,  300  houses,  and  2,000  or  3,000  acres 
of  cleared  land  suitable  for  planting.10 

Among  the  Algonquins,  located  from  Virginia  to  the  Neuse  River, 
each  family  had  its  own  carefully  cultivated  garden.  This  garden  was 

4  Adair,  History  of  the  American  Indians,   405-406. 

5  Lyon  Gardner  Tyler  (ed.),  Narratives  of  Early  Virginia,  1606-1625,  unnumbered 
volume  in  J.  Franklin  Jameson  (ed.),  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American  History 
(New  York:  Charles  Scribner's  Sons  [19  volumes,  1906-1917],  1907),  95-96,  herein- 
after cited  as  Tyler,  Narratives  of  Early  Virginia;  Strachey,  Virginia  Britania,  79; 
Louis  B.  Wright  (ed.),  The  History  and  Present  State  of  Virginia,  by  Robert  Beverley 
(Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1947),  143,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Beverley,  Present  State  of  Virginia;  Alanson  Skinner,  "Notes  on  the  Florida  Semi- 
nole," American  Anthropologist,  XV   (January,  1913),  76. 

8  Frances  Latham  Harriss  (ed.),  Lawson \s  History  of  North  Carolina  (Richmond: 
Garrett  and  Massie,  1937),  84,  hereinafter  cited  as  Harriss,  Lawson 's  History. 

7  Henry  Spelman,  "Relation  of  Virginia,"  in  Edward  Arber  (ed.),  Travels  and 
Works  of  Captain  John^  Smith,  President  of  Virginia  and  Admiral  of  New  England, 
1580-1631  (Edinburgh:  John  Grant,  2  volumes,  1910),  I,  cxi,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Arber,   Travels  and  Works  of  Captain  John  Smith. 

8  David  Bushnell,  Jr.,  Native  Village  Sites  East  of  the  Mississippi  (Washington: 
Government  Printing  Office  [Bureau  of  American  Ethnology  Bulletin  69],  1919),  32. 

9  Arber,  Travels  and  Works  of  Captain  John  Smith,  I,  363. 

10  Strachey,  Virginia  Britania,  67. 


Indian  Agriculture 


285 


i1:%- 


' 


!• 


crm:  '.--  ^wr  .-■< 


:^feg£ 


I  I  1!  II 

i 

HUM  T 


SECOToiK: 


Village  of  Secoton,  a  watercolor  by  John  White,  showing  on  the  right  the  three 
plantings  of  corn  typical  of  Indian  agricultural  practices  discussed  in  this  article. 
The  top  field  is  described  as  "Their  rype  corne"  and  includes  a  small  shelter  on  a 
raised  platform  for  use  by  "watchers,"  whose  duty  it  was  to  keep  the  birds  from 
injuring  the  corn.  The  second  field  is  labeled  "Their  greene  corne,"  and  the  third, 
"Corne  newly  sprong."  Faint  indications  of  hills  can  be  distinguished  in  the  bottom 
field.  This  illustration  is  from  The  American  Drawings  of  John  White,  1577-1590, 
edited  by  Hulton  and  Quinn. 


286  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

commonly  a  small  plot  of  ground  100  by  200  feet,  and  it  furnished 
food  until  the  large  fields  could  be  harvested.  The  large  fields  which 
supplied  most  of  the  food  for  the  entire  population  lay  on  the  out- 
skirts of  the  village.  Little  houses  or  shelters  raised  upon  platforms 
were  built  in  the  fields  and  were  occupied  by  watchers,  usually  women 
or  children,  whose  duty  it  was  to  keep  the  birds  from  injuring  the 
crops.11  This  practice  was  also  customary  among  the  ancient  Tumucua 
tribes  in  northern  Florida.12 

Lands  belonging  to  the  Indian  tribes  were  divided  into  communities 
or  petty  provinces,  each  governed  by  its  local  chief,  who  was  usually 
subject  to  a  higher  chief.  To  the  greater  chieftains  the  people  paid 
tribute  of  corn,  wild  beasts,  deer,  and  other  gifts.  The  gardens  of  the 
principal  chiefs  among  the  Algonquins  were  cared  for  by  the  people, 
who  met  by  appointment  to  plant  and  later  harvest  the  crops.  The 
Creeks  paid  their  chiefs  tribute  by  contributing  a  portion  of  their  own 
harvest  to  the  king's  granary,  which  was  a  public  treasury  to  which 
every  member  had  a  right  of  free  and  equal  access  when  his  own 
private  stores  were  consumed.  It  served  also  as  a  surplus  to  accommo- 
date travelers,  to  assist  neighboring  villagers  whose  crops  had  failed, 
and  to  afford  provisions  for  expeditions  against  hostile  tribes.13  There 
was  no  fixed  rule  as  to  the  size  of  a  garden  or  cornfield  an  individual 
or  family  might  plant.  Each  member  of  the  village  could  clear  as  much 
land  to  cultivate  as  he  pleased,  and  as  long  as  it  was  cultivated  his 
right  to  it  was  protected;  if  abandoned,  anyone  might  acquire  the 
right  to  use  it.  According  to  the  custom  or  law,  the  land  belonged  to 
the  tribe  and  no  person  could  acquire  an  absolute  title  to  any  part 
of  it.14 

Tillage  as  practiced  by  the  Indian  differed  from  that  practiced  by 
the  European.  The  field  crops  grown  in  England  at  the  time  of  the 
discovery  of  America  were  largely  broadcast  seeded.  Virtually  every 
crop  grown  by  the  Indian  was  planted  in  rows  and  each  stalk  or 
plant  hoed  to  keep  down  the  weeds— one  of  several  examples  illustrat- 

u  Charles  C.  Willoughby,  "The  Virginia  Indians  in  the  Seventeenth  Century," 
American  Anthropologist,  IX  (January,  1907),  82-83,  hereinafter  cited  as  Willoughby, 
"Virginia  Indians." 

12  John  R.  Swanton,  Early  History  of  the  Creek  Indians  and  Their  Neighbors 
(Washington:  Government  Printing  Office  [Bureau  of  American  Ethnology  Bulletin 
73],  1922),  360. 

13  G.  K.  Holmes,  "Aboriginal  Agriculture — The  American  Indian,"  in  L.  H.  Bailey 
(ed.),  Cyclopedia  of  American  Agriculture  (New  York:  Macmillan  Company,  4 
volumes  [Second  Edition],  1910),  IV,  33,  hereinafter  cited  as  Holmes,  "Aboriginal 
Agriculture." 

uLucien  Carr,  "The  Food  of  Certain  American  Indians  and  Their  Methods  of 
Preparing  It,"  Proceedings  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  New  Series,  X 
(April  1,  1895),  163,  hereinafter  cited  as  Carr,  "Food  of  Certain  American  Indians"; 
Willoughby,  "Virginia  Indians,"  57. 


