f^^^/ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 00144199169 ^ F 257 .D26 Copy 1 ^ Jtutrg in Solonial Sist0rB< I liave long been persuaded that the civil commotion which is known in our history as Carey's Rebellion has never been fairly treated; that the historians, deriving all their information from the government party, and treading closely in each others footsteps, have told only the story of that party, and have greatly misrepresented the motives, tlje chaiacters, and the actions, of the men who were opposed to it. And I have desired, when time and opportunity should serve me, to undertake a careful examination of the subject in the hope, if possible, to undo some of the wrong of the historians. The present address is intended only as an introduction to that more serious work, and its object is to start a new train of thought, and prepare the way for it, by showing, hrst, how little reliance is to be placed on the histoiical accounts ; and secondly, the true characters of some of the leading men who were engaged in that rebellion. I have called it a study in our history ; and I have used the word "study" advisedly. For it is the student only, and not the casual reader, who can understand the difficulty of forming an opinion on which the mind can rest contentedly in regard to many impor- tant events in our early history. The mere reader sees with the eye of faith, and easily finds some authority which he accepts without question. But the student will en- deavor to understand conditions, and to analyze and weigh testimony. And then his troubles will begin. No candid man can read the history of our State under the proprietary government, and especially during the periods 4 A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. of civil commotion, without an uneasy feeling that he is all the time hearing onlj^ one side, and that side the one which is most unfavorable to our people. He sees men accused of great crimes, unsparingly condemned, and denounced as "enemies of order," "rebels," "incendiaries," "rogues," and "rioters." And, again, he sees the same men not only going unpunished, but receiving the highest marks of public favor, filling with approbation the most important offices in the public service, and founding families which have always been, and are to this day, as high in the general esteem as any in the State. And he is left to ex- plain the anomaly in the best way he can Perhaps the historians are not altogether to blame. There was no printing press in the colony— for which, in Virginia, that bitter old tory, Gov. Berkeley, devoutly thanked God— and therefore no means of spreading and preserving important intelligence. Family records and private correspondence had, in a great measure, perished before history began her work. And all that was left were the records of the pro- prietors in England, and of their government officials in the province. And these were not often the best evidence of impartial truth. The proprietors were three thousand miles away, with only rare and difficult means of commu- nication. It was not easy for them to discern the truth and put the blame where it justly belonged, had they been ever so desirous to know the right and redress the wrong. But, in truth, they concerned themselves with but little beyond their quit-rents and revenues ; and a great part of the troubles grew out of their own^ui:)ine indifference. Having given to the colonists a magnificent model from the closet of a philosopher by which the wilderness was to be governed with all the splendors of the East, they con- sidered that they had done their whole duty, and seldom interfered in matters of government except to send out bad governors as occasion offered. And when they did interfere it was only to make things worse. And the A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. d colonists thus left to themselves naturally fell into divis- ions, and began, first to dispute, then to quarrel, and finally even to fight, among themselves. Whichever side first got the ear of the proprietors had the best chance of prevailing, especially if it happened to be their own repre- sentatives. And what is more serious now, whosesoever memorials chanced to live made history. The actors in civil commotions are never impartial wit- nesses ; and when, as in our accounts of Care 3^' s, if not of Culpepper's, rebellion, ic is apparent that only one side has been heard, a love of truth will drive the candid mind to reject authority, and question conclusions. But whither shall we go for light? If it be not too late now to hope that any search would furnish additional testimony, yet any efficient search is beyond the power of most of us. We are forced to rely on a stud}^ and comparison of the historians. And happy shall we be if we are not com- pelled to resign our faith in them because of their uncon- cealed mistrust and contempt of each other. That I have not s^^oken rashly let these examples show. No historian of the colonial times, except Chalmers perhaps, is more frequently cited, or has furnished to his successors more material for use, than the venerable Old- mixon. He was a faithful gleaner in a neglected field, and rescued from oblivion much that is valuable. But Hawks hits out straight from the shoulder, and demolishes him with a single blow. " Oldmixon signed the dedication in the first edition ; but many suppose that Herman Moll, who made the maps, wrote also the book. At all events, it contains almost as many errors as pages, and unsupj)orted is not to be trusted." (2 Hawks Hist., 481, note.) Now that is merciless enough ; but it is gentle in comparison with the sentence which he fulminates against Williamson. He does not pretend to conceal his contempt for that author, but rushes at him with a fire, not to say ferocity, that is quite unaccountable. "North Carolinians do not 6 A 8TTTDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. recognize Williamson's work as a history of their State. It is inaccurate in a great many particulars ; and some- times, as the present writer can testify, when there is pi oof that the original record was lying before him." (Id. f)40, note.) Gently now, Doctor. That is hitting below the belt ; and conscious power ought to be more generous. " O it is excellent