DOCSLIB.ORG

A Charge on the Rise of the American Empire (1776)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Charge on the Rise of the American Empire (1776) University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Electronic Texts in American Studies Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 1776 A Charge on the Rise of the American Empire (1776) William Henry Drayton Chief Justice of South Carolina Reiner Smolinski , Editor Georgia State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas Part of the American Studies Commons Drayton, William Henry and Smolinski, Reiner , Editor, "A Charge on the Rise of the American Empire (1776)" (1776). Electronic Texts in American Studies. 39. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas/39 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Texts in American Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. WILLIAM HENRY DRAYTON (1742–79), chief justice of South A Carolina, Revolutionary leader, and wealthy plantation owner, was born near Charlestown. His family on both sides were wealthy plant- ers and prominent politicians, enabling young William Henry to study in London and Oxford. Upon his return he married a South CHARGE, Carolina heiress, turned to politics, and was elected to the Assembly. Drayton championed the cause of British interest in the colonies and opposed such popular measures as the non-importation movement while defending the rights of the individual. Upon loosing his seat in ON THE the Assembly, Drayton left for England and returned shortly there- after to sit on the Council of the province (1770–75), supported by rel- atives who served as Lt. Governor and members of the Council. If his R ISE OF THE A MERICAN E M P I R E. appointment was largely the result of his loyalty to the Crown, Dray- ton made a complete turnabout during the political turmoil preced- ing the War of Independence. In 1774, he published A Letter from “Freeman” of South Carolina to the Deputies of North America, essen- DELIVERED BY tially arguing for a federal system and independent government in the American colonies while maintaining allegiance to the Crown. The Hon. W -H D , Esq; Upon Drayton’s suspension in 1775, he joined the Revolutionary ILLIAM ENRY RAYTON forces, recruited volunteers for armed resistance, and was elected Chief-Justice of S OUTH-CAROLINA: president of South Carolina’s provincial Congress. In his elected po- sition as chief justice (March 1776), he became a radical supporter of American Independence, advocated the adoption of his state’s con- TO stitution, and represented South Carolina as an elected member to the Continental Congress, where he served from late 1778 until his death a year later. THE GRAND JURY Drayton’s Charge on the Rise of the American Empire (1776)—here courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society—is an address to the For the D ISTRICT OF CHARLESTOWN. Grand Jury of South Carolina at Charleston. Four months after the Declaration of Independence, Drayton enthusiastically outlines his Southern vision of the young United States in its progress toward be- coming the next world empire. Reiner Smolinski Georgia State University CHARLESTOWN: Printed by DAV ID BRUCE in Church-Street, This introductory note and the following text were published in The Kingdom, The Power, & The Glory: The Millennial Impulse in Early American Literature M DCC LXXVI. (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt, 1998), pp. 392–407. Copyright © 1998 Reiner Smolinski. SOUTH-CAROLINA. CHARLESTOWN-DISTRICT. } At a COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OF THE PEACE, OYER AND TERMINER, ASSIZE AND GENERAL GAOL DELIV- ERY, begun and holden at Charlestown, for the District of Charlestown, on Tuesday, October 15th, in Year of our Lord, 1776—Before the Hon. W ILLIAM-HENRY DRAY- TON, Esq; Chief Justice, and his Associates, Justices of the said Court. ORDERED, That the Charge delivered by his Honour the Chief Justice to the Grand Jury, and their Present- ments at this Session, be forthwith published. By Order of the Court, JOHN COLCOCK, C. C. S. The CH A RGE to the G RAND JURY. G ENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY. T HE last Time I had the Honour to address a Grand Jury in this Court, I expounded to them the Constitution of their Country, as established by Congress on the 26th Day of March last, independent of Royal Authority. I laid before them the Causes of that important Change of our Govern- ment—a Comparison of these, with those that occasioned the English Revolution of 1688—and, the Law resulting from the Injuries in each Case. I spoke to that Grand Jury of the late Revolution of South-Carolina. I mean to speak to you upon a more important Subject—the Rise of the American Empire. THE great Act in March last, upon the Matter constitut- ed our Country totally independent of Great-Britain. For, it was calculated to place in our Hands, the whole legislative, [ 2 ] [ 3 ] executive and judicial Powers of Government: and to enable IT is but to glance an Eye over the historic Page, to be as- us in the most effectual Manner, by Force of Arms to op- sured that the Duration of Empire is limited by the Almighty pose, resist and war against the British Crown. The Act nat- Decree. Empires have their Rise to a Zenith—and their De- urally looked forward to an Accommodation of the unhappy clension to a Dissolution. The Years of a Man, nay the Hours Differences between that Power and America: In like Man- of the Insect on the Back of the Hypanis, that lives but a Day, ner every Declaration of War between independent States, epitomize the Advance and Decay of the Strength and Dura- implies a future Accommodation of their Disputes. But, al- tion of Dominion. One common Fate awaits all Things upon though by that Act, we were upon the Matter made inde- Earth—a thousand Causes accelerate or delay their Perfec- pendent; yet there were no Words in it, specially declarative tion or Ruin.