Indian  Agriculture  287 

ing  that  American  farm  practices  were  influenced  by  Indian  agricul- 
ture. Intertillage  of  such  crops  as  tobacco,  corn,  and  beans  had  been 
commonly  practiced  in  America  by  the  white  man  more  than  one 
hundred  years  before  Jethro  Tull  wrote  his  Horse  Hoeing  Husbandry 
(1733)  and  had  been  in  use  by  the  Indians  for  centuries.  In  their 
common  method  of  hill  planting,  the  soil  in  the  intervening  spaces 
was  not  broken.  The  hills  were  from  twelve  to  twenty  inches  in  diame- 
ter and  about  three  feet  apart,  and  the  soil  in  these  hills  was  all  that 
was  stirred  or  loosened.  As  the  tobacco  plant  or  corn  stalk  grew,  loose 
dirt  was  scraped  around  it  thus  keeping  down  the  weeds  and  grass. 
Hilling  may  have  been  practiced  for  a  more  important  reason,  to  pre- 
vent the  plants  from  falling  over  during  high  winds  and  wet  weather. 
Hilling  promoted  the  production  of  buttress  or  bracer  roots  on  the 
lower  part  of  the  stem  in  both  corn  and  tobacco.  The  same  thing  can- 
not be  accomplished  by  deep  planting.  Certain  peculiarities  about 
the  structure  and  development  of  both  of  the  above  plants  cause  the 
main  part  of  the  root  system  to  develop  near  the  surface  of  the  soil 
regardless  of  the  depth  of  planting.15  The  hills  were  used  over  and 
over  in  successive  seasons  and  became  quite  sizable  mounds  of  earth. 
The  early  colonists  followed  the  Indian  method  of  seeding  but  often 
neglected  the  weeding  and  were  frequently  subjected  to  ridicule  for 
their  shiftlessness  by  the  painstaking  Indian  squaws. 

Later,  in  using  animal  labor  for  cultivation  the  colonists  found  it 
more  feasible  to  kill  the  weeds  and  grass  by  breaking  and  stirring 
the  intervening  ground,  and  more  modern  methods  of  cultivation  sub- 
sequently evolved.  Thus  the  colonists  provided  the  chief  requisite  for 
soil  erosion  by  stirring  the  soil  over  the  entire  field.  As  long  as  an 
unbroken  sod  was  retained  between  each  hill,  there  was  little  danger 
of  any  significant  amount  of  erosion.  For  this  reason  it  appears  that 
the  Indians  were  able  to  grow  corn  on  the  same  field  longer  than  the 
white  settlers.  Recent  tests  have  proven  that  row  crops  are  not  bene- 
fited by  frequent  cultivation  if  the  weeds  are  kept  out  by  other 
means,  another  instance  where  modern  agriculturists  have  discovered 
that  many  of  the  farming  practices  of  the  Indians  were  based  on  sound 
principles. 

The  Indians  practiced  a  rotation  of  fields  rather  than  a  rotation  of 
crops.  A  field  was  "cropped"  until  it  no  longer  produced  profitable 
yields,  then  it  was  abandoned  and  new  land  cleared.  The  colonists 
followed  the  Indian  example,  as  clearing  new  land  was  more  feasible 
than  fertilizing  the  old.  Several  years  later  the  abandoned  fields  were 

15  Paul  Weatherwax,  Indian  Corn  in  Old  America  (New  York:  Macmillan  Company, 
1954),   70,   hereinafter   cited    as   Weatherwax,   Indian   Corn. 


288  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

frequently  taken  over  by  someone  else  or  returned  to  cultivation  by 
the  original  holder.  So  added  to  the  several  other  Indian  agricultural 
practices  adopted  by  the  white  settlers  was  that  of  restoring  fertility 
by  resting  land.16 

The  Indians  could  scarcely  have  avoided  the  beneficial  effects  of 
decaying  organic  matter  on  plant  growth,  yet,  outside  of  New  Eng- 
land, they  appear  to  have  made  little  or  no  use  of  any  kind  of  manures. 
Smith  wrote:  "In  Virginia  they  never  manure  their  outworne  fields, 
which  is  very  few,  the  ground  for  the  most  part  is  so  fertile:  but  in 
New-England  they  doe,  sticking  at  every  plant  of  corne  a  herring  or 
two.  .  .  "17  On  Roanoke  Island  Hariot  observed: 

The  ground  they  neuer  fatten  with  mucke,  dounge  or  any  other  thing; 
neither  plow  nor  digge  it  as  we  in  England,  .  .  .  [they]  doe  onely  breake 
the  vpper  part  of  the  ground  to  rayse  vp  the  weedes,  grasse,  &  old  stubbes 
of  corne  stalkes  with  their  rootes.  The[se]  which  after  a  day  or  twoes 
drying  in  the  Sunne,  being  scrapte  vp  into  many  small  heapes,  to  saue 
them  labour  for  carrying  them  away;  they  burne  into  ashes.  (And  where- 
as some  may  thinke  that  they  vse  the  ashes  for  to  better  the  grounde;  I 
say  that  then  they  woulde  eyther  disperse  the  ashes  abroade ;  which  wee 
obserued  they  do  not,  except  the  heapes  to  be  too  great :  or  els  would  take 
speciall  care  to  set  their  corne  where  the  ashes  lie,  which  also  wee  finde 
they  are  careless  of.)  And  this  is  all  the  husbanding  of  their  ground  that 
they  vse.18 

Again  the  colonists  copied  the  Indian,  even  after  the  introduction  of 
a  considerable  number  of  livestock,  which  the  Indian  did  not  possess. 
The  colonist  failed  to  fertilize  his  crops  for  the  same  reasons  as  the 
Indian:  scarcity  of  manures,  the  amount  of  labor  required,  and,  most 
importantly,  the  abundance  of  fertile  land. 

According  to  contemporary  accounts,  one  of  the  most  common 
characteristics  of  Indian  agriculture  was  that  the  planting  and  cultiva- 
tion was  done  largely  by  the  women,  though  the  amount  contributed 
by  the  male  varied  somewhat  in  different  areas.  In  preparing  a  field 
for  cultivation,  the  first  task  was  to  clear  it;  this  portion  of  the  work 
belonged  to  the  men.  They  girdled  and  killed  the  trees,  burned  the 
brush  and  dead  wood,  and  then  handed  the  field  over  to  the  squaws 
who  broke  up  the  ground  for  the  making  of  hills,  using  hoes  made  of 
wood,  bone,  stone,  or  shell.19  Smith  related: 


16  It  might  be  noted  here  that  agriculturists  now  insist  that  resting  land  does  not 
restore  fertility;  however,  this  was  a  common  belief  until  the  twentieth  century. 

17  Arber,   Travels  and   Works  of  Captain  John  Smith,   II,  952. 

18  Thomas  Hariot,  A  Brief  and  True  Report  of  the  New  Found  Land  of  Virginia 
(New  York:  History  Book  Club,  Inc.,  1951),  unnumbered  17-18,  hereinafter  cited  as 
Hariot,  A  Brief  and   True  Report. 

