Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1906-05-04
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
From the First Settlement to the Close OF
the Revolution.
By REV. ROBERT LATHAM, Id. ID.

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 the legiti-
mate result of the institution Of slav-
cry we will neither affirm nor deny;
but that the inhabitants of South Car
olina were to blame for the existence
of the institution in their midst we
dare not admit. The institution was
to a very great extent forced upon the
first settlers by the merchants Of Eu-
rope and the northern colonies.
Responsibility For Slavery.
AS the institution has been abolished
in the state forever, and Is now to all
intents and purposes matter OF his
tory, II Is fair that 1t be known how
and when slavery was brought into the
state. In August 1920, a Dutch man
of-war landed twenty negroes In Vir-
ginia and sold them. In 1917, fifty-one
years afterwards, Sir John Yeamans
brought a number Of negroes from his
plantations in Barbados to South
Carolina. Sir John Yeamans was the
son Of Robert Yeanans who lost his
estate by his adherence to the interests
of the king. Sir John succeeded JOS
eph West as governor Of South Caro-
lima. By the proprietors he was highly
honored and was really appointed by
them governor Of the province in 1865.
This was five years before the settle
ment was made at Charles Town.. The
original proprietors of South Carolina
were men Of wealth and influence In
England. Some Of them at least were
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
interest, but with the appreciation OF
the English government. That Sir
John Yeamans brought his slaves from
Barbados to South Carolina with the
knowledge and appreciation Of the pro-
prietors and consequently of the Eng
lish government, Is absolutely certain
We may safely conclude that at first
the institution Of slavery did not meet
with a hearty approval by all of the
settlers. We have seen that the High
landers from Scotland, who settled In
Georgia, protested against the intro
duction of slavery into that colony;
and since there were 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 Caro-
lima, indirectly by the English govern
ment, but that the institution was. by
| the direct acts of that government per-
petuated. All laws passed by the Co
lonial legislature had to be approved
by the proprietors before they became
Of any permanent 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 Eng
land. Now there were a multitude
Of laws enacted respecting slaves. AT
very early period, some OF these laws
were passed and approved by the
original proprietors. Laws respecting
the regulating of slaves continued up
to the time of the Revolution Of 1776.
Not one word was said. either during
the proprietary government. or during
the royal government in opposition to
the institution. Not one effort was
made to abolish 1t. Such Is briefly the
history of the introduction Of slavery
into the state Of South Carolina. Ne
groes were brought from Barbados,
from Africa and from the other Eng
lish colonies, by the merchants and
bartered for tar. pitch, lumber. pelfry,
rice and the other commodities Of the
country. Vast multitudes were brought
into the country and they increased
RAPIDLY. After the first few years the
number of slaves was double the num-
ber of whites and frequently their
number was three times that Of the
whites.
Before dismissing this subject, we
cannot refrain from mentioning
strange notion which seems to have
been somewhat prevalent amongst the
early colonists. We refer to the ques-
ton of the propriety Of making an eff
tianity. 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 dis
seminating the gospel amongst the
savage Indians would have hesitated
for one moment with respect to the
propriety of making an attempt to
Christianize the no less savage Afri-
cans. Here we may say that much that
was proposed to be done towards
Christianizing the Indians never was
undertaken. The guilt Of killing In
dams and of enslaving them lies at the
door Of all the English colonies except
the one planted by William Penn. The
first salutation the wild savages Of
Massachusetts received from the Puri-
| tans was a Shower Of bullets" The
fact Is from the day that Columbus
landed on Waiting Island, Europeans
commenced to treat the savages of the
| western world as wild beasts. Every
nation of Europe had hand In exter-
mlnating the Indians. and either d.
rectly or Indirectly in kidnapping Afri-
cans and selling them into slavery.
The society for propagating the gos-
pei, sent in 1902, the Rev. Samuel
Thomas as a missionary to South Car
olina. He was instructed ito attempt
the conversion of the Yemassees."
From attempting this work he was pre-
vented by Governor Nathaniel John
son. The reasons assigned for not at
tempting this work were political and
selfish. The Yemassees 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
Yemassees to the Catholic religion, but
| they rejected ii with scorn; and be-