Officers of the State of South Carolina 1787–1788

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Officers of the State of South Carolina 1787–1788 The constitutional officers (governor, lieutenant governor, privy counsellors), senators, and representatives served two-year terms. Four privy counsellors were elected each year. Judges served during good behavior. When electing other officers the General Assembly often, but not always, specified a two-year term. One of the two commissioners of the treasury was elected each year. The date of election (or service) is given for officers who served only a portion of the period between September 1787 and September 1788. Governor Auditor Thomas Pinckney James McCall Lieutenant Governor Surveyor General Thomas Gadsden Ephraim Mitchell (elected March 1786) Privy Council Francis Bremar Pierce Butler (elected February 1788) John Lewis Gervais Edward Rutledge Court of Chancery William Washington Judges Term Expired Feb. 1788 John Rutledge Daniel Bourdeaux Richard Hutson John Huger John Mathews John Julius Pringle Master in Chancery Thomas Tudor Tucker William Hasell Gibbes Elected Jan. 1788 Register Thomas Bee* John Neufville, Jr. Ralph Izard, Sr. Courts of Sessions and Pleas Charles Pinckney Judges Thomas Waties Henry Pendleton *Declined and not replaced Aedanus Burke Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to Thomas Heyward the Governor John F. Grimké Stephen Drayton Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas William Mason Attorney General Clerk of the Court of General Sessions Alexander Moultrie Thomas Hall Secretary of State Court of Admiralty Peter Freneau Judge Printer to the State William Drayton Ann Timothy Register Commissioners of the Treasury (two James Ballantine Marshal positions) Peter Bocquet (elected March 1787) Edward Weyman John Edwards, Jr. Collector of Customs (elected February 1788) For Charleston James Mitchell (elected October 1785)1 George Abbot Hall For Georgetown Delegates to Congress John Cogdell November 1786–November 1787 For Beaufort Thomas Bee* Andrew Agnew Pierce Butler Daniel Huger Commissioners of the Loan Office John Kean John Huger John Parker Thomas Jones November 1787–November 1788 John Postell Pierce Butler* Commandant of Fort Johnson Daniel Huger Francis Marion John Kean* State Engineer John Parker Thomas Tudor Tucker Christian Senf *Did not attend Physician for the Port of Charleston George Logan Constitutional Convention Pierce Butler Powder Inspector and Arsenal Keeper Henry Laurens, Sr. (declined) Albert Aerny Muller Charles Pinckney Charles Cotesworth Pinckney John Rutledge 1. Dead by 22 January 1788 when House of Representatives began process to replace him. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Descendants of James Mathews Sr
Descendants of James Mathews Sr. Greg Matthews Table of Contents .Descendants . .of . .James . .Mathews . .Sr. 1. .First . Generation. 1. .Source . .Citations . 2. .Second . Generation. 3. .Source . .Citations . 9. .Third . Generation. 15. .Source . .Citations . 32. .Fourth . Generation. 47. .Source . .Citations . 88. .Fifth . Generation. 115. .Source . .Citations . 147. .Sixth . Generation. 169. .Source . .Citations . 192. Produced by Legacy Descendants of James Mathews Sr. First Generation 1. James Mathews Sr. {M},1 son of James Mathews and Unknown, was born about 1680 in Surry County, VA and died before Mar 1762 in Halifax County, NC. Noted events in his life were: • First appearance: First known record for James is as a minor in the Court Order Books, 4 Jun 1688, Charles City County, Virginia.2 Record mentions James and brother Thomas Charles Matthews and that both were minors. Record also mentions their unnamed mother and her husband Richard Mane. • Militia Service: Was rank soldier on 1701/2 Charles City County militia roll, 1702, Charles City County, Virginia.3 • Tax List: Appears on 1704 Prince George County Quit Rent Roll, 1704, Prince George County, Virginia.4 • Deed: First known deed for James Mathews Sr, 28 Apr 1708, Surry County, VA.5 On 28 Apr 1708 James Mathews and wife Jeane sold 100 acres of land to Timothy Rives of Prince George County. The land was bound by Freemans Branch and John Mitchell. Witnesses to the deed were William Rives and Robert Blight. • Deed: First land transaction in North Carolina, 7 May 1742, Edgecombe County, NC.6 Was granted 400 acres in North Carolina by the British Crown in the first known deed for James in NC.