19  Carr,  "Food  of  Certain  American  Indians,"  164. 


Indian  Agriculture 


289 


Jacques  le  Moyne,  an  artist  who  accompanied  Rene  de  Laudonniere's  expedition  to 
Florida  in  1564,  gave  this  description  of  the  agricultural  practices  of  the  natives: 
"The  Indians  till  the  soil  very  diligently,  using  a  kind  of  hoe  made  from  fish  bone 
fitted  to  wooden  handles.  Since  the  soil  is  very  light,  these  serve  well  enough  to 
cultivate  it.  After  the  ground  has  been  well  broken  up  and  leveled,  the  planting  is 
done  by  the  women,  some  making  holes  with  sticks,  into  which  the  others  drop  the 
seeds  of  beans  or  maize."  Above  is  a  Theodore  de  Bry  engraving  of  a  Le  Moyne  water- 
color.  The  women  wear  skirts  made  of  Spanish  moss.  From  The  New  World,  edited 
and  annotated  by  Stefan  Lorant  (New  York:  Duell,  Sloane  &  Pearce,  1946). 

The  men  bestowe  their  times  in  fishing,  hunting,  wars  and  such  manlike 
exercises,  scorning  to  be  seene  in  any  woman  like  exercise ;  which  is  the 
cause  that  the  women  be  verie  painefull  and  the  men  often  idle.  The 
women  and  children  do  the  rest  of  the  worke.  They  make  mats,  baskets, 
pots,  morters ;  pound  their  corne,  make  their  bread,  prepare  their  victuals, 
plant  their  corne,  and  gather  their  corne,  beare  al  kind  of  burdens,  and 
such  like.20 

According  to  Hariot,  the  men  also  helped  prepare  the  ground  for 
seeding: 


...  a  fewe  daies  before  they  sowe  or  set,  the  men  with  wooden  instruments, 
made  almost  in  [the]  forme  of  mattockes  or  hoes  with  long  handles ;  the 
women  with  short  peckers  or  parers,  because  they  vse  them  sitting,  of  a 


Arber,   Travels  and  Works  of  Captain  John  Smith,  I,  67. 


290  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

foote  long  and  about  fiue  inches  in  breadth:  doe  onely  breake  the  vpper 
part  of  the  ground.  .  .  .21 

It  has  been  said  that  in  North  Carolina  the  women  never  planted  the 
corn,  and  that  among  the  Tunicas  of  the  lower  Mississippi  valley  all 
of  the  work  was  done  by  the  men.22  Some  confusion  on  this  point  may 
have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  in  addition  to  the  communal  field  there 
were  small  garden  areas  about  most  Indian  villages  which  were  main- 
tained entirely  by  the  women. 

The  Indians  carried  on  their  work  much  in  the  manner  of  the  husk- 
ing, quilting,  and  other  "work  frolics"  that  became  common  among 
the  colonists.23  The  people  of  each  village  worked  together  in  common 
fields,  though  the  allotments  of  the  different  households  were  sepa- 
rated by  a  narrow  strip  of  grass,  poles,  or  some  other  suitable  natural 
or  artificial  boundary.  Among  the  Creeks,  care  of  the  fields  was  under 
the  charge  of  an  overseer,  said  to  be  elected:  "He  called  the  men  to 
the  square  by  going  through  the  village  blowing  upon  a  conch  shell 
or  uttering  a  loud  cry.  Immediately  they  gathered  with  hoes  and  axes, 
and  then  marched  in  order  to  the  field  as  if  they  were  going  into 
battle,  headed  by  their  overseer.  The  women  followed  in  detached 
parties  bearing  the  provisions  for  the  day."24  As  a  general  rule  the 
planting  season  for  the  out-fields  began  when  the  wild  fruit  had 
ripened,  so  as  to  draw  off  the  birds  and  prevent  them  from  picking  up 
the  grain.25  The  small  garden  plots  in  or  near  the  village  were  planted 
earlier  and  provided  the  first  harvest. 

Work  began  at  one  end  of  the  common  field,  in  a  plot  of  ground 
chosen  by  lot,  and  when  the  task  on  that  one  was  completed,  they 
moved  to  the  next  adjoining  one,  and  so  on  until  the  entire  field  was 
planted.26  Sometimes  one  of  their  orators  cheered  the  workers  on  with 
jests  and  humorous  old  tales  and  sang  some  of  their  most  agreeable 
tunes  while  beating  a  drum.  At  the  end  of  a  workday,  all  of  the  work- 
ers were  usually  feasted  by  the  families  for  whom  they  had  worked 
on  that  particular  day.27  Work  usually  ceased  around  noon  for  the 


21  Hariot,  A  Brief  and   True  Report,   unnumbered   17. 

22  John  R.  Swan  ton,  Aboriginal  Culture  of  the  Southeast  (Washington:  Government 
Printing  Office  [Forty-second  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology], 
1928),  691,  hereinafter  cited  as  Swanton,  Aboriginal  Culture. 

23  Carr,   "Food   of   Certain   American    Indians,"    162. 

24  John  R.  Swanton,  Social  Organization  and  Social  Usages  of  the  Indians  of  the 
Creek  Confederacy  (Washington:  Government  Printing  Office  [Forty-second  Report 
of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology],  1928),  443. 

25  Adair,  History  of  the  American  Indians,  406. 

26  Mark  Van  Doren  (ed.),  The  Travels  of  William  Bartram  (New  York:  Dover 
Publications,   1928),  401. 

27  Carr,  "Food  of  Certain  American  Indians,"   163. 


Indian  Agriculture  291 

day,  and  after  the  feast  the  afternoon  was  devoted  to  a  ball  game  and 
the  evening  to  dancing.28 

The  following  is  one  of  the  better  accounts  of  their  manner  of  plant- 
ing corn: 

.  .  .  beginning  in  one  corner  of  the  plot,  with  a  pecker  they  make  a  hole, 
wherein  they  put  foure  graines  with  that  care  they  touch  not  one  another, 
(about  an  inch  asunder)  and  couer  them  with  the  moulde  againe:  and  so 
through  out  the  whole  plot,  making  such  holes  and  vsing  them  after  such 
maner  [sic] :  but  with  this  regard  that  they  bee  made  in  rankes,  euery 
ranke  differing  from  [the]  other  [by]  halfe  a  f adome  or  a  yarde,  and  the 
holes  also  in  euery  ranke,  as  much.  By  this  meanes  there  is  a  yarde  spare 
ground  betwene  euery  hole :  where  according  to  discretion  here  and  there, 
they  set  as  many  Beanes  and  Peaze:  in  diuers  places  also  among  the 
seedes  of  Macocqwer  [squash  and  pumpkin]  Melden  [an  herb]  and  Planta 
Solis  [sunflower].29 

Corn  was  grown  over  a  larger  area  of  North  America  than  any  other 
domesticated  plant  and  is  certainly  one  of  the  oldest  in  America.  It 
was  the  main  dependence  of  all  tribes  south  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River 
and  east  of  the  Mississippi.30 