To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant." The acknowledged difficulties of the task, which every writer and every student must feel profoundly, ought to win for the shortcomings of others the charity that all must need. Williamson's work is not of a high order of merit. It is brief and meagre, and the style is didactic and heavy. The charge of inaccuracy is not altogether unde- served ; but it contains not a little valuable information, and some that is not to be found elsewhere. Hawks him- self does not scruple to quote from him freely when it is to his purpose, even when he is unsupported. He de- serves consideration as the first adventurer in an unex- plored region. For Lawson's work was an account of the character of the country, and of the aboriginal inhabitants, rather than a history of our people. And with all Williamson's faults, we cannot aflford to have him prose- cuted to outlawry. Hawks seems to give most of his confidence to Chalmers, who, he says, "wrote w4th the original records before him." He cites him frequently, and with much apx^robation. But just as w^e are beginning to enjoy the relief of having found one author worthy of our trust, Bancroft comes up like a three-decker breaking the line, and pours in a deadly broadside. " The passage in Chalmers nearly resembles many similar ones in his volume. His account, in all cases of the kind, must be received with great hesitancy. The coloring is always wrong, the facts usually perverted. He whites like a lawyer, and a disa^Dpointed politician ; not like a calm A STUDY IX COLONIAL HISTORY. 7 inquirer." (Hist. U. S. 2— 162— note 6.) There now! Whatever misgivings may be felt as to the other judgments, there can be none whatever about the justice of this one. Whoever, among a civilized people, and in a christian land, could be so lost to shame as to write like a lawyer, could never hope to be believed. Seeing, then, that the historians have so little faita in what is written, what is the student to do \ Is there none of them above reproach ? Not one whom we can undoubt- ingly accept as our teacher and master ? Let us not fear to scan the merits of those who have so freely judged each other, judging them always in the love of truth, and in charity. Hawks is the latest, and in some respects, the best of them. But even he must be studied and criti- cized, not accepted through faith. And, with a full sense of how much it becomes a student to speak with modesty and reserve of the labors of learned men, I dare venture the belief that, when the generation which has personally known and admired that historian shall have passed away, those who are careful to examine for themselves will find that, while he is always dogmatical in manner, he is not always either temperate in language, or just in judgment ; and that he is by no means clear of the same faults of carelessness and inaccuracy which he so vehemently con- demns in his predecessors. That this opinion is not haz- arded hastily and without warrant may be easily shown by a few examples. About the middle of the seventeenth century Sir John Yeamans planted a large colony, and founded a considera- ble town, on the Western bank of the Cape Fear river. It was a very important event, and is related by all the his- torians. Let us try and ascertain from Hawks the date ot its occurrence. ''On the 29th of May, 1664, the colony under Sir John Yeamans, consisting of several hundreds, landed on the banks of the Cape Fear, and commenced their settlement." (2 Hawks 83.) 8 A STUDY IN COLONIxVL HISTORY. This is precise, if not acciii'ate. '' The Barb.'idoes adventurers had x)huited themselves on tlie Cape Fear in 1665/' (Id. 453.) ''Besides, wlien were these instructions ^iven ? Not until January, 1664-5; this was after the grant bad been nuule to the Barbadoes adventurers, and cffter Cape Fear had been x>^cmted under Sir John Yeaman.s.'' (Id. 79.) "Their lordships declined compliance with their request; but such a grant was made as was satisfactory ; and in January, 1664-5, Sir John Yearnans, then a respectable ])lanter of Barbadoes, was appointed by the prox)rietors governor and commander-in-chief of the new colony to he planted on the river." (Id. 81-82.) These conflicting statements leave us entirely at sea ; and it is only from the other historians we can learn that the true date of this settlement was the autumn of 1665. Take another important event in our history, the estab- lishment of our iN'orthern V)oundary. It had long been in dispute, and many titles depended on its determination. On page 93 he tells us — " When the line was run by the joint commission in 1729," &c. ; and on page 96— *'The parties met on the 5th of March, 1728, at Currituck Inlet," and again on page 98 — '' When the commissioners met in 1729, Mosele}^ was again one of them." The flrst meeting of the commissioners, as appears from their journal, w^as on the 5th of March, 1729, and their work ended in Oc- tober of the same year. On page 144 he gives the year 1666 as the date of the first legislative assembly of the colony ; and gives it on the authori- ty of B. P. Moore, Esq. in the preface to the Revised Code of 1855. This is inexcusable. The interesting historical sum- mary to which the writer refers was flrst X)ublished as the preface to the Revised Statutes of 1837. It is signed by James Iredell and William H. Battle, is copied word for word, except the signatures, in the Code of 1855, and is entitled there— "Preface of the commissioners of 1833." A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 9 We have seen the hot indignation with which he assails Williamson for inattention and inaccuracy with the record lying open before him. Dare we sny, Physician heal thyself? In discussing the complicity of Tobias Knight, the Secre- tary of the province, in the guilt of the pirate Teach, better known as Blackbeard, he says: "There is another fact mentioned by Williamson, for which he cites no authority, and for which among our manuscript records we have seen none. It is this — that of the cargo of the French ship, said to have been found abandoned, twenty barrels of sugar and two bags of coffee were stored by Teach in Knight's barn. If this be so, it must be confessed it fur- nishes a proof of complicity on Knight's part