Donate to Brooks Historical

Monday, August 19, 2013

North Carolina: The Subtle Politics of Slavery Before and After the Civil War

Charlotte Story Perkinson
Charlotte Louise Story Perkinson (picture at left from biography provided by granddaughter Helen Poole Fontsere'), a celebrated prohibitionist and political writer, born 1884 in New Hampshire married her husband, native of Wise, North Carolina, Richard Terrell Perkinson, and moved to Raleigh, North Carolina in 1907.  There she began writing newspaper articles and became involved in state politics.  By 1933, she was the state editor for the new and short-lived Durham, North Carolina's State's Progress newspaper and served on various committees concerning women's rights.  She was also the campaign manager for Furnifold M. Simmons in his failed 1930 run to keep his Congressional seat against the challenger, Josiah W. Bailey. 

Upon her arrival in Raleigh, Perkinson encountered the peculiar lifestyle of the post-Civil War South.  Freed slaves were still alive and able to tell their story about slavery before and after the war, about re-invented slavery under "Jim Crow," and its eerie dichotomy of racial paternalism mixed with, at times, the violent underpinnings of resistance to change.  

This resistance has become a North Carolina tradition, never more obvious than in today's controversial battle over education, voting laws, teacher's rights and so many other issues that should not really be issues.  North Carolina has always been the quintessential "stick in the mud," refusing to change, especially when it comes to race.  Furthermore, North Carolinian conservatives react strongly and defiantly when pressed into a corner.  Whether as Southern Democrats or, now, as Republicans, conservatism in North Carolina has always been about maintaining the "peculiar institution," or at least keeping it's memory... its "heritage" alive.  


My grandfather, an elderly Baptist minister from Union County, even in 1933, must have read State's Progress, not one of the most popular newspapers in North Carolina, I'm sure... it ran for just over one year.  Grandpa was a well-read gentleman.  He also read the liberal Charlotte Observer.  He collected newspaper clippings and various historical and fascinating tidbits in a scrapbook that I still have in my possession.  In it, he placed this article "'Black Mammy' Tells Graphic Story of Slavery," from the 19 March 1933 issue of the Charlotte Observer.  The title does not do it justice... it's not simply about the old slavery days, but also about the story of a woman who saw horrors all about her, happening to others in her position, and a woman still capable of pride about her life as a slave and ex-slave.  It's a bittersweet and eerie story about herrenvolk mentality, psychology, and denial.  It instantly caught my attention.  

Article written by Charlotte Story Perkinson titled "Black Mammy' Tells Graphic Story of Slavery," Charlotte Observer (North Carolina), 19 March 1933
Rev. Edgar Marcellus Brooks, as a man of truly progressive thought, was much intrigued by this article.  As a  historian (a love that he passed to his grandson) and as a member of a former slave-owning family... and as man who experienced the Civil War, even though he was a child (born February 5, 1861), this article carried great meaning for him... and for me.  I never knew him, but I find great pride in being his grandson and in being able to share his experiences in articles like this one.  

Ironically, my grandfather passively held more in common with Josiah W. Bailey than his opponent, Furnifold M. Simmons, even though Bailey was the more conservative candidate in 1930.   He probably voted for Simmons, however.  Fifty-seven years of age in 1930, Bailey graduated from Wake Forest College in 1893 and immediately afterward had become editor of the Biblical Recorder, the weekly newspaper of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, a paper that my grandfather wrote for on occasion.

Charlotte S. Perkinson served as Simmons' campaign manager.  She supported the man responsible for the disenfranchisement of North Carolina's black citizens during the 1898 radical conservative takeover (then, calling themselves "Democrats") of the state that, with few exceptions, still maintains power today (now, calling themselves "Republicans").  That Perkinson was a liberal and wrote this article is a strange contradiction and tells us about the overall conservative nature of the state, not unlike today's far-right trends.  

Then again, many things about North Carolina have been a strange contradiction.  Race relations are foremost on the list.  The Biblical Recorder's current editor, Tony W. Cartledge stated that "Bailey was sometimes hard to figure out. In North Carolina, he was considered to be a progressive Democrat, but in Washington, he opposed Roosevelt's New Deal and helped compose what became known as the 'Conservative Manifesto.'" "Progressives" in the South of this time, especially in North Carolina, were the conservatives of the nation, due almost exclusively to issues of race and bitterness over the old conflict in the 1860s.   

When she came to North Carolina, Charlotte Perkinson had bumped into this "Solid South," a term that described the former member states of the Confederacy and their political ideology since the Civil war.  This state might have been thought the champion of that "Solid South," what with the number of troops that it supplied to the Confederacy in that age-old conflict that is politically still raging today.  Southerners of this breed draw together to resist almost any change, especially involving race relations.  They resisted Northern legislators long after losing that war.  Perkinson had arrived after Simmon's anti-African-American activities of 1898 and, perhaps did not join with him in those sentiments.  Also, she was staunchly prohibitionist and the more conservative Bailey supported a "wet" (anti-prohibitionist) Catholic for president.  Simmons would have been her obvious choice, but also obviously not for racial reasons.

Initially, at the beginning of the ironically-named "Progressive Era," (lots of irony in politics) there was great violence, which North Carolina characteristically experienced in the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot, the only coup d'etat to ever occur in the United States.  Nothing half-done here!  Hundreds of African-Americans died in that grave injustice when conservatives took over the city government at gunpoint.  Furthermore, lynchings occurred all across the United States after Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.  "Separate but equal" was the law of the land and that repressive scoundrel "Jim Crow" moved into the neighborhood and would repress the African-American for more than half a century by 1930 (legally, it continued until 1954).  This was the political climate that encouraged and in which flourished the Ku Klux Klan.  For North Carolina, to name one state, these were the white-supremacist champions and redeemers of conservative Southern Democratic government who rebelled again after their abrupt release from justice, Reconstruction... a federal policy which had forced observance of civil rights on the South for twelve years following the war. They're still very much an active entity today, ever growing in response to the election of the first African-American president.

Lynchings and racially motivated murders in each decade from 1865 to 1965 -  The Great Migration drained off most of the rural black population of the South, and indeed for a time froze African-American population growth in parts of the region. A number of states experienced decades of black population decline, especially across the Deep South "black belt" where cotton had been king. In 1910, African Americans constituted more than half the population of South Carolina and Mississippi, and more than 40 percent in Georgia, Alabama, Texas and Louisiana; by 1970, only in Mississippi did African-American representation remain above 30 percent. “The disappearance of the ‘black belt’ was one of the striking effects” of the Great Migration, James Gregory wrote.  Still, it was only a change of 37%, leaving a slight majority in the South aat 53%.  Note from this chart that the violence in the South was strongest right after the Civil War, picked up strongly in the decade of Plessy v. Ferguson, and faded drastically after the Great Migration ended by 1930, with that 53% still in the South.

The violence ended, to be replaced with stringent paternalism... but only after a certain event that occurred in the first two decades of Perkinson's time in Raleigh.

Perkinson came to North Carolina at an ominous period in its history.  She arrived before Congress's many years of failed attempts to pass the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill of 1917 and  before a Southern bloc of conservative Senators filibustered and killed the Anti-Lynching bill during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (Northern) Democratic administration.  None of these attempts (begun in 1909) during the period known as the "nadir of American race relations" ever passed.  None of them ever became law.  To this date, no federal anti-lynching legislation has ever been passed. Only a Congressional "apology" for slavery in 2005!  Not exactly the "penitent" bunch, I assure you.

For North Carolina specifically, it's reigning conservative Southern Democrats had become kings with virtually no opposition at the polls for more than a century.  Until Brown v. Board in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act in 1964, finding a Republican in the South was nearly impossible.  Afterwards, Republicans slowly took over the already quite conservative South, as Lyndon B. Johnson predicted after the Civil Rights Act.  By 1980, but especially after 2008, the Southern Democrat had suddenly and almost completely disappeared, to be replaced with... solid Republicans in the "solid" South!  By 2012, North Carolina was at the top of that conservative Republican list and the only battleground state of eleven to vote for Mitt Romney (Republican) over the first African-American president Barack Obama (Democrat).

Filibuster against anti-lynching bill. Washington, D.C., Jan. 27. Members of the bloc of Southern Senators who have been filibusting against the anti-lynching bill for the last 20 days and are still going strong, left to right: Senator Tom Connaly, of Texas, Sen. Walter F. George, of Ga.; Sen. Richard Russell of Ga.; and Sen. Claude Pepper of Florida, 1/27/38
  [from: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.]

In 1900, 90% of African-Americans lived in the South.  Moving away from oppression seemed reasonable.  Not surprisingly, 1.6 million blacks left from the fourteen traditional states of the South to northern cities in the "Great Migration"(1910–1930), resulting in a 37-point drop... their reaction to a "progressive" South.  Historian James Gregory Bennett calls this the first phase of the Southern Diaspora, similar to the massive Biblical exodus from bondage as Egypt slaves.  Only after this migration did the violence fade away... did Pharoah relent on the whip.  Still, lynchings were not the only type of violence that they had experienced.  There were subtle forms that neither made the news nor affect the statistics.  

Still, 53% of African-Americans surprisingly remained in the South after migration and, nevertheless, the lynchings nearly stopped (as the graph clearly shows)... the obvious violence had still faded.  This enigma must have intrigued the veteran political activist Perkinson, who interviewed many ex-slaves around Raleigh whenever possible.  Always the investigator, Perkinson was determined to arrive at the truth of their existence and learn the reasons why they remained in such a repressive atmosphere yet, somehow, got along.  

North Carolinians of varying hues in the 1930s didn't exactly "get along" equally, but not as would appear from the apparent lack of resistance.  The herrenvolk, or "master race" finally won the Civil War in the "progressive" North Carolina of the 1930s.  Such irony in these politics!

Perkinson certainly met with resistance from her subjects during the search.  She found that many ex-slaves would lie to her for fear of being punished for blabbering to an "outsider." 

The atmosphere was adversarial, yes, still wrapped in the ideological enigma of a conservative "Solid South" that permeated the state after the war, after the immense resentment of Reconstruction, and before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The South was still immersed in "Jim Crow," Plessy v. Ferguson, the segregationist laws and practices that kept ex-slaves poor, submissive, and "in their place," especially after Bennett's "Great Migration." Predominantly, Perkinson found a passively aggressive environment, one in which she said "there is still a great tendency among these old darkies [a typical reference of the day] to say only those things pleasant to the ears of former slave owners." 


