|
|
The first settlement of this state, which was destined to form
part of the real history thereof, was made in 1670 at or near Port
Royal. Dissatisfied with the location, the settlers moved to the
banks of Ashley river, where they began what was to become the city
of Charleston. Whether the particular lands taken possession of for
these settlements were purchased at the time such settlements were
made is unknown; at least, history has left the inquiry unanswered.
However, it is known that for the purpose of affording room for the
expansion of the colony which had settled at the junction of Ashley
and Cooper rivers, land was purchased from the natives.
Mills' says the first public deed of conveyance found on record is
dated March 10, 1675. This was probably while the settlers were
still occupying the site first selected on the western bank of
Ashley river and before the removal to Oyster point. The deed as
given by Mills is as follows:
| To all manner of people.
Know ye, that we the cassiques, natural born heirs and
sole owners and proprietors of greater and lesser Casor,
lying on the river of Kyewaw, the river of Stono, and
the fresher of the river Edistoh, doe, for us, ourselves
and subjects and vassels, demise, sell, grant, and
forever quit and resign, the whole parcels of land
called by the name and names of great and little Casor
with all the timber of said land or lands, and all
manner of tho appurtenances any way belonging to any
part or parts of the said land or lands, unto the Right
Honorable Anthony Earle of Shaftsbury, Lord Baron Ashley
of Winboon, St. Gyles's, Lord Cooper of Pawlett, and to
the rest of the lords proprietors of Carolina for and in
consideration of a valuable parcel of cloth, hatchets,
beads, and other goods and manufactures, now received
,it the hands of Andrew Percivall, Gent. in full
satisfaction of and for these our territories, lands,
and royalties, with all manner the appurtenances,
privileges, and dignities, any manner of way to us,
ourselves or vassals belonging. In confirmation whereof
we the said cassiques have hereunto set our hands, and
affixed our seals, this tenth day of March, in the year
of our Lord God one thousand six-hundred seventy and
five, and in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of
Charles the second of Great Britain, France and Ireland,
King, defender of the faith etc. |
By another deed, dated February 28, 1683, the chief or
"cassiques" of Wimbee (or Wimbee Indians) cedes "a strip of country
between the Combahee and Broad river extending back to the
mountains."
Another deed, dated February 13, 1681, is a conveyance by the
"Cassique of Stono." Another of the same date is by the "Cassique of
Combahee;" and another also of the same date is by "the Queen of St
Helena;" and also of the same date is one by the "Cassique of
Kissah." On the same day '-'all these cassiques joined to make a
general deed conveying all the lands which they before conveyed
separately to the lords proprietors."
It would seem from these facts that the South Carolina colony
adopted at the outset a correct, just, and humane policy in treating
with the Indians for their lands. Not only was the territory
purchased, but the grants were made to the properly constituted
authorities, the Lords Proprietors. And yet this was at a time when
there was constant friction between the people and the rulers. "The
continued struggles with the proprietaries hastened the emancipation
of the people from their rule; but the praise of having been always
in the right can not be awarded to the colonists. The latter claimed
the right of weakening the neighboring Indian tribes by a partisan
warfare, and a sale of the captives into West India bondage; their
antagonists demanded that the treaty of peace with the natives
should be preserved."2
The dark blot on South Carolina's Indian history is her
encouragement of Indian enslavement. On this point it is sufficient
to quote the following remarks by Doyle,3
which are based on the report of Governor Johnson, made to the
proprietors in 1708.
| In another way, too, the
settlers had placed a weapon in the hands of their
enemies. The Spaniards were but little to be dreaded,
unless strengthened by an Indian alliance. The English
colonists themselves increased this danger y too
faithful an imitation of Spanish usages. In both the
other colonies with which we have dealt, the troubles
with the Indians were mostly due to those collisions
which must inevitably occur between civilized and savage
races. But from the first settlement of Carolina the
colony was tainted with a vice which imperiled its
relations with the Indians. In Virginia and Maryland
there are but few traces of any attempt to enslave the
Indians. In Carolina the Negro must always have been the
cheaper, more docile, and more efficient instrument, and
in time the African race furnished the whole supply of
servile labor. But in the early days of the colony the
Negro had no such monopoly of suffering. The Indian was
kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what had once
been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an exile
and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the
native population furnished a quarter of the whole body
of slaves. |
We are informed by Logan4 that "as
early as 1707 the exciting abuses of the trade, the rapid profits of
which had allured into the Indian nations many irresponsible men of
the most despicable character, induced the passage of an act by the
assembly by which a board of commissioners was instituted to manage
and direct everything relating to the traffic with the Indians, and
all traders were compelled, under heavy penalties, to take out a
license as their authority in the nation."
The same act, which furnishes some important items of history,
provides further:
| Whereas, the greater
number of those persons that trade among the Indians in
amity with this government, do generally lead loose,
vicious lives, to the scandal of the Christian religion,
and do likewise oppress the people among whom they live,
by their unjust and illegal actions, which, if not
prevented, may in time tend to the destruction of this
province; therefore, be it enacted, that after the first
day of, October next, every trader that shall live and
deal with any Indians, except the Itawans, Sewees,
Santees, Stonoes, Kiawas, Kussoes, Edistoes, and St.