the force of which it is difficult to evade." (2 — 278.) Our people have always felt a painful interest in this shameful subject. Is it true, or not, that their Governor and Secretary were' the accomplices of a notorious pirate, and the sharers in his wicked gains ? Now here is an alle- gation of proof upon the existence or non-existence of which, as it is intimated, must depend the judgment of posterity as to the guilt or innocence of Knight ; and the point is coolly dismissed with an "if," and left to depend altogether on the bad character which the writer himself has given to Williamson. "Your if is the only peace- maker; much virtue in //"." Now the question was at the time considered so serious as to call for an investigation before the governor and council ; and the record of their proceedings, and of the evidence taken, has been preserved. This record is given as an appendix to the first volume of Martin's history which Hawks had before him when he wrote, for he quotes from it. And on page YI is the statement of " Captain Ellis Brand, commander of his majesty's ship the Syren," that having received information of twenty barrels of sugar and two bags of cotton (which is perhaps a mistake in 10 A STUDY IK COLONIAL HISTORY. copying for coffee) lodged by Teach at the house of Knight, he demanded them as part of the cargo of the French ship; and Knight with many asseverations denied tliat any snch goods were abont his phmtation ; bat next day when Brand again urged the matter home upon him, and told him of the proofs he could bring, Knight owned the whole matter, and the piratical goods were found in his barn covered with fodder. And Knight's own statement is given, in which (Appx. X) he says he never denied the sugar was in his custody, but alleged that he made no claim to it, bat it was only lodged there at the request of Teach until a more convenient store could be procured. But stranger still — I have myself examined the volume in the Secretary of State's office which contains the record of the proceed- ings of the council from 1712 to 1728, from which Hawks makes copious extracts. I saw everywhere traces of his work, and on page 181 I found the statement of Capt. Ellis Brand substantially, and almost literally, as it is given by Martin. And all this escaped the attention of Hawks. It would really seem that he despised William- son so heartily as to cool the ardor of his search, and dim the clearness of his vision. One more instance will conclude this part of my subject. In the note to page 540, in which he so cruelly assails Williamson, he says — "Williamson, for instance, has no authority that we can find for saying that Barnwell desired to throw the odium of the Indian war on H3^de, hecause Tie coveted liis place of governor ^^ — the italics being the author's. I do not know what authority Williamson had for the statement ; but I do know that Hawks himself had evidence which would have convinced him of its truth, if he had judged Barnwell in the same spirit in which he judged Carey's friends, and which ought certainly to have saved Williamson from such bitter denunciation. Of all the private testimony which he has examined he seems to value most that of Col. Pollock. He loves to praise him. A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 11 and to hold lip his conduct of affairs to our admiration. On pages 415-485 — he publishes extracts from his letters to the Governor of South Carolina, in which Pollock inti- mates very plainly his belief of dark and dangerous deal- ings between Edward Moseley and Col. Barnwell ; charges directly that Moseley was the chief cause of the difference between Gov. H\de and Barnwell ; and that he "endeav- ored all he could to blacken Gov. Hyde's administration, thereby to change the government ; being, as may be reasonably imagined, in hopes that such an address as he had procured from our Assembly to send to the lords proprietors in favor of Col. Barnwell, might be an induce- ment to them to grant Mm the administration ; and then they two, with the interest of the Quakers, who are the chief moulders of the Assemblies here, might have carried matters on here at their pleasure." Let it not be thought that these strictures are designed to depreciate the real merits of Hawks' work. I am far from any such purpose or wish. It is the nearest approach we have to a full account of the proprietary times, of which alone it treats. It does not content itself with a dry detail of facts and events ; but in language always strong and nervous, often rising to eloquence and beauty, it aims, and not w^ithout success, at one of the highest offices of history — to i3aint for us men and manners as they were. It has- passed the ordeal of public opinion and stands an enduring monument of the industry, ability, and learning of the author, and of his loving devotion to his native State. And my only object is to protest against considering him infallible, and assigning to him, any more than to the rest, that ultimate, dogmatic authority in our history, which is to cut off all appeal, and preclude all inquiry, and all right of individual judgment. It is the most valuable feature of his work that he frankly spreads the testimony before his readers, invites their scrutiny, and boldly submits to their judgment the justice of his conclusions. And so the 12 A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. reader, having the same means of forming his own judg- ment, will only wrong himself by a too facile submission to authority. These preliminary observations, if not necessary, are a proper and useful introduction to the subject I propose to discuss — Carey's rebellion, and its connection with the Indian war which followed it in 1711-12. In an interesting article on " Early Times in the Caro- linas," published in the July number, 1879, of the South Atlantic^ the learned writer has examined the same subject. I always welcome with eagerness, and read with pleasure, every intelligent effort to add to our knowledge of the early history of our State, and especially wdien it comes from the pen of so having a son of Carolina. But there is one allegation of this article to which I do not assent, and which I cannot suffer to pass without challenge. Speaking of the Indian war, it says — "The