• Thanks for the feedback. I was wondering how I should fix the problem related to the primary sources. After reading through the secondary sources, it appears that the Colonial Records of North Carolina and the Correspondences of William Tryon are the only available sources outside of archives physically located in North Carolina. Within these two collections, I scanned and posted whichever documents related to the Regulation, and then organized them chronologically. If I answer the question that you posed using the available primary sources, would it still suffer the same defect related to the primary sources? Also, is it worthwhile to retain the analysis that I've already posted? I agree that the Regulation was about class warfare, but one of farmer-debtors vs. merchant creditors (rather than rich vs. poor, which is Kay's argument - although I can now see that my analysis is unclear on this point).

• Deposition_of_a_Backcountry_Resident,_8_March_1771.pdf: Deposition of a backcountryt resident, describing the Regulator reaction to the Johnston Riot Act.

• This is a relatively self-contained mini-thesis, the sort of work that would make a fine undergraduate history thesis, or a good run of exercise for a graduate student. I think the judgments offered are a little captious. It may seem easy to dismiss, for example, what you apparently regard as stereotypical Marxisé analysis by Marvin Kay, though it's fine of the form, but to say that you're not writing about class warfare because it is only the war of debtors against creditors and not the war of the poor against the rich strikes me as faintly absurd.

• But I think the real problem for me is that this is not a project from which the reader can learn how historical questions are answered. Your mode of construction is so evidently to read the secondary sources, find and scan the sources the secondaries cite, and then rewrite those sources into a new narrative that tries to ascribe excellence or error to the secondaries from which you began. Precisely because this mode depends on the writers of the secondaries having exhaustively plumbed primary sources in order to write up their broad-gauge narratives, the real methods by which history is done are fundamentally concealed among the trees upstream. Perhaps actually asking a legal history question would have helped. For example: Who was criminally prosecuted as a result of these events, what were the charges brought, and how were they tried?

Geography of the Regulation – A Western Insurrection Against Westerners

The earliest social history of the Regulation, by John Spencer Bassett, explained the Regulation as a sectional conflict rooted in the disparate economies of the Piedmont and coast. Large slave plantations dominated the eastern counties, argued Bassett, whereas an economically isolated western frontier practiced subsistence farming. Western farmers revolted against elite eastern planters who overtaxed them while depriving them market access and adequate political representation.

Nor did the Regulator’s invocation of wealth indicate hostility to the wealthy landowners, as historians such as Marvin Kay have argued. Kay’s portrait of the Regulation as an uprising of the poor against the rich hinges on the class consciousness of the poor, who in Kaye’s argument, conceived of themselves as a “class of poor farmers.” (Kay, The North Carolina Regulation, 108). Yet the evidence Kay cites is ambiguous at best. Petitions that describe the Regulators as “poor Industrious peasants” lend themselves to a multiplicity of readings. The word “poor” could refer to the peasants’ relative poverty, their suffering, or both. Nor is it apparent why this modifier deserves any privilege over the subject of the petition – the peasant. Contrary to Kaye’s argument, Regulators rarely referred to their adversaries by wealth alone. Regulators instead described their enemies by reference to their occupation.

Rather than cause the Regulation, wealth correlated with social class, which served as the catalyst for the uprising. Merchants and lawyers consolidated control over the backcountry debt in the late 1760s, appropriated taxes, land and chattel, and consequently enlarged their estates. It was the commercial merchant as creditor that threatened backcountry farmers – the merchants’ private gain represented a symptom of a much more invidious disease.