Helenas, for the purpose of trading in: furs, skins,
slaves, or any other commodity, shall first have a
license under the hand and seal of the Commissioners
hereafter to be named; for which he shall pay the public
receiver the full stem of eight pounds current money.
The license shall contiuue in force one year and no
longer, and he shall give a surety of one hundred pounds
currency.5 |
On November 25 of the same year an act was passed to limit the
bounds of the "Yamasse settlement," to prevent persons from
disturbing them with their stock, and to remove such as are settled
within the limitations mentioned. But these Indians, together with
other tribes, having engaged in 1715 in bloody war with the
colonists, were at length completely conquered and the remnant
driven from the province. Having deserted their lands and forfeited
their right to them, these by act of June 13, 1716, (number 373,)
were appropriated to other uses.6 This act was declared
null and void by the Lords Proprietors.
In 1712 there was passed "An act for settling the Island called
Palawana, upon the Cusaboe Indians now living in Granville County
and upon their Posterity forever." The first section of this act is
as follows:
| Whereas the Cusaboe
Indians of Granville County, are the native and ancient
Inhabitants of the Sea Coasts of this Province, and
kindly entertained the first Eaglish who arrived in the
same, and are useful to the Government for Watching and
Discovering Enemies, and finding Shipwrecked People; And
whereas the Island called Palawana near the Island of
St. Helena, upon which most of the Plantations of the
said Cusaboes now are, was formerly by Inadvertency
granted by the Right Honorable the Lords Proprietors of
this Province, to Matthew Smallwood, and by him sold and
transferred to James Cockram, whose Property and
Possession it is at present; Be it Enacted by the most
noble Prince Henry Duke of Beauford, Palatine,
and the Rest of the Right Honorable the true and
absolute Lords and Proprietors of Carolina, together
with the Advice and Consent of the Members of the
General Assembly now met at Charles Town for the South
West Part of this Province, That from and after the
Ratification of this Act, the Island of Palawana, lying
nigh the Island of St. Helena, in Granville
County, containing between Four and Five Hundred Acres
of Land, be it more or less, now in the Possession of
James Cockram as aforesaid, shall be and is hereby
declared to be vested in the aforesaid Cusaboe
Indians, and in their Heirs forever.6 |
The only important treaties in regard to lands after this date
were with the Cherokee and Creek Indians. As the treaties with the
Cherokee are all mentioned by Mr Royce in his paper published in the
Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, a brief reference to
them is all that is necessary here. The map which accompanies the
paper cited shows the several tracts obtained by these treaties.
By treaty of 1721 with the Cherokee, Governor Nicholson fixed the
boundary line between that tribe and the English; he also regulated
the weights and measures to be used, and appointed an agent to
superintend their affairs.
About the same time a treaty of peace was concluded with the Creeks
by which Savannah river was made the boundary of their hunting
grounds, beyond which no settlement of the whites was to extend.
In 1755 Governor Glenn, by treaty with the Cherokee, obtained an
important cession. By its terms the Indians ceded to Great Britain
all that territory embraced in the present limits of Abbeville,
Edgefield, Laurens, Union, Spartanburg, Newberry, Chester,
Fairfield, Richland, and York districts.
In 1761 another treaty was made with the same tribe by
Lieutenant-Governor Bull, by which the sources of the great rivers
flowing into the Atlantic were declared to be the boundary between
the Indians and the whites.
On June 1, 1773, a treaty was concluded jointly with the Creeks and
Cherokee by the British superintendent, by which they ceded to Great
Britain a tract "begin," etc., as described below under "Georgia."
It is proper to remind the reader at this point that the royal
proclamation of George III, dated October 7, 1763, forbidding
private persons from purchasing lands of the Indians and requiring
all purchases of such lands to be made for the Crown, applied to
South Carolina.
On May 20, 1777, a treaty was concluded by South Carolina and
Georgia with the Cherokee, by which the .Indians ceded a
considerable section of country on Savannah and Saluda rivers.
As the subsequent treaties were made with the United States, they
will be found in Mr Royce's schedule.
It would appear from the foregoing facts that the policy pursued by
the South Carolina colony in regard to the Indian title was in the
main just, and was based impliedly, at least on an acknowledgment of
this title. But it is necessary to call attention to the fact that a
large area in this state, as in North Carolina, appears to have been
taken possession of without any formal treaties with or purchases
from the Indians. This was due probably to the fact that, with the
exception of the Catawba, the tribes who occupied this central
portion were of minor importance and unsettled, and the Catawba, by
the constant wars in which they were engaged, bad been greatly
reduced in numbers, so much so, in fact, that the governors of South
Carolina and Georgia came to their relief by means of treaties of
peace with their enemies.
1 Statistics of South Carolina (1826), p. 106.
2 Bancroft, History of the United States, vol. II.
3 English Colonies in America, vol. t, p. 359.
4 History of Upper south Carolina, p.170.
5 Ibid., pp. 170-171.
6 Laws of the Province of South Carolina. by
Nicholas Trott (1763), p. 295
7 Ibid., No. 338, p. 277
This site includes some historical
materials that may imply negative stereotypes reflecting the culture
or language of a particular period or place. These items are
presented as part of the historical record and should not be
interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the
stereotypes implied
First annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
1879-80
Indian
Land Cessions in the United States
 |