universal voice of history now ascribes this insurrection to the in- trigues of Thomas Carey, formerly Governor of the colony, and to the Quakers of Albemarle, under the leadersliip of a man named Roach, assisted by John Porter, Edmund Porter, Edward Moseley, Peter Tillet and Emanuel Low." Thus the writer gives point and personality to this grave charge, and designates by name the wicked men who are to be consigned to ignominy as the real authors of all the calamities and horrid atrocities which followed the Indian outbreak. If this accusation be just it covers with shame the Quakers of North Carolina, brands with infamy one of the foremost men of our early history, and casts the shadow of a great crime over some of the oldest and most honorable families of the Cape Fear and of the State. After a careful study of all the evidence I cannot believe it to be true in any of its particulars. The writer, in taking Hawks as his guide, has, inadver- tently no doubt, gone beyond his authority in the sweep of his accusation. And to say that this is the universal A STUDY I]^ COLONIAL HISTORY. 13 voice of history is not complimentary to the pretensions of that historian. For he claims for himself all the merit of the discovery, and felicitates himself that thereby he is enabled to explain some things which had been a puzzle to his predecessors. (2-52H.) It is not easy to ascertain with certainty from Hawks' narrative who are the persons on whom he means to fasten the responsibility for the Indian massacre. One of the most certain things about it is, that he did not intend to accuse Edward Moseley ; and one of the most probable is, that he did not intend to accuse the Quakers generally. Care must be taken all through his account not to confound complicity in Carey's rebellion, with complicit^y in the Indian massacre. They are very distinct things ; and in my judgment the two events have no connection with each other, except in so far as the former may have afforded to the Indians an oppor- tunity which they thought favorable for the execution of a vengeance long plotted in secret. Let us see now what the historian says. In defending Col. Barnwell against the charge of having committed certain atrocities against the Indians, he ex- presses his own opinion thus — "We believe they were instigated by the same men who first incited the Tusca- roras to the massacre — the adherents of the Carey /actio iiy (2-542.) This is very much like what John Wilkes said of the general warrant under which he was arrested— that "it was a warrant against all the people of England." When we remember that the adherents of Carey were a majority of the people of the CoJony, to suppose that he meant to charge every one of them with this crime would be to attribute to him a wild generality which would make the allegation worthless. And in all fairness his words must be qualified and restrained by the more specific allegations which he makes elsewhere. "Carey and John Porter, therefore, according to the 14 A STUDY ITs^ COLOTSTXAL IIISTOKr. testimony of contemporaneous documents, may be consid- ered as the responsible authors of the dreadful Indian toar that began in 1711." (2-523.) This is specitjc enough. It leaves no room for misunder standing Carey and John Porter are the wretched mis- creants whom he singles out for judgment, and whose memo- ries are to be forever dishonored and hateful. But listen yet again. "Our researches, however^ have brought us reluctantly to the conviction^ expressed on a previous page, that a more potent cause than either of these was the direct agency of Carey, and perhaps of some of his adherents, especially of Roach, in instigating the savages to com- mence a war against such of the whites as were apposed to him." (2-526.) I appeal to every candid mind, unfettered by authority and accustomed to judge for itself, if allegations so vague and contradictory, come from whom they may, ought to be accepted as the voice of history. It does not concern me to defend Carey's reputation. Beyond the brief and fitful struggle in which he w^as the foremost figure he had no lot or part with us, "Like a bright exhalation in the evening," he came, and he departed^ and we know not either his origin or his end. But with some of his adherents, especially John Porter and Edward Moseley, it is very different. Of honorable men and women there are not a few among us who cherish their memories and must share in their shame ; and who are deei3ly concerned to know whether or not they have been wrongfully condemned. When men are accused of an atrocious crime it is of the utmost importance, in weighing the testimony, to know the character, position, and circum- stances of the accused. Our author affords us a striking illus- tration of this truth. He accepts with a hearty belief, and without qualification, every harsh word that is uttered by Spotswood, Hyde and Pollock, against Carey and his sup- A STUDY IN COLONIAL 1IIST0P.Y. 15 porters. But he was born, as he tells us, near the scene of Barnwell's operations and knew that the tradition of the ♦country had preserved a most respectful remembrance of Mm. And when the same witnesses begin to defame Barnwell, he quickly takes up his defence against their jealous suspicions, and warns us that their testimony may be colored by personal feeling and prej udice. (2-— 538-540. ) It is to be regretted that he was not guided throughout by the same discretion and charity. If we are to believe the report of th-eir enemies, nothing good could be said of •Carey's adherents. Incendiaries, rogues, rioters and rob- bers, a profligate rabble— such are the terms in which they are usually €haracterized, and which history has not scru- pled to perpetuate. Jack Cade and his licentious mob were not more wicked enemies of all that is worth preserv- ing in society and government. lam sure that the reverse of the picture, imperfectly as we can only see it now, will be a surprise to alL Of Edmund Porter, Tillet, Low and Roach, I know but little beyond what is related of them in history. But that is enough to show that they were men of importance and influence in the colony. But John Porter is peculiarly the object of reprobation. For him the historian sharpens his epithets and culls his bitter phrases. This " unscrupulous