Was this a detente reached at gunpoint or was it more subtle?  What exactly must these ex-slaves fear?   

She interviewed many elderly ex-slaves whose memory of events were "blurred," she wondered whether by age or fear, suspecting that it was intentional, to avoid retribution.  Their fearful resolve was difficult to overcome.  She gave up on hearing "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and tried to read between the lines... that is, until she met Sally Parham.  

Sally surprised her.  Perkinson believed her to be the most candid ex-slave that she had yet interviewed in North Carolina.  Sally was the former property of one Asa Parham from a large plantation five miles from the small town of Oxford on the Oxford-Henderson road in Granville County.  It was in the small farming community of "Tabb's Creek."  

Also surprising and contrary to other interviewees, Sally proudly preferred the honorary title of "Black Mammy."  Thus, the title of Perkinson's newspaper article, "'Black Mammy' Tells Graphic Story of Slavery."  The title, however, was too simple... it did not represent the content at all!  It only expressed the mechanics, not the fruit of her discovery. 




The first county seat was called Granville Court House. Other records indicate that the town of Harrisburgh served as the county seat from 1746 to 1764, when at that time the location became unsatisfactory. Therefore, it was ordered that the courthouse be located on a branch of the Tar River called Tabb's Creek. Oxford was made the county seat in 1811, and it was incorporated in 1816.  Photo from "Find-a-grave" website.
Perkinson interviewed Sally, or "Black Mammy," at the extraordinary age of 102, blind and being cared for by a great-grandaughter of her former master, Mrs. Elizabeth Dorsey Walters, daughter of Asa's grandaughter Cynthia, from his younger son Gaston.  Sally's memory, even at 102, was still sharp and she was direct, apparently unafraid of the truth.  Perkinson rejoiced at finally finding the object of her search!  In Perkinson's words, Sally, without fear, told her "the more or less familiar story of having a good master, how and when she got religion, her memories of the Civil War, and the part she played during that period."  She got details!

As the interview wore on, however, Perkinson must have begun to realize that Sally's answers and joyful affirmations betrayed a deep sense of denial, a disassociation from reality, made possible, perhaps, by the comparably comfortable circumstances in which she found herself throughout her long life, even before the Great Migration.  

Asa Parham, by Sally's description, of course, was one of the "good masters." He was born in 1792, in Granville County upon the very plantation where Sally was also born.  He married Delia Hawkins Reavis on 22 March 1824 and had four boys and one daughter between 1829 and 1841.  According to 1860 slave census records, Asa owned twenty-four of them, ranging in age from 1 to 78.  The female slave listed as 27 years old was Sally, born in 1833.   

Sally, since her birth, had always lived on Asa's plantation, even for sixty years after his death in 1870.  She cared for five generations of his family and was proud of it.  It was on this plantation that Charlotte Perkinson interviewed the proud old "Black Mammy," still living there so long after emancipation. 

Sally's exuberant tale exposed that the life of a slave was far from ideal, even wretched.  Fortunately for her, perhaps, she merely witnessed the horrors and, therefore, did not mind telling the stories.  She seemed unaffected by a life in which she apparently did not belong.  Sally openly exposed to Perkinson a "most revealing description of the slave 'speculator,' of how crime was punished, of the 'pattyrollers,' and of many other subjects not often touched upon."  Perkinson listened intently to Sally's story. 

Reflected in the interview, Sally's earliest memories were of as a little girl in the "big house" being trained as a house servant.  She remembered trying to resist returning to the slave quarters when her mother came to fetch her and was dragged down the front steps.  "My head counted those steps," as she jokingly told Perkinson, "and I'll never forget them!"  This kind of treatment from Sally's own mother may have shocked Perkinson.  She may have thought it only a joke, an exaggeration.  The remaining details perhaps gave her a different perspective.

Nevertheless, Sally felt special.  She reflected on how she would sometimes accompany her master's children to school, with a "pass" from him, and could sometimes bring home books, like the "Blue Back Speller."  From this book, Sally learned to spell and pronounce some words.  She was quite proud of knowing the alphabet, which she repeated in its entirety for her interviewer.  Most slave owners preferred not to educate their slaves for fear of them gaining confidence and independence, eventually revolting. 

Sally was more than happy to relate all the details of a slave's life.  A "pass," she said, was vital to prevent a slave from being caught off the plantation by a "pattyroller," slang for "patrol," a gang of five to six white men designated by the local government to prevent slaves from gathering at night and possibly organize a revolt. "If a slave went courting or to a candy stew or a prayer meeting," they had to have a note or pass saying where they were going and why, otherwise they were beaten and sent back to the plantation.  Perkinson was told by her informant that slaves "feared and hated 'pattyrollers' intensely." 

Always in intimate identification with her former owner's family, Sally told Perkinson that slave owners seldom had respect for the patrol as well.  Giddily, she related how the slave and white children alike would play pranks on these "pattyrollers."  She related how "one night they stretched ropes across the lane leading to the negro quarters and then hid and waited for the gallop, gallop of the night patrol."  She heard each horse fall with a "heavy thud" as the ropes tripped them.  Needless to say, she remarked smiling, "there were no boys of either color visible when once the riders and horses set out again upon their spying errand."

About her own family, Sally was perhaps more reticent.  She only married once, having "higher ideals" in that regard, as she told it, "patterned after the white folks."  Her husband's name was Harry, a slave of Asa's younger brother, Albert Parham, who lived on the neighboring plantation.  Being perhaps less candid for the only time during the interview, she turned her words away from her husband.  Perhaps aware of Sally's subtle deflection from an emotional subject, Perkinson informed her reader that "marriage in slavery days was hardly more than an agreement to live together."  Of course, in this case, they were barely allowed even that.  The capitalistic requirements of the peculiar institution was conducive to polygamy, "inasmuch as the more children a slave woman had, the more value she was to her master." It was just a business, still, one aspect that she may have deeply regretted. Some emotion peeked through Sally's glittering facade.

This aspect of slave breeding explains the thirteen babes and adolescent slaves (54% of the total) living on Asa Parham's plantation in 1860.  The master needed his female slaves to produce babies... more slaves to continue working the plantation, for sale, or trade.  That was the business, like breeding cattle.  The idea of the "marriage" itself was incidental.  If this bothered Sally, it was isolated and personal, less candid.  She merely showed a glimpse of her discomfort as she talked around the subject of her husband, Harry.

Sally did, however, relate the details of a dark incident that affected her brother-in-law's family, a "particularly pathetic scene that had fixed itself upon" her memory, as Perkinson perhaps encouraged, thirsty for detail.  This involved an aspect that Perkinson called the "most despicable aspect of slavery, the thing which aroused the abolitionist the most," the slave trader, the slave driver, or the "speculator."  

Surely, this affected Sally.  It had to.

Continuing from a detached aspect, however, Sally casually informed her interviewer, this middle-aged white Yankee reporter, that the "speculator" was the "most abominable species of humanity."  As though giving a scholarly presentation, she told that they "trafficked in black flesh."  They "sold and bought men and women and children for profit."  Slaves hated to see the "speculator's" wagon pull up, she said, "covered with canvas and drawn by several mules."  "Into it were herded," as Sally calmly related, "much as sheep or dogs might be, often as many as 17 unwashed and half-clad negroes."  Such an event strongly affected Harry's brother, Tom and his family.  

Sally, however, spoke of it as normal, matter-of-fact... 

One day, she told, a speculator arrived at Albert Parham's farm.  Tom watched in horror as his wife and children were loaded into the "speculator's" wagon.  He begged his reluctant master to sell him, too, so as not to split them up.  His master replied that Tom was a good worker and he would not let him go.  This incident might have emotionally defeated Tom, had it not been for the "speculator's" insistence upon buying Tom as well.  Albert Parham finally gave in... for the right price. 

When Perkinson inquired as to why Tom's wife and kids were sold in the first place, Sally replied that they had "Injun" blood, which was thought undesirable.  As in the business of animal husbandry, breeding was essential to profit and Indians were considered poor or problematic workers.  "The blackest skin brought the best price," Sally said. 

At this point in the interview, the proud old slave woman, "Black Mammy," might have reached her core sense of inhumanity and injustice.  If so, Perkinson saw no sign of it.  

The most chilling tale was yet to come.  How were slaves punished for severe crimes?  

Sally then spoke of two slaves, Joe and Martha, who hated their master intensely and decided to murder him by pouring scalding hot coffee down his throat, which killed him almost instantly.  Sally verbally reprimanded them for their actions, which was "in no way" justified, she said.

Sally told that the local community decided to make examples of Joe and Martha by holding a public execution in the old courthouse square at Harrisburg Creek and every slave from far and wide was forced to watch.  Sally was piled into a wagon crowded with slaves and she and her mother became afraid and started screaming.  Her mother finally calmed down, but not young Sally.  Sally said her master told her mother to "let the little fool out" and she did not attend the hanging.

Her mother, however, did and told Sally about it.  So, she knew that when they arrived at the courthouse, her mother saw Martha, "sitting on her coffin with a rope around her neck," suckling a newborn baby that she had while in jail awaiting her execution.  A large gathering of the community of Tabb's Creek turned out.  As her death approached, Martha began to sing:

"I'se travellin to the grave, my Lawd,
To lay this body down."

"Sister, you'd better watch and pray,
I'm huntin for Jesus night and day..."

At that point, someone in the crowd hollered out "You ought to a thought a that 'fore you scalded your moster."  

Then, Martha handed her baby to a nearby slave woman and kept singing until the "suddenly taughtened rope" choked off her voice.  The image of a recently alive woman hanging from a rope with a broken neck and her crying newborn nearby is strikingly horrible and difficult to bear.  Still, Sally went on with her casual recollection...

Sally informed Perkinson that when "a slave killed a white man, he was dealt with in short order."  Sally almost made the horrifying seem civilized by saying that the state was required to pay the slave's owner for the financial loss, "the same way that a corporation nowadays has to pay damages for injury to property, perhaps for running over a horse or cow."  