Religion – A Dissenters' Rebellion

Religious dissidence supplied the content of Regulator demands and also shaped the form of Regulator protest. Thus the October 1769 petition from Rowan county asked for “A Repeal of the Act, prohibiting Dissenting Ministers from marrying according to the Decretals, Rites and Ceremonys, of their Respective Churches,” a request that appeared after the petition to dismiss all the Clerks. (TC, 376). Even redress of the more economic and legal grievances bore religious undertones. Over taxation would be resolved by producing lists of taxables for all to view. (CRNC 702). Not only could every farmer grasp the tax laws, but the act of revelation served as the appropriate remedy. Colonel Fanning captured this dynamic with the greatest clarity, disclaiming that the county “Leaders” would “be arraigned at the Bar of their Shallow Understanding” and “be punished and regulated at their Will, & in a Word for them to become the Sovereign Arbiters of Right & Wrong.” (TC, Fanning Letter April 23, 1768). Much as the unlearned could perceive right and wrong through the ‘inner light,’ so too could unlettered farmers correct legal and economic wrongs by subjecting tax records to public scrutiny.

Population growth in the late 1760s attracted commercial merchants to the North Carolina Piedmont, who in turn supplied an increasing quantity of credit to backcountry farmers. By dominating the courthouse, the Hillsborough merchants and lawyers determined the course of det litigatio. The Regulators’ struggle to sue county clerks for overcharging court fees illustrates how merchant creditors had captured the courthouse. Even when the Regulators successfully made out a writ against a court clerk, the jury threw out the case “on the old score No Bill.” (CRNC 70). Commercial merchants therefore owned an increasingly share of the debt while also consolidating control over the mechanism of debt collection.

In the absence of commercial merchants, fellow farmers extended credit to one another, which constrained their ability to sue on debts. Scattered throughout the countryside, local taverns and stores supplied farmers with credit in the 1750s. Frequently, farmers operated these smaller outfits out of their farms (Thorp, 390). And while these farmer-merchants purchased goods from locales as distant as Charleston, neighboring farmers provided the bulk of supplies (Thorp, 399). A litigious farmer-merchant would therefore threaten his suppliers, who were also his friends and family members. These farmer merchants therefore eschewed the time, expense and ill will of the courthouse, and instead paid for defaulting debts by marking up the prices of store goods. (Thorp, 407). Even with only 31 percent of accounts paid in full, a tavernkeeper could maintain a successful enterprise. (Thorp, 406).

As the backcountry population exploded in the 1760s, merchant firms displaced these farmer merchants, thereby weakening the restraints on debt litigation. In the years immediately preceding the Regulation, the number of merchant firms increased from eight in 1762, to eighteen by 1765. (Whittenberg, 224). Debt litigation spiked during this period. From 1753 to 1762, 681 suits were initiated in Orange County. (Whittenberg, 232) For the three year period between 1763 and 1765, 841 suits were brought before the Orange Country courthouse (Whittenberg, 232). The composition of litigants also changed during this period. Lawyers and merchants brought suit in only one-tenth of cases between 1753 and 1762. (Whittenberg, 232) From 1763 to 1765, this figure had risen to a third. (Whittenberg, 232). Unlike farmer merchants, these commercial merchants did not supply their stores primarily with the local goods, nor did the owners engage in agricultural production. The social and economic ties that disciplined farmer merchants exercised no power over the growing merchant class. These merchants therefore readily availed themselves of the courthouse and sued to collect debts that had previously gone unpaid.

That animus towards merchants fueled the Regulation is demonstrated not only in petitions and Regulator destruction of merchant property, but also by the failure of the Regulation to gain a foothold in territories free of merchant firms. The Moravian religious community, for example, opened a store at Bethabara in 1759. (Kars, 61) Bishop Spangenberg articulated strict rules for the store’s operation, even providing a formula for calculating the price of imported goods. (Thorp, 403). Moravian patronage ensured the store’s success, even as merchant firms crowded the backcountry in the early 1760s. Shielded by their religious institutions, the vortex of merchant debt did not reach the Moravians. Consequently, the Moravians remained neutral during the Regulation. (Kars, 121).

Regulator Demands

Citing References

• CRNC - Saunders, The Colonial Records of North Carolina
• TR - Powell, The Correspondences of William Tryon and Other Selected Papers

All primary source documents referenced above appear under "Primary Source Documents," which are listed chronologically below.