partisan "^ — " this renegade Quaker" — ^'this disgrace, not merely to the peaceful sect in which he was reared, but to humanity at large," such is the language which he deems not inconsistent with the judicial gravity and moderation of history. Evidently Hawks knew nothing of Porter except from the report of his enemies, and borrowed all of his shafts from their quiver. Let us endeavor to obtain a more just estimate of his character and actions. This name is flrst presented to us in history among the shameful records of injustice and wrong. Turn where he would in that day, the Quaker could not escape the fires of persecution. Driven from the old l(j A STUDY IX COLONIAL HISTORY. world, lie landed in Massachusetts, and was welcomed with imprisonment and stripes. Fleeing from the Puri- tans there, he sought asylum with tlie cavaliers and churchmen of Virginia, and found no friends '* Virginia, as if resolved to hasten the colonization of North Carolina, sharpened her laws against all sex:>aratists," (2 Banc. 202) and punished them with fines, imprisonment and banish- ment. One only hope remained. In the solemn forests, by the grand inland seas of iSortli Carolina, there dwelt a people, few in number, but "freest of the free;" planted by no government's care, sustained by no government's aid, but governing themselves with prudence and modera- tion, and in matters of religious faith asking no questions for conscience sake. And soon the tide of emigration over- flowed the border and si3read itself along the shores of Albemarle. In September 1603, John Porter, being a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses for Lower Norfolk, was ex- pelled from the assembly " because he was well affected to the Quakers." (2 Hening 198. ^ And joining the peace- ful current which was setting Southward, he pitched his tent in our "summer land;" and in his new home, most probably in the county of Perquimans, was born his son, John Porter, the subject of this sketch. His early life is hidden from us in the obscurity of the times ; but very early in the eighteenth century he began to take an active and prominent part in the affairs of the province. In 1704 that absurd and wicked effort was made to set up a state religion in a wilderness where there was neither church nor jniest. "And this I am satisfied in" said Governor Archdale, " and have some exj)erimental reason for what I say, that if the extraordinary fertility and jpleasantness of the country had not been an alluring and binding obli- gation to most dissenters there settled, they had left the high Church to have been a prey to wolves and bears, Indians and foreign enemies." (Car. Coll. 2-114.) But A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOBY. 17 being determined to stand by tlieir rew honae in the beau- tiful land, in 1706 they sent John Porter to England to present their gr evances to the proprietors and seek redress. He was successful in his mission; and returning in 1707, he became an active and influential leader in Carey's rebel- lion, and so opened for himself all tlie vials of the histo- rian's wrath. Of his after life history tells us only that he was a member of tiie celebrated legishiture of 1715, and was appointed on a committee with other prominent men **to represent the deplorable circumstances of the colony to the proprietors." (Mar, 1-277.) In 1723 two opposite currents of emigration, from Allx^marle, and from South Carolina, met upon the banks of the Cape Fear, and at last securely planted civilization there. With the tide from Albemarle, composed of Lillington's, Ashes, Mose- leys, Swanns, Harnetts, Vails and others, some to become famous, and many distinguished, in after days, about the year 1725 came John Porter and his family, as respectable, and as much respected, as any among them. Aad hei'e, about the year 1728, he died. His social position was of the very highest in his day. Major Alexander Lillington, grandfather of the hero of Moore's Creek, was "one of the oldest names in the prov- ince." (2 Hawks 502.) The oldest public record in the State is the commission issued in 1679 to George Durant, Alexander Lillington, and two others, to keep the peace in Berkeley Precinct, now Perquimans county. And in 1693, when the mode of appointing governors was changed, and a governor general was appointed to reside in the South- ern province, and a deputy governor for the Northern, he was made the first deputy governor of North Carolina. This gentleman had several daughters. Elizabeth married the Hon. Samuel Sw^ann "collector of her majesty's cus- toms in Roanoke," and member of the council; "who zealously promoted the interests of religion in general,'^ and who ^vas ''conspicuous among those who were chris- 18 A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. tians indeed." (2 Hawks 807-349.) Ann married the Flon. Henderson Walker, who was fii'st Attorney General, and then Governor of Albf^marle in 1699, and who is one of the few North Carolinians on whom Hawks bestows iinqualitied praise. (Id. 502.) A third daughter, Sarrili, mari'ied John Porter; and John Porter's sister, Sarah Porter, married John Lillington, and was the mother of General Alexander Lillingron of the revolution. When North Carolina s»"nt forth her piteous cry for help in her struggle with the barbarous savages, and Col. James Moore came over in command of the forces so generously sent to her relief by her Southern sister, his younger brother, Maurice, came with him, holding a subordinate command. AVhen the Indians were subdued he settled in Albemarle, and ten years later he was the chief leader in the move- ment which resulted in the settlement of the Cape Fear, where he ever after resided and where he died. He was the son of Gov. James Moore of South Carolina, and the grandson of Sir John Yeamans ; and his character is well preserved in the family traditions of the Cape Fear. He was high-spirited and brave, quick to resent an affront to any issue, proud, and somewhat haughty ; but manly, frank, generous and true. Holding fast to all the tradi- tions of birth and race, he cherished, next to his personal honor, the honor of his family. This gentleman married the daughter of John Porter. And so the proud and sensitive soldier and gentleman, who llrst came to North Carolina to avenge the blood of her people so pitilessly shed, supi^lemented his work by mar- rying the daughter of "this disgrace to humanity," who was "the responsible author of the dreadful Indian war." So history pretends. From this union sprang the revolutionary patriots Judge Maurice Moore and General James Moore, and a daughter E-ebecca, who became the wife of General John Ashe. More than this — John Porter's son, of the same name^ A STUDY IX COLONIAL IirSTOIlY. 