Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 34)

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 15, foot-note (volume 2).

See, also, NORMANS. NORTHMEN: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SOFT-SHELL DEMOCRATS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

SOGDIANA.

"North of the Bactrians, beyond the Oxus, on the western slope of Belurdagh, in the valley of the Polytimetus (Zarefshan, i. e. strewing gold), which flows towards the Oxus from the east, but, instead of joining it, ends in Lake Dengis, lay the Sogdiani of the Greeks, the Suguda of the Old Persian inscriptions, and Çughdha of the Avesta, in the region of the modern Sogd. As the Oxus in its upper course separates the Bactrians from the Sogdiani, the Jaxartes, further to the north, separates the latter from the Scyths. According to Strabo, the manners of the Bactrians and Sogdiani were similar, but the Bactrians were less rude. Maracanda (Samarcand), the chief city of the Sogdiani, on the Polytimetus, is said to have had a circuit of 70 stades in the fourth century B. C."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

See, also, BOKHARA.

SOGDIANA. Occupied by the Huns.

See HUNS, THE WHITE.

SOHR, Battle of (1745).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

—————SOISSONS: Start————

SOISSONS: Origin of the name.

See BELGÆ.

SOISSONS: A. D. 457-486. Capital of the kingdom of Syagrius.

See GAUL: A. D. 457-486; also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

SOISSONS: A. D. 486. The capital of Clovis.

See PARIS: THE CAPITAL OF CLOVIS.

SOISSONS: A. D. 511-752. One of the Merovingian capitals.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

SOISSONS: A. D. 1414. Pillage and destruction by the Armagnacs.

In the civil wars of Armagnacs and Burgundians, during the reign of the insane king Charles VI., the Armagnacs, then having the king in their hands, and pretendedly acting under his commands, laid siege to Soissons and took the city by storm, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1414. "In regard to the destruction committed by the king's army in Soissons, it cannot be estimated. … There is not a Christian but would have shuddered at the atrocious excesses committed by this soldiery in Soissons: married women violated before their husbands, young damsels in the presence of their parents and relatives, holy nuns, gentle women of all ranks, of whom there were many in the town: all, or the greater part, were violated against their wills, and known carnally by divers nobles and others, who, after having satiated their own brutal passions, delivered them over without mercy to their servants; and there is no remembrance of such disorder and havoc being done by Christians. … Thus was this grand and noble city of Soissons, strong from its situation, walls and towers, full of wealth, and embellished with fine churches and holy relics, totally ruined and destroyed by the army of king Charles, and of the princes who accompanied him. The king, however, before his departure, gave orders for its rebuilding."

Monstrelet, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapter 120 (volume 1).

—————SOISSONS: Start————

SOISSONS, Battle of (718).

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

SOISSONS, Battle of (923).

The revolt against Charles the Simple, which resulted in the overthrow of the Carolingian dynasty, had its beginning in 918. In 922, Robert, Duke of France and Count of Paris, grandfather of Hugh Capet, was chosen and crowned king by the malcontents. On the 15th of June in the next year the most desperate and sanguinary battle of the civil war was fought at Soissons, where more than half of each army perished. The Capetians won the field, but their newly crowned king was among the slain.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, volume 2, page 40.

SOISSONS, Peace Congress of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

SOKEMANNI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

SOLEBAY, Naval battle of (1672).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

SOLES, Society of.

See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SOLFERINO, Battle of (1859).

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

SOLIDUS, The.

"The solidus or aureus is computed equivalent in weight of gold to twenty-one shillings one penny English money."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 32, foot-note.

SOLON, The Constitution of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594; also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SOLWAY-FRITH, SOLWAY MOSS, The Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.

SOLYMAN, Caliph, A. D. 715-717.

Solyman I., Turkish Sultan, 1520-1566.

Solyman II., Turkish Sultan, 1687-1691.

SOLYMI, The.

See LYCIANS.

SOMA. HAOMA.

"It is well known that both in the Veda and the Avesta a plant is mentioned, called Soma (Zend, haoma). This plant, when properly squeezed, yielded a juice, which was allowed to ferment and, when mixed with milk and honey, produced an exhilarating and intoxicating beverage. This Soma juice has the same importance in Vedic and Avestic sacrifices as the juice of the grape had in the worship of Bacchus. The question has often been discussed what kind of plant this Soma could have been. When Soma sacrifices are performed at present, it is confessed that the real Soma can no longer be procured, and that some ci-près, such as Pûtikâs, etc., must be used instead." The Soma of later times seems to have been identified with a species of Sarcostemma. The ancient Soma is conjectured by some to have been the grape, and by others to have been the hop plant.

F. Max Müller, Biography of Words, appendix 3.

See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

{2960}

SOMASCINES, The.

The Somascines, or the Congregation of Somasca, so called from the town of that name, were an order of regular clergy founded in 1540 by a Venetian noble, Girolamo Miani. They devoted themselves to the establishment and maintenance of hospitals, asylums for orphans, and the education of the poor.

L. Ranke, History of the Popes, book 2, section 3 (volume 1).

SOMATOPHYLAX.

"A somatophylax in the Macedonian army was no doubt at first, as the word means, one of the officers who had to answer for the king's safety; perhaps in modern language a colonel in the body-guards or house-hold troops; but as, in unmixed monarchies, the faithful officer who was nearest the king's person, to whose watchfulness he trusted in the hour of danger, often found himself the adviser in matters of state, so, in the time of Alexander, the title of somatophylax was given to those generals on whose wisdom the king chiefly leaned, and by whose advice he was usually guided."

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 6, section 18 (volume 1).

SOMERS, Lord, and the shaping of constitutional government in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

SOMERSETT, The case of the negro.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

SOMNAUTH, The gates of.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.

SONCINO, Battle of (1431).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

SONDERBUND, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

SONOMA: A. D. 1846. The raising of the Bear Flag.

See CALIFORNIA; A. D. 1846-1847.

SONS OF LIBERTY.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765 THE RECEPTION OF THE NEWS.

SONS OF LIBERTY, Knights of the Order of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

SOPHENE, Kingdom of.

See ARMENIA.

SOPHERIM.

See SCRIBES.

SOPHI I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1628-1641.

Sophi II., Shah of Persia, 1666-1694.

SOPHI, The.

See MEGISTANES.

SORA, The School of.

See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

SORABIANS, The.

A Sclavonic tribe which occupied, in the eighth century, the country between the Elbe and the Saale. They were subdued by Charlemagne in 806.

J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great, book 2, chapter 11.

SORBIODUNUM.

A strong Roman fortress in Britain which is identified in site with Old Sarum of the present day.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

SORBONNE, The.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE. UNIVERSITY OF PARIS.

SORDONES, The.

A people of the same race as the ancient Aquitanians, who inhabited the eastern Pyrenees and the Aude.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

SOTIATES, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

SOTO, Hernando de, The expedition of.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

SOUDAN, The.

See SUDAN.

SOUFFRANCE, A.

"The word is translated as a truce, but it means something very different from a modern truce. … The Souffrance was more of the nature of a peace at the present day; and the reason why of old it was treated as distinct from a peace was this: The wars of the time generally arose from questions of succession or of feudal superiority. When it became desirable to cease fighting, while yet neither side was prepared to give in to the other, there was an agreement to give up fighting in the mean time, reserving all rights entire for future discussion. A Souffrance or truce of this kind might last for centuries."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 21 (volume 2).

SOULT, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE); SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER) to 1812-1814; GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST); FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

—————SOUTH AFRICA: Start————

SOUTH AFRICA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

South Africa in its widest extent is peopled by two great and perfectly distinct indigenous races—the Kafirs and the Hottentots. The affinity of the Kafir tribes, ethnographically including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct representatives of a common but now extinct mother tongue. The aggregate of languages is now conventionally known as the A-bantu, or, more correctly, the Bantu linguistic system. The more common term Kafir, from the Arabic Kâfir = infidel, really represents but a small section of this great family, and being otherwise a term of reproach imposed upon them by strangers, is of course unknown to the people themselves. All the Bantu tribes are distinguished by a dark skin and woolly hair, which varies much in length and quality, but is never sleek or straight. … According to its geographical position the Bantu system is divided into the Eastern group, from its principal representatives known as the Ama-Zulu and Ama-Khosa or Kafir proper, the Central, or Be-tchuana group, and the Western or O-va-Herero, or Damara group. … The northern division of these Bantus bears the name of Ama-Zulu, and they are amongst the best representatives of dark-coloured races. The Zulus are relatively well developed and of large size, though not surpassing the average height of Europeans, and with decidedly better features than the Ama-Khosa. … The most wide-spread and most numerous of all these Kafir tribes are the Bechuanas [including the Basutos], their present domain stretching from the upper Orange river northwards to the Zambesi, and over the west coast highland north of Namaqualand; of this vast region, however, they occupy the outskirts only. … The Hottentots, or more correctly Koi-Koin (men), have no material features in common with the great Bantu family, except their woolly hair, though even this presents some considerable points of difference. Their general type is that of a people with a peculiar pale yellow-brown complexion, very curly 'elf-lock' or matted hair, narrow forehead, high cheek-bones projecting side-ways, pointed chin, body of medium size, rather hardy than strong, with small hands and feet, and platynocephalous cranium. … The Hottentots are properly divided into three groups: the Colonial, or Hottentots properly so called, dwelling in Cape Colony, and thence eastwards to the borders of Kafirland …; the Korana, settled mainly on the right bank of the Orange river …; lastly, the Namaqua, whose domain embraces the western portion of South Africa, bordering eastwards on the Kalahari desert."