[Show full text]
Download This
THEME: WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (Dec. 1968) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE South Carolina COUNTY: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Charleston INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY ENTRY NUMBER (Type all entries — complete applicable sections) COMMON: Carter-May Home (Edward Rutledge House) AND/OR HISTORIC: House,, STREET AND NUMBER: 117 Broad Street, at Orange Street CITY OR TOWN: Charleston South Carolina m Charlestpn ACCESSIBLE OWNERSHIP STATUS TO THE PUBLIC District Building Public n Public Acquisition: Occupied E Yes: Site Structure Private si In Process || Unoccupied [I Restricted Both Being Considered I I Preservation work Unrestricted Object a in progress || No: PRESENT USE (Check One or More as Appropriate) Agricultural | | Government D Transportation I | Comments I f Commercial \~\ Industrial Private Residence Other CSpeci/yJ Educational | | Military Religious Old Ladies Entertainment | | Museum Scientific Home OWNERS NAME: , Bishop Ernest L. Unterkoefler - Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston STREET AND NUMBER: 119 Broad Street CITY OR TOWN: ____ Charleston 29401 South Carolina COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC: Register of Mesne Conveyance STREET AND NUMBER: Charleston County Courthouse CITY OR TOWN: f!ha.r1 eston South Carol ina. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY: ]_ TITLE OF SURVEY: DATE OF SURVEY: Federal [~~| State D County Local DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS: STREET AND NUMBER: CITY OR TOWN: (Check One) CONDITION Excellent [ | Good X~1 Fair a Deteriorated j | Ruins a Unexposed a fC/iecfc One) (Check One) INTEGRITY Altered QQ Unalte red d] Mov ed G Original Site Q DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (If known) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The State Gazette of South Carolina, September 27, 1787 described Edward Rutledge's House at 117 Broad Street, at the corner of Orange Street (then No;- 55 Broad Street), as "that well built elegant HOUSE," which had been constructed by a Mr.
[Show full text]
Delegates to the Continental Congress from South Carolina, 177 4-1789, with Sketches of the Four Who Signed the Declaration of Independence
Bulletins of the Historical Commission of South Carolina.-No. 9 ~-~~)~~ ~~. Delegates to the Continentaf' Congress from South Carolina, 1774-1789, With Sketches of the Four Who Signed the Declaration of Independence. By A. S. SALLEY, Jr. Secretary of the Commission Printed for the Commission by The State Company Columbia, S. C. 1927 Bulletins of the Historical Commission of South Carolina.- No. 9 Delegates to the Continental Congress from South Carolina, 177 4-1789, With Sketches of the Four Who Signed the Declaration of Independence. B y A. S. SALLEY, Jr. Secre ta ry of the Commission Printed for t he Commission by T he State Company Columbia. S. C. I 9 2 7 1774-1775. \Yhen the news of the blo c: kadino· o:f the port of Boston rea ·h ed Charles Town in June. 1774'. a convention of the people of outh Carolina wa s, on J~ un e 13, ea llcc1 2 to meet in Charles Town on th Gth of July. The co nvention met on the clay appointed and sat through the 8th. After adopting resolution · ·o t1flemn in g the British Parlia ment for closin g the port of Bo: ton, and ettinO' fo rth the right of Ameri ·an , the eo tll" ention adopted the foll o\\·ing resolution: 1m s oLv J ~ D , ~'hat H enry l\fid<ll cton , John J.tutl cclge, 'l' homas Lynch , C'lui - topher Gacl scl en and Etlwnrcl Hutl e <l~c , :JD ~ q r H . he and tll cy a r c hcrcb.r nominated n ncl appoiute <l :Deputies.