Sally understood business and the place of a worker in the master's business.  After all, slaves were nothing more than expensive farm implements. They had been considered such since 1671 in Carolina... almost 200 years before the war.  The business model went back a few decades further.  There was a long tradition of chattel slavery used for the lucrative sugar production reaching back to the 1640s in Barbados, founders of Carolina.

As horrible as the story already read, there was yet more to come.  Sally told about another slave who had been branded on each palm for his crimes.  The painful branding was done as he was forced to slowly recite  "The Lord save the State - the Lord save the State - the Lord save the State" three times while the hot branding iron seared deep wounds into his palm flesh.  If he said it too quickly, they made him stop and begin again.  Unable to use his hands for a full year after this brutal treatment, his owner had little use for him and sold him. Few farmers had ever broken a plow on purpose, or maimed a horse out of spite.  Why destroy this slave's usefulness?  This type of "conditioning" never made the papers or official records.  The hidden fears were revealed in Perkinson's interview.

Sally disassociated herself from the horror that she witnessed every day.  She saw herself as not "white," but not a slave, either.  She lived like Cinderella in a castle.  Clearly, her master treated her with uncommon compassion.  Sally saw herself as somehow different from other slaves and, therefore, exempt from the punishment and the horrid treatment that they usually received.  She cared for and protected her master's family and their belongings during the war, proud of the way she fooled the Yankees by placing molasses jars in front of the whiskey and buried his money all around the yard until he and his boys came home from the war.  

After the war was over, emancipated slaves in the South had to deal with Southern revenge, the KKK, hatred, mobs, and lynchings.  So, the horrors of which Sally spoke had not included those later events, the assuredly more intense violence.  The events that she described involved slavery before and during the war... they occurred before emancipation... before the real dangers began! 

Sally's subtle deception tainted the historical value of her testimony.  The images they invoked contrasted strongly with the words themselves, the terrifying life of a typical slave as she saw it... as she felt it... from afar.  Did Sally realize that she regaled a life that, for others, was a literal hell on Earth?  She may not have seen herself as a slave at all, but a part of Asa's natural family, always a child... though with limited rights.  Sally would never have left the South like the 37% that fled from 1910-1930! After all, she had a home in the "castle."

Charlotte Perkinson perhaps had achieved that for which she had searched; she understood Sally Parham much better by the end of the interview.  The ex-slaves who remained in the South, perhaps, were not as confident or independent as the people who fled in the Southern Diaspora.  Many found it easier to accept the terrible life that they had known so well rather than the life in the unknown... and they mentally compensated.  As Perkinson listened to Sally, she began to glimpse the reason that "Black Mammy" spoke so freely of slave mistreatment, all the while living into a ripe old age in the very house in which she was born a slave, was freed, and yet remained until her death. 

Perkinson interpreted the experience from a standpoint of a front-line war reporter, buried within a highly-reactive culture, but also from the restrictions of 1928.  These horrors were perhaps too vivid for print.  After all, the KKK was at the height of their power then.  "They are those of old slavery time," Perkinson justified, "when the finest points of etiquette were observed by the white people, and whose manners were imitated by the house servants, generally."  

Perkinson commented further, "Even now, the old woman feels it within her province and a part of her duty to the old family, to admonish and advise her young mistress, when occasion demands, and most of all to tell her 'bout the way her family did and lived befor' de war.'" Such devotion... to please the white establishment who certainly would be reading the paper.

Sally became a member of the white church, "Tabb's Creek Baptist Church," constituted just before the Revolution.  She was baptised in Cheatham's Pond with whites and slaves, only praying in private, "no one dar' but me and Gawd!"  Living together was normal to her, but keeping their distance was only right, she also believed.  Sally witnessed the "not unusual" practice of mulatto children born of the masters and their slave mistresses and felt it was the greatest cause of "unhappiness and misery for both races."  

Unabashedly, she repeated the mantra of the Ku Klux Klan, the white supremacist, abhorring miscegenation of the races, or "race-mixing," as it was called.  "Gawd" never intended that! Sally might say.


Modern Tabb's Creek Baptist Church.  Photo taken by Pat Garrett, Brittany & Ross Cifers. From "Find-a-grave" website.
Ex-slaves in the South were cultural captives of the South for decades after the war.  Modern psychologists define "Stockholm Syndrome," or "capture-bonding" as "a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them."  This certainly explains Sally's interview.  It explains Sally's strong defense of the white Southerner's way of life during the era of "Jim Crow," of her joyful preference for the nominally derogative term "Black Mammy,"now considered to be an ethnic slur. 

Any group of people politically consist of about 20-60-20%; 20% are those who will go one way that will be good for them, the other 20% are those who will never advocate for themselves... the 60% in the middle are those that must be "convinced."  It's simple human nature.  In this case, it worked out about half and half after the "convincing."  53% stuck around.

Sally was one of those who, like Patty Hearst in the 1970s, identified with her captors and began working with them, supporting them, even defending them.  In a way, she was strong-willed, but used that strength to re-enslave herself.  

For Sally, it was an easy pattern for her to fall into, Asa Parham being such a relatively nice guy.  Still, when you belong to the dominant demographic and have never suffered the centuries-long dehumanization of being a slave, you can afford to be a little nicer. 

In her defense, Asa was, indeed, one of the "good" ones, again, relatively speaking, and times have changed since Sally's days, especially after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

Again, it's a slow process and it's not nearly over.  With each successive generation, a little more of the fervent belief passes into the ether of historical memory.  The fact that African-Americans remained in the South is actually facilitating that change.  Peaceful movements like Martin Luther King Jr.'s in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, etc. are changing American society for the better... never more apparent than today.  One day, skin color, or relative melanin pigment production, will not matter.  Phenotypical differences may actually become respectable and not debilitating. 

Still, the realities of "separate but equal" kept the status quo for nearly 100 years in North Carolina and it certainly will not end overnight... especially when the strongest opposition initially fled north.  The ghost of "Jim Crow" haunts us still.  Changing that for good will yet require many more years, decades, or even a century!  Yes, social progress is a slow process.  

Richard and Charlotte Perkinson left Wake County for Mecklenburg in 1940.  At least Perkinson lived long enough to see the Civil Rights Act passed, hear Luthur's "I have a dream..." speech at the Lincoln Memorial, passing away in 1970.  She witnessed a future that she helped to create.  Nice legacy!

Perkinson's cultural examination revealed the barriers and the horrors that Sally witnessed during her life that should have made any former slave reject that kind of life.  Being a slave was obviously no badge of honor.  Then again, Sally had not met Martin Luthur King, Jr., nor W.E.B. Dubois.  She had no examples in that regard.  Might she have changed her opinion if she had?  Well... probably not this proud ex-slave, indoctrinated since birth to believe that it was her God-given rightful place.  She had only her delusion to support her.  That was the reality in the South of Sally's post-migration day... the day that the South finally recovered their lost territory... the day the violence stopped, the battle had ended... until 1964, and again in 2008. 

As Grandpa knew, Charlotte Story Perkinson certainly got a story from 102-year-old Sally Parham, even if not the one she had expected.  As Sally would say, it was "the Gawd's truth!"  Well, almost.

Thanks Grandpa!

------------------------------ Afterward about Charlotte's son Richard Terrell Perkinson Jr.:

Richard was born September 23, 1908, a year after his parents' marriage in 1907 and while they still lived in Plymouth, New Hampshire.  On the 9th of April 1934, at the age of 25, the young farmer was shot by 63-year-old William Lonnie Collins of Raleigh with a shotgun before Collins turned the gun on himself:

The Robesonian (Lumberton) 12 Apr 1934
 Charlotte's granddaughter, Helen Poole Fontsere' tells "the whole story was much more horrific, as is shown in the many N.C. newspaper reports of his murder by a madman who then killed himself.  I'm sorry that the man took his own life, because I know my grandmother would have taken that opportunity to back up her sincere opposition to the Death Penalty.  This murderer would surely have been convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to death.  But my grandmother would have opposed his execution."

Quite the lady, indeed! 

Richard T. Perkinson and his daughters, ca 1930


















 

Saturday, July 06, 2013

Republicans were Liberal Before the Confederacy Took Them Over!


Remember when Republicans were liberal?  Well, I doubt it... Lincoln was president, then... and with exception to certain policies during the 1950s, that was the ONLY time that they were liberal.  Understanding American politics is infinitely easier if you think "conservative" versus "liberal" rather than trying to make sense of any particular party label.  This is because Democrats (Southern, Northern, Dixiecrat, etc) have changed their ideologies and agenda consistently... from conservative to liberal and vice versa... whatever it takes to remain in power.  Still, Republicans have had a consistent conservative, anti-democratic, and corporatist agenda that began well before 1900, even though they might have originally begun otherwise for a couple of decades.

The modern Democrats have existed only since the 1940s and, truly, after 1964.  Any attempt to identify or condemn this party on the basis of their past associations or ideologies is anachronistic and ridiculous... they have performed a complete turnaround.  On the other hand, the original Republican Party performed an ideological switch also... only much earlier.  Yes, it began as a progressive party that became conservative before the turn of the twentieth century and firmly conservative or corporatist before the Great Depression... essentially, they and their corporate sponsors betrayed their former followers and charges, African-Americans, the poor, and the disadvantaged of America and were ultimately responsible for the financial crash in 1929 AND for the latest one of 2008.  A group of corporate leaders, in the Business Plot, even tried to take over the United States government in 1933 when Franklin D. Roosevelt tried desperately to revive America's economy after Republicans destroyed it! They lost power and wanted it back... by the way, they were never tried for treason, much less a parking ticket!

Since 1890, they have taken on every despicable ideological mantra in order to maintain their consist goal of greed and they consistently attempt to sell their anti-democratic views to all Americans.  Abraham Lincoln would have been appalled by today's GOP and the Koch brothers... could this be why "Tea Party" ideology includes a definitive hatred of Lincoln (much like their neo-confederate brothers and sisters with a hatred of "Black Rule"), like the Council of Conservative Citizens, even while other Republicans still falsely and proudly claim his abolitionist beginnings?  

Welcome to the Republican Party's true and schizophrenic history...the rhetoric will astound you!