The  Indians  grew  three  or  four  varieties  of  corn.  Hariot  mentioned 
three  types,  two  of  which  grew  to  be  6  or  7  feet  tall,  and  ripened  in  11 
or  12  weeks  after  planting;  the  third  grew  to  a  height  of  about  10  feet 
and  ripened  in  14  weeks.  Each  stalk  might  have  from  1  to  4  ears  on 
it,  with  some  500  to  700  grains  on  each  ear.  The  grains  were  about  the 
size  of  an  English  pea  and  might  be  of  several  colors,  white,  red,  yel- 
low, or  blue.31  Near  Jamestown  Smith  observed:  "Every  stalke  of  their 
corn  commonly  beareth  two  eares,  some  3,  seldome  any  4,  many  but 
one,  and  some  none.  Every  eare  ordinarily  hath  betwixt  200  and  500 
graines."  32  They  began  planting  in  April,  but  the  chief  plantings  came 
during  May  and  continued  until  the  middle  of  June.  What  was  planted 
in  April  was  harvested  in  August,  that  planted  in  May  was  harvested 
in  September,  and  that  planted  in  June  was  harvested  in  October. 
Perhaps  the  best  description  of  Indian  corn  was  given  by  Beverley  in 
1705: 

There  are  Four  Sorts  of  Indian  Corn,  Two  of  which  are  early  ripe,  and 
two  late  ripe.  .  .  . 

The  Two  Sorts  which  are  early  ripe,  are  distinguish'd  only  by  the  Size, 
which  shows  it  self  as  well  in  the  Grain,  as  in  the  Ear,  and  the  Stalk. 
There  is  some  Difference  also  in  the  Time  of  ripening. 


28  Swan  ton,  Aboriginal  Culture,   691. 

29  Hariot,  A  Brief  and  True  Report,  unnumbered  18. 

30  Carr,  "Food  of  Certain  American   Indians,"   159. 

31  Hariot,  A  Brief  and  True  Report,  unnumbered  15. 

32  Arber,   Travels  and  Works  of  Captain  John  Smith,   I,  62. 


292  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

The  lesser  Size  of  Early  ripe  Corn,  yields  an  Ear  not  much  larger  than 
the  Handle  of  a  Case  Knife,  and  grows  upon  a  Stalk  between  Three  and 
Four  Foot  high.  Of  this  are  commonly  made  Two  Crops  in  a  year.  .  .  . 

The  larger  Sort  differs  from  the  former  only  in  Largeness,  the  Ear  of 
this  being  Seven  or  Eight  Inches  long,  as  thick  as  a  Child's  Leg  and  grow- 
ing upon  a  Stalk  Nine  or  Ten  Foot  high.  This  is  fit  for  eating  about  the 
latter  End  of  May,  whereas  the  small  Sort  (generally  speaking)  affords 
Ears  fit  to  roast  by  the  Middle  of  May.  The  Grains  of  both  these  Sorts, 
are  as  plump  and  swell'd  as  if  the  Skin  were  ready  to  burst. 

The  late  ripe  Corn  is  diversify' d  by  the  Shape  of  the  Grain  only,  with- 
out any  Respect  to  the  accidental  Differences  in  Colour,  some  being  blue, 
some  red,  some  yellow,  some  white,  and  some  streak' d.  That  therefore 
which  makes  the  Distinction,  is  the  Plumpness  or  Shrivelling  of  the  Grain ; 
the  one  looks  as  smooth  and  as  full  as  the  early  ripe  Corn,  and  this  they 
call  Flint-Corn;  the  other  has  a  larger  Grain,  and  looks  shrivell'd  with  a 
Dent  on  the  Back  of  the  Grain,  as  if  it  had  never  come  to  perfection;  and 
this  they  call  She-Corn.  .  .  ,33 

According  to  one  scholar,  "It  may  even  be  said  that  in  four  and 
a  quarter  centuries  during  which  the  white  race  has  been  grow- 
ing maize  almost  nothing  has  been  produced  that  can  not  be  dupli- 
cated among  the  cultures  of  the  aborigines.  The  most  highly  devel- 
oped varieties  of  flint,  flour,  pop,  and  sweet  types  are  little  if  any 
superior  to  individual  types  in  native  cultures,  the  chief  advance 
having  been  toward  uniformity."34 

There  were  no  conspicuous  differences  in  the  manner  in  which  corn 
was  harvested  and  stored.  Among  the  Algonquins  the  women  gathered 
the  corn,  each  family  receiving  only  what  was  grown  on  its  own  plot. 
The  corn  was  picked  and  placed  in  hand  baskets,  emptied  into  larger 
baskets  as  each  was  filled,  and  later  placed  on  mats  to  dry.  When 
sufficiently  dry,  the  corn  was  next  placed  in  the  house  in  piles  and 
shelled  by  "wringinge  the  ears  in  pieces  between  their  hands."  The 
shelled  corn  was  then  placed  in  a  great  storage  basket  which  took  up 
a  large  part  of  the  house.  Late  corn  that  had  to  be  harvested  while 
still  green  was  frequently  roasted  and  buried  in  the  ground.35  The 
corn  might  be  stored  in  a  crib  raised  on  eight  posts  about  seven  feet 
above  the  ground36  and  curing  hastened  by  fires  built  underneath. 
Thus  the  granary,  public  or  private,  might  be  a  portion  of  the  wig- 
wam, a  hole  in  the  ground,  or  a  storehouse  raised  above  the  ground. 

The  husks  of  an  ear  of  Indian  corn  were  thick,  tough  and  coarse, 

33  Beverley,   Present  State   of   Virginia,    143-144. 

34  Guy  N.  Collins,  "Notes  on  the  Agricultural  History  of  Maize,"  Annual  Report  of 
the  American  Historical  Association  for  1919  (Washington:  Government  Printing 
Office,  2  volumes  and  a  supplement,  1923),  I,  423. 

35  Holmes,  "Aboriginal  Agriculture,"  30. 
38  Harriss,  Lawson's  History,  12. 


Indian  Agriculture 


293 


According  to  Le  Moyne,  the  Indians  stored  the  surplus  from  their  harvests  "in  low 
and  roomy  granaries,  built  of  stone  and  earth  and  thickly  roofed  with  palm  branches 
and  a  kind  of  soft  earth.  To  keep  the  contents  better,  the  granaries  are  usually 
erected  near  a  mountain  or  in  the  shade  of  a  river  bank,  so  as  to  be  sheltered  from 
the  direct  rays  of  the  sun."  Above  is  an  engraving  by  De  Bry  based  on  a  Le  Moyne 
drawing.  From  The  New  World,  edited  and  annotated  by  Stefan  Lorant. 