—To look a little into remote Times, we see, of that Independency. Such a Declaration was of Right to that from the most contemptible Origin upon Record, Rome be made only by the General Congress; because the united became the most powerful State the Sun ever: The WORLD Voice and Strength of America, were necessary to give a de- bowed before her imperial Fasces!—yet, having run through sirable Credit and Prospect of Stability, to a declared State of all the Vicissitudes of Dominion, her Course was finished. total Separation from Great-Britain: And the General Con- Her Empire was dissolved, that the separated Members of it gress, as the only Means left by which they had a Chance might arise to run through similar Revolutions. to avert the Ruin of America, have issued a Declaration, by G -B was a Part of this mighty Empire. But, which all political Connection between you and the State of REAT RITAIN being dissolved from it, in her Turn she also extended her Great-Britain, is totally dissolved. dominion:—arrived at, and passed her Zenith. Three and CAROLINIANS! heretofore you were bound—by the Amer- thirty Years numbred the illustrious Days of the Roman ican Revolution you are now free. The Change is most im- Greatness—Eight Years measure the Duration of the Brit- portant—most honourable—most beneficial. It is your Birth ish Grandeur in meridian Lustre! How few are the Days of Right by the Law of Nature—it is even valid by the funda- true Glory! The Extent of the Roman period is from their mental Laws of your Country—you were placed in Possession complete Conquest of Italy, which gave them a Place where- of it by the Hand of God!—Particulars evidencing a Subject of on to stand, that they might shake the World; to the original the highest Import.—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, it is my Cause of their Declension, their introduction of Asiatic Lux- Duty to mark to you, the great Lines of your Conduct; and ury. The British Period is from the Year 1758, when they vic- so to endeavour to explain the Nature of each, that you may toriously pursued their Enemies into every Quarter of the clearly see your Way, and thereby be animated in your Prog- Globe; to the immediate Cause of their Decline—their In- ress to discharge those Services which are required at your justice displayed by the Stamp Act.—In short, like the Ro- Hands. And hence, it is necessary for me to lay before you man Empire, Great-Britain in her Constitution of Govern- some Observations upon the Nature of the American Revo- ment, contained a Poison to bring on her Decay; and in each lution, which, by every Tie divine and human, you are bound Case, this Poison was drawn into a ruinous Operation, by the to support. I shall therefore endeavour to draw your Atten- Riches and Luxuries of the East. Thus, by natural Causes tion to this great Subject, necessarily including the Lines of and common Effects, the American States are become dis- your particular Conduct. solved from the British Dominion.—And is it to be wondered [ 4 ] [ 5 ] at, that Britain has experienced the invariable Fate of Em- der the Sanction of Law—to establish the Roman Catholick pire! We are not surprized when we see Youth or Age yield Religion, and to make the King of Great-Britain a Despot to the common Lot of Humanity.—Nay, to repine, that in our in Canada; and as much so as he then chose to be in Massa- Day, America is dissolved from the British State, is impious- chusetts-Bay.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notes and Documents
    NOTES AND DOCUMENTS Thomas Paine's Response to Lord North's Speech on the British Peace Proposals Thomas Paine, whose book Common Sense proposed the formation of a "declaration for independence'* and stirred thousands to the cause of inde- pendence in 1776, supported the cause throughout the war effort with his American Crisis series of pamphlets and numerous newspaper publications. The newspapers played a crucial role in the American Revolution by supply- ing a war of words, which kept the colonists focused on their goal of inde- pendence. The printers had become active participants early in the war par- tially due to their anger at the British Stamp Act, which taxed newspapers.1 Writers, using multiple pseudonyms to mask their identities and produce an appearance of greater numbers, produced poems, essays, and letters for the newspapers to combat loyalists as well as the pernicious effects of fear and ignorance among the colonists.2 Paine's use of pseudonyms kept some of his newspaper contributions from being identified for many years. In 1951 A. Owen Aldridge identified a number of pieces, including an article written by Paine in York, Pennsyl- vania, on June 10,1778, and published in the Pennsylvania Gazette on June 13, 1778, signed "Common Sense," which had not been included in the published canon of Paine's writings.3 Similarly, it appears that Paine contrib- uted a letter and associated commentary in the April 25,1778, "Postscript" edition of the Pennsylvania Packet^ published in Lancaster, which has also been overlooked. Addressed to "R. L." and signed "T. P.," there is ample 1 Philip Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution 1763-1783 (Chapel Hill, 1941), 226.