The Republican Party began in 1854 and Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president.  It began as a liberal party that strongly encouraged abolition of the slave trade and freedom for African-Americans, thus Lincoln's opposition to the South during the Civil War.  Republicans dominated in the northern states and opposed the slave plantations of the South.  Finally, after the Civil War, and three new amendments to the Constitution, we could begin the process for true freedom for Americans.  We still had a long way to go, for women, gays, and other minorities still did not have their unalienable rights, but we were working on it.  This was a proud moment for America, to be rid of the horrible scourge and stain of chattel slavery on our new nation, supposedly conceived in liberty and freedom almost a century earlier.  

What were early Republicans like?

Early Republican ideology was reflected in the 1856 slogan "free labor, free land, free men", which had been coined by Salmon P. Chase, a Senator from Ohio (and future Secretary of the Treasury and Chief Justice of the United States). "Free labor" referred to the Republican opposition to slave labor and belief in independent artisans and businessmen. "Free land" referred to Republican opposition to plantation system whereby slaveowners could buy up all the good farm land, leaving the yeoman independent farmers the leftovers. The Party strived to contain the expansion of slavery, which would cause the collapse of the slave power and the expansion of freedom. Source

This was a time for every American to realize the American Dream, whatever your color or religion.  Small businessmen across the country started businesses, made profits, paid taxes, and equally supported the union.  

But, don't smile yet... like today, Republicans of the 19th century would reverse their own progressive advances... dark days were coming... unless, of course, you were rich!

Reconstruction ended early in the South and Southern legislators prematurely returned to Congress after the rules were amended to make it easier.  Lincoln's Southern Vice President, Andrew Johnson, favored his Southern brethren and the South never completed Reconstruction... they never have.  Over 600,000 people died to end slavery and the perpetrators of that horrible crime never paid for it.  Black statesmen were drummed out of Congress and every Southern state's legislatures.  The Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow became silent rules in the South to put the African-Americans back "in their place" once again.  

With national focus now away from slavery, the Republican Party took the credit for the pseudo-accomplishment, forgot about, and lost sight of the original goal.  Republicans slowly began to change, to morph themselves into a new party that was no longer concerned with the plight of the African-American, but strictly business.  Out of greed, Republicans began to favor corporate business over small business... the larger and quicker buck.  In time, Robber Barons dominated the business world, corporate taxes dropped from 90% to 35% and the poor, white and black, were slaved in factories across the country.  The color of your skin no longer mattered to Republicans like it still did to Southerners, driven by profits alone until the Great Depression resulted from the overzealous business practices of corporate greed.

Corporations had long been understood to be bad for our democracy.  It wasn't like we had no warning from many presidents and statesmen since the American Revolution...

Thomas Jefferson wrote "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."  He saw the greed and corruption inherent in the corporate mindset, already present in his time, indeed in all times.  

It was James Madison who said, "There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

Andrew Jackson recognized the danger as well, saying "In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."

Martin Van Buren, eighth president of the United States, said "I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion -- the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government -- would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities."
 

American statesmen tried to tell us that corporations had always been the greatest evil to American society, but we never listened... 

Nevertheless, by 1890 the Republicans had firmly betrayed their former liberal base and agreed to the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers, suffering because of corporate favoritism.  

The African-American became a whisper in the wind with no political power and no political champion for their rights.  And, they were joined by other minorities and the poor.

Teddy Roosevelt tried to save Republicans... 

In 1901, Republican President McKinley was assassinated and Roosevelt became President. He attempted to move the Republican Party (GOP) toward Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. Roosevelt coined the phrase "Square Deal" to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair share under his policies.  Source

Roosevelt ignored the plight of African-Americans, but certainly understood the dangers posed by corporations.  He said, "I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law." – Theodore Roosevelt, speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, "The New Nationalism" (August 31, 1910)

Frustrated with his party's greed, Teddy Roosevelt broke with Republicans he realized that he could not save them from corporate greed and launched the Bull Moose Party that called for far-reaching progressive reforms.  He lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, as the Taft conservatives gained control of the Republican party for decades to come... and continued squeezing out small businesses and lobbying against labor union reforms. 

Yes, Southern Democrats began as a racist group, supported by White "citizen's councils" and the Ku Klux Klan...

The story of Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson is an interesting one to be sure and indicative of the racist ideas that remained in America, especially in the South.  He was the first Southerner elected president since 1848 and he moved to resegregate the Federal Civil Service.  He presided over the installment of a Confederate monument in 1914 with a direct message for the North:

Not far from many Confederate gravestones at Arlington, however, is an actual engraving of a motto with more bite to it. "Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni," reads an inscription on the Confederate memorial. It's a quote from the epic poem Pharsalia, written by Lucan about the Roman Civil War, and literally translated means, "the victorious cause pleased the gods, but the conquered cause pleased Cato." As Malanowski told me, "You have to know your Latin history to know they're talking about the Roman Civil War, that the dictator Julius Caesar won, and that Cato was pleased with the republicans' sacrifice." With that background in mind the inscription is "a 'fuck you' to the Union. It's that sneaky little Latin phrase essentially saying 'we were right and you were wrong, and we'll always be right and you'll always be wrong.'"

Wilson also demonstrated his Virginia upbringing and Southern prejudices by showing a film in the White House called:

"The Birth of a Nation" (originally called "The Clansman") is a 1915 silent drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and based on the novel and play The Clansman, both by Thomas Dixon, Jr. It was released on February 8, 1915.  Wilson responded to the film, by vehemently agreeing with it's racist depiction... "All true... all true."

The film chronicles the relationship of two families in Civil War and Reconstruction-era America: the pro-Union Northern Stonemans and the pro-Confederacy Southern Camerons over the course of several years. It hit a nerve.

The film was a commercial success, but was highly controversial owing to its portrayal of African-American men (played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and sexually aggressive towards white women, and the portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan (whose original founding is dramatized) as a heroic force. There were widespread protests against The Birth of a Nation, and it was banned in several cities. The outcry of racism was so great that Griffith was inspired to produce "Intolerance" the following year.  Source


Raleigh News & Observer (North Carolina) cartoon from September 1898

The political playing field was quite complex... the Southern Democrat certainly offered no aid to the African-American, virtually re-enslaving former slaves in Jim Crow with no federal pressure to stop them.  They were as conservative then as Republicans would become, especially in the radical conservative takeover of North Carolina government following the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot.  Northern Democrats may have been more progressive, but held little power in their own party. 

Corporate business grew rapidly under Republican favoritism and resulted in a period of short-term prosperity until... the walls of greed came tumbling down...  the financial devastation following the Great Depression or Wall Street Crash of 1929 leveled the playing field, exposed Republican's irresponsible fiscal nature, and brought on progressive reforms under a new Democratic president who held little respect for racist ideology.  

African-American voters moved into the Democratic Party under Franklin D. Roosevelt who began initiating these sweeping social reforms.  The people were angry with Republicans and their corporate friends over their fiscally abhorrent actions that paid no attention to the wishes of the common people.

After Roosevelt took office in 1933, New Deal legislation sailed through Congress at lightning speed. In the 1934 midterm elections, 10 Republican senators went down to defeat, leaving them with only 25 against 71 Democrats. The House of Representatives was split in a similar ratio.

Like the modern GOP...


Republicans in Congress heavily criticized the "Second New Deal" and likened it to class warfare and socialism. The volume of legislation, and the inability of the Republicans to block it, soon elevated the level of opposition to Roosevelt. Conservative Democrats, mostly from the South, joined with Republicans led by Senator Robert Taft to create the conservative coalition, which dominated domestic issues in Congress until 1964. The Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946 after gaining 13 seats in the Senate and 55 seats in the House. Source


Note the keywords, "class warfare" and "socialism" used by Republicans... these words signified "regulation" of their detestable methods... methods that once proved highly profitable to them.  They would not stand for that... and those words would be used again... against Barack Obama.

Jerry Falwell, Founder of the Moral Majority
Republicans would soon join with Southern Democrats by the mid 1960s... because of the end of Jim Crow.  This brought into focus a vehement racism that had grown for centuries because of the primarily Southern plantation system, still present in Jim Crow and the abuse of migrant labor... along with the Christianized justification for slavery and the accompanying rhetoric... 

Republicans were drowning in low popular opinion from the 1929 crash until 1946...  from this time forward, Republicans courted the conservative Southern vote by embracing a Christianized fundamentalism (Moral Majority by 1979) and anti-communism in the Red Scare... again using "white citizen's council" organizations and the John Birch Society, founded partly by Fred Koch, father of the Koch brothers, Charles and David.

Southern fundamentalists insisted on God being used to sell their "states' rights" ideology and Republicans embraced the tactic to recover from their damaged reputation.  They used the fear of communist infiltration to redirect American ire... this affected our country's sacred constitutional principles...

By 1954, Francis Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance had been altered with the Christian phrase, "one nation under God" added, in strict violation of the Constitution's prohibition against favoring a state religion.  In 1956, "In God We Trust" was added to United States currency, another violation of our first amendment.  This tactic worked very well for them and they grew powerful once again... but with an uncompromising fundamentalist financial boss. 

And, in the midst of this growing Republican domination of American politics, the Democratic Party identified more and more with minorities, including the African-American, and with the social policies established by FDR.  But, the modern arrangement of political identities didn't come into being until after June 1964...

When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in June 1964, he said "We just gave the South to the Republicans" because he knew that conservative Southern Democrats and Republicans were very much alike and grew more alike every day.  Really, the only difference between them was how they felt about Abraham Lincoln.  

Civil Rights legislation would seal that bond and became the moment that Republicans became identified firmly with a racist Christian creed that elevated the white male as the dominant poster boy for their party.  June 1964 was the moment that Republicans quietly embraced their Southern friends' ideology of "White Rule" in reaction to Civil Rights legislation and vowed to get rid of it. 

Republican Barry Goldwater lamented the Christianized metamorphosis of his party (as well as the entire country).  

Goldwater, in a heartfelt speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, said, "On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both...

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?


And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
  --  (16 September 1981)


Republicans had been known as the Grand Old Party (GOP), but it was not exactly old... it had re-fabricated itself in the image of its creator... the almighty dollar.   Paying lip service to the Christian god gave it the loyalty of the fundamentalist conservative South, despite the fact that Jesus himself would have shunned them all as he did the money changers.  This was wholly political and not at all holy.