19 mariied the dano;hter of Col Maurice Moore by another marriage; and Mary Poi'ter, the daughter of this union, niari'ied Governor Samuel Ashe, and became the motli^r of Col. Samuel Ashe, and of Col. John Baptista Ashe, who was also elected governor of the iState^ but died before his trrni of office commenced If ever a family deserved wvll of the State it is the family ot Ashe, which gave every grown male of the name, nine lighting men, \o defend her liberties in the perilous days of the revolution, and which, in every succeeding generation, has furnished to her service men of ability and worth. I well remember Colonel Samuel Ashe, the last of the revolutionary patriots of that name. I was the friend and companion of his younger sons; and it is one of the pleasairt memories of my yo'iith that 1 was intimate in his house. North Carolina never bred a finer gentleman, nor one who more completely commanded the love and reverence of all who knew him. Frank and loyal in all things, he was singular in his love of truth and in his lofty scorn of every- thing dishonorable or mean. I well remember too, his pride in his Porter ancestry, and his fondness for the name, which he gave to two of his children. The inexoiable Nemesis of history knows no atonement, and the great crime of an ancestor cannot be pardoned even to the virtues and services of men like these. It is just. But wdiat if history, or that which calls itself history, lias done an inexpiable wrong? Is it not the plain duty of every man who loves the truth, and believes that he knows the truth, to speak it bravely ? Here is Hawks' account at large — "Acting on the hint afforded by the hostility of the Meherrins, Carey dispatch- ed John Porter as an emissary to the Tuscaroras ; and Governor Spotswood states that he was in possession of several affidavits, sent to prove that this renegade Quaker, Porter, this disgrace, not merely to the peaceful sect in 20 A STITDY IN COLONIAL HISTOKT. which lie was reared, but to hunianity at large, ''was witTi> t.hb Ticscaroni Indians, promising great rewards to incite tlipm to cut off all the iiiliabitants ot that part of Carolina that adhered to Mr. Hyde." (2-522.) Surely no man ought to be accused of a crime so horri- ble, in language so vindictive, except upon |)7x>of amounting nlmost to demonstration. And will it be believed that this accusation is made absolutely without proof? I will not ui'ge tliat Spotswood was a tory and high churchman : that the tory i^nd high churchman of Qneen Ann's time was an abject slave to tlie doctFine-s of divine right and passive obedience; that he hated a rebel only le&s than a Quaker,, and a Quaker only less than the father of evil ; and that to set such an one to judge a man v/ho was both a rebel and a Quaker is simply Jed wood justice — hang first, and try afterwards. Nor will I insist that Porter is con- demned unheard; that he is condemned on Spotswood' & inference from the affidavits of unknown persons, tlie con- tents of which affidavits are also unknowni. For all that would be to ''write like a lawyer," and would only be anathema. I simply affirm that Gov. Spotswood makes no such statement. His tv/o letters to the Council of Trade, and to the Governor of South Carolina, written on the same day, are the only authorities Hawks cites, and they are given at pages 422-425. They do not accuse John Porter. They speak only of "one Porter who is one of Mr, ('arey's pretended council;" and all the circum- stances point as clearly to Edmund Porter as to John. Both, by descent at least, were Quakers ; both had been sent to England in the interests of that people ; both were active adherents of Carey ; both w^ere members of his Council ; and both were excepted from the general pardon which was granted to Carey' s friends. Upon what warrant, then, does the historian fasten this shameful accusation upon John Porter 1 It were grave enough had it been done upon a mere inference from doubtful testimony. It A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOIIY. 21 is graver far that it is done in the very face of cogent pro )f to the contrary. For Martin, who liad access to all the records, expressly declares that it was Edmund Porter, not John ; (Mar. 1-240) and Hawks himself has testified to Martin's accuracy in the statement of facts wliich depend upon documentary evidence. (2-567.) I do not admit, because I do not believe, that Edmund Porter, to whom this accusation jjroperly attaches, was guilty of the crime. But that question depends upon con- siderations which are applicable alike to Carey himself, and all of his adherents, and which may, peihaps, be examined hereafter. My present purpose has been to vindicate the memory of John Porter, to whom JN'orth Carolina owes so longaline of worthy sons ; and the proofs are submitted to every candid mind. The prosecution of our subject brings us now to con- sider it in its relation to one who was truly one of the great men of North Carolina, and who is almost unknown to us only because he lived in the obscurity of that early time, and moved on a theatre too limited for the full dis- play of his powers. Of all the men who watclied and guided the tottering footsteps of our infant State, there was not one who, in intellectual ability, in solid and polite learning, in scholarly cultivation and refinemsnt, in courage and endurance, m high christian morality, in generous con- sideration for the welfare of others, in all the true merit, in fine, which makes a man among men, could equal Edward Moseley. My means of information have enabled me to do him only partial justice ; but I shall be happy if it shall be mine to make him known, even in part only, to his own people. Wliether or not he was born in Virginia is not known ; but I feel sure that he came from thence with that generous tide