    [Show full text]
  • The ''Havoc of War'' and Its Aftermath in Revolutionary South Carolina
    The ''Havoc of War'' and its Aftermath in Revolutionary South Carolina by Jerome NADELHAFT* The approach of war between England and America inspired many privileged South Carolinians to announce their willingness to suffer for freedom's sake. They would move, disown America, or fight "rather than submit to tyranny.'' They did not ignore the possibility of dying, but since their cause was just, death would be noble, "generous", preferable to servitude. 1 That vision was shared by Richard Hutson, who wrote of the "awfully pleasing sight" of the British army and navy "most shamefully repulsed" when they attacked Charleston in 1776. Romantically, perhaps not inaccurately, he spread the tale of one sergeant, "McDougal by name," who "rivals Epaminondas in fame; when breathing his last, 'My brave lads,' he cries, 'I am just expiring, but for heaven's sake let not sweet liberty expire with me."' 2 Few Carolinians expressed an awareness that warfare consisted of more than noble gestures and deeds ; few seemed worried that military death could be inglorious. Josiah Smith, who was unwilling to submit "to the will & controul of a haughty and abaondoned sett of rulers," might have had such gloomy prospects in mind when he wrote that "horrible consequences" attended bloodshed. 3 So might Henry Laurens, whose son returned from England to fight and die in and for South Carolina. Ready "to hazard all ... [his] estate," Laurens worried that the British, encoura­ ging Indian attacks and slave insurrections, would cause the "most horri­ ble butcheries of innocent women & children," and that "civil discord between fellow citizens & neighbour Farmers" would lead to "fraud per­ jury & assassination." 4 Probably few people had the knowledge, or even willingness, to imagine the nature of South Carolina's Revolutionary War.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Government in North Carolina and the United States; a School
    ARTICLES OF CONFEDEEATION. xxxiii On the part and in behalf of the State of Delaware : Tho. M'Kean, February 13, 1779, Nicholas Van Dyke. John Dickinson, May 5, 1779, On the part and in behalf of the State of Maryland : John Hanson, March 1, 1781, Daniel Carroll, March 1, 1781. On the part and in behalf of the State of Virginia : Richard Henry Lee, Jn° Harvie, John Banister, Francis Lightfoot Lee. Thomas Adams, On the part and in behalf of the State of North Carolina: John Penn, July 81, 1778, Jn" Williams. Cornelius Hartnett, On the part and in behalf of the State of South Carolina : Henry Laurens, Richd Hutson, William Henry Drayton, Thos. Haywood, Jun. Jn° Matthews, On the part and in behalf of the State of Georgia : Jn° Walton, July 24, 1778, Edw-^ Langworthy. EdW^ Telfair, The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Con- gress on the 17th of November, 1777, and were recommended to the consideration of the several States. The Articles were submitted to the several States, and the delegates from the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Cai'olina ratified the Articles on the 9th of July, 1778. The delegates from the remaining States did not sign them on that date, but in the following order : North Carolina, July 21, 1778 ; Georgia, July 24, 1778 ; New Jersey, November 26, 1778 ; Delaware, May 5, 1779 ; and Maryland, March 1, 1781. Three and a half years elapsed after the adoption of the Articles by Congress before their ratification by all of the States.