fitted  snugly,  and  extended  well  beyond  the  ear.  To  loosen  and  remove 
them  was  not  an  easy  task  and  reached  imposing  proportions  when 
multiplied  by  the  number  of  ears  to  be  husked.  To  ameliorate  this 
task  the  Indians  of  eastern  North  America  invented  the  homely  husk- 
ing peg,  which  the  white  man  adopted.  In  its  primitive  form  it  was 
essentially  a  smooth,  round  rod  of  bone  or  hard  wood  about  half  an 
inch  in  diameter  and  three  or  four  inches  long.  One  end  tapered  down 
to  a  blunt  point,  and  a  shallow  groove  or  two  around  it  near  the 
middle  held  a  loop  of  cord  or  leather,  through  which  one  or  two 
fingers  were  inserted  to  hold  the  tool  on  the  hand.  The  blunt  point  of 
the  peg  was  inserted  into  the  snugly  fitting  husks  at  the  tapered  end 
of  the  ear,  and  by  applying  pressure  on  the  husks  held  between  the 
peg  and  the  thumb  of  the  hand  holding  the  peg,  the  husks  were 
peeled  back  and  snapped  off  at  the  opposite  end  of  the  ear,  thus  free- 
ing the  ear  from  its  husks.37 

87  Weatherwax,  Indian  Corn,  78-79. 


294  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

As  to  yields,  one  account  reported  364  bushels  of  corn  as  the  product 
of  13  gallons  of  seed;38  another  in  terms  of  English  measure— 200  Lon- 
don bushels  of  a  mixed  crop  of  corn,  beans,  and  peas  from  an  English 
acre;39  and  a  third  estimated  an  average  yield  as  40  bushels  per  acre.40 
Corn,  beans,  and  squash  were  frequently  planted  in  the  same  field, 
another  practice  adopted  by  the  colonists.  The  Indians  domesticated 
several  kinds  of  beans:  the  common  bean,  often  referred  to  as  the 
kidney  or  Indian  bean;  the  lima  bean;  and  the  scarlet-runner  bean.  All 
three  types  were  grown  in  the  southern  colonies.  The  early  writers  on 
the  American  crops  frequently  employed  the  phrase  "beanes  and 
pease."  Just  what  was  meant  by  the  term  "pease"  is  difficult  to  deter- 
mine. It  may  have  been  used  to  indicate  more  than  one  specie  of  bean; 
at  times  it  seems  to  have  been  used  to  mean  a  small  bean.41  Hariot 
speaks  of  two  kinds  of  native  beans,  called  by  the  English  beans  and 
peas  respectively,  though  the  latter  seems  to  have  been  quite  different 
from  European  peas. 

Okindgier,  called  by  vs  Beanes,  because  in  greatnesse  &  partly  in  shape 
they  are  like  to  the  Beanes  in  England;  sauing  that  they  are  flatter,  of 
more  diuers  colours,  and  some  pide  [piebald] .  The  leaf e  also  of  the  stemme 
is  much  different.  In  taste  they  are  altogether  as  good  as  our  English 
peaze. 

Wickonzowr,  called  by  vs  Peaze,  in  respect  of  the  beanes  for  distinctio 
sake,  because  they  are  much  lesse;  although  in  forme  they  little  differ; 
but  in  goodnesse  of  tast  much,  &  are  far  better  than  our  English  peaze. 
Both  the  beanes  and  the  peaze  are  ripe  in  tenne  weekes  after  they  are  set.42 

Smith  mentioned  another  type  of  pea  which  the  Indians  called  "Assen- 
tamens,  which  are  the  same  as  they  cal  in  Italye,  Fagioli.  .  .  ." 43  Bev- 
erly wrote:  "They  have  an  unknown  Variety  of  them,  (but  all  of  a 

Kidney-Shape)  some  of  which  I  have  met  with  wild " 44  These  wild 

peas  may  have  been  the  marsh  pea.45 

There  is  also  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  various  kinds  of  creeping 
vines  cultivated  by  the  Indians.  Many  of  the  creeper  plants  the  white 

^Arber,  Travels  and  Works  of  Captain  John  Smith,  II,  952.  Smith  was  somewhat 
skeptical  of  this  report:  "All  things  they  plant  prosper  exceedingly:  but  one  man  of  13. 
gallons  of  Indian  corne,  reaped  that  yeare  364.  bushels  London  measure,  as  they 
confidently  report,  at  which  I  much  wonder,  having  planted:  many  bushels,  but  no 
such  increase.   .   .   ." 

39  Hariot,  A  Brief  and  True  Report,  unnumbered   18. 

40  Holmes,  "Aboriginal  Agriculture,"  31. 

41  Beverley,   History   of   Virginia,    144. 

42  Hariot,  A   Brief  and   True  Report,   unnumbered   16. 
43Arber,  Travels  and  Works  of  Captain  John  Smith,  I,  62. 
"Beverley,  History  of  Virginia,  144. 

"John  R.  Swanton,  Indians  of  the  Southeastern  United  States  (Washington:  Gov- 
ernment Printing  Office  [Bureau  of  American  Ethnology  Bulletin  137],  1946),  269, 
hereinafter  cited  as  Swanton,  Indians  of  the  Southeastern  United  States. 


Indian  Agriculture  295 

explorers  had  never  seen,  and  those  were  named  for  the  European 
plants  which  they  most  resembled.  The  evidence  seems  quite  clear, 
however,  that  several  kinds  of  squash  and  the  ordinary  field  pumpkin 
were  common  food  crops  of  the  Indians.  One  observer  described  these 
plants  as  follows: 

Macocqwer,  according  to  their  seuerall  formes  called  by  vs  Pompions, 
Mellions,  and  Gourdes,  because  they  are  the  like  formes  as  those  kindes  in 
England.  In  Virginia  such  of  seuerall  formes  are  of  one  taste  and  very 
good,  and  do  also  spring  from  one  seed.  There  are  two  sorts ;  one  is  ripe 
in  the  space  of  a  moneth  [sic'] ,  and  the  other  in  two  moueths  [sic'] ." 46 

Beverley  gave  a  more  detailed  description  of  the  several  kinds  of 
creeping  vines  in  Virginia.  He  mentioned  muskmelons;  several  kinds  of 
watermelons,  red,  yellow,  and  white  meated,  and  some  with  yellow, 
red,  and  black  seeds;  pumpkins;  two  kinds  of  squash  called  ecushaws 
and  macocks;  and  gourds,  which  the  Indians  never  ate,  but  planted 
for  other  uses,  such  as  use  of  dried  shells  for  containers.47 

There  is  a  belief  that  muskmelons  and  watermelons  were  introduced 
to  the  Indians  by  the  Europeans.48  Captain  John  Smith  made  no  men- 
tion of  them  in  his  descriptions  of  Virginia  published  in  1612,  but  in 
1621  he  reported  that 

A  small  ship  comming  in  December  last  from  the  Summer-Hands,  to  Vir- 
ginia, brought  thither  from  thence  these  Plants,  viz.  Vines  of  all  sorts, 
Orange  and  Leman  trees,  Sugar  Canes,  Cassado  Roots  (that  make  bread) 
Pines,  Plantans,  Potatoes,  and  sundry  other  Indian  fruits  and  plants,  not 
formerly  seen  in  Virginia,  which  begin  to  prosper  very  well.49 

Melons  appear  several  times  in  the  accounts  of  the  various  Raleigh 
expeditions.  Hariot  mentioned  melons  and  Captain  John  White  in 
1587  wrote  of  seeing  melons  of  "divers  sorts."  While  these  sixteenth- 
century  American  melons  may  have  been  squash  or  pumpkins,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  statements  which  would  exclude  watermelons.  There 
is  good  presumptive  evidence  that  the  melons  which  were  served  raw 
might  have  been  watermelons. 