Secondary Sources

Ekirch, A. Roger. "A New Government of Liberty": Hermon Husband's Vision of Backcountry North Carolina. The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 34, no. 4 (Oct. 1977), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2936186 (accessed October 22, 2009).

Hoffman, Ronald. 1976. The "Disaffected" in the Revolutionary South. In The American Revolution: Explorations in the History of American Radicalism, ed. Alfred F. Young, 273-316. DeKalb? : Northern Illinois University Press.

Jameson, J. Franklin. 1926. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kars, Marjoleine. 2002. Breaking Loose Together: The Regulator Rebellion in Pre-Revolutionary North Carolina. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Kay, Marvin L. Michael. 1976. The North Carolina Regulation, 1766-1776: A Class Conflict. In The American Revolution: Explorations in the History of American Radicalism, ed. Alfred F. Young, 71-123. DeKalb? : Northern Illinois University Press.

Kay, Marvin L. Michael. The Payment of Provincial and Local Taxes in North Carolina, 1748-1771. The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 26, no. 2 (April 1969), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1918676 (accessed October 22, 2009).

Kulikoff, Allan. 1993. The American Revolution, Capitalism, and the Formation of the Yeoman Classes. In Beyond the American Revolution: Explorations in the History of American Radicalism, ed. Alfred F. Young, 80-119. DeKalb? : Northern Illinois University Press.

Thorp, Daniel B. Doing Business in the Backcountry: Retail Trade in Colonial Rowan County, North Carolina. The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 48, no. 3 (July 1991), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938142 (accessed October 22, 2009).

Whittenburg, James P. Planters, Merchants, and Lawyers: Social Change and the Origins of the North Carolina Regulation. The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 34, no. 2 (April 1977), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1925314 (accessed October 22, 2009).

-- ChrisFasano - 20 Dec 2009

Project Description

Research Questions

Introduction to the Regulation

Who Were the Regulators?

The Geography of the Regulation – A Western Insurrection Against Westerners

The earliest social history of the Regulation, by John Spencer Bassett, explained the Regulation as a sectional conflict rooted in the disparate economies of the Piedmont and coast. Large slave plantations dominated the eastern counties, argued Bassett, whereas an economically isolated western frontier practiced subsistence farming. Western farmers revolted against elite eastern planters, who overtaxed them while depriving them market access and adequate political representation.

Despite its geographic concentration in the piedmont, the Regulator insurrection did not pit westerners against easterners. Local clerks, lawyers, jurors and sheriffs earned the bulk of Regulator criticism. In the Tenth Regulator Advertisement, an assortment of Orange Country Regulators traced “all our grievances” to the “roguish practices of ignorant and unworthy men who have crept into Posts of Offices.” (CRNC 758-759). Regulator contempt crystallized around the person of Colonel Fanning, the leading political figure and assemblyman of Orange Country. Named in several petitions, Regulators successfully sued him for extortion (cite the trial). So great was the contempt for Colonel Fanning that Herman Husband, a leading Regulator devoted an entire tract to his abuses (A Fan for Fanning). Fanning was even ridiculed in song.

Criticisms of coastal planters and politicians were notably absent from most Regulator petitions, letters and advertisements. The one petition that references the “Maritime parts of the province,” far from exhibiting animosity towards coastal planters, instead challenges the planter elites of the western counties. An October 1769 petition from Rowan county asked that the Assembly “pass an Act, to Tax every one in proportion to his Estates; however equitable the Law as it now stands, may appear to the Inhabitants of the Maritime parts of the province, where estates consist chiefly in Slaves; yet to us in the frontier, where very few are possessed of slaves, tho’ their Estates are in proportion (in many instances) as of one Thousand to one, for all to pay equal, is with Submission, very grievous and oppressive.” These petitioners implicitly recognized that the taxes would seem fair to an eastern planter rich in slaves, who paid taxes on those slaves. Rather than castigate these eastern planters, the petitioners highlighted how these taxes worked an inequity among western farmers. The western land speculator paid the same amount of taxes as the subsistence farmer.