Hellwald-Johnston, Africa (Stanford's Compendium), chapter 25.

See, also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

{2961}

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806. Portuguese discovery.- Dutch possession. English acquisition.

The Cape of Good Hope, "as far as we know, was first doubled by Bartholomew Diaz in 1486.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

He, and some of the mariners with him, called it the Cape of Torments, or Capo Tormentoso, from the miseries they endured. The more comfortable name which it now bears was given to it by King John of Portugal, as being the new way discovered by his subjects to the glorious Indies. Diaz, it seems, never in truth saw the Cape, but was carried past it to Algoa Bay. … Vasco da Gama, another sailor hero, said to have been of royal Portuguese descent, followed him in 1497. He landed to the west of the Cape. … Vasco da Gama did not stay long at the Cape, but proceeding on went up the East Coast as far as our second South African colony, which bears the name which he then gave to it. He called the land Tierra de Natal, because he reached it on the day of our Lord's Nativity. The name has stuck to it ever since and no doubt will now be preserved. From thence Da Gama went on to India. … The Portuguese seem to have made no settlement at the Cape intended even to be permanent; but they did use the place during the 16th and first half of the next century as a port at which they could call for supplies and assistance on their way out to the East Indies. The East had then become the great goal of commerce to others besides the Portuguese. In 1600 our own East India Company was formed, and in 1602 that of the Dutch. Previous to those dates, in 1591, an English sailor, Captain Lancaster, visited the Cape, and in 1620 Englishmen landed and took possession of it in the name of James I. But nothing came of these visitings and declarations, although an attempt was made by Great Britain to establish a house of call for her trade out to the East. For this purpose a small gang of convicts was deposited on Robben Island, which is just off Capetown, but as a matter of course the convicts quarrelled with themselves and the Natives, and came to a speedy end. In 1595 the Dutch came, but did not then remain. It was not till 1652 that the first Europeans who were destined to be the pioneer occupants of the new land were put on shore at the Cape of Good Hope, and thus made the first Dutch settlement. Previous to that the Cape had in fact been a place of call for vessels of all nations going and coming to and from the East. But from this date, 1652, it was to be used for the Dutch exclusively. … The home Authority at this time was not the Dutch Government, but the Council of Seventeen at Amsterdam, who were the Directors of the Dutch East India Company. … From 1658, when the place was but six years old, there comes a very sad record indeed. The first cargo of slaves was landed at the Cape from the Guinea Coast. In this year, out of an entire population of 360, more than a half were slaves. The total number of these was 187. To control them and to defend the place there were but 113 European men capable of bearing arms. This slave element at once became antagonistic to any system of real colonization, and from that day to this has done more than any other evil to retard the progress of the people. It was extinguished, much to the disgust of the old Dutch inhabitants, under Mr. Buxton's Emancipation Act in 1834;—but its effects are still felt." The new land of which the Dutch had taken possession "was by no means unoccupied or unpossessed. There was a race of savages in possession, to whom the Dutch soon gave the name of Hottentots. [The name was probably taken from some sound in their language which was of frequent occurrence; they seem to have been called 'Ottentoos,' 'Hotnots," Hottentotes,' 'Hodmodods,' and 'Hadmandods,' promiscuously. —Foot-note.) … Soon after the settlement was established the burghers were forbidden to trade with these people at all, and then hostilities commenced. The Hottentots found that much, in the way of land, had been taken from them and that nothing was to be got. They … have not received, as Savages, a bad character. They are said to have possessed fidelity, attachment, and intelligence. … But the Hottentot, with all his virtues, was driven into rebellion. There was some fighting, in which the natives of course were beaten, and rewards were offered, so much for a live Hottentot, and so much for a dead one. This went on till, in 1672, it was found expedient to purchase land from the natives. A contract was made in that year to prevent future cavilling, as was then alleged, between the Governor and one of the native princes, by which the district of the Cape of Good Hope was ceded to the Dutch for a certain nominal price. … But after a very early period—1684 —there was no further buying of land. … The land was then annexed by Europeans as convenience required. In all this the Dutch of those days did very much as the English have done since. … The Hottentot … is said to be nearly gone, and, being a yellow man, to have lacked strength to endure European seductions. But as to the Hottentot and his fate there are varied opinions. I have been told by some that I have never seen a pure Hottentot. Using my own eyes and my own idea of what a Hottentot is, I should have said that the bulk of the population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is Hottentot. The truth probably is that they have become so mingled with other races as to have lost much of their identity; but that the race has not perished, as have the Indians of North America and the Maoris. … The last half of the 17th and the whole of the 18th century saw the gradual progress of the Dutch depôt,—a colony it could hardly be called,—going on in the same slow determined way, and always with the same purpose. It was no colony because those who managed it at home in Holland, and they who at the Cape served with admirable fidelity their Dutch masters, never entertained an idea as to the colonization of the country. … In 1795 came the English. In that year the French Republican troops had taken possession of Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER)], and the Prince of Orange, after the manner of dethroned potentates, took refuge in England. He_gave an authority, which was dated from Kew, to the Governor of the Cape to deliver up all and everything in his hands to the English forces. {2962} On the arrival of the English fleet there was found to be, at the same time, a colonist rebellion. … In this double emergency the poor Dutch Governor, who does not seem to have regarded the Prince's order as an authority, was sorely puzzled. He fought a little, but only a little, and then the English were in possession. … In 1797 Lord Macartney came out as the first British Governor. Great Britain at this time took possession of the Cape to prevent the French from doing so. No doubt it was a most desirable possession, as being a half-way house for us to India as it had been for the Dutch. But we should not, at any rate then, have touched the place had it not been that Holland, or rather the Dutch, were manifestly unable to retain it. … Our rule over the Dutchmen was uneasy and unprofitable. Something of rebellion seems to have been going on during the whole time. … When at the peace of Amiens in 1802 it was arranged that the Cape of Good Hope should be restored to Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], English Ministers of State did not probably grieve much at the loss. … But the peace of Amiens was delusive, and there was soon war between England and France. Then again Great Britain felt the necessity of taking the Cape, and proceeded to do so on this occasion without any semblance of Dutch authority. At that time whatever belonged to Holland was almost certain to fall in to the hands of France. In 1805 … Sir David Baird was sent with half a dozen regiments to expel, not the Dutch, but the Dutch Governor and the Dutch soldiers from the Cape. This he did easily, having encountered some slender resistance; and thus in 1806, on the 19th January, after a century and a half of Dutch rule, the Cape of Good Hope became a British colony."

A. Trollope, South Africa, volume 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: W. Greswell, Our South African Empire, volume 1, chapters 1-4.

R. Russell, Natal, part 2, chapters 1-3.

Sir B. Frere, Historical Sketch of South Africa (Royal Historical Society Transactions N. S., volumes 2 and 4).

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881. The English and the Dutch Boers. The "Great Trek." Successive Boer republics of Natal, Orange Free State, and the Transvaal, absorbed in the British dominions. The Boer War.