There  is  some  controversy  as  to  whether  the  sweet  potato  is  of 
American  or  Asian  origin.  It  is  generally  conceded  that  America  was 
its  original  home.  According  to  L.  C.  Gray,  "sweet  potatoes  were  in 

46  Hariot,  A  Brief  and  True  Report,  unnumbered  16. 

47  Beverley,  History  of  Virginia,  142. 

48  Willoughby,  "Virginia  Indians,"  84. 

49  Samuel  Purchas,  Hakluytus  Posthumus,  or  Purchas  His  Pilgrimes  ( Glasgow : 
James  MacLehose  and  Sons  [20  volumes,  1905-1907],  1906),  XIX,  147,  hereinafter 
cited  as  Purchas,  Pilgrimes. 


296  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

common  use  in  the  West  Indies  when  the  Spaniards  discovered  these 
islands.  We  have  no  account  of  their  employment  by  the  Virginia 
Indians  at  the  time  Jamestown  was  settled  but  they  were  cultivated 
by  the  Indians  of  northern  Florida  and  eastern  South  Carolina."50 
Various  roots,  such  as  tuckahoe  or  wampee  or  koonti,  used  by  the  In- 
dians were  identified  as  potatoes  by  early  explorers  and  settlers. 
Strachey  says  that  potatoes  had  been  given  a  trial  in  his  time  ( 1610- 
1612 ).51  Smith  mentioned  white,  red,  and  yellow  potatoes  among  the 
products  brought  by  the  English  from  Bermuda  in  1620.52 

It  is  the  opinion  of  Gray  that  "Tomatoes,  Jerusalem  artichokes,  gar- 
den peppers,  and  sunflowers  were  among  the  less  important  contri- 
butions of  the  New  World  to  agriculture." 53 

Tobacco  was  firmly  established  throughout  the  eastern  and  southern 
United  States  at  the  time  of  discovery.  In  the  Southeast  it  is  mentioned 
first  in  Jacques  le  Moyne's  narrative  of  the  Huguenot  colony  in  Flori- 
da. In  1584  Arthur  Barlowe  noted  tobacco  growing  along  with  corn 
in  the  fields  of  the  Algonquin  Indians  of  North  Carolina.54  In  1607 
George  Percy  was  shown  a  "Garden  of  Tobacco"  by  a  Powhatan  In- 
dian.55 Strachey  offers  the  fullest  account  of  Indian  tobacco  in  Virginia: 

There  is  here  great  store  of  Tobacco,  which  the  Saluages  call  Apooke ; 
howbeyt  yt  is  not  the  best  kynd,  yt  is  but  poore  and  weake,  and  of  a  byting 
tast,  yt  growes  not  fully  a  yard  aboue  the  grownd,  bearing  a  little  yellow 
flower,  like  a  henn-bane,  the  leaves  are  short  and  thick,  somewhat  rownd  at 
the  vpper  end :  . . .  the  Saluages  here  dry  the  leaves  of  this  Apooke  over  the 
fier,  and  sometymes  in  the  Sun,  and  Crumble  yt  into  Powlder,  Stalks, 
leaves,  and  all,  taking  the  same  in  Pipes  of  Earth  which  very  ingeniously 
they  can  make.  .  .  ,66 

At  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  Beverley  wrote: 

How  the  Indians  order'd  their  Tobacco,  I  am  not  certain,  they  now  de- 
pending chiefly  upon  the  English,  for  what  they  smoak :  But  I  am  inf  orm'd, 
they  used  to  let  it  all  run  to  Seed,  only  succouring  the  Leaves,  to  keep  the 
Sprouts  from  growing  upon,  and  starving  them;  and  when  it  was  ripe, 
they  pulPd  off  the  Leaves,  cured  them  in  the  Sun,  and  laid  them  up  for 
Use 57 


50  Lewis  Cecil  Gray,  History  of  Agriculture  in  the  Southern  United  States  to  1860 
(Washington,  D.C.:  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington,  2  volumes,  1933),  I,  4, 
hereinafter  cited   as   Gray,   History   of  Agriculture. 

51  Strachey,  Virginia  Britania,  38. 
52Purchas,  Pilgrimes,  XIX,  147. 

53  Gray,  History  of  Agriculture,  I,  5. 

54  Swanton,  Indians  of  the  Southeastern  United  States,  382. 

65  Tyler,  Narratives  of  Early  Virginia,  16. 

66  Strachey,  Virginia  Britania,  122-123. 

67  Beverley,  History  of  Virginia,  145. 


Indian  Agriculture  297 

The  native  tobacco,  Nicotiana  rustica,  was  inferior  to  Nicotiana 
tobacum  introduced  into  Virginia  by  John  Rolfe  from  the  West  Indies; 
and,  as  Beverley  noted,  by  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  the 
Indians  of  Virginia  were  depending  mainly  upon  the  English  for  their 
ordinary  smoking  tobacco.  The  colonists  soon  found  the  native  Indian 
tobacco  unsatisfactory  to  their  taste  and  imported  a  new  variety  that 
truly  became  the  "golden  weed"  for  several  of  the  colonies;  but  it 
must  be  remembered  that  it  was  the  Indian  who  taught  the  colonists 
how  to  grow  it. 

Of  all  the  hay  and  pasture  plants  of  importance  east  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, there  is  scarcely  one  which  was  not  introduced  by  the  colonists. 
Many  early  explorers  wrote  of  "goodly  meadows,"  not  knowing  that 
the  salt  marsh  grasses  they  saw  growing  along  the  coast  were  very 
inferior  for  forage.  Had  the  Indian  of  the  Southeast  possessed  horses 
and  cattle  before  the  coming  of  the  white  men,  perhaps  he  might  have 
developed  an  excellent  hay  crop  from  the  wild  rye  that  was  found 
growing  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,58  or  from  the 
several  varieties  of  peas  and  beans. 

If  the  natives  of  southeastern  North  America  had  been  ignorant 
of  agriculture,  the  colonization  of  America  would  probably  have  been 
delayed,  for  without  aid  from  the  Indians  the  planting  of  Jamestown 
might  have  failed.  It  was  largely  through  the  knowledge  of  agricul- 
ture learned  from  the  Indians  that  the  colony  was  enabled  to  survive 
the  first  few  years.  Perhaps  the  next  greatest  contribution  of  the 
Indians  was  the  clearing  of  land  for  crops  which  the  whites  sooner  or 
later  took  over,  by  force  or  other  means.  This  speeded  up  the  coloni- 
zation by  a  considerable  degree,  for  it  would  have  taken  generations 
for  a  small  handful  of  colonists  to  clear  enough  land  for  survival.  It 
has  been  said  that  the  Valley  of  Virginia  and  sections  of  the  Carolina 
Piedmont  were  without  trees  when  the  Europeans  first  came.  Those 
sections  and  the  areas  used  by  the  Indians  for  farming  were  practically 
the  only  breaks  in  the  forests. 