Though a thoroughly western rebellion, the Regulation was a western rebellion against fellow westerners.

Wealth – An Uprising of the Middling Farmer

Anti-Regulators, by contrast, controlled much of the wealth of the western counties. Extant tax lists indicate that wealthiest one percent of Orange County consisted mostly of known anti-Regulators. (Marvin Kay, 82). As both Mark Whittenberg and Marvin Kay note, not all anti-Regulators were rich, nor were all Regulators poor. Nevertheless, the wealthier segments of backcountry society provided steadfast opposition to the Regulation.

Occupation – A Farmer’s Rebellion

Regulators understood their movement as an insurrection against a non-agrarian elite. Rowan County Regulators petitioned the Assembly “to pass an Act to call in all the now acting Clerks, and to fill their places with Gentlemen of probity and Integrity” while also “prohibiting Judges, Lawyers and Sheriffs, from fingering any of their fees” before a final determination. (TC 376). The petition also requested “an Act to prevent and effectually restrain every lawyer and Clerk whatsoever from offering themselves as Candidates, at any future Election of Delegates, within this Province.” (TC, 375). Lack of “redress in what is called Courts of Justice,” Claimed Regulator Teague, derived from the substantial number of “Clarks & Sherrifs” who sat on the juries. (CRNC, 70). Regulators therefore defined themselves against non-agrarian laborers. The forces arraigned against the Regulators were a legal and mercantile elite, they envisioned, whose avarice and lack of scruples left their “whole properties… quite insecure.” (CRNC 233).

Just as the Regulators understood their movement as a defense of the planter class, likewise anti-Regulators understood the Regulation as an uprising against the legal and mercantile elites. Richard Henderson, a judge during the Hillsborough Riots, described how the Regulators deliberated targeted Hillsborough merchants. Only the merchants returned to town to find their windows shattered. (CRNC, 244). A keeper of the Atkin Ferry claimed that the Regulators were eager “to kill all the Clerks and Lawyers,” denouncing an Assembly that “made just such Laws as the Lawyers wanted.” (TC, 623). And Colonel Fanning worried that Regulators would punish the local Leaders, whom he identified as the “Clerks Sheriffs Registers Attornies and all Officers of every Degree and Station.” (TC, Fanning Letter 23 April 1768).

Religion – A Dissenters' Insurrection

Religious dissidence not only supplied the content of Regulator demands, but it also shaped the form of Regulator protest. Thus the October 1769 petition from Rowan county petitioned for “A Repeal of the Act, prohibiting Dissenting Ministers from marrying according to the Decretals, Rites and Ceremonys, of their Respective Churches,” a request that appeared after the petition to dismiss all the Clerks. (TC, 376). Even redress of the more economic and legal grievances bore religious undertones. Over taxation would be resolved by producing lists of Taxables for all to view. (CRNC 702). Not only could every farmer grasp the tax laws, but the act of revelation served as the appropriate method of correction. Fanning captured this dynamic with the greatest clarity, disclaiming that the county “Leaders” would “be arraigned at the Bar of their Shallow Understanding” and “be punished and regulated at their Will, & in a Word for them to become the Sovereign Arbiters of Right & Wrong.” (TC, Fanning Letter April 23, 1768).