The early history of the Cape Colony, after it became a dependency of the British Crown, "is a record of the struggles of the settlers, both English and Dutch, against the despotic system of government established by Lord Charles Somerset; of Kaffir wars, in which the colonists were often hard put to it to hold their own; and of the struggle for the liberty of the Press, sustained with success by John Fairbairn, and Thomas Pringle, the poet of South Africa, the Ovid of a self-chosen exile. For a time the Dutch and English settlers lived in peace and amity together, but the English efforts to alleviate the condition of, and finally emancipate the slaves, severed the two races. The Dutch settlers held the old Biblical notions about slavery, and they resented fiercely the law of 1833 emancipating all slaves throughout the colony in 1834. The Boers at once determined to 'trek,' to leave the colony which was under the jurisdiction of the English law, and find in the South African wilderness, where no human law prevailed, food for their flocks, and the pastoral freedom of Jacob and of Abraham. The Boers would live their own lives in their own way. They had nothing in common with the Englishman, and they wished for nothing in common. … They were a primitive people, farming, hunting, reading the Bible, pious, sturdy, and independent; and the colonial Government was by no means willing to see them leaving the fields and farms that they had colonised, in order to found fresh states outside the boundaries of the newly acquired territory. But the Government was powerless, it tried, and tried in vain, to prevent this emigration. There was no law to prevent it. … So, with their waggons, their horses, their cattle and sheep, their guns, and their few household goods, the hardy Boers struck out into the interior and to the north-east, in true patriarchal fashion [the migration being known as the Great Trek], seeking their promised land, and that 'desolate freedom of the wild ass' which was dear to their hearts. They founded a colony at Natal, fought and baptized the new colony in their own blood. The Zulu chief, Dingaan, who sold them the territory, murdered the Boer leader, Peter Retief, and his 79 followers as soon as the deed was signed. This was the beginning of the Boer hatred to the native races. The Boers fought with the Zulus successfully enough, fought with the English who came upon them less successfully. The Imperial Government decided that it would not permit its subjects to establish any independent Governments in any part of South Africa. In 1843, after no slight struggle and bloodshed, the Dutch republic of Natal ceased to be, and Natal became part of the British dominion. Again the Boers, who were unwilling to remain under British rule, 'trekked' northward; again a free Dutch state was founded—the Orange Free State. Once again the English Government persisted in regarding them as British subjects, and as rebels if they refused to admit as much. Once again there was strife and bloodshed, and in 1848 the Orange settlement was placed under British authority, while the leading Boers fled for their lives across the Vaal River, and, obstinately independent, began to found the Transvaal Republic. After six years, however, of British rule in the Orange territory the Imperial Government decided to give it back to the Boers, whose stubborn desire for self-government, and unchanging dislike for foreign rule, made them practically unmanageable as subjects. In April 1854 a convention was entered into with the Boers of the Orange territory, by which the Imperial Government guaranteed the future independence of the Orange Free State. Across the Vaal River the Transvaal Boers grew and flourished after their own fashion, fought the natives, established their republic and their Volksraad. But in 1877 the Transvaal republic, had been getting rather the worst of it in some of these struggles, and certain of the Transvaal Boers seem to have made suggestions to England that she should take the Transvaal republic under her protection. Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent out to investigate the situation. He seems to have entirely misunderstood the condition of things, and to have taken the frightened desires of a few Boers as the honest sentiments of the whole Boer nation. In an evil hour he hoisted the English flag in the Transvaal, and declared the little republic a portion of the territory of the British Crown. {2963} As a matter of fact, the majority of the Boers were a fierce, independent people, very jealous of their liberty, and without the least desire to come under the rule, to escape which they had wandered so far from the earliest settlements of their race. … The Boers of the Transvaal sent deputation after deputation to England to appeal, and appeal in vain, against the annexation. Lord Carnarvon had set his whole heart upon a scheme of South African confederation; his belief in the ease with which this confederation might be accomplished was carefully fostered by judiciously coloured official reports. … Sir Bartle Frere, 'as a friend,' advised the Boers 'not to believe one word' of any statements to the effect that the English people would be willing to give up the Transvaal. 'Never believe,' he said, 'that the English people will do anything of the kind.' 'When the chief civil and military command of the eastern part of South Africa was given to Sir Garnet Wolseley, Sir Garnet Wolseley was not less explicit in his statements. … In spite of the announcements of Sir Bartle Frere, Sir Garnet Wolseley, and Sir Owen Lanyon, the disaffected Boers were not without more or less direct English encouragement. The Boer deputations had found many friends in England. … One of those who thus sympathised was Mr. Gladstone. In his Midlothian speeches he denounced again and again the Conservative policy which had led to the annexation of the Transvaal. … While all the winds of the world were carrying Mr. Gladstone's words to every corner of the earth, it is not surprising that the Boers of the Transvaal … should have caught at these encouraging sentences, and been cheered by them, and animated by them to rise against the despotism denounced by a former Prime Minister of England. … For some time there seemed to be no reasonable chance of liberty, but in the end of 1880 the Boers saw their opportunity. … There were few troops in the Transvaal. The Boer hour had come. As in most insurrections, the immediate cause of the rising was slight enough. A Boer named Bezhuidenot was summoned by the landdrost of Potchefstrom to pay a claim made by the Treasury officials at Pretoria. Bezhuidenot resisted the claim, which certainly appears to have been illegal. … The landdrost attached a waggon of Bezhuidenot's, and announced that it would be sold to meet the claim. On November 11 the waggon was brought into the open square of Potchefstrom, and the sheriff was about to begin the sale, when a number of armed Boers pulled him off and carried the waggon away in triumph. They were unopposed, as there was no force in the town to resist them. The incident, trifling in itself, of Bezhuidenot's cart, was the match which fired the long-prepared train. Sir Owen Lanyon sent some troops to Potchefstrom; a wholly unsuccessful attempt was made to arrest the ringleaders of the Bezhuidenot affair; it was obvious that a collision was close at hand. … On Monday, December 13, 1880, almost exactly a month after the affair of Bezhuidenot's waggon, a mass meeting of Boers at Heidelberg proclaimed the Transvaal once again a republic, established a triumvirate Government, and prepared to defend their republic in arms. … The news of the insurrections aroused the Cape Government to a sense of the seriousness of the situation. Movements of British troops were at once made to put the insurgents down with all speed. It is still an unsettled point on which side the first shot was fired. There were some shots exchanged at Potchefstrom on December 15. … Previously to this the 94th regiment had marched from Leydenberg to reinforce Pretoria on December 5, and had reached Middleburgh about a week later. On the way came rumours of the Boer rising. … Colonel Anstruther seems to have felt convinced that the force he had with him was quite strong enough to render a good account of any rebels who might attempt to intercept its march. The whole strength of his force, however, officers included, did not amount to quite 250 men. The troops crossed the Oliphants River, left it two days' march behind them, and on the morning of the 20th were marching quietly along with their long line of waggons and their band playing 'God save the Queen' under the bright glare of the sun. Suddenly, on the rising ground near the Bronkhorst Spruit a body of armed Boers appeared. A man galloped out from among them—Paul de Beer—with a flag of truce. Colonel Anstruther rode out to meet him, and received a sealed despatch warning the colonel that the British advance would be considered as a declaration of war. Colonel Anstruther replied simply that he was ordered to go to Pretoria, and that he should do so. Each man galloped back to his own force, and firing began. In ten minutes the fight, if fight it can be called, was over. The Boers were unrivalled sharp-shooters, had marked out every officer; every shot was aimed, and every shot told. The Boers were well covered by trees on rising ground; the English were beneath them, had no cover at all, and were completely at their mercy. In ten minutes all the officers had fallen, some forty men were killed, and nearly double the number wounded. Colonel Anstruther, who was himself badly wounded, saw that he must either surrender or have all his men shot down, and he surrendered. … Colonel Anstruther, who afterwards died of his wounds, bore high tribute in his despatch to the kindness and humanity of the Boers when once the fight was done. … Sir George Colley struggled bravely for a while to make head against the Boers. At Lang's Nek and Ingago he did his best, and the men under him fought gallantly, but the superior positions and marksmanship of the Boers gave them the advantage in both fights. Under their murderous fire the officers and men fell helplessly. Officer after officer of a regiment would be shot down by the unerring aim of the Boers while trying to rally his men, while the British fire did comparatively slight damage, and the troops seldom came to sufficiently close quarters to use the bayonet. But the most fatal battle of the campaign was yet to come. Sir Evelyn Wood had arrived at the Cape with reinforcements, had met Sir George Colley, and had gone to Pietermaritzburg to await the coming of further reinforcements. On Saturday night, February 26, Sir George Colley with a small force moved out of the camp at Mount Prospect, and occupied the Majuba Hill, which overlooked the Boer camps on the flat beyond Lang's Nek. Early next morning the Boers attacked the hill; there was some desultory firing for a while, under cover of which three Boer storming parties ascended the hill almost unseen. {2964} The British were outflanked and surrounded, a deadly fire was poured in upon them from all sides. The slaughter was excessive. As usual the officers were soon shot down. Sir George Colley, who was directing the movements as coolly as if at review, was killed just as he was giving orders to cease firing. The British broke and fled, fired upon as they fled by the sharpshooters. Some escaped; a large number were taken prisoners. So disastrous a defeat had seldom fallen upon British arms. The recent memory of Maiwand was quite obliterated. That was the last episode of the war. General Wood agreed to a temporary armistice. There had been negotiations going on between the Boers and the British before the Majuba Hill defeat, which need never have occurred if there had not been a delay in a reply of Kruger's to a letter of Sir George Colley's. The negotiations were now resumed, and concluded in the establishment of peace, on what may be called a Boer basis. The republic of the Transvaal was to be re-established, with a British protectorate and a British Resident indeed, but practically granting the Boers the self-government for which they took up arms."

J. H. McCarthy, England under Gladstone, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: J. Nixon, Complete Story of the Transvaal.

T. F. Carter, Narrative of the Boer War.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868. The Kafir wars. British absorption of Kafraria.

