seat in the Halifax convention so disappointed him that he was from that time on what would be called in modern times a "disgruntled politician" and was continually objecting and complaining in his retirement at every step taken by the dominant party. He refused to meet concessions made to him in the form of the most lucrative office in the gift of the government, as has been said. What Johnston thought, a numerous party of family and political connections living in all parts of the State also thought. Now the Revolutionary war was pre-eminently a war of leaders, and the popular enthusiasm seldom extended beyond State lines. With several wealthy, educated, and able men leading a positive opposition to the main measures of the new government, or even a passive opposition, which no one will dispute, at that critical juncture of our political development, it was well-nigh impossible to enforce energetic plans.

Geographically considered the patriots had actual control of only a small portion of North Carolina-the Southside, i. e., a section of country containing a population of some seventy to eighty thousand people. But its central county boasted that it had not a tory within its borders. The upper Cape Fear and the Regulator country to the neighborhood of Guilford Court House was the scene of almost constant civil strife during most of the Revolutionary war. This cut off from actual co-operation with the northern part of the State the bold Mecklenburgers and the Catawba backwoodsmen. South Carolina, too, was the home of disaffection, and lying contiguous to the royalist counties in North Carolina, the strength of the tories was through it much increased.

These influences, a half spiteful neutrality or open opposition on the part of the Regulators, positive and organized support of the British cause by the Scotch, and a paralyzing influence of lukewarm leaders, combined with intensely local patriotism, were the causes of the almost shameful lethargy of North Carolina during the long period of 1777 to 1780.

Literature for the Study of the Colonial History

of South Carolina

BY W. ROY SMITH, M. A.

The last few years have witnessed a remarkable revival of interest in Southern history. New professorships have been established in our colleges and trained specialists employed to fill them. Courses dealing with one or more of the various phases of Southern history now have a place in nearly every college curriculum. Not only this, but the colleges are constantly sending young men to the Northern universities, where the library facilities enable them to pursue their researches. The work of the Johns Hopkins University in colonial history and the works of Columbia in the colonial and reconstruction periods will give some idea of what has been done and what may be expected in the future.

Along with this movement in the colleges and largely as a result of it there has gone an unwonted activity in the formation of local historical societies and in the collection and preservation of historical material of every description.

We need mention only the names of Houston, McCrady, and Schaper to show that South Carolina has not lagged behind in the general revival. The object of this article will be to indicate some of the material, original and secondary, for a study of the colonial history of the State. The most valuable sources exist only in manuscript. As these can be of little service to the general student we will refer to them very briefly and then devote our attention chiefly to the material in print.

In the first place come the journals of the colonial legislature preserved in the office of the secretary of state at Columbia. There are thirty-eight volumes of the Council journals averaging about three hundred and fifty pages each. About one-half treat of the council in its executive capacity and the remainder in its legislative capacity. The first volume covering the period from 1671 to 1720 is very fragmentary. Volume two begins with 1722 and the records are fairly complete until 1774. The jour

nals of the Commons House of Assembly, bound in thirty-nine volumes, extend from the final separation of the legislature into two houses in 1692* down to the fall of the royal government in 1775. There are a few short chasms in the records and one between volumes seven and eight covering a period of six years from 1728 to 1734.†

A second great mine of information is to be found in the Public Records of the colony. In the year 1891, largely through the efforts of Mayor Courtenay of Charleston, the legislature of South Carolina appointed a Public Record Commission primarily for the purpose of securing copies of all papers in the British Public Record office relating to the colonial history of the State. Mr. W. Noel Sainsbury was selected to do the work and he was instructed to fill in the chasms in the journals already referred to. The entire collection, which is now deposited in the secretary of state's office, consists of thirty-six bound volumes of the records and four extra volumes of the missing journals averaging about three hundred pages each. The records contain commissions and instructions to the governors, correspondence between the board of trade and the colonial officials, and various other documents that help to make clear the exact relationship existing between the home government and the colony.

These journals and records are invaluable for a study of the constitutional development of the colony. The struggle between the royal governor and the popular branch of the legislature, which is the most conspicuous feature of eighteenth century colonial history, may here be traced in all its wearisome details. Such a study is necessary, too, in order to understand the attitude of South Carolina in the Revolution and in the convention of 1787.