    [Show full text]
  • Charters of Freedom History/Social Studies Contents
    Charters of Freedom History/Social Studies Contents 1 Wikijunior:United States Charters of Freedom 1 1.1 Important Documents ........................................... 1 1.2 Other Concepts .............................................. 2 2 Declaration of Independence 4 2.1 Background ................................................ 4 2.2 Draft and adoption ............................................. 4 2.3 Distribution and copies .......................................... 5 2.4 Text and analysis .............................................. 6 2.4.1 Introduction ............................................ 6 2.4.2 Preamble ............................................. 6 2.4.3 Indictment ............................................. 7 2.4.4 Denunciation ........................................... 8 2.4.5 Conclusion ............................................ 8 2.5 Text on the back of the document ..................................... 9 2.6 Differences between draft and final versions ................................ 9 2.7 Myths ................................................... 10 2.8 Questions ................................................. 10 2.9 Source ................................................... 11 3 Constitution 19 3.1 Background ................................................ 19 3.2 Text of the Constitution .......................................... 19 3.2.1 Preamble ............................................. 20 3.2.2 Article I .............................................. 21 3.2.3 Article II ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Colonists Respond to the Coercive Acts & the Continental Congress
    MAKING THE REVOLUTION: AMERICA, 1763-1791 PRIMARY SOURCE COLLECTION Massachusetts Historical Society John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, while serving as a delegate to the First Continental Congress, Philadelphia, 18 September 1774 (detail) “There is No Idea of Submission, here in any Bodies head” COLONISTS RESPOND TO THE COERCIVE ACTS & THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 1774 __A Selection from Newspaper Reports, Pamphlets, Letters, Resolutions, Sermons, Histories, &c.__ * 1773____ Dec. 16: BOSTON TEA PARTY climaxes protests against the Tea Act in the northern colonies. 1774____ March-June: COERCIVE ACTS (“Intolerable Acts” to the colonists) and the Quebec Act are passed by Parliament to punish and solidify imperial control of the colonies, especially Massachusetts. They are: – Boston Port Act Closed Boston harbor to shipping until full payment made for destroyed tea. – Massachusetts Govt. Act Placed colony under direct British rule; strictly limited town meetings. – Administration of Justice Act Allowed British officials accused of murdering colonists (or of other capital offenses) in line of duty to be sent to another colony or to Britain for trial. – Quartering Act Allowed governor to house British soldiers in unoccupied private buildings. – Quebec Act Extended boundaries of Quebec, formerly a French territory, to include Ohio River Valley where many Americans hoped to settle. Allowed province to maintain French law and the official state religion of Roman Catholicism. Sept-Oct.: FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS is held in Philadelphia with delegates from all colonies except Georgia; organizes a “Continental Association” to boycott British goods after Dec. 1 if the Intolerable Acts are not repealed; agrees to meet the following May if necessary; sends a petition to King George III that is rejected.