"In 1811 the first Kafir war was brought on by the depredations of those warlike natives on the Boers of the eastern frontier; a war to the knife ensued, the Kafirs were driven to the other side of the Great Fish River, and military posts were formed along the border. A second war, however, broke out in 1818, when the Kafirs invading the colony drove the farmers completely out of the country west of the Great Fish River, penetrating as far as Uitenhage. But the Kafirs could not stand against the guns of the colonists, and the second war terminated in the advance of an overwhelming force into Kafirland, and the annexation of a large slice of territory, east of the Great Fish River, to the colony. … For a third time, in 1835, a horde of about 10,000 fighting men of the Kafirs spread fire and slaughter and pillage over the eastern districts, a war which led, as the previous ones had done, to a more extended invasion of Kafraria by the British troops, and the subjugation of the tribes east of the Kei river. … A fourth great Kafir war in 1846, provoked by the daring raids of these hostile tribes and their bold invasions of the colony was also followed up by farther encroachments on Kafir territory, and in 1847 a proclamation was issued extending the frontier to the Orange river on the north and to the Keiskamma river in the east, British sovereignty being then also declared over the territory extending from the latter river eastward to the Kei, though this space was at first reserved for occupation by the Kafirs and named British Kafraria. But peace was restored only for a brief time; in 1857 a fresh Kafir rebellion had broken out, and for two years subsequently a sort of guerilla warfare was maintained along the eastern frontier, involving great losses of life and destruction of property. In 1863 this last Kafir war was brought to a conclusion, and British Kafraria was placed under the rule of European functionaries and incorporated with the colony. In 1868 the Basutos [or Eastern Bechuanas], who occupy the territory about the head of the Orange river, between its tributary the Caledon and the summits of the Drakenberg range, and who had lived under a semi-protectorate of the British since 1848, were proclaimed British subjects. … Subsequently large portions of formerly independent Kafraria between the Kei river and the southern border of Natal have passed under the government of the Cape."

Hellwald-Johnston, Africa (Stanford's Compendium), chapter 23.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1867-1871. Discovery of Diamonds. Annexation of Griqualand west to Cape Colony.

See GRIQUAS.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879. The Zulu War.

"At this time [1877] besides the three English Colonies of Cape Town, Natal, and the lately formed Griqualand, there were two independent Dutch Republics,—the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal. Much of the white population even of the English Provinces was Dutch, and a still larger proportion consisted of reclaimed or half-reclaimed natives. Thus … there lay behind all disputes the question which invariably attends frontier settlements—the treatment of the native population. This difficulty had become prominent in the year 1873 and 1874, when the fear of treachery on the part of a chief of the name of Langalibalele located in Natal had driven the European inhabitants to unjustifiable violence. The tribe over which the chief had ruled had been scattered and driven from its territory, the chief himself brought to trial, and on most insufficient evidence sentenced to transportation. It was the persuasion that he was intriguing with external tribes which had excited the unreasoning fear of the colonists. For beyond the frontier there lay the Zulus, a remarkable nation, organised entirely upon a military system, and forming a great standing army under the despotic rule of their King Cetchwayo. Along the frontier of Natal the English preserved friendly relations with this threatening chief. But the Dutch Boers of the Transvaal, harsh and arbitrary in their treatment of natives, had already involved themselves in a war with a neighbouring potentate of the name of Secocoeni, and had got into disputes with Cetchwayo, which threatened to bring upon the European Colonies an indiscriminate assault." Lord Carnarvon thought it practicable to cure the troubles in South Africa by a confederation of the colonies. "The difficulty of the situation was so obvious to the Colonial Minister that he had chosen as High Commissioner a man whose experience and energy he could thoroughly trust. Unfortunately in Sir Bartle Frere he had selected a man not only of great ability, but one who carried self-reliance and imperialist views to an extreme. … The danger caused by the reckless conduct of the Boers upon the frontier, and their proved incapacity to resist their native enemies, had made it a matter of the last importance that they should join the proposed Confederation, and thus be at once restrained and assisted by the central power. Sir Theophilus Shepstone had been charged with the duty of bringing the Transvaal Republic to consent to an arrangement of this sort. … Unable to persuade the Boers to accept his suggestions for an amicable arrangement, he proceeded, in virtue of powers intrusted to him, to declare the Republic annexed, and to take over the government. This high-handed act brought with it, as some of its critics in the House of Commons had prophesied, disastrous difficulties. {2965} Not only were the Boers themselves almost as a matter of course disaffected, but they handed over to the Imperial Government all their difficulties and hostilities. They were involved in disputes with both their barbarous neighbours. … In 1875 they had made demands upon Cetchwayo, the most important of which was a rectification of frontier largely in their own favour. … Commissioners were appointed in 1878 to inquire into the rights of the case. … The Commissioners arrived at a unanimous decision against the Dutch claims. … But before the Treaty could be carried out it required ratification from the High Commissioner, and it came back from his hands clogged with formidable conditions. … While … he accepted the boundary report, he determined to make it an opportunity for the destruction of Cetchwayo's power. In December a Special Commission was despatched to meet the Zulu Envoys to explain the award, but at the same time to demand corresponding guarantees from the King. When these were unfolded they appeared to be the abolition of his military system and the substitution of a system of tribal regiments approved by the British Government, the acceptance of a British Resident by whose advice he was to act, the protection of missionaries, and the payment of certain fines for irregularities committed by his subjects. These claims were thrown into the form of an ultimatum, and Cetchwayo was given thirty days to decide. … It was to be submission or war. It proved to be war. Sir Bartle Frere had already prepared for this contingency; he had detained in South Africa the troops which should have returned to England, and had applied to the Home Government for more. … Lord Chelmsford was appointed to the command of the troops upon the frontier, and on the 12th, the very day on which the time allowed for the acceptance of the ultimatum expired, the frontier was crossed. The invasion was directed towards Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … The first step across the frontier produced a terrible disaster. The troops under the immediate command of Lord Chelmsford encamped at Isandlana without any of the ordinary precautions, and in a bad position. … In this unprotected situation Lord Chelmsford, while himself advancing to reconnoitre, left two battalions of the 24th with some native allies under Colonel Pulleine, who were subsequently joined by a body of 3,000 natives and a few Europeans under Colonel Durnford. The forces left in the camp were suddenly assaulted by the Zulus in overwhelming numbers and entirely destroyed [January 22, 1879]. It was only the magnificent defence by Chard and Bromhead of the post and hospital at Rorke's Drift which prevented the victorious savages from pouring into Natal. Lord Chelmsford on returning from his advance hurried from the fearful scene of slaughter back to the frontier. For the moment all was panic; an immediate irruption of the enemy was expected. But when it was found that Colonel Wood to the west could hold his own though only with much rough fighting, and that Colonel Pearson, towards the mouth of the river, after a successful battle had occupied and held Ekowe, confidence was re-established. But the troops in Ekowe were cut off from all communication except by means of heliographic signals, and the interest of the war was for a while centred upon the beleaguered garrison. With extreme caution, in spite of the clamorous criticism levelled against him, Lord Chelmsford refused to move to its rescue till fully reinforced. Towards the end of March however it was known that the provisions were running low, and on the 29th an army of 6,000 men again crossed the frontier. On this occasion there was no lack of precaution. … As they approached the fortress, they were assaulted at Gingilovo, their strong formation proved efficient against the wild bravery of their assailants, a complete victory was won, and the garrison at Ekowe rescued. A day or two earlier an even more reckless assault upon Colonel Wood's camp at Kambula was encountered with the same success. But for the re-establishment of the English prestige it was thought necessary to undertake a fresh invasion of the country. … Several attempts at peace had been made on the part of the Zulus. But their ambassadors were never, in the opinion of the English generals, sufficiently accredited to allow negotiations to be opened. Yet it would appear that Cetchwayo was really desirous of peace, according to his own account even the assault at Isandlana was an accident, and the two last great battles were the result of local efforts. At length in July properly authorised envoys came to the camp. Terms of submission were dictated to them, but as they were not at once accepted a final battle was fought resulting completely in favour of the English, who then occupied and burnt Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … Sir Garnet Wolseley was … again sent out with full powers to effect a settlement. His first business was to capture the King. When this was done he proceeded to divide Zululand into thirteen districts, each under a separate chief; the military system was destroyed; the people were disarmed and no importation of arms allowed; a Resident was to decide disputes in which British subjects were involved. The reception of missionaries against the will of the people was not however insisted on."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages 545-550.

ALSO IN: F. E. Colenso and E. Durnford, History of the Zulu War.

A. Wilmot, History of the Zulu War.

C. J. Norris-Newman, In Zululand with the British.

C. Vijn, Cetswayo's Dutchman.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893. British acquisition of Matabeleland or Zambesia. Dominion of the British South Africa Company. War with King Lobengula.