A hundred or more volumes of land grants and plats, some correspondence, mostly of the revolutionary period, and a few maps complete the list of manuscript material at Columbia.

In Charleston there are some fragmentary parish records and the proceedings of the court of admiralty preserved in the office

*Commons House Journals, Ms., I., 1; Statutes at Large (Cooper), II., 72, 74.

+Vide, Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1897, pp. 442-449.

of the United States district attorney. The Public Library contains an almost complete file of the South Carolina Gazette from 1731 to 1800, and some very rare pamphlets.

Of the printed material more accessible to the student, we will consider first that dealing with the general social and political history, and then in order the legal, ecclesiastical, educational, and local history.

The chief source now in print is the Collections of the South Carolina Historical Society. Five volumes have been issued. The first three contain abstracts and lists of documents in the British Public Record Office, which will be of considerable value until the State sees fit to publish the collection in full. In the third volume will also be found the Journal of the Second Council of Safety, appointed by the Provincial Congress, from November 30, 1775, to February 26, 1776. Volume five, issued in 1897, is the most important of all for a study of the settlement and early history of the colony. It is entitled "The Shaftesbury Papers and other Records relating to Carolina and the first settlement on Ashley River prior to the year 1676." A brief history of these documents may prove of some interest. In 1871, Anthony Ashley Cooper, seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, turned the papers of his illustrious ancestor over to the British Public Record Office. They were arranged and catalogued by Mr. Sainsbury, and abstracts of all matter relating to Carolina were prepared for publication in the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series. Mayor Courtenay secured complete copies of these papers through Mr. Sainsbury and made use of them in his speech at the centennial celebration of Charleston in 1883. A few of them were published from time to time in the Charleston Year Book, but not until the Historical Society took up the matter in 1897 have all been made accessible in print.

Among the many documents of interest to the student of history is a copy of the first set of the Fundamental Constitutions of 1669, as prepared by John Locke, together with interlineations showing the changes made before its adoption by the Lords Proprietors. The correspondence of Shaftesbury and the other proprietors with the early colonial governors, the commissions and instructions sent out, and the description of the voyage and settlement on the Ashley river are all of historical value and good

use has been made of them by General McCrady in his volume on the proprietary period.

In addition to the Shaftesbury Papers are some fragmentary journals of the Grand Council from July 22, 1672, to June 12, 1675, which were discovered in an old grant book in Columbia, 1851, and recently published for the first time.

A second printed source is Carroll's Collections. In 1836 Mr. B. R. Carroll published in two volumes his "Historical Collections of South Carolina, embracing many rare and valuable Pamphlets and other Documents relating to the History of that State from its first Discovery to its Independence in the year 1776." The first volume is a reprint of Hewatt's history. The second is of more importance. It contains a number of pamphlets, such as those of Ash, Archdale, Purry, Yonge, and Glen, describing the social and political conditions of the colony at different periods, together with other material of more or less value.

These two collections, made by the Historical Society and by Mr. Carroll, together with Cooper's "Statutes at Large" and the appendix to Rivers' history, constitute the chief printed sources for the colonial history of South Carolina. Of less importance, but still worthy of mention, is Robert Mills' "Statistics of South Carolina," published as an appendix to his "Atlas of the State."* It contains statistical material on the natural, civil, and military history of the State, some of which is taken from sources not entirely reliable. His district statistics are, however, of considerable value, presenting information of a local character which cannot be obtained elsewhere.

The first general history of the colony was Rev. Alexander Hewatt's "Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia," published in London in 1779. For many years Dr. Hewatt was pastor of the Scotch Presbyterian Church in Charleston. Like many other tories, he fled to England on the outbreak of the Revolution. Ramsay states that Lieutenant-Governor Bull assisted him in the preparation of his history. The treatment of the proprietary period (1670-1719) is not very trustworthy, since he had no access to the official papers, but derived his information largely from tra

*The Atlas was never published. The original, or a manuscript copy of it, is preserved in the state department at Columbia.