[Show full text]
BATTLEGROUND of FREEDOM No State Made a Greater Contribution to the Winning of America
A~ '562. 2 .· ~\l-2. C'op~ \ BATTLEGROUND OF FREEDOM No state made a greater contribution to the winning of America. Both Kosciusko and Count Pulaski, the Polish independence and the founding of the nation than South patriots, served with distinction in South Carolina. ·Carolina. Her sons served ably and well in the Con For nearly four years, South Carolina was spared the tinental Congress and many of her sons laid down their horrors of war, then Charleston fell in May, 1780, and lives on the altar of freedom so that liberty and in South Carolina became a conquered province. Except for dependence could be achieved. Her heroine daughters Marion, Sumter and Pickens and their gallant followers, are legends of the land. it seemed all was lost. After Camden, the tide began to Upon the soil of South Carolina more battles were turn with Musgrove's Mill, Hanging Rock, King's Moun fought than in any other state. Both Virginia and tain and Blackstock's. In October, Nathanael Greene, the Massachusetts have been referred to as "The Cradle of fighting Quaker from Rhode Island, was given command Liberty." South Carolina was "The Battleground of of the Continental troops in the South. Daniel Morgan, an Freedom." Men from many states and nations came to epic soldier of great courage, returned to active duty, In South Carolina and fought and died. Where they fought, 17'81, the British suffered a major defeat at Cowpens. The bled and died is sacred ground, consecrated by the blood Battles of Ninety Six, Hobkirk's Hill, and most promi of patriots.
[Show full text]
A TUB to the WHALE": the FOUNDING FATHERS and ADOPTION of the FEDERAL BILL of RIGHTS Kenneth R
"A TUB TO THE WHALE": THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS Kenneth R. Bowling Seamen have a custom, when they meet a whale, to fling him out an empty tub by way of amusement, to divert him from laying violent hands upon the ship. Jonathan Swift, Tale of a Tub (1704) Like a barrel thrown to the whale, the people were to be amused with fancied amendments, until the harpoon of power, should secure its prey and render resistance ineffectual. [Samuel Bryan], ''Centinel NO. 19, ' ' (Philadel- phia) Independent Gazetteer, October 7, 1788 The constitutional role of the federal Bill of Rights has been monu- mental. This fact would surprise most members of the First Federal Congress, the body which reluctantly proposed to the states the con- stitutional amendments later called the Bill of Rights.' The Federalist Mr. Bowling is a member of the First Federal Congress Project at George Wash- ington University, Washington, D.C. This article is based upon a chapter in his "Politics in the First Congress, 1789-1791" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin 1968). Additional research was conducted under a grant from the National Endow- ment for the Humanities. ' Although much has been written about the Bill of Rights, very little of it re- lates to the legislative history of its adoption. This is particularly true about the polit- ical aspects, most of which are contained in previously unstudied manuscripts. Robert A. Rutland, The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776-1791 (Chapel Hill 1955), which focuses on the background of the amendments, aptly summarizes its passage through the First Federal Congress.
[Show full text]
The Signers of the U.S. Constitution
CONSTITUTIONFACTS.COM The U.S Constitution & Amendments: About the Signers (Continued) The Signers of the U.S. Constitution On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention came to a close in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There were seventy individuals chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island opted to not send any delegates. Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, there were never more than forty-six present at any one time, and ultimately only thirty-nine delegates actually signed the Constitution. (William Jackson, who was the secretary of the convention, but not a delegate, also signed the Constitution. John Delaware was absent but had another delegate sign for him.) While offering incredible contributions, George Mason of Virginia, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign the final document because of basic philosophical differences. Mainly, they were fearful of an all-powerful government and wanted a bill of rights added to protect the rights of the people. The following is a list of those individuals who signed the Constitution along with a brief bit of information concerning what happened to each person after 1787. Many of those who signed the Constitution went on to serve more years in public service under the new form of government. The states are listed in alphabetical order followed by each state’s signers. Connecticut William S. Johnson (1727-1819)—He became the president of Columbia College (formerly known as King’s College), and was then appointed as a United States Senator in 1789.