Jesse Helms with Ronald Reagan in 1980 Election

It was just 16 years later that Southern Democrat Jesse Helms abandoned his shrinking party and joined the more popular Republican Party to help Ronald Reagan win the White House in 1980.  The deal was cemented in American blood, for corporate tax rates again dropped from 70% to 28%, a new record low, even lower than before the Great Depression of 1929.  Federal regulation again disappeared, against the advice of two centuries of American presidents.  

"Trickle-Down" Economics devastated our nation... but, Republicans weren't yet satisfied... 

In 2001, Republican George W. Bush finished off Americans with two wars in a totalitarian response to a terrorist attack, a response that required a police action, not a major war, much less two!  Furthermore, by 2008, just like in 1929, a second short period of prosperity again irresponsibly ended in a recession, or 2nd Great Depression, leaving America heavily in debt and facing near financial ruin.  

They did it again... and again, the wealthy Republicans who caused the depression were immune to its affects.  

Since before the 20th century began, Republicans have been a literal disease to this country.  Whereas, we forget the past... they study it and remember the tactics that work for them.  We are now in a period that can only be described as the "New" New Deal...

Democratic president Barack Obama slowly began to reverse Republican policies in 2009.  His election shocked the remaining Southern Democrat holdouts, however, who never before realized that an African-American, a man who resembled their former slaves, would ever be president of the United States.  For them, this was unthinkable.  The old ghost of "Negro Rule" caused those last conservative Southern Democrats to instantly turn Republican in order to firmly collect conservative forces in one party and fight to restore "White Male Rule" to America... to install Mitt Romney as president.  They failed... but, just barely.

Today, they fight tooth and nail, no holds barred...  race was the factor that changed everything...what else explains their reaction to Barack Obama, who began as a relatively conservative Democratic president?  Was he less conservative than Bill Clinton?  No... not in 2009.  He woke up, took on the mantle of FDR, and rode the progressive wave in his second term...after all, what choice did he have?  It was a case of "Damned if you do and damned if you don't."  He couldn't change his color...  

I wrote this never to imply that any party is beyond corruption, just that Republicans have a longer history of it and more success at it.  There is no doubt that they have tried to dismantle every progressive reform developed since FDR... from Glass-Steagall, Social Security, the 40-hr week, minimum wage, women's rights, and voting rights to Obamacare... because these programs ultimately interfere with their profits... corporate profits... not ours.  Make no mistake... they still only worship the almighty dollar, not Christ, and certainly not American democracy.

Thus, the newest phase of the ongoing Civil War began... a continuation of a 150-year-old war to restore sanity to America... this time, hopefully, the corporate menace of greed and corruption can be subdued, as Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Van Buren, and many others have long advised.  We shall see... 2014 is coming and then, 2016.  Will we be able to overcome this threat to democracy... this American tragedy of Republicans?  At least, we have shown some recovery, but will not be able to begin real recovery until Republicans are out of the House and off the Supreme Court. 

Pay no attention to the rhetoric... the liberal party of Lincoln has long been dead, even if today's Republicans insist on falsely claiming the liberal deed... any such claim is, indeed, false.   Still, you can hear it daily on FOX NEWS.  

Republicans, with or without the Tea Party (Southern Democrats in disguise), will lie, cheat, and steal money, votes, and whatever else will help them maintain power.  

America needs them gone... for good.  Maybe then, we can ALL start to realize the American Dream.. not just a few privileged wealthy that have twice financially screwed up the country.  They never felt the pain that we did.  Never.

Still, a watchful eye must always remain on whatever party gains the power... for absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This, the founding fathers knew all too well.







Saturday, May 18, 2013

North Carolina's Most Amusing Governor and Wilmington Founder

Portion of 1733 Moseley Map
George Burrington was, by no means, popular with early eighteenth-century North Carolinians.  Thus, it is also, by no means, a surprise that he is not credited with starting North Carolina's only valuable port... a port began in direct rivalry with another port on the very same Cape Fear River that sat in a better position for deep-draught and heavily laden ships that traveled 3,000 miles across the Atlantic ocean.  Brunswick Town was praised by its contemporaries as a "flourishing place."  Still, Newton, New Town, New Liverpool, or New Carthage, all names for the early rival port that became Wilmington, won the contest.  

Burrington voided Maurice Moore's land grant at the later location of Wilmington and planted his own pioneers upon that soil in September of 1732.  It was from this date that Wilmington claims its birthday, for John Watson, the first settler of that port town, and his fellow entrepreneurs, including James Wimble, never abandoned it.  They began selling off lots to other settlers until it began to grow larger and more powerful than Brunswick Town across the river.  

Gabriel Johnston, appointed to succeed Burrington, arrived in 1734 and favored the new port town until, six years later, he gave it the name "Wilmington" to show allegiance to his patron Spencer Compton, or Lord Wilmington.  

For at least two years, George Burrington was known as the new town's creator.  After that time, politics and an unfavorable memory served the highly passionate Devon man of Scottish heritage not so well.  That honor has since been bestowed upon Governor Johnston.  If you don't believe me, look in a North Carolina history textbook sometime.  Most of them give Johnston's name as the founder of the new town.  A descendant of Johnston's also became a later governor of the state and further drew attention to their family versus Burrington's, who had earlier fled the colony because Brunswick Town's promoters threatened to murder him. 

Most will find these facts difficult to digest because we tend to view history through rose-tinted glasses, that the characters of history somehow belong on a pedestal.  Still, I assure you that our ancestors were human beings, just like us, and their emotions and desires reflect our own which have little changed through the centuries.  There is no better psychological case study than North Carolina's history whereby the consistency of this human characteristic can be discerned.  

I study Burrington in particular because he amuses me.  Some of my writing has been in the line of historical fiction and I see Burrington as a model for an fascinating, and even comedic fictional character.

North Carolina historians have seen the North Carolina Colonial Record collection available in any library or online at http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/ .  Those records reveal Burrington's alternating passions.  Those passions ranged from extremely generous and friendly to extremely irate, even violent.  He perceived threats that weren't there and exaggerated faults in others.  I have no doubt that any psychologist today might diagnose the man with manic depression and records from the National Archives in London support this conclusion.

Still, there's no doubt that he founded Wilmington out of his great, passionate loyalty to Thomas Pelham-Holles, duke of Newcastle and his sense of right and wrong as far as the king's property was concerned.  He has always been a fiercely loyal man, a trait that served against him from time to time.  As I said before, Wilmington exists because of politics, not because our ancestors believed it was a better location for a port.  We have since rationalized this conclusion into being, now understanding the place to be swampy and mosquito-ridden... similar to the area where Wilmington now stands, as well.  Modern perceptions hide many things... politics often forces asynchronicity.

I will leave it to you to explore the online search engine for the NCCR and see the many records available under "Burrington."  This deposition of Christopher Gale, issued in January 1725, only one year into Burrington's first term, will whet the appetite.

My sense of amusement was peaked by a record that I recently received from Britain's National Archives.  The story behind this record fits perfectly with what we already know about George Burrington and I will relate to you the particulars and some of the added research that I put into this record.  I seldom get to explore records in this depth in my professional writing, owing to the intent of the study, so you get to hear these juicy tidbits in my blog.

This record is C 11/1196/12, or Burrington v Templeman and was first brought to the attention of London's chancery or equity court in October 1723.  It is very important for my research because it shows Burrington's whereabouts in the period 1726-29 when he appears to disappear from the NCCR and his absence from the Lower Cape Fear allowed Brunswick Town's promoters and founders to take illegal advantage of illegal patents.  This was heretofore unknown and the impetus behind the creation of Wilmington.  That was, as I mentioned, the intent of my study.

As for Burrington's personality profile, this record holds more...

The story that is told by this court record begins 1720-21 when George Burrington bought thirteen separate notes from a financially troubled fellow military man who frequented the Tilt-Yard Coffee House, which sat directly across from London's government complex at Whitehall.  It could be that Burrington patronized this coffee house as well.

Francis Templeman suffered perhaps from a fire in 1704 that ruined his malting business and never quite recovered.  Burrington obviously felt sorry for Templeman and, being wealthy and magnanimous, generously decided to purchase these notes in 1720 that amounted to a total of £4800!  This was quite a chunk of cash... roughly about $175,000 (1993 exchange rates) today.  

You would have to be a very good friend of mine to get that much money on loan!  In fact, I would think it unrealistic to believe that anyone could pay back a loan of that size from the proceeds of a recovering malt business.  I'll bet Templeman had other assets, though.

Still, it comes as little surprise that Templeman could not pay these notes on their due dates, between 1722 and 1723... thus, the point of the court case. 

By coincidence, Burrington was chosen by the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, who frequented Whitehall regularly to be the next proprietary governor of a colony in America... the proprietary colony of North Carolina.  He was scheduled to leave on the ship Champion with another new appointee, receiver-general Arthur Goffe, on October 23, 1723.  

Burrington may have had a lot of investments and may have had little cash before that date, or he simply wanted to settle this issue with Templeman before he left England for however many years he would be required to serve as governor of the American colony.  However it played out, on October 19th, he attempted to recover his due funds from the financially troubled Templeman, and abruptly encountered the lack thereof.  He apparently became angry and, as we well know him from the many accounts in the NCCR collection, pitched a violent fit.  Templeman had Burrington arrested.  Burrington's passionate nature, so well understood later as governor of North Carolina, got the better of him for, perhaps, not the first time.

Burrington was trying to recover the remaining £1280 that Templeman owed him, but, due to his temper, was then charged with £2560, or twice that amount, in bail to get out of jail in time to sail for his appointment in North Carolina.   He made bail on the 22nd, immediately filed and argued this action against Templeman, who was ordered to pay £2000 to Burrington in increments over a reasonable period of time (not what Burrington had hoped for, obviously).  Then, Burrington literally ran to the docks to board the Champion and he and Goffe arrived in Elizabeth City, VA early that December, a longer than usual 9-week transit across the Atlantic.  

At that time, coming directly to North Carolina was difficult due to the Outer Banks... 

The record shows that Burrington began picking up the payments three years later, in September 1726 and, thus, I have the proof that I needed to show where he was after he fled Edenton and after spending some time in the Lower Cape Fear to look after his investment in that newly-settled region.