In  some  instances  Indian  agriculture  was  further  advanced  than 
that  of  the  Old  World.  The  colonists  learned  many  valuable  lessons 
in  New  World  agriculture  from  the  natives  and  several  of  their  prin- 
ciples and  practices  have  been  proven  sound  by  American  agricul- 
turists. 


Gray,  History  of  Agriculture,  I,  4-5. 


BOOK  REVIEWS 

For  History's  Sake:  The  Preservation  and  Publication  of  North  Carolina 
History,  1663-1903.  By  H.  G.  Jones.  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North 
Carolina  Press,  1966.  Preface,  introduction,  illustrations,  bibliography, 
index.  Pp.  xvi,  319.  $7.50.) 

This  thoroughly  researched,  well-organized,  clearly  written,  and 
highly  readable  volume  tells  the  story  of  the  public  records  of  North 
Carolina  from  the  issuance  of  the  1663  Charter  to  1903,  when  the 
state  established  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Commission  (now  the 
State  Department  of  Archives  and  History).  Dr.  Jones,  who  has  been 
State  Archivist  since  1956— and  an  extremely  competent  one— dis- 
cusses in  depth  the  creation,  preservation,  destruction,  use,  and  publi- 
cation of  public  records  for  a  period  of  two  and  a  half  centuries. 
By  painstaking  use  of  the  original  records  about  which  he  is  writing, 
he  has  been  able  to  confirm  many— though  not  all— of  the  traditions 
relating  to  the  neglect  of  North  Carolina's  public  records. 

The  author  begins  with  an  introductory  statement  defining  "records" 
and  emphasizing  the  fact  that  "records"  become  "archives"  only  when 
they  are  so  designated  by  an  appropriate  authority.  Part  One  of  the 
volume  has  four  chapters  dealing  with  "The  Public  Archives,  1663- 
1903."  In  Chapters  I  and  II:  "Record  Keeping  in  Proprietary  Carolina, 
1663-1728,"  and  "Record  Keeping  in  the  Royal  Period,  1729-1776," 
Dr.  Jones  shows  that  some  government  officials  realized  the  impor- 
tance of  public  records  for  administrative,  legal,  and  historical  pur- 
poses, "and  many  modern  concepts  of  the  care  of  official  records  are 
grounded  in  laws  and  traditions  of  the  Colonial  period." 

In  Chapters  III  and  IV:  "War  and  Its  Aftermath:  Dislocation  and 
Settlement,  1774-1794,"  and  "The  Vicissitudes  of  the  Records,  1794- 
1903,"  the  author  discusses  the  laws  governing  the  records;  the  re- 
peated moving  of  records  due  to  changing  the  seat  of  government  or 
because  of  threats  brought  on  by  war,  such  as  the  hitherto  unknown 
story  of  the  movement  of  the  state  records  across  the  mountains  to 
escape  the  British  army  in  1781,  and  the  well-known  story  of  the 
evacuation  of  the  records  from  Raleigh  as  General  Sherman  ap- 
proached that  city  in  1865;  the  conditions  of  buildings  housing  the 


Book  Reviews  299 

records  and  the  calamities  that  befell  them,  such  as  the  burning  of  the 
Capitol  in  1831;  the  care  or  neglect  with  which  custodians  tended  the 
records,  and  the  efforts  of  individuals  who  sought  to  provide  greater 
security  for  the  records.  Chapter  IV,  one  of  the  best  in  the  book,  has 
four  logical  subdivisions:  "The  State  Records  in  Raleigh,  1794-1861" 
( from  the  building  of  the  Capitol  to  the  state's  secession ) ;  "The  Rec- 
ords and  the  War,  1861-1888"  (it  was  not  until  the  latter  date  that  the 
federal  government  delivered  North  Carolina  records  in  its  possession 
to  the  state);  "The  Records  in  the  Postwar  Period,  1865-1903";  and 
"The  Records  of  Counties  and  Municipalities,  1794-1903."  The  author 
is  to  be  congratulated  for  his  wisdom  in  discussing  these  significant 
though  frequently  overlooked  records. 

Part  Two,  which  will  probably  have  the  widest  appeal  to  historians, 
is  divided  into  three  chapters  and  deals  with  the  "Collection  and 
Publication  of  the  Records,  1843-1868,"  by  George  Chalmers,  Hugh 
Williamson,  Frangois  Xavier  Martin,  Archibald  D.  Murphey,  Joseph 
Seawell  ("Shocco")  Jones;  John  H.  Wheeler,  David  L.  Swain,  and 
Francis  Lister  Hawks;  and  with  William  L.  Saunders  and  The  Colonial 
Records  of  North  Carolina  (1879-1891),  and  Walter  Clark  and  The 
State  Records  of  North  Carolina  (1893-1907). 

Part  Three,  "Caretakers  for  Clio,  1833-1907,"  is  an  extremely  in- 
teresting account  of  the  foundation  of  "Six  Early  Historical  Societies, 
1833-1887,"  with  special  emphasis  on  the  North  Carolina  Historical 
Society;  "The  Dispersal  of  the  Swain  Collection,  1880-1930";  and  "The 
Establishment  of  a  State  Archival-Historical  Agency,  1893-1907." 

The  book  also  contains  a  selected  bibliography  and  a  thorough  in- 
dex. Ten  excellent  illustrations,  six  of  which  are  portraits  (Williamson, 
Murphey,  Swain,  Wheeler,  Saunders,  and  Clark),  add  to  the  attrac- 
tiveness of  the  volume.  The  endpaper,  a  "View  of  Raleigh,  1872," 
will  be  of  interest  to  many  of  the  book's  readers.  Dr.  Jones  has  ren- 
dered a  great  service  to  the  archival  profession  and  also  to  state  and 
local  historians. 

Hugh  T.  Lefler 

University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


Old  Salem  in  Pictures.  Photography  by  Bruce  Roberts.  Text  by  Frances 
Griffin.  (Charlotte:  McNally  and  Loftin,  1966.  Foreword,  illustrations. 
Pp.  64.  $3.95.) 

James  A.  Gray's  foreword  to  this  charming  black  and  white  picture 
book  says  that  it  is  intended  "to  recreate  the  mystique  that  was,  and 


300  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

is,  Old  Salem."  Veteran  photographer  Bruce  Roberts'  eighty-six  superb 
pictures  (eighty-seven,  counting  the  cover)  are  skillfully  interwoven 
with  eight  and  one-half  pages  of  excellent  text  and  exceptionally  gen- 
erous captions  by  Salem  publicist  Frances  Griffin  to  give  the  reader 
the  illusion  that  he  is  actually  seeing  daily  life  in  the  eighteenth- 
century  Moravian  community— not  in  the  twentieth-century  restored 
town. 