which swept across the border to the shores of Albe- marle, and probably about the year 1680. Like many others of that emigration, he was not driven by persecu- 2'2 A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. tion, was not a sufferer for conscience sake ; for he was in accord with the establishment of Virginia in all but its devotion to royalty, and its absurd pretension to a domin- ion over the spirit of man. He came onl}^ for a better freedom, and bettei- liopes of fortune ; and he soon became prominent in all the ])ublic affairs of the province. He liist appears in history in 1700 as an active supporter of (,'aiey ; and being a member of the Assembly in that year lie was elected bipeaker. And from that time until his death he was almost (continuously in the public service in some high office or employment. In 1707 he was appoint- ed Chief Justice ot the province; and held the office for fonr years, when he was removed on account, no doubt, of his zealous support of Carey ; and Christopher Gale be- came his successor. During the same period, about the year 1709, being then Surveyor General, lie was appoint- ed, together witli his deputy, John Lavvson, to run the [Northern boundary line. After several meetings of the commissioners, the North Carolinians refused to proceed any further because of errors whicl\ the}^ discovered in the work of the Virginians. Whereat these last wei-e greatly disgusted. Tiiey thought this assumption of supe- rior knowledge and skill on the part of the Carolinians so absurd, that the}-^ did not scruple to accuse them of mean and interested motives; but Moseley remained firm, and the work was abandoned. (2 Hawks 94.) We shall see hereafter which of them were right. On the 17th of November, 1715, at the house of Captain Richard Sanderson, on Little Kiver, assembled that memora- ble legislature, which is the first of whose proceedings we have any record. This assembly did its work in a manner which has received the commendation of every succeeding generation of lawyers. It revised and re-enacted all the statutes, and passed many important new laws ; some of which, notably the statute of limitations, have, with some alterations, continued in force until the adoption of the A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 23 Code of Civil l^rocedine. Of this Assembly Moseley was chosen Speaker; and his great professional learnin*^ and ability had its full irilluence in siigi2;estiiig and shap- ing its wise legislation. He was also made ('hairman of the important committee which was appointed to memo- rialize the lords proprietors, and represent to them the deplorable circnmstances of the Colony. Observe, now, that this was more than four years after the supX)ressioii of Carey's rebellion, and the complete establishment of Gov. Hyde's anthority ; more tiian two years after the close of the Indian war and the destrnction of the power of the Tnscaroras ; and more than eighteen montlis after Gov. Eden, with the acqniescenc^e of all, had taken his seat as Governor. And dnringayear and a half of tliat time, from the death of Hyde to the accession of Eden, the administration of affairs had been in the hands of Moseley's known and determined enemy, Col. Pollock, as president of the Council. K Moseley was the criminal that history attempts to make him, how is it that we find him so soon tilling high positions of usefulness and honor? How is it that he was not languishing under punishment, or driven from society by the contempt and scorn of all good men ? In 1718, while the colony was ringing with the shameful scandals which associated Gov. Eden and Secretary Knight with the piratical adventures of Teach, Moseley and Col. Maurice Moore, with several other gentlemen, forcibly took possession of the public records in the office of John Lovick, the deputy Secretary ; and were thereupon arrest- ed by order of the Governor. This transaction is shortly stated by the historians, without any explanation ; and 1 can only conjecture the key to their motives. To consider it a mere w^anton outburst of lawlessness, seems quite inconsistent with the high character which Hawks, himself, attributes to Moseley. The Secretary had been more than, suspected, and was afterwards proven, to have been tha 24 A STUDY IX COLONIAL HISTORY. nccomplicp of the pirate ; and IMosele}^ and liis friends were fnlly persuaded of his gnilt. That he was an unlit custodian of the ])ul)lu' records, can admit of no donbt. To procure his removal from office by the Governor was liopeless ; for tlie Governor himself was shrewdly suspect- ed of being his associate in the crime. Probably it was an attempt to secure a public good by a short way, in a case whei'e redress by law was not to be expected. It is one of those cases v^hich meet us all along, in which we leel that we have heard only that part of the evidence Avhich tells against the accused. Moseley believed that he was hardly dealt with ; for he complained that "the Governor could raise an armed posse to arrest honest men, though he could not raise a similar force to apprehend Teach, the noted pirate." (2 Will. 11.) Andforthis say- ing he was prosecuted by the Governor for defamation. He was also indicted for the trespass, and convicted. He was fined one hundred pounds, silenced as an attorney, and declared incajjable of holding office for three years. Col, Moore submitted, and was fined hve pounds. It does not appear that the others were ever prosecuted ; and the dis- parity of the i3unishment in these cases renders it probable that Col. Moore was indicted only because he was the brother-in-law of Moseley And all of the cii-cumstances encourage a belief that, if the whole truth wei*e known it would apx)ear that Moseley was punished, not for the offence with which he was charged, but for his being a thorn in the side of Eden's administi'ation, as he had been in that of Hyde, (Mart. 1-285) with this bitter aggravation —that he had dared to speak out boldly his opinion about Eden's alleged complicity with the pirate. The Chief Justice, Jones, was a friend of the Governor, and a mem- ber of his Council ; and it was at his house that the meet- ing of the Council was held which exonerated Knight from all blame, upon testimony which leaves no doubt of his guilt. We are