Still, it cost Templeman another £720 for his tardiness on paying the debt while Burrington, however, lost a total of £1840 for losing his temper!  

By the way, the duke of Newcastle lived at Lincoln's Inn Fields and worked across the street from Templeman's favorite coffee house.  He probably knew both of these gentlemen, certainly Burrington, the story between them, and decided that he could use such a passionately loyal man as Burrington to be the scapegoat in his first real scheme as Southern Secretary in the Whig government of Robert Walpole... making North Carolina a profitable venture for the Crown who had just purchased the colony in the summer of 1729.  

Newcastle needed a passionately loyal man like Burrington to function as a scapegoat in the political power-play against the wealthy and politically strong Tory Family (and their base at Brunswick Town) whose great investments in the Lower Cape Fear would be threatened by the new town that would wrest control of North Carolina for Newcastle and his Whig friends.  Certainly, this was a classic motive for murder!

Not surprisingly, George Burrington came back to North Carolina for his second term as governor, the first royal governor of the colony... and Wilmington became history in September 1732.  It also explains why he had to hightail it back to England to keep Brunswick Town's promoters from killing him!  Passionate men have often found themselves in such predicaments and, as a result, have become the subjects of dark comedies throughout history.  George Burrington would be a perfect subject for such a work!  :)

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dethroning the Kings of Cape Fear: Consequences of Edward Moseley's Surveys

Purchase an e-copy for $5 or get a print version among more titles by B. C. Brooks






















Aristocratic Pyrates of the Albemarle

Purchase an e-copy for $5 or get a print version among more titles by B. C. Brooks

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brunswick Town and Wilmington

 Purchase an e-copy for $5 or get a print version among more titles by B. C. Brooks

 

 

 

 



   

Sunday, April 07, 2013

Political Agenda of "Redeemer Historians" in North Carolina

There’s a lot of mystery associated with the Lower Cape Fear.  There has been some historical attention in the mid-twentieth century through James Sprunt and Enoch Lawrence Lee, but how much of the history of the Lower Cape Fear is there to discover?  Why does the Cape Fear River itself rest in the bowels of mysteriosity?  Is it the swamps?  Do we compare swampy things with mystery as in the movies, with Swamp Thing, or Creature from the Black Lagoon?  Or is it more than that?  Is there something so unique about the Lower Cape Fear that it invites the darkest of our imaginative endeavors?   

Four novels have been written just in the last eight years that elude to the Cape Fear River Region as a place of murder, capitalizing perhaps on recently-stirred memories of the Wilmington Race Riots of 1898 when as many as hundreds (no one knows how many, actually) were either driven from town or murdered and dumped into the river, as Alfred Moore Waddell said, “to choke the Cape Fear River with carcasses.”  


Could these events of 1898, when Waddell and his fellow conservative Southern Democrats staged a coup d’etat that overthrew the steadily liberalizing government of Wilmington, have inspired the mystery?  Could the efforts since that time to hide the shame of those unsolved murders have caused a historical vacuum?  Has recent exposure of those events through historian David Cecelski’s and Timothy Tyson's Democracy Betrayed  spawned recent books like Murder on the Cape Fear, by author Ellen Elizabeth Hunter?  Perhaps The Cape Fear Murders by Ernest Beasley, Murder Along the Cape Fear: A North Carolina Town in the Twentieth Century by David T. Morgan, or Cape Fear Murders by Wanda Canada owe their genesis in some part to historian LeRae Sykes Umfleet’s A Day of Blood.  Shedding light upon the darkness has some consequence, after all.  Check out this review of LeRae's book... "Wilmington became a blueprint for how to have a riot and get away with it," she said. 


To understand these events requires reflection on the events surrounding 1898, reflection upon the post-Civil War efforts to revamp the history of North Carolina by Confederate “Redeemer” historians.  The past, a priceless Rembrandt to real historians, could be painted over in shades of gray that spread the mythical beginnings of the “Lost Cause,” a biased narrative perpetuated through ladies’ associations, war memorials, veneration of war heroes in the Confederate Veteran magazine, and hundreds of books written by pseudo-historians who knew little of the professional historian's craft.  Was the priceless truth lost to us forever?


This repainted version of history and its political proponents had proudly stood strong against outside or federal opposition for more than a century.  Only recently, thanks to the work of Cecelski and Umfleet and others like them, are we able to take another look with critical eyes upon such events that can offer a better understanding of ourselves and those events within which our recent ancestors were involved.  Perhaps we can fight the old rhetoric and damages of the "Lost Cause."  Still, even today, in the 21st century, it is not without some trepidation as many of its proponents still roam the state.


North Carolina has been a particular sufferer from this historical malaise... and especially the Lower Cape Fear.  This has much to do with the Lower Cape Fear's agricultural and cultural similarity to South Carolina, which I have written about in detail, where we find similar "revision" of the historical data.  Many people passing themselves off as "historians" from our recent past actually were not... they may have done a bit to maintain certain knowledge of our state's history, but not without some damaging political bias... perhaps not without destroying some of that history as well.


Confederate Col. William Lawrence Saunders
Find-a-grave.com tells a mostly accurate biography of William Lawrence Saunders, the editor, compiler, and sometime interpreter of the North Carolina Colonial Records and former Secretary of State for North Carolina.  Notice that I didn't call him an "historian," and with good reason.

He was from Tarboro, Edgecombe County and he was famous for his work on these records as much as he was infamous for another... quoting from Find-a Grave:

Statesman; Editor; Historian Colonel William Lawrence Saunders served as Secretary of the State of North Carolina during the Reconstruction era (1879-1891). During his tenure, he was arrested in his office in Raleigh and brought before the US Senate for questioning regarding his alleged connection to Ku Klux Klan activities in North Carolina. Saunders was the first person ever to invoke his Fifth Ammendment right to refuse to answer questions that could incriminate him during a US Senate investigation. "I decline to answer" is carved on his tombstone as are the words "For 20 years he exerted more power in North Carolina than any other man" also "Distinguished for wisdom, purity and courage" which is generally understood to be a reference to his years of leadership with the Ku Klux Klan rather than his tenure as NC Secretary of State. Saunders was also on the UNC board of trustees and a co-founder of the Raleigh News and Observer newspaper. He graduated from The University of North Carolina in 1854; in 1922 the building that houses Religious Studies and the Geography department - Saunders Hall- was named after him. Although minority students have staged protests in recent years asking that the name be changed - the University of North Carolina is refusing on the grounds that history cannot be changed; only studied with an eye towards better understanding in the future.

The part that I have highlighted in red will give you an idea of the Southern conservative political nature of the man that somewhat manipulated the history of our state through much of the so-called "progressive" era.  The epaulets, the gloves, and the sword in hand from the picture might do the rest to make the point.  Nowhere in the past of this individual is there any training in the historical method, yet he is often referred to as an "historian."

U.S., College Student Lists, 1763-1924 Record for William Laurence Saunders, page 204 in the section for students of UNC
 Saunders' education covers the time before and after the Civil War.  Prior to that war, he received the equivalent of a modern Bachelors degree and what was then called an "LL.B." or a Bachelor of Law degree.  After the war, he went back to UNC to obtain his Doctorate in Law.  He was, indeed, a very learned man.  Still, he was trained and experienced in soldiering, politics, and law... NOT in history.  Yet, he is proclaimed an "historian," largely for his efforts to edit the colonial records.  He was not, however, trained in critical and unbiased inquiry, the quintessential arts of the historian.  If anything, he was very biased!

Dr. H.G. Jones interview on William L. Saunders in 1973
Still, he has been highly honored by most North Carolina historians for that work.  State Historian, Dr. H. G. Jones, in 1973, gave an interview in the Burlington Times-News about the Southern "Redeemer," Saunders, in which he declares him to be the probable leader of the Ku Klux Klan, who moved briefly to Florida after the war before he returned to North Carolina.  In that interview, he also tells of Saunders' (with his brother-in-law from Wilmington) founding of the Raleigh News and Observer, the newspaper that would later be infamous as the conservative mouthpiece during the "Progressive" Era... specifically during the conservative re-entrenchment in the state.  The only coup d'etat to ever occur in U.S. history occurred during that time... right here in North Carolina... now known as the Wilmington Race Riot of 1898 first told to us by David Cecelski in Democracy Betrayed and well-researched by LeRae Sykes Umfleet for her book, A Day of Blood.  

Raleigh News & Observer cartoon depicting the "evils" of "Negro Rule"

That "riot" may have resulted in as many as 500 deaths, mostly African-Americans and their supporters.  The riot was led by at least two ggg-grandsons of Brunswick Town (the Lower Cape Fear's first town) founder Maurice Moore (Alfred Moore Waddell) and his brother, Roger (descendent also named Roger), and former Confederate officers-turned politicians (and often lawyers who styled themselves as "historians").  

Alfred Moore Waddell deserves special attention as a lawyer, Confederate soldier, politician, and, yes... an "historian."  The North Carolina History Project describes him and his mother's grandfather, Alfred Moore, great-grandson of founder Maurice Moore and Supreme Court Justice:


Alfred Moore Waddell
"He received his early education at William Bingham’s School and Caldwell Institute in Hillsborough prior to entering the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1850. After graduating from UNC in 1853, he studied under several distinguished lawyers, including Frederick Nash and Samuel H. Phillips, before being admitted to the bar in 1855.  He soon moved to Wilmington, North Carolina to practice law... When war came and North Carolina seceded and joined the Confederacy in 1861, Waddell reluctantly cast his lot with his state and joined the Third North Carolina Cavalry (also known as Forty-First Regiment North Carolina Troops), serving first as adjutant, and later as lieutenant colonel.  At times fighting bad health more than Union troops, Waddell resigned in August 1864 and returned to Wilmington to start a law firm with his father."