[Show full text]
Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in South Carolina
Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in South Carolina Tradition and continuity were hallmarks of South Carolina government and politics in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and South Carolinians modeled their governmental institutions on earlier practices. Revolutionary legislator, physician, and historian David Ramsay claimed that when the state adopted a new constitution in 1776, “the policy of the rulers in departing as little as possible from ancient forms and names, made the change of sovereignty less perceptible.”1 Despite changes wrought by the Revolution, maintenance or appeals to old forms continued throughout the debate over the Constitution. In its first regular session after ratification, the state House of Representatives ordered a new gown for its speaker, “ornamented with velvet tassels, richly fringed” that was “an exact pattern of that worn by the speaker of the British house of commons.”2 Yet despite efforts to maintain “ancient forms and names,” the legacy of the Revolution, the rapid growth of the upcountry, and the economic challenges of the postwar era slowly brought change. Under the Lords Proprietors The roots of South Carolina’s institutions were planted in the West Indian islands of Barbados and Jamaica. Established as a proprietary colony in the 1620s, Barbados offered a few elite white men the opportunity to accumulate great wealth on sugar plantations worked by black slaves who, by 1652, constituted a majority of the island’s population. In 1663, when King Charles II granted a charter for a new North American colony south of Virginia to eight Lords Proprietors, some of whom were investors in the Barbadian enterprise, they had a colonial model at hand that could readily be applied to the new mainland colony that became South Carolina.
[Show full text]
Slavery in the Constitution: the Ri Onic Shifts in Tension Over Three Pivotal Clauses Joseph Privitera Union College - Schenectady, NY
Union College Union | Digital Works Honors Theses Student Work 6-2012 Slavery in the Constitution: The rI onic Shifts in Tension Over Three Pivotal Clauses Joseph Privitera Union College - Schenectady, NY Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalworks.union.edu/theses Part of the Inequality and Stratification Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Privitera, Joseph, "Slavery in the Constitution: The rI onic Shifts in eT nsion Over Three Pivotal Clauses" (2012). Honors Theses. 885. https://digitalworks.union.edu/theses/885 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at Union | Digital Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Union | Digital Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Slavery in the Constitution: The Ironic Shifts in Tension Over Three Pivotal Clauses By Joseph F. Privitera ********** Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in the Department of History UNION COLLEGE June, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Chapter I – Three-Fifths Clause 16 Chapter II – Slave Trade Clause 34 Chapter II – Fugitive Slave Clause 51 Conclusion 62 Bibliography 65 2 Introduction In 1842 the United States Supreme Court came to an 8-1 decision in a case that was highly controversial on a national scale. While Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) directly involved only the fate of one family, it held major significance for all the inhabitants of the nation, whether enslaved or free. When Justice Joseph Story delivered the Opinion of the Court that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was constitutional and no state could pass any law expanding upon or interfering with the regulations contained therein, it became quite clear that slaveholders had gained a major victory over those opposed to the institution.
[Show full text]
Pinckney Family Papers - Accession 564
Winthrop University Digital Commons @ Winthrop University Manuscript Collection Louise Pettus Archives and Special Collections 2018 Pinckney Family Papers - Accession 564 Pinckney Family Eliza Lucas Pinckney Thomas Pinckney Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Harriott Pinckney Horry Rutledge See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/ manuscriptcollection_findingaids Finding Aid Citation Louise Pettus Archives and Special Collections, Winthrop University, "Pinckney Family Papers - Accession 564". Finding Aid 1033. https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/manuscriptcollection_findingaids/1033 This Finding Aid is brought to you for free and open access by the Louise Pettus Archives and Special Collections at Digital Commons @ Winthrop University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Manuscript Collection by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Winthrop University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Pinckney Family, Eliza Lucas Pinckney, Thomas Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Harriott Pinckney Horry Rutledge, and Harriott Pinckney Rutledge Holbrook This finding aid is va ailable at Digital Commons @ Winthrop University: https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/ manuscriptcollection_findingaids/1033 Pinckney Family Papers, Acc 564 Manuscript Collection, Winthrop University Archives WINTHROP UNIVERSITY LOUISE PETTUS ARCHIVES & SPECIAL COLLECTIONS MANUSCRIPT COLLECTION ACCESSION 564 PINCKNEY FAMILY PAPERS 1703-1847 236 Micorfiche Pinckney Family Papers, Acc 564 Manuscript Collection, Winthrop University Archives WINTHROP UNIVERSITY LOUISE PETTUS ARCHIVES AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS MANUSCRIPT COLLECTION ACC. NO.: _564_ PROCESSED BY: Ann Y. Evans ADDITIONS: ____, ____, ____ DATE: February 6, 1984 NO. OF SECTIONS: 5 PINCKNEY FAMILY PAPERS I The Pinckney Family Papers microfiche were purchased from the South Carolina Historical Society on February 6, 1984. The papers were filmed by Carolyn F.