Causes of the Regulation

Tax and Debt Collection

Much as local officials used tax collection for private profit, so too did these officials deploy debt collection as a means of personal aggrandizement. Clerks and attorneys overcharged for court fees. Colonel Fanning, for example, charged twice the normal court fees for a wealthy widow. (CRNC, 69). Regulator petitions and advertisements frequently objected to court offices collecting fees that exceeded the legal prescription. (CRNC 733). Legal mechanisms for satisfying debts provided additional opportunities for gain. Sheriffs collected twice for the same debts (CRNC 775), collected amounts that exceeded the value of outstanding debts (CRNC 776), and distrained goods and chattel to pay debts for which no writs could be located (CRNC 777). Governor Martin acknowledged these practices, declaring the “demands of Court officers for Fees… exorbitant, oppressive and extra-legal (CRNC 762). Echoing Regulator complaints, Martin condemned Sheriffs for collecting “Double, Trebble, nay even Quadruple the value of the… debt” (CRNC 763). Even Governor Tryon refused to defend the local officials, instead recommending that the Regulators find redress within “the Laws of the Country” (CRNC 793), and even going so far as to instruct his attorney general to prosecute any officer guilty of extortion (CRNC 794). Finally, the House even suggested reforming the laws governing fee collection because the “exactions of officers” seemed “penal” (CRNC 322). At the time it issued this proposal, anti-Regulators represented the backcountry, with Colonel Fanning himself representing Orange Country.

Control Over Backcountry Debt

Conclusion

Assorted Documents

• Governor_Tryons_Letter,_4_July_1767.pdf: Governor Tryon describes the embezzlement of taxes.

• Letter_from_Edmund_Fanning_to_Governor_Tryon,_23_April_1768.pdf: Letter from Edmund Fanning to Governor Tryon, detailing the objects of Regulator hostility.

• Letter_to_Governor_Tryon,_28_April_1768.pdf: Letter from Samuel Spencer, county clerk and assembly member. Spencer describes the Regulators' refusal to pay taxes, and their desire to inspect the court records.

• Letter_from_William_Tryon,_16_June_1768.pdf: Letter from Governor Tryon to the Earl of Hillsborough, describing the Regulator demands.

• Exchange_between_Anson_County_Regulators_and_Governor_Tryon,_15_Aug_1768.pdf: Exchange between Anson Country Regulators and Governor Tryon. In response to the Regulator accusations of extortion, Tryon recommends that they prosecute the offending officials.

• Governor_Tryons_Letter,_20_March_1769.pdf: Governor Tryon describes religious dissenters in the backcountry.

• Regulator_Petitions,_October_1769.pdf: Several Regulator petitions, demanding that: lawyers be barred from the House of Representatives; clerks receive salaries rather than fees; dissenting ministers be allowed to marry their followers; taxation proportional to estates; and several other items.

• House_Recommendations,_31_Oct_1769.pdf: Recommendations from the House of Representatives concerning record keeping for the public funds.

• Letter_to_Governor_Tryon,_13_March_1770.pdf: Letter to Governor Tryon explaining describing the religious dissenters' obstruction of a Vestry vote.

• Deposition_of_a_Backcountry_Resident,_8_March_1771.pdf: Deposition of a backcountry resident, describing the Regulator reaction to the Johnston Riot Act.

Herman Husband's "An Impartial Relation"

Herman Husband's "A Fan for Fanning"

• Governor_Tryons_A_View_of_the_Polity.pdf: Governor Tryon's description of the political, legal and economic structure of the economy.

• An_Impartial_Relation,_Third_Part.pdf: Herman Husband's "An Impartial Relation," printed in 1770. This document contains pages 51-75.

• A_Fan_for_Fanning,_First_Part.pdf: The first part of Herman Husband's "A Fan for Fanning."

• A_Fan_for_Fanning,_Second_Part.pdf: The second part of Herman Husband's "A Fan for Fanning."

• A_Fan_for_Fanning,_Third_Part.pdf: The third part of Herman Husband's "A Fan for Fanning."

• A_Fan_for_Fanning,_Fourth_Part.pdf: The fourth part of Herman Husband's "A Fan for Fanning."

-- ChrisFasano - 19 Nov 2009

• Governor_Tryons_Letter,_4_July_1767.pdf: Governor Tryon describes the embezzlement of taxes.

• Governor_Tryons_Letter,_20_March_1769.pdf: Governor Tryon describes religious dissenters in the backcountry.