After the war, beginning in 1870, he became a four-term U.S. Congressman under the Conservative-Democratic ticket.  Although initially opposed to secession, he yet remained a fervent proponent of "White Rule," along with his mother's cousin, Col. Roger Moore, the leader of the Ku Klux Klan from the Lower Cape Fear.  Together, with "Red Shirts" (armed intimidators) from South Carolina, rhetorical support from Raleigh News and Observer editor Josephus Daniels (a later U.S. Secretary of the Navy), and chair of the Conservative Democratic party campaign for 1898 and later 30-year U.S. Senator from NC, Furnifold McClendon Simmons, they ousted the sitting mayor of Wilmington at gunpoint, led the riot that resulted in so many deaths, skewed the 1898 vote in favor of their party, and subsequently, Alfred installed himself as mayor of Wilmington while destroying any idea of liberal NC government to come until the present day.  Waddell's opposition to African-Americans in politics was so strong that he was determined to be completely rid of them, as he famously boasted, "if we have to choke the Cape Fear River with carcasses."  He was certainly true to his word.  From 1898-on, Wilmington blanched white and no one seriously opposed the Southern Democratic conservative party in North Carolina after that... not even the federal government.  The old rhetoric of "States' Rights" became an all-too-convenient excuse to ignore the horror and bloodshed of the only coup d'etat in American history.

1898 Wilmington Race Riot - Pictured is Waddell, E.G. Parmalee, and armed whites. Image courtesy of the North Carolina Office of Archives and History, Raleigh, NC.
In his later years, Waddell published several books, one of which was A History of New Hanover County and the Lower Cape Fear Region (Wilmington, 1909), still readily available today and found on most library shelves.  Published only a decade after the bloodshed, Waddell reaffirmed his family's contributions to the Lower Cape Fear, the Revolutionary War... and, of course, their white-supremacist point-of-view. He burrowed his conservative heels in the banks of the Cape Fear River, never to be challenged again. 

Of course, Alfred Moore Waddell was never professionally trained as a skeptical historian.

George Davis of Wilmington, former Confederate States Senator from North Carolina and afterward Confederate States Attorney General under President Jefferson Davis was not an historian either.   Still, as a politician, he often drew from history to make his polemical points.


George Davis, often called the "Honorable" George Davis, as many lawyers of the day were, famously placed Edward Moseley on a pedestal in a speech given at Wilmington on 26 November, 1879, titled "A Study in Colonial History."  On page 21, Davis begins his long praise of Moseley, Moore, and their allied family (one of which was Davis' family as well):

“Of all the men who watched and guided the tottering footsteps of our infant State, there was not one who in intellectual ability, in solid and polite learning, in scholarly cultivation and refinement, in courage and endurance, in high Christian morality, in generous consideration for the welfare of others, in all true merit in fine, which makes a man among men, who could equal Edward Moseley.”

I have written on Edward Moseley's numerous white-collar (and otherwise) crimes (most of which have never previously been examined (thanks, no doubt in part, to Davis' high praise) and for which I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt... at least the white-collar ones), so I will not go into that long list.  Suffice it to say that Davis merely elevated a well-known opportunist and literal criminal from North Carolina's past to hero status to serve the purposes of the post-war Confederate agenda.  He elevated many criminals, actually, all associated with Moseley in some way.  You can search my blog entries for this evidence.  

Some background will still be necessary... 

Edward Moseley, although not from South Carolina himself (he was from London, England) was a member of the "Family" (also written about by me numerous times), a group of mostly South Carolinian controversials, led by Maurice Moore, the second son of SC governor and Goose Creek Indian slaver, James Moore.  Moseley worked for James Moore in South Carolina before coming northward in 1704.  The Moores founded Brunswick Town in the Lower Cape Fear and guided many of their fellow residents of Goose Creek to the Lower Cape Fear in North Carolina after South Carolina's truculent behavior toward the Lords Proprietors turned into a royally-refereed battle and their seriously irresponsible economic behavior devalued their currency to 15% of its original face value.  These plantationist-merchants found it difficult to conduct their trade in that environment (of their own making of course) and moved to NC for the lower taxes and freer operating restrictions, especially the non-taxed status of their numerous slaves.

Moores had became infamous as slavers, leading raids against Indians to collect captives to trade for African slaves in the Caribbean until the American Revolution made them heroes.  Moseley was well associated with the family of Moores since a young man and may have instigated the Tuscarora War to serve the purposes of SC's Goose Creek men and his own purposes as surveyor-general in clearing Indian lands for settlement.  He really did not have the people's best interests at heart... whites, blacks, and Indians alike who died in horrific fashion in that war.  Davis still elevated Moseley's lackluster reputation after the Civil War to serve the redeemers' purposes.

Statue of George Davis in Wilmington
George Davis was the son of Episcopalian Bishop Thomas Frederick Davis and Mary Moore, both descendents of South Carolinian immigrants to the Lower Cape Fear and related to Brunswick Town founders or supporters from 1725-1776.  

Born near Wilmington, North Carolina, Davis attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was valedictorian of the class of 1838.  He subsequently studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1840.  Again, not an historian and certainly no authority on historical matters, even those from North Carolina.  As a conservative politician and lawyer, however, he was held in the highest esteem, both in Wilmington as well as across the state. 

His speech, though a polemical recitation of the heroic deeds of the "saintly" Maurice Moore and Edward Moseley, was published by a local Wilmington publisher, Jackson and Bell, only a few months later.  The speech begins with a revisit to the Cary Rebellion (partly instigated by Moseley) as "greatly misinterpreted."  Rather, as Davis states, it was a fight against an oppressive government, as he saw the United States at the time, and he endeavored to "undo some of the wrong of the historians."  At least, he did not call himself an "historian," only that real historians were part of the government conspiracy that put down such "honorable rebellions" as Cary's... and the South's as well.  :)

Davis' speech literally drips with condescension for earlier writers of North Carolina history (who wrote before the Civil War, that is) like Francis Lister Hawks, who found Edward Moseley (Davis' kinsman) a well-educated man, but unscrupulous in his behavior.  Hawks was not without sympathy, as any reverend might be, and he believed that Moseley, a fellow lawyer like himself, must have been affected by some unknown force to make him behave so badly.  Davis, on the other hand, believes that Hawks was drastically misled and blames part of this upon the place of his birth, in New Bern, at the scene of the Tuscarora war, affected by many of Moseley's questionable actions with John Porter, Thomas Cary, and others. 

Actually, Hawks was absolutely correct, although he had an undue sympathy in my opinion, for his fellow lawyer and "devout" Anglican brother-in-Christ, Edward Moseley.  Yes, I'm fond of ironic sarcasm... lol.

By the way, as any good "Redeemer" politician of the times and in complete agreement with Davis, William L. Saunders also declared Moseley’s “undying love of free government, and his indomitable maintenance of the rights of the people.”  Former Confederate North Carolina would have its "redemption" if it had to elevate every criminal in the state to hero status... even former pirates, treasurers, surveyors-general, and Congressmen!  lol


Capt. Samuel A'Court Ashe
In reference to the "Family," we have another well-known North Carolinian and Confederate officer and Progressive-era "historian," Capt. Samuel A'Court Ashe.  His entry in Wikipedia calls him a "Confederate infantry captain in the American Civil War and celebrated editor, historian, and North Carolina legislator."  The NCPedia calls him "soldier, lawyer, politician, historian, journalist, and editor, [who] was born at Wrightsville Sound, near Wilmington."

There's that title of "historian" again... let's examine Ashe's credentials in that department.  In David Brown's 1979 biography of Ashe:

"The year 1852 brought him to Rugby Academy at Washington, D.C., where he studied until moving to Oxford Military Academy in Oxford, Md., in 1854. He was by then preparing for the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, which he entered in 1855; he rose to be second in his class. At this time, also, he began a lifelong friendship with Alfred Thayer Mahan, the noted naval theorist. Ashe resigned from the naval academy, however, in 1858, returning to his father's home at Rocky Point. Here he began reading law, first on his own, then under the direction of William Ruffin."

"With the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the opening of the Civil War, Ashe followed his native state, first as an engineer with the unofficial commission of lieutenant. This commission was regularized in January 1862, when he was assigned to Charleston. In June of that year he was commissioned a captain and assigned, as assistant adjutant general, to General William D. Pender."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but a degree in "history" wasn't in that list...

So, this Ashe began as a military dropout, then studied law and dropped that because he was ill-trained for it, then entered the Civil War as an engineer.  His biographer, Ronnie Wayne Faulkner, in 1983, told in "Samuel A'Court Ashe: North Carolina Redeemer and Historian, 1840-1938" of his professional difficulties and that he gave these up in 1879 to become a journalist, also a profession for which he suffered.   Ironically, Faulkner also called him an "historian."  Maybe we should define this term better in the future!

"As editor," quotes Faulker, "Ashe proved to be an unyielding partisan, blind to the shortcomings of his own party [conservative Southern Democrats], while acutely sensitive to the failures of the opposition."  Ashe composed and published his essay, "A southern view of the invasion of the Southern states and the war of 1861-65," a polemic against the North, supporting "States' Rights" and especially the Confederate "States' Right" of slavery.  The pamphlet was still published as late as 1972 by a Weldon, NC press and is still available cheaply on Amazon.  Supporters of "States' Rights" today still revere it. 

Nowhere in his biography nor any of his background does it say that he studied to be a professional historian, yet, in his twilight years, between 1905 and 1917, he wrote a Biographical History of North Carolina from Colonial Times to the Present, in eight volumes!   And, of course, in addition, he was a regular contributor to the Confederate Veteran magazine during 1926–32.  He tried so very hard to serve his family of North Carolina conservatives, especially after North Carolina's failures along with the rest of the South in the Civil War.  It was then that Ashe became a Southern "Redeemer" through his "historical" writing, as an amateur, of course.  Still, as a member of the Ashe family and a politician in "Redeemer"-oriented North Carolina, whose defense of the Ku Klux Klan was infamous, his versions of the past became a standard for many decades. North Carolinians today still call him "historian!"

Ashe's ancestors and family icons were the Lower Cape Fear's cream of the crop.  Samuel A'Court Ashe's parents were William Shepperd Ashe of Rocky Point (originally in the Brunswick Settlement and now part of Pender County, named for Confederate General, William Dorsey Pender) and Sarah Ann Green. His ancestry and relatives included well-known NC politicians and lawyers:  John Baptiste Ashe, colonial official and original member of the "Family"; John Baptiste Ashe, governor-elect; John Ashe, revolutionary general; Samuel Ashe, judge and governor; William Shepperd Ashe, judge; and Thomas S. Ashe, congressman and supreme court justice.  Again, he was also related to the Moores, who founded Brunswick Town in 1725.  