    [Show full text]
  • Of First Principles & Organic Laws
    Dominican Scholar Graduate Master's Theses, Capstones, and Culminating Projects Student Scholarship 5-2017 Of First Principles & Organic Laws Pietro Poggi Dominican University of California https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2017.hum.05 Survey: Let us know how this paper benefits you. Recommended Citation Poggi, Pietro, "Of First Principles & Organic Laws" (2017). Graduate Master's Theses, Capstones, and Culminating Projects. 299. https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2017.hum.05 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Dominican Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Master's Theses, Capstones, and Culminating Projects by an authorized administrator of Dominican Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Of First Principles & Organic Laws A culminating project submitted to the faculty of Dominican University of California in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts in Humanities by Piêtro G. Pôggi San Rafael, California May, 2017 This Thesis—written under the direction of the candidate’s Thesis Advisor and approved by the Graduate Humanities Program Director—has been presented to, and accepted by, the Department of the Graduate Humanities, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Humanities. The content and research methodologies presented in this work represent the work of the candidate alone. Piêtro G. Pôggi 17 May, 2017 Master of Arts in Humanities Candidate Joan Baranow. Ph.D. 17 May, 2017 Director of Graduate Humanities Jordan Lieser, Ph.D. 07 May, 2017 Assistant Professor of History/Thesis Advisor Gigi Gokcek, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Declaration of Independence 1 United States Declaration of Independence
    United States Declaration of Independence 1 United States Declaration of Independence United States Declaration of Independence 1823 facsimile of the engrossed copy Created June–July 1776 Ratified July 4, 1776 Location Engrossed copy: National Archives Rough draft: Library of Congress Authors Thomas Jefferson et al. Signatories 56 delegates to the Continental Congress [1] Purpose To announce and explain separation from Great Britain The Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain regarded themselves as independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. John Adams put forth a resolution earlier in the year which made a formal declaration inevitable. A committee was assembled to draft the formal declaration, which was to be ready when congress voted on independence. Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[2] which congress would edit to produce the final version. The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress. After finalizing the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as a printed broadside that was widely distributed and read to the public. The most famous version of the Declaration, a signed copy that is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • See Drayton of SC
    Copyright by CLP Research Partial Genealogy of the Draytons Main Political Affiliation: (of South Carolina) 1763-83 Whig/Revolutionary 1789-1823 Republican 1824-33 Democrat Republican 1600 1834-60 Democrat 1861-65 Confederate Thomas Drayton II 1650 (1650-1717) Ann Daniel = (Emigrated from London, England to Barbados, then South Carolina, 1678) (1646?-at least 1675) (Founded Magnolia Plantation, 1680) = Ann Fox (1680-1742) 1 Son 1 Son Mary Drayton 1700 Thomas Drayton III John Drayton (1702-49) (1708-60) (1715-79) = Cpt. Richard Fuller (SC gov council, 3 terms); (SC justice) (SC chief justice, 1753); (SC royal council, 1754); (Wealthiest man in SC) (1700-49) See Bull of SC = Elizabeth Bull Charlotte Bull = = Margaret Glen Genealogy (1711-50) (1719-43) See Bull of SC (1713-72) See Fuller of SC Part I Genealogy Part I Genealogy See Glen of SC William Drayton I 8 Others Mary Drayton William Henry Drayton Cpt Charles Drayton 2 Sons Genealogy (1731-90) (1734-1806) (1742-79) (1743-1822) (Florida chief justice, 1774-78); (SC supreme court, 1779-88) (SC comm of Safety, 1775) (SC assembly) = Edward Fenwick (US Supreme Court, 1789-90) (1726-75); (Tory) (SC privy council, 1776); (SC chief justice) (Lt Governor of South Carolina, 1785) 1750 (SC gov council) (US Continental Congress, 1778; = Mary Motte Signer Articles of Confederation) See Middleton of SC = Hester Middleton (1740-78) Genealogy (1754-89) See Fenwick of SC = Dorothy Golightly (1747-80) Genealogy Part I Col. William Drayton II 9 Others John Drayton 3OthersMary Drayton Charlotte Drayton
    [Show full text]
  • America's Founding Fathers -- Who Are They? Thumbnail Sketches of 164 Patriots
    AMERICA’S FOUNDING FATHERS Who are they? Thumbnail sketches of 164 patriots JACK STANFIELD Universal Publishers USA • 2001 America's Founding Fathers -- Who are they? Thumbnail sketches of 164 patriots Copyright © 2001 Jack R. Stanfield All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except in case of review, without the prior written permission of the author. Author’s Note: The information is accurate to the extent the author could confirm it from readily available sources. Neither the author nor the publisher can assume any responsibility for any action taken based on information contained in this book. Universal Publishers/uPUBLISH.com USA • 2001 ISBN: 1-58112-668-9 www.uPUBLISH.com/books/stanfield.htm To my wife Barbara who inspired this book, and without whose patience and encouragement, it would not have been completed. Content INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 SETTING THE STAGE 10 SKETCHES OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS 23 CHAPTER 2 FOUNDING FATHERS FROM CONNECTICUT 24 Andrew Adams, Oliver Ellsworth, Titus Hosmer, Samuel Huntington, William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott CHAPTER 3 FOUNDING FATHERS FROM DELAWARE 32 Richard Bassett, Gunning Bedford, Jacob Broom, John Dickinson, Thomas McKean, George Read, Caesar Rodney, Nicolas Van Dyke CHAPTER 4 FOUNDING FATHERS FROM GEORGIA 39 Abraham Baldwin, William Few, Button Gwinnett, Layman Hall,William Houstoun,