No  modern  utility  lines  or  motor  cars  are  visible;  the  faces  of  men, 
women,  and  children  are  carefully  chosen  (and  all  are  worth  study); 
costumes  are  not  too  spick  and  span  ( loose  threads  and  wrinkles  show 
here  and  there ) ;  leaves  drift  across  the  diagonal  brick  walk  in  Salem 
Square— in  short,  it  is  Old  Salem. 

Altogether,  sixteen  restored  structures  are  shown,  and  architectural 
historians  will  enjoy  studying  the  thousand  and  one  structural  details 
that  are  visible.  Nine  craftsmen  are  shown  at  their  tasks,  and  both 
pictures  and  text  emphasize  the  Moravians'  painstaking  regard  for 
highest  quality.  Every  bit  as  fascinating  are  the  photographs  of  daily 
routine— the  tavernkeeper  welcoming  his  guests  by  lantern  light  to 
historic  Salem  Tavern,  the  watchman  blowing  his  conch  shell,  an 
intent  boy  doing  sums  on  a  huge  abacus. 

The  fourth  and  closing  section  of  the  book,  "The  Spirit  of  Salem," 
focuses  on  "the  simple  day-to-day  religion  that  was  the  heartbeat  of 
early  Salem  [and]  has  remained  unaltered  through  these  two  cen- 
turies"—the  great  Easter  sunrise  service  in  God's  Acre,  the  Christmas 
Eve  lovefeast  by  candlelight,  and  always  music,  trumpet,  trombone, 
organ,  and  flute,  for  every  occasion  of  faith  and  fellowship. 

A  simple  black  and  white  map  of  Old  Salem— useful  and  highly 
decorative— serves  as  endpapers  for  this  attractive  first  picture  book 
from  restored  Salem. 

Copies  of  the  book  may  be  ordered  from  the  publisher. 

Mary  Claire  Engstrom 
Hillsborough 


38th  Evac:  The  Story  of  the  Men  and  Women  Who  Served  in  World  War 
II  with  the  38th  Evacuation  Hospital  in  North  Africa  and  Italy.  By 
LeGette  Blythe.  (Charlotte:  Heritage  Printers,  1966.  Foreword,  calen- 
dar, illustrations,  rosters,  index.  Pp.  261.  $15.00.) 

Beginning  with  a  lawn  party  in  Charlotte  on  October  12,  1940,  the 
author  narrates  the  history  of  the  38th  Evacuation  Hospital  from  its 


Book  Reviews  301 

organization  and  training,  through  its  service  in  North  Africa  and 
Italy,  to  its  dissolution  in  Florence  on  July  3,  1945.  Although  some  of 
its  original  personnel  came  from  other  states,  the  nucleus  of  the  unit 
was  the  Charlotte  Memorial  Hospital  staff,  a  fact  which  explains  the 
authors  interest  in  the  subject.  Quoting  copiously  from  letters,  orders 
of  the  day,  newspaper  accounts,  and  reminiscences,  Mr.  Blythe  re- 
counts in  full  every  incident  he  could  unearth  about  the  men,  women, 
and  patients  of  the  hospital  unit.  Sometimes  the  events  are  humorous, 
as  that  of  the  cook  upsetting  the  dignity  of  a  staid  colonel;  sometimes 
dramatic,  as  often  occurred  in  the  surgical  tents  during  a  heavy  offen- 
sive; frequently  pathetic  when  describing  the  war-torn  towns;  often 
sad  when  recounting  the  deaths  of  friends.  The  unit  served  during 
such  famous  battles  as  those  of  Oran,  Anzio  Beachhead,  and  Monte- 
catini,  seeing  duty  continuously  from  November,  1942,  to  the  end  of 
the  European  combat.  Around  it  all,  Mr.  Blythe  has  managed  to 
create  an  atmosphere  of  heroism,  of  a  difficult  job  done  well  in  a 
casual  American  way,  with  praise  from  the  famous  war  correspondent 
Ernie  Pyle,  and  citations  from  commanding  generals.  A  large  number 
of  snapshots,  drawings  of  encampments,  and  a  few  magnificent  studies 
by  Margaret  Bourke- White  are  reprinted. 

The  researcher  will  question  the  lack  of  information  as  to  the  loca- 
tion of  the  letters  and  diaries  cited.  The  reader  will  find  the  double- 
columned  pages  and  the  heavy  book  awkward  to  manage.  The  chief 
appeal  will  be  to  the  personnel  of  the  unit,  who  can  here  relive  five 
years  of  their  lives  in  minute  detail.  Barring  the  deposit  of  the  quoted 
primary  sources  in  an  archives,  however,  the  book  will  remain  a  full, 
well-indexed  assemblage  of  the  raw  materials  from  which  history  will 
later  be  written. 

Copies  of  the  book  may  be  purchased  at  the  Charlotte  Bookshop. 

Sarah  McCulloh  Lemmon 
Meredith  College 


Tar  Heels  Track  the  Century.  By  Pocahontas  Wight  Edmunds.  (Raleigh: 
Edwards  and  Broughton  Company,  1966.  Introduction,  illustrations, 
notes,  index.  Pp.  viii,  355.  $8.95.) 

The  author,  a  Virginia  writer,  has  painted  charming  pen  portraits 
of  ten  North  Carolinians  who  have  made  an  imprint  on  the  national 
arena  since  the  Civil  War.  She  begins  and  ends  with  voluntary  ex- 
patriates: Andrew  Johnson,  "the  only  unschooled  and  only  challenged 


302  The  North  Carolina  Historical  Review 

president,"  and  Thomas  Clayton  Wolfe,  "mountaineer  in  literature," 
and  sandwiches  in  two  others  of  this  ilk:  O.  Henry  (William  Sydney 
Porter ) ,  "a  tale  teller  of  one  city,"  and  Walter  Hines  Page,  "the  intent 
editor  and  ambassador."  The  other  six,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
James  Buchanan  Duke,  "the  tycoon  undertaking  a  university,"  were 
almost  professional  North  Carolinians,  fiercely  loyal  to  the  end:  Zebu- 
Ion  Baird  Vance,  "state's  man  and  statesman";  Matt  Whitaker  Ransom, 
"courtly  general  and  senator";  Charles  Brantley  Aycock,  "the  nation's 
educational  governor";  Furnifold  McLendel  Simmons,  "master  of  poli- 
tics"; and  Josephus  Daniels,  "spokesman  in  three  capitals." 

The  parade  of  Tar  Heels  (which  she  does  not  capitalize)  who 
tracked  the  last  century  thus  consists  of  a  United  States  president, 
two  governors  ( one  a  senator  also ) ,  three  senators  ( one  an  ambassador 
to  Mexico  also),  two  editors  (one  an  ambassador  to  Mexico  and 
Secretary  of  the  Navy  and  one  an  ambassador  to  the  Court  of  St. 
James  also ) ,  a  short  story  writer,  and  a  novelist. 

All  save  one— the  cavalier  Ransom— have  had  at  least  one  full-length 
biography.  Therefore,  with  this  exception,  the  author  has  thrown 
little  new  light  on  her  subjects  and  her  re