The American Revolution tended to erase many former failings...

Those Ashes above who were members of Confederate politic bodies or served the state afterwards, were all staunch conservatives who fought fervently against Lincoln's Republicans, the liberal version, of course.  Incidentally, no liberal politicians were elected from North Carolina for 100 years following the Civil War.  Many of these conservatives ran unopposed, especially after 1898.  

What about Hawks, you may ask... the prime example of a pre-Civil War pseudo-historian.  Seems that was all we had back then.  lol


Rev. Francis Lister Hawks
Prominent North Carolina "historian" Francis Lister Hawks was born in 1798 in New Bern.  Like the others, he was educated as a lawyer (yes, history degrees were available).  Hawks wrote about the history of our state from the perspective of a writer without the benefit of the NCCR at his command; indeed, he may have had complete access to the originals before the Civil War (he published his history in 1858).  Hawks quite differently gives credit to Gov. George Burrington (instead of his successor Gabriel Johnston) for starting Wilmington and accuses Moseley and, ironically, Moore of actually starting the trouble in the Cary Rebellion, which none of these Confederate authors have done... nor, would they ever have done.  

This was an unusual occurrence in North Carolina historiography because the "Family" couldn't stand the first royal governor, George Burrington... in 1732.  He voided certain "Family" land grants to found Brunswick Town's rival of... yes, it was the port town of Wilmington!  

After the royal hammer came down on the upstart Moores and their "Family" after 1732, financially destroying their own town of Brunswick, they simply just took over Wilmington.  It didn't take much, they were rich and well-connected, after all.  As I said, the Revolution helped to erase these minor inconveniences, anyway.  

Furthermore, they later resented blacks supported by the liberal party who they saw as taking over their newly usurped town of Wilmington... they took it back at gunpoint in 1898.  In their minds, they had won it politically from Burrington and his government faction and it belonged to them and their Family.  

Burrington barely survived (three people did not, I might add) and flew back to England quickly in 1734!  Still, within North Carolina, Burrington's reputation was smeared by his enemies.  The second generation of the Family also used Hugh Williamson's first North Carolina "history" in 1812 to slyly accuse him of being gay and dying in an attempt to purchase gay sex from a prostitute.., yes, I said "gay" and "prostitute."  The actual record shows that Burrington was mugged... in 1759, not 1734... and, for his money... not sex!  Even the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, William Saunders, waving a copy of Burrington's 1759 will in his hands, couldn't stand for this injustice!  

This had been the underhanded work of John Baptiste Ashe Jr. (in association with Williamson) who fought with Williamson during the Revolution and served with him as a U.S. Congressman just before 1812.  Every North Carolinian "historian" since then has quoted the reference from Williamson's... or through his work.  All, except Hawks.

This is great fun, but let's get back to Hawks, shall we?

Still, looking into Hawks' background reveals even more of a reason that he probably told the truth about our history, in stark contrast to these later Confederate lawyers and "historians."  

Hawks married young after finishing college at UNC at the tender age of 17; however, his wife died after only two children were born.  In 1829, partly from the heartache, Hawks left his law practice and moved to New York, then Boston as an Episcopalian minister.  Although he was involved in many scandals as part of that vocation, which caused him to move from church to church, he never fought in the Civil War, nor did he declare any sympathy for the Confederate "lost cause" after the war.  He wrote and polished his "history" of North Carolina from his home in New York and had it published by E. J. Hale and Sons of Fayetteville, NC in 1858.  Even still, the history that he told needed no skewing by Confederate rhetoric because the South had not yet lost the war.  That would be six years later.  Only then did George Davis give him hell for writing what he did about Moseley and for criticising Williamson so heavily. 

Every political pseudo-historical detail of the Progressive era in North Carolina focused upon or had its origins in Wilmington and/or the Lower Cape Fear...

Politics spread from that Wilmington epicenter through the entire state and maintained a starkly conservative flavor... with a touch of "White Rule" added for good measure, especially following the re-entrenchment of 1898.  No one was ever prosecuted for the numerous deaths in Wilmington that year.  We don't even know exactly how many there were.  Amazing, isn't it?

Article flattering and proudly supporting  the Ku Klux Klan as defenders of the state against Northern aggression and their fellow Negroes, written by the wife of Gov. Thomas Jarvis and printed in a prominent North Carolina publication in 1902, the North Carolina Booklet.  A quote preceeds the article with reads: "Carolina; Carolina; Heaven's blessings attend her; While we live we will cherish protect and defend her!"

I could go on, but I think the point has been well-made and there's no nice way to put this:  North Carolina history and politics today is the product of early 18th-century South Carolinian conservative politicians and lawyers, whose descendants skewed our state's true history even before the Civil War, but most especially to fit a Confederate "Lost Cause" agenda after Reconstruction and especially through the staunchly-conservative "Progressive Era."  No wonder Rob Christensen called us a "Paradox of Tarheel Politics," an almost split-personality disorder descending from the more liberal Albemarle to the more conservative Cape Fear that eventually settled into a decidedly conservative regime across the entire state, but with minor "wrinkles."  Still, "Palmetto" state would probably be more appropriate than "Tarheel."  

Be not fooled into thinking that this was a "progressive" or liberal time for the state.  Oh, many technical and economic advances were made (those were the wrinkles)... but not socially.  The conservative social policies of "Jim Crow" and segregation, refined in the Lower Cape Fear, defined North Carolina for more than a full century and a half until the present day.  Understand that this has influenced modern conservatism in our state today, indeed North Carolina's current political ideology is largely based upon this Confederate brand of conservatism... the repeated rhetoric of "States' Rights," for example.  

1959 North Carolina Defenders of States Rights Resolution, taken from the Holt papers at UNC's special collections department.  There are many code words and phrases that will sound very familiar to those keeping up with current events and today's GOP politics.  Elements intended to generate fear are carefully employed within this rhetoric as they are today. 

Conflicts with increased liberalization through the internet might help to explain the incomprehensible behavior we see in the so-called "progressive" state today, whose legislature attempts to declare North Carolina a sovereign entity (virtual secession) and proclaim a state religion (direct violation of the 1st amendment), attempting to outlaw abortion decades after Roe v. Wade, legislated inequality, and generally fighting our first African-American president tooth and nail as though he was somehow that different from other Democrats!  These efforts  appear as acts of desperation and we are not alone in this behavior... it's found all across the traditional South and in many red states out west as well. Confederate "states' rights" rhetoric still runs rampant across the country, supported and substantiated by amateur historians who skew the truth in favor of their ideology rather than use the proper tools of the historical trade to tease out the truth.

As an historian (yes, professionally trained and not planning on any law or political career in the future), I can attest to the many still difficult obstacles placed in our path by conservatives of the Progressive era... no, not the liberal "Democrats" of today, but the highly-conservative Southern-fried variety of Jesse Helms that held our state unchallenged for 150 years! These are the "Republicans" of today, those that Barry Goldwater warned us about, as sure as former Southern Democrat Strom Thurmond of SC or Jesse Helms, who changed conservative colors in the 1970s to help get Ronald Reagan elected.  And they're still going strong...

What was the damage?

There are volumes of abstracted letters for John Gray Blount for which letters are "missing."  Oh, they can mostly (I think) be located as originals at the archives, but do not appear in the published works of Alice Keith Barnwell from 1958, just after Brown v. Board in 1954.  Most historians rely on these volumes as good-faith abstractions from the originals.  These "missing" letters generally contain references to miscegenation between whites and blacks and/or mulattoes.  Still, many of them may actually be missing from the archives... we would have no way to tell.  

This poses another serious question...

Furthermore, how much of the massive archival material at Raleigh has been altered or thrown out for political reasons?  The Secretary of State's records were kept in the the secretary's offices as late as the 1980s instead of at the archives, where they should have been.  Anyone searching for their ancestor's land grants found it necessary to drive there from the archives to view them, if they could.  Why were they kept apart for so long? What was the purpose of keeping these records under guard from the public and why are so many early records spotty and inconsistent?  Paper-eating bugs did not get them all!

No real historian uses William L. Saunders' "Prefaces" to each Volume of the NCCR because we all know them to contain misinformation... unless you write a piece like this... about the misinformation.  :) 

BTW, William L. Saunders (and most Progressive-era "historians") was NOT an historian, you did get that part, right?  Despite what most references to him say... real historians care about history and will preserve it despite the politics involved.  We don't assume a conclusion and cherry-pick the data that supports it.  We leave that to the Southern apologists, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians, among others, who, if they have a degree, probably didn't get it in history.  My profession is not an amateur one and I do find the implication that it is rather offensive. 

My work on the Lower Cape Fear has been especially difficult because of past "avoidance" of certain historical data that I now have to "tease" out of the records.  Wilmington was the NC epicenter of the "Redeemer disturbance" after all.  There is virtually no secondary synopses available because... well, that would have to be done previously by Progressive-era historians and/or pseudo-historians!   I have to treat them as hostile sources... and, I'm not seriously thinking of quoting from the "venerable" George Davis!  lol

What bothers me the most is that papers found in the NCCR very likely have been tampered with prior to publication - certain records left out that did not support the Confederate thesis of the times in which Saunders lived.  The damage has been done... some records probably burned or otherwise destroyed.  

We have to "redeem" our true history from the Confederate "redeemers" of the past and there's a great effort to do just that.  The archives today has done a fabulous job of piecing back together our records from British sources.  Just last week, I was amazed at the gobs of new records available there.  These should be researched thoroughly and supported with patronage (go and look at them!).  The online availability of British sources through the liberalizing internet have made this an unavoidable obstacle to those that would skew our history in the near future.  I especially encourage anyone working on genealogy to reconsider the information that you now have and research the details thoroughly again.  You may not need a professional degree for this, but... you have professionals when you need them! 

I promise that, when I need legal advice, I won't simply assume that I can do law just as well as I do history.  That would be a ridiculous assumption... right?

By now, I hope that this article makes most of us aware of the dangers of "practicing history without a license."  :)   Amateur history should never be discouraged, but temper what you write with the established facts found in the materials of the pros.  We get paid to do a good job... so you can benefit.  Take advantage!  The Cape Fear will not always remain a mystery if we do it right!

--------------------------------------------------------