"The Boers, ever on the lookout for new lands into which to trek, had long ago fixed their eyes on the country north of the Limpopo, known generally as Matabeleland, ruled over by Lobengula, the son of the chief of the Matabeles. … The reports of Mauch, Baines, and others, of the rich gold mines contained in this territory, were well known. … Other travellers and sportsmen, Mohr, Oates, Selous, gave the most favourable accounts not only of the gold of the country, but of the suitability of a large portion of the high plateau known as Mashonaland for European settlement and agricultural operations. When Sir Charles Warren was in Bechuanaland in 1885, several of his officers made journeys to Matabeleland, and their reports all tended to show the desirability of taking possession of that country; indeed Sir Charles was assured that Lobengula would welcome a British alliance as a protection against the Boers, of whose designs he was afraid. … {2966} As a result of Sir Charles Warren's mission to Bechuanaland, and of the reports furnished by the agents he sent into Matabeleland, the attention of adventurers and prospectors was more and more drawn towards the latter country. The Portuguese … had been electrified into activity by the events of the past two years. That the attention of the British Government was directed to Matabeleland even in 1887 is evident from a protest in August of that year, on the part of Lord Salisbury, against an official Portuguese map claiming a section of that country as within the Portuguese sphere. Lord Salisbury then clearly stated that no pretensions of Portugal to Matabeleland could be recognised, and that the Zambesi should be regarded as the natural northern limit of British South Africa. The British Prime Minister reminded the Portuguese Government that according to the Berlin Act no claim to territory in Central Africa could be recognised that was not supported by effective occupation. The Portuguese Government maintained (it must be admitted with justice) that this applied only to the coast, but Lord Salisbury stood firmly to his position. … Germans, Boers, Portuguese, were all ready to lay their hands on the country claimed by Lobengula. England stepped in and took it out of their hands; and at the worst she can only be accused of obeying the law of the universe, 'Might is Right.' By the end of 1887 the attempts of the Transvaal Boers to obtain a hold over Matabeleland had reached a crisis. It became evident that no time was to be lost if England was to secure the Zambesi as the northern limit of extension of her South African possessions. Lobengula himself was harassed and anxious as to the designs of the Boers on the one hand, and the doings of the Portuguese on the north of his territory on the other. In the Rev. J. Smith Moffat, Assistant Commissioner in Bechuanaland, England had a trusty agent who had formerly been a missionary for many years in Matabeleland, and had great influence with Lobengula. Under the circumstances, it does not seem to have been difficult for Mr. Moffat to persuade the King to put an end to his troubles by placing himself under the protection of Great Britain. On 21st March 1888, Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of Cape Colony, and Her Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was able to inform the Home Government that on the previous 11th February Lobengula had appended his mark to a brief document which secured to England supremacy in Matabeleland over all her rivals. … The publication of the treaty was, as might be expected, followed by reclamations both on the part of the Transvaal and of Portugal. Before the British hold was firmly established over the country attempts were made by large parties of Boers to trek into Matabeleland. … Individual Boers as well, it must be said, as individual Englishmen at the kraal of Lobengula, attempted to poison the mind of the latter against the British. But the King remained throughout faithful to his engagements. Indeed, it was not Lobengula himself who gave any cause for anxiety during the initial stage of the English occupation. He is, no doubt, a powerful chief, but even he is obliged to defer to the wishes of his 'indunas' and his army. … Lobengula himself kept a firm hand over his warriors, but even he was at times apprehensive that they might burst beyond all control. Happily this trying initial period passed without disaster. … No sooner was the treaty signed than Lobengula was besieged for concessions of land, the main object of which was to obtain the gold with which the country was said to abound, especially in the east, in Mashonaland." The principal competitors for what was looked upon as the great prize were two syndicates of capitalists, which finally became amalgamated, in 1889, under the skilful diplomacy of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, forming the great British South Africa Company, about which much has been heard in recent years. "The principal field of the operations of the British South Africa Company was defined in the charter to be 'the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese dominions.' The Company was also empowered to acquire any further concessions, if approved of by 'Our Secretary of State.' … The Company was empowered to act as the representative of the Imperial Government, without, however, obtaining any assistance from the Government to bear the expense of the administration. … The capital of the Company was a million sterling. It is not easy to define the relations of the Chartered Company to the various other companies which had mining interests in the country. In itself it was not a consolidation of the interests of those companies. Its functions were to administer the country and to work the concessions on behalf of the Concessionaires, in return for which it was to retain fifty per cent. of the profits. … When the British South African Company was prepared to enter into active occupation of the territories which they were authorised to exploit, they had on the one hand the impis of Lobengula eager to wash their spears in white blood; on the south the Boers of the Transvaal, embittered at being prevented from trekking to the north of the Limpopo, and on the east and on the north-east the Portuguese trying to raise a wall of claims and historical pretensions against the tide of English energy. … An agreement was concluded between England and Portugal in August 1890, by which the eastern limits of the South Africa Company's claims were fixed, and the course of the unknown Sabi River, from north to south, was taken as a boundary. But this did not satisfy either Portugal or the Company, and the treaty was never ratified. … A new agreement [was] signed on the 11th June 1891, under which Portugal can hardly be said to have fared so well as she would have done under the one repudiated by the Cortes in the previous year. The boundary between the British Company's territories was drawn farther east than in the previous treaty. The line starting from the Zambesi near Zumbo runs in a general south-east direction to a point where the Mazoe River is cut by the 33rd degree of east longitude. The boundary then runs in a generally south direction to the junction of the Lunde and the Sabi, where it strikes south-west to the north-east corner of the South African Republic, on the Limpopo. In tracing the frontier along the slope of the plateau, the Portuguese sphere was not allowed to come farther west than 32° 30' East of Greenwich, nor the British sphere east of 33° East. A slight deflection westwards was made so as to include Massi Kessi in the Portuguese sphere. … According to the terms of the arrangement, the navigation of the Zambesi and the Shiré was declared free to all nations."

J S. Keltie, The Partition of Africa, chapter 18.

{2967}

By the spring of 1893 the British South Africa Company had fairly laid hands upon its great dominion of Zambesia. Matabele was swarming with searchers for gold; a railroad from the port of Beira, through Portuguese territory, was in progress: a town at Fort Salisbury was rising. Lobengula, the Matabele king, repented speedily of his treaty and repudiated the construction put on it by the English. Quarrels arose over the Mashonas, whom the Matabeles held in slavery and whom the new lords of the country protected. Both parties showed impatience for war, and it was not long in breaking out. The first shots were exchanged early in October; before the end of the year the British were complete masters of the country, and Lobengula had fled from his lost kingdom, to die, it is said, during the flight. There were two pitched battles, in which the natives suffered terribly. They obtained revenge in one instance, only, by cutting off a party of thirty men, not one of whom survived.

—————SOUTH AFRICA: End————

SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY, The British.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891, and SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

—————SOUTH CAROLINA: Start————

SOUTH CAROLINA: The aboriginal in:habitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES, MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, SHAWANESE, TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1520. The coast explored by Vasquez de Ayllon and called Chicora.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1562-1563. The short-lived Huguenot colony on Broad River.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629. Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670. The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others. The first settlement.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693. Locke's Constitution and its failure.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696. The founding of Charleston. The growth of the Colony.

The expedition of Captain Sayle in 1670 (see NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670) resulted in a settlement, made in 1671, which is historically referred to as that of "Old Charleston." This continued to be for some years the capital of the southern colony: "but, as the commerce of the colony increased, the disadvantages of the position were discovered. It could not be approached by large vessels at low water. In 1680, by a formal command of the proprietors, a second removal took place, the government literally following the people, who had in numbers anticipated the legislative action: and the seat of government was transferred to a neck of land called Oyster Point, admirably conceived for the purposes of commerce, at the confluence of two spacious and deep rivers, the Kiawah and Etiwan, which, in compliment to Lord Shaftesbury, had already been called after him, Ashley and Cooper. Here the foundation was laid of the present city of Charleston. In that year 30 houses were built, though this number could have met the wants of but a small portion of the colony. The heads of families at the Port Royal settlement alone, whose names are preserved to us, are 48 in number: those brought from Clarendon by Yeamans could not have been less numerous: and the additions which they must have had from the mother-country, during the seven or eight years of their stay at the Ashley river settlement, were likely to have been very considerable. Roundheads and cavaliers alike sought refuge in Carolina, which, for a long time, remained a pet province of the proprietors. Liberty of conscience, which the charter professed to guaranty, encouraged emigration. The hopes of avarice, the rigor of creditors, the fear of punishment and persecution, were equal incentives to the settlement of this favored but foreign region. … In 1674, when Nova Belgia, now New York, was conquered by the English, a number of the Dutch from that place sought refuge in Carolina. … Two vessels filled with foreign, perhaps French, Protestants, were transported to Carolina, at the expense of Charles II., in 1679; and the revocation of the edict of Nantz, a few years afterwards, … contributed still more largely to the infant settlement, and provided Carolina with some of the best portions of her growing population. … In 1696, a colony of Congregationalists, from Dorchester in Massachusetts, ascended the Ashley river nearly to its head, and there founded a town, to which they gave the name of that which they had left. Dorchester became a town of some importance. … It is now deserted; the habitations and inhabitants have alike vanished; but the reverend spire, rising through the forest trees which surround it, still attests (1840) the place of their worship, and where so many of them yet repose. Various other countries and causes contributed to the growth and population of the new settlement."

W. G. Simms, History of South Carolina, book 2, chapter 1.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680. Spanish attack from Florida. Indian and Negro Slavery.