[Show full text]
Two Versions of the Preamble to the Constitution, 1787
1 Two versions of the Preamble to the Constitution, 1787 Introduction On May 25, 1787, the fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention began meeting in a room, no bigger than a large schoolroom, in Philadelphia’s State House. They posted sentries at the doors and windows to keep their “secrets from flying out.” They barred the press and public, and took a vow not to reveal to anyone the words spoken there. There were speeches of two, three, and four hours. The convention, which lasted four months, took only a single eleven-day break. First draft of the United States Constitution, with notes by Pierce Butler, August 6, 1787 This copy of the draft of the Constitution was printed secretly for the delegates in August 1787. In order to make it easier for them to take notes it was printed with wide margins. Delegate Pierce Butler, one of the wealthiest slaveholders from South Carolina, owned and marked up this copy. First printing of the official United States Constitution, for members of the Constitutional Convention, inscribed by Benjamin Franklin to Jonathan Williams, September 17, 1787 The first official printed version of the Constitution was distributed to the delegates, among whom Benjamin Franklin, aged 81, was the senior member. The preamble of the working draft and the final version differ significantly. In the August 6 preamble, delegates described themselves as representatives of “the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island,” etc. The final version, beginning “We the People of the United States,” shows that in the six weeks between the writing of the draft and of the final version, the idea of a united nation had been born.
[Show full text]
John Drayton, 1766-1822
John Drayton, 1766-1822 1766 Born to William Henry Drayton and Dorothy Golightly at Drayton Hall Plantation in St. Andrews Parish 1779 Attended the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) ca. 1779-1785 Studied law at the Inner Temple in England ca. 1788 Admitted to the South Carolina Bar 1792-1798 Represented St. Philip and St. Michael parishes for three non-consecutive terms ca. 1794 Served as captain of the Charleston Cadet Infantry 1794 Married Hester Rose Tidyman, daughter of Philip Tidyman, with whom he had seven children 1794 Published Letters Written During a Tour through the Northern and Eastern States 1798 Elected lieutenant governor of South Carolina Jan. 1800 Served as interim governor of South Carolina upon the death of Edward Rutledge Dec. 1800 Elected governor of South Carolina 1801-1802 Served as president of the Board of the South Carolina College 1802 Published A View of South Carolina, as Respects Her Natural and Civil Concerns 1803-1804 Served as the 13th intendant of the City of Charleston 1805-1808 Represented St. Philip and St. Michael parishes in the South Carolina Senate 1807 Received an honorary doctorate from the South Carolina College, which he helped found during his earlier term as governor Dec. 1808 Elected to a third non-consecutive term as governor of South Carolina 1812 Appointed by President James Madison to serve as a U.S. judge for the District of South Carolina 1821 Published his father’s Memoirs of the American Revolution Nov. 1822 Death and burial at the Cathedral Church of Saint Luke and Saint Paul Sources Bailey, N.
[Show full text]
A Great Compromise
A Great Compromise: The Sherman Plan Saves the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Lucy Phelan Junior Division Historical Paper Paper Length: 2,495 Words 2 INTRODUCTION In May 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen United States met in a federal Convention to “devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”1 Simply stated, there was an urgent need to fix the political system under the existing Articles of Confederation. However, differences over the structure of the legislative branch quickly led to conflict. Some, particularly delegates from larger-population states, envisioned a strong National legislature with representatives elected by the people (“proportional representation”). Others from smaller states disagreed, fearing a power grab by the larger states, and supported equal representation for each state. This conflict threatened to destroy the Convention. After large-state efforts to force proportional representation in both legislative houses, small-state delegates stopped cooperating altogether. The two sides became deadlocked. Roger Sherman’s Great Compromise of proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation in the upper broke the stalemate. The delegates resumed the Convention and finished writing a new Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation and corresponding system of government. Ratified two years later, this Constitution has successfully weathered another 230 years of tension, conflict and even turmoil in American history and politics. The Constitution of 1787 continues to serve as the basis of the United States Government today.2 1 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787 – 1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), 3.
[Show full text]