Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1875-12-02

negroes were formed into companies Dy
the Spanish, no doub;, for the purpose of
annoying the English settlers in the coun.
try, and with the hope that with the assistance
of these slaves, the English might be driven
from the shores of North America, and that
the whole country might be brought under
the sway of Spain.
That this insurrection was legitimate re-.
suit of the institution of slavery we will neith-
er affirm nor deny buG that the inhabitants
of South Carolina were to blame for the exis-
tence of the institution in their midst we dare
not admit. The institution was, to very
great extent, forced upon the first settlers by
the merchants of Europe and the northern
colonies.
AS the institution has been abolished in the
State forever, and is now, to all intents and
purposes, matter of history, it is fair that it
be known how and when slavery was brought
into the State. In August, 1920, Dutch
man.of:war landed twenty negroes in Virgin
ia and sold them. In 1871, ifty.one years
afterwards, Sir John Yeamans brought mum.
ber of negroes from bis plantations in Barba-
does 10 South Carolina Sir John Yeamans
was the son of Robert Yeamans who lost his
estate by his adherence to the interests of the
King. Sir John succeeded Joseph West as
Governor of South Carolina. By the pro-
prietors he was highly honored and was real
ly appointed by them Governor of the pro-
vincein 1865. This was five years before the
settlement was made at Charles Town. The
original proprietors OF South Carolina were
men of wealth and influence in England.
Some of them, at least, we're the dear friends
of Charles the Second, the ruling sovereign at
the time of the settlement of South Carolina.
What they did was done, not only for their
own interest, but with the appreciation of the
English government That Sir John Yea
mans brought his slaves from Barbados to
South Carolina with the knowledge and ap-
probation of the proprietors, and consequent
ly of the English government, is absolutely
certain. We may safely conclude that at
first the institution of slavery did not meet
with hearty approval by all of the settlers.
We have seen that the Highlanders from
Scotland, who settled in Georgia, protested
against the introduction of slavery into that
colony; and since there we're Scotch in South
Carolina from an early period, we may infer
that they held the same views on this subject
with their countrymen in Georgia.
We may conclude that slavery was not only
introduced into South Carolina, indirectly by
the English government, but that the institu-
ton was, by the direct acts of that govern
ment, perpetuated. All laws passed by the
colonial legislature had to be approved by the
proprietors before they became of any perma-
nent force. Not only so, but no law could,
by the terms of the charter, be passed which,
in any sense, was at variance with the laws Of
England. Now, there we're multitude OF
laws enacted respecting slaves. At a very
early period, some of these laws were passed
and approved by the original proprietors.
Laws respecting the regulating of slaves con-
tnued up to the time of the Revolution of1776
Not one word was said, either during the pro-
prietary government, or during the royal
government, in opposition to the institution.
Not one effort was made to abolish it. Such
is, briefly, the history of the introduction of
slavery into the State of South Carolina. Ne
groes were brought from Barbados, from At
RIGA and from the other English colonies, by
the merchants, and bartered for tar, pitch,
lumber, pelfry, rice and the other commodl-
ties of the country. Vast multitudes were
brought into the country, and they increased
rapidly. After the first few years, the num-
her of slaves was double the number OF
whites, and frequently, their number was three
times that of the whites.
Before dismissing this subject, we can not
refrain from mentioning strange notion
which seems to have been somewhat preva-
lent amongst the early colonists. We refer
to the question of the propriety of making an
effort to convert their slaves to Christianity.
1t may be possible that some persons will be
slow to believe that people who had come
to the western world for the avowed purpose
of disseminating the gospel amongst the saw.
age Indians would have hesitated for one mo-
ment with respect to the propriety of making
an attempt to Christianize the no less savage
Africans Here we may say that much that
was proposed to be done toward Christianizing
the Indians never was undertaken. The guilt
of killing Indians and of enslaving them lies at
the door of all the English colonies except the
one planted by William Penn. The first SAL
utation the wild savages of Massachusetts, re.
ceived from the Puritans WAS Shower OF
bullets" The fact is, from the day that Co.
lumbus landed on Waiting Island, Europe
ans commenced to treat the savages of the
western world as wild beasts. Every nation of
Europe had a hand in externinating the In
dians, and either directly or indirectly in kid
mapping Africans and selling them into sla-
yery
The society for propagating the gospel,
sent in 1902, the Rev. Samuel Thomas as
missionary to South Carolina. He was in
structed ito attempt the conversion of the
Yammasees." From attempting this work
he was prevented by Governor Nathaniel
johnson. The reasons assigned for not at
tempting this work were political and selfish.
The Yammasees once had been in alliance
with the Spaniards, but had revolted from
them and entered into an alliance with the
English. The Spanish had endeavored to
convert the Yammasees to the Catholic reli-
gion, but they rejected it with scorn and be-
cause of the attempt to convert them they re-
volted from their Spanish friends. Nathaniel
johnson was of the opinion that any effort, on
the part of the Carolinians, to Christianize
these savages would likely result in making
the Indians the foes of the colony. Rather
than run the risk of sacrificing their friend
ship they were left undisturbed in their bar
barism.
Little effort was made to Christianize the
Africans from the fact that it was thought
that it would be unlawful to hold them in
bondage after their conversion. In other
words, many of the colonists had conscientious
scruples about holding civilized and Chris.
tian man in bondage, whilst their scruples did
not exist with regard to enslaving savage.
This was common notion of the time Act
ing upon this principle, the sovereigns of Eu-
rome bestowed the American continent upon