"About 1680 a few leading Scotch Presbyterians planned the establishment of a refuge for their persecuted brethren within the bounds of Carolina. The plan shrunk to smaller dimensions than those originally contemplated. Finally Lord Cardross, with a colony of ten Scotch families, settled on the vacant territory of Port Royal. The fate of the settlement foreshadowed the miseries of Darien. It suffered alike from the climate and from the jealousy of the English settlers. … For nearly ten years the dread of a Spanish attack had hung over South Carolina. … In 1680 the threatened storm broke upon the colony. Three galleys landed an invading force at Edisto, where the Governor and secretary had private houses, plundered them of money, plate, and slaves, and killed the Governor's brother-in-law. They then fell upon the Scotch settlement, which had now shrunk to 25 men, and swept it clean out of existence. The colonists did not sit down tamely under their injuries. They raised a force of 400 men and were on the point of making a retaliatory attack when they were checked by an order from the Proprietors. … {2968} The Proprietors may have felt … that, although the immediate attack was unprovoked, the colonists were not wholly blameless in the matter. The Spaniards had suffered from the ravages of pirates who were believed to be befriended by the inhabitants of Charlestown. In another way too the settlers had placed a weapon in the hands of their enemies. The Spaniards were but little to be dreaded, unless strengthened by an Indian alliance. … But from the first settlement of Carolina the colony was tainted with a vice which imperilled its relations with the Indians. Barbadoes … had a large share in the original settlement of Carolina. In that colony negro slavery was already firmly established as the one system of industry. At the time when Yeamans and his followers set sail for the shores of Carolina, Barbadoes had probably two negroes for everyone white inhabitant. The soil and climate of the new territory did everything to confirm the practice of slavery, and South Carolina was from the outset what she ever after remained, the peculiar home of that evil usage. To the West India planter every man of dark colour seemed a natural and proper object of traffic. The settler in Carolina soon learnt the same view. In Virginia and Maryland there are but few traces of any attempt to enslave the Indians. In Carolina … the Indian was kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what had once been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an exile and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the native population furnished a quarter of the whole body of slaves. It would be unfair to attribute all the hostilities between the Indians and the colonists to this one source, but it is clear that it was an import:mt factor. From their very earliest days the settlers were involved in troubles with their savage neighbours."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, chapter 12.

"Of the original thirteen states, South Carolina alone was from its origin essentially a planting state with slave labor. … The proprietaries tempted emigrants by the offer of land at an easy quit-rent, and 150 acres were granted for every able man-servant. 'In that they meant negroes as well as Christians.' … It became the great object of the emigrant 'to buy negro slaves, without which,' adds Wilson, 'a planter can never do any great matter'; and the negro race was multiplied so rapidly by importations that, in a few years, we are told, the blacks in the low country were to the whites in the proportion of 22 to 12."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1696. Beginning of distinctions between the two Carolinas, North and South.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706. Prosperity of the colony. Attack on St. Augustine. French attack on Charleston.

"At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon South Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling for subsistence. While numerous slaves cultivated the extensive plantations, their owners, educated gentlemen, and here and there of noble families in England, had abundant leisure for social intercourse, living as they did in proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town, where the Governor resided, the courts and legislature convened, and the public offices were kept. … Hospitality, refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher class of gentlemen." But party strife at this period raged bitterly, growing mainly out of an attempt to establish the Church of England in the colony. Governor Moore, who had gained power on this issue, sought to strengthen his position by an attack on St. Augustine. "The assembly joined in the scheme. They requested him to go as commander, instead of Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and thought ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be a sufficient force. … Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians march by land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard of their coming, and had sent to Havana for reinforcements. Retreating to their castle, they abandoned their town to Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before Moore's fleet arrived. Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their forces and laid siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary artillery for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for it." Before the artillery arrived, "two Spanish ships appeared off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned the town and all his own ships and hastened back by land. … The expense entailed on the colony was £6,000. When this attack on St. Augustine was planned, it must have been anticipated in the colony that war would be declared against Spain and France." Four years later, the War of the Spanish Succession being then in progress, a French fleet appeared (August, 1706) in the harbor of Charleston and demanded the surrender of the town. Although yellow fever was raging at the time, the governor, Sir Nathaniel Johnson, organized so effective a resistance that the invaders were driven off with considerable loss.

W. J. Rivers, The Carolinas (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 5, chapter 5).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740. War with the Spaniards of Florida.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761. The Cherokee War.

"The Cherokees, who had accompanied Forbes in his expedition against Fort Du Quesne [see CANADA: A. D. 1758], returning home along the mountains, had involved themselves in quarrels with the back settlers of Virginia and the Carolinas, in which several, both Indians and white men, had been killed. Some chiefs, who had proceeded to Charleston to arrange this dispute, were received by Governor Littleton in very haughty style, and he presently marched into the Cherokee country at the head of 1,500 men, contributed by Virginia and the Carolinas, demanding the surrender of the murderers of the English. He was soon glad, however, of any apology for retiring. His troops proved very insubordinate; the small-pox broke out among them; and, having accepted 22 Indian hostages as security for peace and the future delivery of the murderers, he broke up his camp, and fell back in haste and confusion. … No sooner was Littleton's army gone, than the Cherokees attempted to entrap into their power the commander of [Fort Prince George, at the head of the Savannah], and, apprehensive of some plan for the rescue of the hostages, he gave orders to put them in irons. They resisted; and a soldier having been wounded in the struggle, his infuriated companions fell upon the prisoners and put them all to death. {2969} Indignant at this outrage, the Cherokees beleaguered the fort, and sent out war parties in every direction to attack the frontiers. The Assembly of South Carolina, in great alarm, voted 1,000 men, and offered a premium of £25 for every Indian scalp. North Carolina offered a similar premium, and authorized, in addition, the holding of Indian captives as slaves. An express, asking assistance, was sent to General Amherst, who detached 1,200 men, under Colonel Montgomery, chiefly Scotch Highlanders, lately stationed on the western frontier, with orders to make a dash at the Cherokees, but to return in season for the next campaign against Canada. … Joining his forces with the provincial levies, Montgomery entered the Cherokee country, raised the blockade of Fort Prince George, and ravaged the neighboring district. Marching then upon Etchoe, the chief village of the Middle Cherokees, within five miles of that place he encountered [June, 1760] a large body of Indians, strongly posted in a difficult defile, from which they were only driven after a very severe struggle; or, according to other accounts, "Montgomery was himself repulsed. At all events, he retired to Charleston, and, in obedience to his orders, prepared to embark for service at the north. When this determination became known, the province was thrown into the utmost consternation. The Assembly declared themselves unable to raise men to protect the frontiers; and a detachment of 400 regulars was presently conceded" to the solicitations of lieutenant governor Bull, to whom the administration of South Carolina had lately been resigned. Before the year closed, the conquest of the French dominions in America east of the Mississippi had been practically finished and the French and Indian War at the north was closed. But, "while the northern colonies exulted in safety, the Cherokee war still kept the frontiers of Carolina in alarm. Left to themselves by the withdrawal of Montgomery, the Upper Cherokees had beleaguered Fort Loudon. After living for some time on horse-flesh, the garrison, under a promise of safe-conduct to the settlements, had been induced to surrender. But this promise was broken; attacked on the way, a part were killed, and the rest detained as prisoners; after which, the Indians directed all their fury against the frontiers. On a new application presently made to Amherst for assistance, the Highland regiment, now commanded by Grant, was ordered back to Carolina. New levies were also made in the province, and Grant presently marched into the Cherokee country [June, 1761] with 2,600 men. In a second battle, near the same spot with the fight of the previous year, the Indians were driven back with loss. … The Indians took refuge in the defiles of the mountains, and, subdued and humbled, sued for peace. As the condition on which alone it would be granted, they were required to deliver up four warriors to be shot at the head of the army, or to furnish four green Indian scalps within twenty days. A personal application to Governor Bull, by an old chief long known for his attachment to the English, procured a relinquishment of this brutal demand, and peace was presently made."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapter 27 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: D. Ramsay, History of South Carolina, volume 1, chapter 5, section 2.

S. G. Drake, Aboriginal Races of North America, book 4, chapter 4.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Stamp Act. The first Continental Congress. The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1774. Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774; and BOSTON: 1768, to 1773.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. Action taken on the news. Ticonderoga. The siege of Boston. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775. Rapid progress of Revolution. Flight of the Royal Governor.

In January, 1775, a provincial convention for South Carolina was called together at Charleston, under the presidency of Charles Pinckney. It appointed delegates to the second Continental Congress, and took measures to enforce the non-importation agreements in which the colony had joined. At a second session, in June, this convention or Provincial Congress of South Carolina "appointed a Committee of Safety, issued $600,000, of paper money, and voted to raise two regiments, of which Gadsden and Moultrie were chosen colonels. Lieutenant-governor Bull was utterly powerless to prevent or interrupt these proceedings. While the Convention was still in session, Lord William Campbell, who had acquired by marriage large possessions in the province, arrived at Charleston with a commission as governor. Received with courtesy, he presently summoned an Assembly; but that body declined to proceed to business, and soon adjourned on its own authority. The Committee of Safety pursued with energy measures for putting the province in a state of defense. A good deal of resistance was made to the Association [for commercial non-intercourse], especially in the back counties. Persuasion failing, force was used. … A vessel was fitted out by the Committee of Safety, which seized an English powder ship off St. Augustine and brought her into Charleston. Moultrie was presently sent to take possession of the fort in Charleston harbor. No resistance was made. The small garrison, in expectation of the visit, had already [September] retired on board the ships of war in the harbor. Lord Campbell, the governor, accused of secret negotiations with the Cherokees and the disaffected in the back counties, was soon obliged to seek the same shelter. A regiment of artillery was voted; and measures were taken for fortifying the harbor, from which the British ships were soon expelled."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapters 30-31 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: D. Ramsay, History of South Carolina, volume 1, chapter 7, section 1.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (February-April). Allegiance to King George renounced, independence assumed, and a state constitution adopted.