    [Show full text]
  • The Colonial Bar and the American Revolution, 60 Marq
    Marquette Law Review Volume 60 Article 1 Issue 1 Fall 1976 The oloniC al Bar and the American Revolution Robert F. Boden Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Robert F. Boden, The Colonial Bar and the American Revolution, 60 Marq. L. Rev. 1 (1976). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol60/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Vol. 60 1976 No. 1 THE COLONIAL BAR AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ROBERT F. BODEN* I. INTRODUCTION Before discussing the contribution of the bar of colonial America to the Revolution we must define our term "revolu- tion." Do we refer to the series of battles on land and sea fought against the British between Lexington on April 19, 1775, and Yorktown on October 19, 1781? No, we do not. We accept John Adams' definition of the Revolution as something quite apart from the war with Great Britian. He wrote in his memoirs: What do we mean by the revolution? The war with Brit- ain? That was no part of the revolution; it was only the effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was spilled at Lexington.' The Revolution, as distinguished from the Revolutionary War, was the series of events by which the British Empire came to an end in the thirteen colonies which became the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • William Henry Drayton: South Carolina Revolutionary Patriot'
    H-South Frank on Krawczynski, 'William Henry Drayton: South Carolina Revolutionary Patriot' Review published on Wednesday, May 1, 2002 Keith Krawczynski. William Henry Drayton: South Carolina Revolutionary Patriot. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001. xvi + 358 pp. $49.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8071-2661-5. Reviewed by Andrew Frank (Department of History, California State University, Los Angeles) Published on H-South (May, 2002) Revolutionary Patriot and Conservative Polemicist Revolutionary Patriot and Conservative Polemicist In his introduction to Paul Revere's Ride, David Hackett Fischer noted that "the only creature less fashionable in academe than the stereotypical 'dead white male,' is a dead white male on horseback."[1] Fischer's tongue-in-cheek observation did more than capture a perception that historians migrate toward explorations of the dispossessed. Fischer's provocative words also encapsulated the ambivalence of many historians toward biographical studies of traditional political leaders, especially from the colonial past. Works on "founding fathers" and "revolutionary heroes" have tended to arouse suspicion, but not only for their often-unwavering patriotic tones and their assumptions of an individual's self-evident importance. The ability of a single individual to shape the past assumes a degree of historical contingency and a definition of power that betray standard historical interpretations. Perhaps nowhere are the tensions more profound than in explorations of the American Revolution, a field where social historians have offered some of the most persuasive interpretations of the revolution while biographers have routinely credited a handful of men with shaping the course of a nation. Some recent biographers have tried to bridge the gap between the two approaches in order to demonstrate how individuals reflected as well as helped shape the worlds in which they lived.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    Origins of the Old South: Revolution, Slavery, and Changes in Southern Society, 1776-1800 Matthew P. Spooner Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2015 © 2015 Matthew P. Spooner All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Origins of the Old South: Revolution, Slavery, and Changes in Southern Society, 1776-1800 Matthew Spooner The American Revolution and its aftermath posed the greatest challenge to the institution of slavery since the first Africans landed in Jamestown. Revolutionary defenses of the natural equality of man provided ammunition for generations of men and women opposed to racial subordination while the ideological strains of the struggle sounded the death knell for slavery in Northern states and led significant numbers of Southerners to question the morality and safety of slaveholding. Most importantly, the bloody and chaotic war in the South provided an unprecedented opportunity for slaves to challenge their bondage as tens of thousands of black men and women fled to the British, the swamps, or the relative anonymity of the cities. Merging social, military, and economic history, "Origins of the Old South" examines how, in the attempt to rebuild their society from the ravages of war, black and white Southerners together created the new and historically distinct slave society of the “Old South.” The first two chapters of the dissertation demonstrate how the struggle to contain the disorders of a civil war amongst half a million enslaved African-Americans transformed the Southern states—the scene of the war’s bloodiest fighting after 1778— into a crucible in which men, land, and debt melted into capital.
    [Show full text]