always permitted, if not morally required, A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 25 to think the best we can of a man whose high character, is concerled, vvlien he is brought to judgment before liis enemies, and wlien his judges are not above the suspicion of an improper bias. Hawks declares that he h)st much of his influence by being disbarred ; but that mode of dealing with obnoxious attoineys seems to )!Mve been a favorite one with the general court, even in unim])ortant cases, and with gentlemen of the highest character. For it appears in the few brief extiucts we have from its records that, in one year, Stephen Mainvvaring, Col. Wm. Wilkin- son and Henderson Walker, soon afterwards Attorney General, and Governor, were disbarred ; the two latter for having olfered ^'sJindry affronts to the members of this court." (2 Haw. 111-12.) On the 4th of Ap?'il 1720, Moseley presented a petition to the Council praying remission of his sentence. But we are told that he was never afterwards permitted to appear in any new causes, but only to try the old. (Id. 562.) In this there is undoubted error, and error that has no excuse; for on page 114 we have the full record of a cause com- menced the 20th of February, 1723, in which Moseley ajjpeai's as the attorney of record for the defendant. And that all these things had not impaired his reputation or his influence is manifest from the fact, that, in the legislature of 1722, while his sentence was yet in force, he was chosen Speaker; as also in 1723, And in 1724, when Governor Burrington determined .to visit the settlements then be- ginning to be made on the Cape Fear, considering the journey as equivalent to absence from the province, he devolved the power of Cliief Magistrate on Moseley, who was then Survej^or General ; and the appointment was confirmed by the Council. The boundary line between Virginia and Xorth Carolina had long been the subject of uncertainty and dispute ; and the people on the frontiers had taken grants from the king, or the lords jDroprietors, accordingly as the}^ guessed 26 A STUDY IN COLONIAL III8T0KY. tl]H l;ni(l to be in tlie oii^ province or the other. This ])r()(lu('e(l n ]);n)ifiil uncertainty in titles, and many nego- tiations aiul effoiMs liad Ix-en made for iis settlement. At length, ih 1727, teiins of adjustment, wliich had been agreed on by the two Governors, wpi'e ai)})roved by the King in council, and the line was oi'dered to be run. Noi-th Caiolina sent as her commissioners Edwaixl Moseley, Cliiistopher Gale, John Lovick and AVilliam Little; and as sui'veyoTS. Edward Moseley, and his kinsman, young Samuel Swann. A^iigiina also sent a commission comjiosed of gentlemen of fiig'n chaiacter, the best known of whom was Col. Byrd, of Westover. Before the commission met the "magnificent Virginians" sonnded a challenge across the border which might well have dismayed the simple Carolinians. On the 16th of December, 1728, they wrote as follows— "We think it very proper to acquaint you in wdiat manner we intend to come provided, that so you, being appointed in the same station may, if you please, do the same honor to j'our country. We shall bring with us about twenty men, furnished with l^rovisions for thirty days ; we shall have with us a tent and marquees for the convenience of ourselves and our servants. We bring as much wine and rum as will enable us and our men to drink every night to the good success of the following day ; and because we understand there are gentiles on the frontiers, who never had an opportu- nity of being ba^^tized, we shall have a chajdain with us to make them christians." If they had proposed to the Carolinians to bring with them pontoons and a wagon train, I suppose they could liardly have been more astonished. But their neat and dignified rejdy show^s that they were fully equal to the emergency. "We are at a loss, gentlemen," they say, "whether to thank you for the particulars you give us of your tent^ stores, and the manner you design to meet us. Had you A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOKY, 27 been silent about it, we had not wanted an excuse for not meeting you in the same manner ; but now^ you force us to expose the nakedfiess of our country, au'l to tell you we €annot possibly meet 3-ou iu the mariner our great respect for you would make ns ghid to do; whom we are not emulous of outdoing, unless in care and diligence in the affair w^e come to meet you about." That kef^n and quiet thrust under the guard, delivered, too, with all the flowing courtesy of knighthood, is exquisite. My lord Chesterfield could not have improved it. If the Virginians were as familiar with sweet Will as they undoubtedly were with the value of tent stores, they must have had an uncomfortable remembrance of Sir Andrew Agnecheek — ^'An I thought he had been so cunning in fence, Fd have seen him damned ere IVl have challenged him." But thanks to the superior skill and knowledge of Moseley, they were soon to enjoy a much more substantial triumph. By tlie charter the line was to run from Currituck Inlet due West to Weyanoke Creek, inSO^-SO' of North latitude; and the question disputed about was — what stream was meant by that name. When the commission met in 1709, Moseley contended that it was the Nottoway, but the Virginians denied that, because they made the mouth of Nottoway to be in 37° North, But Moseley insisted they made an error of half a degree, either from a defect in their instrument, or from want of skill in its use. The dispute was very important, as it covered a belt of territory more than twenty miles wide. "This egregious error," says the journal of the Carolinians, "broke off the con> ference, not without some w^armth, and undue reflections made on it b}^ Virginia." Of course. That these obscure individuals from the swamps and wild woods of North Carolina should, in a matter of scientific skill and knowl- edge, dare to array their oi^inion against that of the 28 A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOUY. a-eiitleiiKMi from A^ii'iiinia was, as Doaheri'Y says, "most tolerable ami not to be endured." FoiTiinately the Caro- linians had the courage of their o])ini()n, and lefused to yield. The meetinii' of the commissionei-s on the 5tli of Marcli, 17:21), was an occasion of