"On the 8th of February 1776, the convention of South Carolina, by Drayton their president, presented their thanks to John Rutledge and Henry Middleton for their services in the American congress, which had made its appeal to the King of kings, established a navy, treasury, and general post-office, exercised control over commerce, and granted to colonies permission to create civil institutions, independent of the regal authority. {2970} The next day arrived Gadsden, the highest officer in the army of the province, and he in like manner received the welcome of public gratitude. … When, on the 10th, the report on reforming the provincial government was considered and many hesitated, Gadsden spoke out for the absolute independence of America. The majority had thus far refused to contemplate the end toward which they were irresistibly impelled. … But the criminal laws could not be enforced for want of officers; public and private affairs were running into confusion; the imminent danger of invasion was proved by intercepted letters, so that necessity compelled the adoption of some adequate system of rule. While a committee of eleven was preparing the organic law, Gadsden, on the 13th, began to act as senior officer of the army. Companies of militia were called down to Charleston, and the military forces augmented by two regiments of riflemen. In the early part of the year Sullivan's Island was a wilderness, thickly covered with myrtle, live-oak, and palmettos; there, on the 2d of March, William Moultrie was ordered to complete a fort large enough to hold 1,000 men. Within five days after the convention received the act of parliament of the preceding December which authorized the capture of American vessels and property, they gave up the hope of reconciliation; and, on the 26th of March 1776, asserting 'the good of the people to be the origin and end of all government,' and enumerating the unwarrantable acts of the British parliament, the implacability of the king, and the violence of his officers, they established a constitution for South Carolina. … On the 27th, John Rutledge was chosen president, Henry Laurens vice-president, and William Henry Drayton chief justice. … On the 23d of April the court was opened at Charleston, and the chief justice after an elaborate exposition charged the grand jury in these words: 'The law of the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty to declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has abdicated the government, that he has no authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him.'"

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), epoch 3, chapter 25 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: W. G. Simms, History of South Carolina, book 4, chapter 5.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (June). Sir Henry Clinton's repulse from Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1778. The war in the North. The Articles of Confederation. The alliance with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1778.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778. State Constitution framed and adopted.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778-1779. The war carried into the south. Savannah taken and Georgia subdued. Unsuccessful attempt to recover Savannah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH; and 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780. Siege and surrender of Charleston. Defeat of Gates at Camden. British subjugation of the state.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780. Partisan warfare of Marion and his Men.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1781. Greene's campaign. King's Mountain. The Cowpens. Guilford Court House. Hobkirk's Hill. Eutaw springs. The British shut up in Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1781-1783. The campaign in Virginia. Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis. Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1781 to 1783.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787. Cession of Western land claims to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1788. Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1828-1833. The Nullification movement and threatened Secession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1831. The first railroad.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860. The plotting of the Rebellion. Passage of the Ordinance of Secession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860 (December). Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER) MAJOR ANDERSON.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April). Beginning the War of Rebellion. The bombardment of Fort Sumter.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (October-December). Capture of Hilton Head and occupation of the coast islands by Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May). The arming of the Freedmen at Hilton Head.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April). The repulse of the Monitor-fleet at Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July). Lodgment of Union forces on Morris Island, and assault on Fort Wagner.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).- Siege of Fort Wagner. Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February). Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).- Sherman's march through the state. The burning of Columbia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (June). Provisional Government set up under President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

{2971}

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876. Reconstruction.

"After the close of the war, two distinct and opposing plans were applied for the reconstruction, or restoration to the Union, of the State. The first, known as the Presidential plan [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY)], was quickly superseded by the second, known as the Congressional plan; but it had worked vast mischief by fostering delusive hopes, the reaction of which was manifest in long enduring bitterness. Under the latter plan, embodied in the Act of Congress of March 2, 1867 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (MARCH)], a convention was assembled in Charleston, January 14, 1868, 'to frame a Constitution and Civil Government.' The previous registration of voters made in October, 1867, showed a total of 125,328, of whom 46,346 were whites, and 78,982 blacks. … On the question of holding a constitutional convention the vote cast in November, 1867, was 71,087; 130 whites and 68,876 blacks voting for it, and 2,801 whites against it. Of the delegates chosen to the convention 34 were whites and 63 blacks. The new Constitution was adopted at an election held on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of April, 1868, all State officers to initiate its operation being elected at the same time. At this election the registration was 133,597; the vote for the Constitution 70,758; against it, 27,288; total vote. 98,046; not voting, 35,551. Against the approval by Congress of this Constitution the Democratic State Central Committee forwarded a protest," which declared: "The Constitution was the work of Northern adventurers, Southern renegades, and Ignorant negroes. Not one per cent. of the white population of the State approves it, and not two per cent. of the negroes who voted for its adoption understood what this act of voting implied." "The new State officers took office July 9, 1868. In the first Legislature, which assembled on the same day, the Senate consisted of 33 members, of whom 9 were negroes and but 7 were Democrats. The House of Representatives consisted of 124 members, of whom 48 were white men, 14 only of these being Democrats. The whole Legislature thus consisted of 72 white and 85 colored members. At this date the entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted to $5,407,306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms) of Governor R. K. Scott's administration, December, 1872, the funded debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including past-due and unpaid interest for three years."

W. Allen, Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina, chapter 1.

"Mr. James S. Pike, late Minister of the United States at the Hague, a Republican and an original abolitionist, who visited the state in 1873, after five years' supremacy by Scott and his successor Moses, and their allies, has published a pungent and instructive account of public affairs during that trying time, under the title of 'The Prostrate State.' The most significant of the striking features of this book is that he undertakes to write a correct history of the state by dividing the principal frauds, already committed or then in process of completion, into eight distinct classes, which he enumerates as follows:

1. Those which relate to the increase of the state debt. 2. The frauds practiced in the purchase of lands for the freedmen. 3. The railroad frauds. 4. The election frauds. 5. The frauds practiced in the redemption of the notes of the Bank of South Carolina. 6. The census fraud. 7. The fraud in furnishing the legislative chamber. 8. General and legislative corruption. …

Mr. Pike in his 'Prostrate State,' speaking of the state finances in 1873, says; 'But, as the treasury of South Carolina has been so thoroughly gutted by the thieves who have hitherto had possession of the state government, there is nothing left to steal. The note of any negro in the state is worth as much on the market as a South Carolina bond.'" This reign of corruption was checked in 1874 by the election to the governorship of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the regular Republican nominee, who had been Attorney-General during Scott's administration. "Governor Chamberlain, quite in contrast with his predecessors, talked reform after his election as well as before it," and was "able to accomplish some marked and wholesome reforms in public expenditures." In 1876 the Democrats succeeded in overpowering the negro vote and acquired control of the state, electing General Wade Hampton governor.

J. J. Hemphill, Reconstruction in South Carolina (Why the Solid South? chapter 4).

Generally, for an account of the measures connected with "Reconstruction,"

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

—————SOUTH CAROLINA: End————

SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1889. Admission to the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

SOUTH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND) LEE'S FIRST INVASION.

SOUTH RIVER, The.

The Delaware and the Hudson were called respectively the South River and the North River by the Dutch, during their occupation of the territory of New Netherland.

SOUTH SEA: The name and its application.

See PACIFIC OCEAN.

SOUTH SEA BUBBLE, The.

"The South Sea Company was first formed by Harley [Earl of Oxford, Lord Treasurer of England] in 1711, his object being to improve public credit, and to provide for the floating debts, which at that period amounted to nearly £10,000,000. The Lord Treasurer, therefore, established a fund for that sum. He secured the interest by making permanent the duties on wine, vinegar, tobacco, and several others; he allured the creditors by promising them the monopoly of trade to the Spanish coasts in America; and the project was sanctioned both by Royal Charter and by Act of Parliament. Nor were the merchants slow in swallowing this gilded bait; and the fancied Eldorado which shone before them dazzled even their discerning eyes. … This spirit spread throughout the whole nation, and many, who scarcely knew whereabouts America lies, felt nevertheless quite certain of its being strewed with gold and gems. … The negotiations of Utrecht, however, in this as in other matters, fell far short of the Ministerial promises and of the public expectation. Instead of a free trade, or any approach to a free trade, with the American colonies, the Court of Madrid granted only, besides the shameful Asiento for negro slaves, the privilege of settling some factories, and sending one annual ship. … This shadow of a trade was bestowed by the British Government on the South Sea Company, but it was very soon disturbed. Their first annual ship, the Royal Prince, did not sail till 1717; and next year broke out the war with Spain. … Still, however, the South Sea Company continued, from its other resources, a flourishing and wealthy corporation; its funds were high, its influence considerable, and it was considered on every occasion the rival and competitor of the Bank of England." {2972} At the close of 1719 the South Sea Company submitted to the government proposals for buying up the public debt. "The great object was to buy up and diminish the burthen of the irredeemable annuities granted in the two last reigns, for the term mostly of 99 years, and amounting at this time to nearly £800,000 a year." The Bank of England became at once a competitor for the same undertaking. "The two bodies now displayed the utmost eagerness to outbid one another, each seeming almost ready to ruin itself, so that it could but disappoint its rival. They both went on enhancing their terms, until at length the South Sea Company rose to the enormous offer of seven millions and a half. … The South Sea Bill finally passed the Commons by a division of 172 against 55. In the Lords, on the 4th of April [1720], the minority was only 17. … On the passing of the Bill very many of the annuitants hastened to carry their orders to the South Sea House, before they even received any offer, or knew what terms would be allowed them!—ready to yield a fixed and certain income for even the smallest share in vast but visionary schemes. The offer which was made to them on the 29th of May (eight years and a quarter's purchase) was much less favourable than they had hoped; yet nevertheless, six days afterwards, it is computed that nearly two-thirds of the whole number of annuitants had already agreed. In fact, it seems clear that, during this time, and throughout the summer, the whole nation, with extremely few exceptions, looked upon the South Sea Scheme as promising and prosperous. Its funds rapidly rose from 130 to above 300. … As soon as the South Sea Bill had received the Royal Assent in April, the Directors proposed a subscription of one million, which was so eagerly taken that the sum subscribed exceeded two. A second subscription was quickly opened, and no less quickly filled. … In August, the stocks, which had been 130 in the winter, rose to 1,000. Such general infatuation would have been happy for the Directors, had they not themselves partaken of it. They opened a third, and even a fourth subscription, larger than the former; they passed a resolution, that from Christmas next their yearly dividend should not be less than fifty per cent.; they assumed an arrogant and overbearing tone. … But the public delusion was not continued to the South Sea Scheme; a thousand other mushroom projects sprung up in that teeming soil. … Change Alley became a new edition of the Rue Quincampoix.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

The crowds were so great within doors, that tables with clerks were set in the street. … Some of the Companies hawked about were for the most extravagant projects; we find amongst the number, 'Wrecks to be fished for on the Irish Coast; Insurance of Horses, and other Cattle (two millions); Insurance of losses by servants; To make Salt-Water Fresh; For Building of Hospitals for Bastard Children; For Building of Ships against Pirates; For making of Oil from Sun-flower Seeds; For improving of Malt Liquors; For recovering of Seamen's Wages; For extracting of Silver from Lead; For the transmuting of Quicksilver into a malleable and fine Metal; For making of Iron with Pit-coal; For importing a Number of large Jack Asses from Spain; For trading in Human Hair; For flitting of Hogs; For a Wheel for a Perpetual Motion.'

But the most strange of all, perhaps, was 'For an Undertaking which shall in due time be revealed.' Each subscriber was to pay down two guineas, and hereafter to receive a share of one hundred with a disclosure of the object; and so tempting was the offer that 1,000 of these subscriptions were paid the same morning, with which the projector went off in the afternoon. … When the sums intended to be raised had grown altogether, it is said, to the enormous amount of £300,000,000, the first check to the public infatuation was given by the same body whence it had first sprung. The South Sea Directors … obtained an order from the Lords Justices, and writs of scire facias, against several of the new bubble Companies. These fell, but in falling drew down the whole fabric with them. As soon as distrust was excited, all men became anxious to convert their bonds into money. … Early in September, the South Sea stock began to decline: its fall became more rapid from day to day, and in less than a month it had sunk below 300. … The decline progressively continued, and the news of the crash in France [of the contemporary Mississippi Scheme of John Law-see FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720] completed ours. Thousands of families were reduced to beggary. … The resentment and rage were universal."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 11 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: A. Anderson, History and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce, volume 3, page 43, and after.

J. Toland, Secret History of the South Sea Scheme (Works, volume 1).

C. Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions, chapter 2.

SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY, The.

The organization of the so called Confederate States of America, formed among the states which attempted in 1861 to secede from the American Union, is commonly referred to as the Southern Confederacy. For an account of the Constitution of the Confederacy, and the establishing of its government.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

SOUTHERN CROSS, Order or the.

A Brazilian order of knighthood instituted in 1826 by the Emperor, Pedro I.

SPA-FIELDS MEETING AND RIOT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SPAHIS.

In the Turkish feudal system, organized by Mahomet II. (A. D. 1451-1481), "the general name for the holders of military fiefs was Spahi, a Cavalier, a title which exactly answers to those which we find in the feudal countries of Christian Europe. … The Spahi was the feudal vassal of his Sultan and of his Sultan alone. … Each Spahi … was not only bound to render military service himself in person, but, if the value of his fief exceeded a certain specified amount, he was required to furnish and maintain an armed horseman for every multiple of that sum."

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapters 6 and 10.

"The Spahis cannot properly be considered as a class of nobles. In the villages they had neither estates nor dwellings of their own; they had no right to jurisdiction or to feudal service. … No real rights of property were ever bestowed on them; but, for a specific service a certain revenue was granted them."

L. Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 3.

See, also, TIMAR.

{2973}

—————SPAIN: Start————

SPAIN: Aboriginal Peoples.

"Spain must either have given birth to an aboriginal people, or was peopled by way of the Pyrenees and by emigrants crossing the narrow strait at the columns of Hercules. The Iberian race actually forms the foundation of the populations of Spain. The Basks, or Basques, now confined to a few mountain valleys, formerly occupied the greater portion of the peninsula, as is proved by its geographical nomenclature. Celtic tribes subsequently crossed the Pyrenees, and established themselves in various parts of the country, mixing in many instances with the Iberians, and forming the so·called Celtiberians. This mixed race is met with principally in the two Castiles, whilst Galicia and the larger portion of Portugal appear to be inhabited by pure Celts. The Iberians had their original seat of civilisation in the south; they thence moved northward along the coast of the Mediterranean, penetrating as far as the Alps and the Apennines. These original elements of the population were joined by colonists from the great commercial peoples of the Mediterranean. Cadiz and Malaga were founded by the Phœnicians, Cartagena by the Carthaginians, Sagonte by immigrants from Zacynthe, Rosas is a Rhodian colony, and the ruins of Ampurias recall the Emporium of the Massilians. But it was the Romans who modified the character of the Iberian and Celtic inhabitants of the peninsula."

E. Reclus, The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe, volume 1, page 372.

SPAIN: B. C. 237-202. The rule of Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal in the south.- Beginning of Roman conquest.

See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

SPAIN: B. C. 218-25. Roman conquest.

"The nations of Spain were subjugated one after another by the Romans. The contest began with the second Punic war [B. C. 218], and it ended with the defeat of the Cantabri and Astures by Augustus, B. C. 25. From B. C. 205 the Romans had a dominion in Spain. It was divided into two provinces, Hispania Citerior, or Tarraconensis, and Hispania Ulterior, or Baetica. At first extraordinary proconsuls were sent to Spain, but afterwards two praetors were sent, generally with proconsular authority and twelve fasces. During the Macedonian war the two parts of Spain were placed under one governor, but in B. C. 167 the old division was restored, and so it remained to the time of Augustus. The boundary between the two provinces was originally the Iberus (Ebro). … The country south of the Ebro was the Carthaginian territory, which came into the possession of the Romans at the end of this [the second Punic] war. The centre, the west, and north-west parts of the Spanish peninsula were still independent. At a later time the boundary of Hispania Citerior extended further south, and it was fixed at last between Urci and Murgis, now Guardias Viejas, in 36° 41' North latitude."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 1.

See, also, CELTIBERIANS; LUSITANIA; and NUMANTIAN WAR.

SPAIN: B. C. 83-72. Sertorius.

Quintus Sertorius, who was the ablest and the best of the leaders of the Popular Party, or Italian Party, or Marian Party, as it is variously designated, which contended against Sulla and the senate, in the first Roman civil war, left Italy and withdrew to Spain, or was sent thither (it is uncertain which) in 83 or 82 B. C. before the triumph of Sulla had been decided. His first attempts to make a stand in Spain against the authority of Sulla failed complete]y, and he had thoughts it is said of seeking a peaceful retreat in the Madeira Islands, vaguely known at that period as the Fortunate Isles, or Isles of the Blest. But after some adventures in Mauritania, Sertorius accepted an invitation from the Lusitanians to become their leader in a revolt against the Romans which they meditated. Putting himself at the head of the Lusitanians, and drawing with them other Iberian tribes, Sertorius organized a power in Spain which held the Romans at bay for nearly ten years and which came near to breaking the peninsula from their dominion. He was joined, too, by a large number of the fugitives from Rome of the proscribed party, who formed a senate in Spain and instituted a government there which aspired to displace, in time, the senate and the republic on the Tiber, which Sulla had reduced to a shadow and a mockery. First Metellus and then Pompey, who were sent against Sertorius (see ROME: B. C. 78-68), suffered repeated defeats at his hands. In the end, Sertorius was only overcome by treachery among his own officers, who conspired against him and assassinated him, B. C. 72.