• Letter_to_Governor_Tryon,_28_April_1768.pdf: Letter from Samuel Spencer, county clerk and assembly member. Spencer describes the Regulators' refusal to pay taxes, and their desire to inspect the court records.

• Letter_from_Edmund_Fanning_to_Governor_Tryon,_23_April_1768.pdf: Letter from Edmund Fanning to Governor Tryon, detailing the objects of Regulator hostility.

• Letter_from_William_Tryon,_16_June_1768.pdf: Letter from Governor Tryon to the Earl of Hillsborough, describing the Regulator demands.

• House_Recommendations,_31_Oct_1769.pdf: Recommendations from the House of Representatives concerning record keeping for the public funds.

• Letter_to_Governor_Tryon,_13_March_1770.pdf: Letter to Governor Tryon explaining describing the religious dissenters' obstruction of a Vestry vote.

• Deposition_of_a_Backcountry_Resident,_8_March_1771.pdf: Deposition of a backcountry resident, describing the Regulator reaction to the Johnston Riot Act.

• Exchange_between_Anson_County_Regulators_and_Governor_Tryon,_15_Aug_1768.pdf: Exchange between Anson Country Regulators and Governor Tryon. In response to the Regulator accusations of extortion, Tryon recommends that they prosecute the offending officials.

• Regulator_Petitions,_October_1769.pdf: Several Regulator petitions, demanding that: lawyers be barred from the House of Representatives; clerks receive salaries rather than fees; dissenting ministers be allowed to marry their followers; taxation proportional to estates; and several other items.

• Letter_Describing_Religious_Dissenters,_20_July_1766.pdf: Letter describing the religious dissenters in the North Carolina backcountry.

• Tryons_View_of_the_Polity,_1767.pdf: Governor Tryon's account of North Carolina colony.

• Regulator_Advertisement,_15_Jan_1768.pdf: A Regulator advertisement.

• Regulator_Advertisement,_4_April_1768.pdf: A Regulator advertisement.

• Regulator_Advertisement,_25_April_1768.pdf: A Regulator advertisement.

• Regulator_Advertisement,_Petition_and_Letter.pdf: Regulator advertisement, petition and letter to Hermon Husband.

• Tryons_Response_to_Regulator_Petitions,_13_August_1768.pdf: Tryon's response to the Regulator petitions. These documents also includes some exchanges between Tryon and the Regulators while Tryon was in Hillsborough.

• Petition_and_Depositions_from_Orange_County.pdf: Petition from Orange Country residents and accompanying depositions, describing the extortionate practices of Orange County court officials.

• Regulator_Advertisement,_August_1766.pdf: Regulator Advertisement from Orange County.

• Regulator_Advertisement,_30_April_1768.pdf: Regulator Advertisement, with instructions for the Regulator Convention attendees.

• Article_from_Boston_Chronicle,_7_Nov_1768.pdf: Article printed in the Boston Chronicle, reporting on the poll taxes levied to pay for Governor Tryon's house.

• Tryons_Response_to_the_Hillsborough_Riots.pdf: The Attorney General describes the incident as a riot - which does not amount to treason - and consequently recommends that the Assembly pass a Riot Act

• Minutes_from_the_Assembly,_17_Dec_1770.pdf: Minutes from the Assembly following the Regulator insurrection. The Assembly addresses fraudulent land conveyances, official fees, the expansion of inferior courts, and empowering Presbyterian ministers to solemnize marriages.

• Petition_from_Orange_Country.pdf: Petition to empower justices of the peace to hear small claims.

• Letter_from_James_Iredell,_21_Dec_1770.pdf: Letter from James Iredell describing the Johnston Riot Act.

• Tax_Collection_in_Bute_County,_23_April_1771.pdf: A sheriff describing his difficulty in collecting taxes.

• Fanning_Trial,_22_March_1769.pdf: Trial of Colonel Fanning for extortion.

• Tax_Collection,_Rowan_County_1770.pdf: Sheriff describes Regulators' refusal to pay taxes in Rowan County

• Tryons_Response_to_the_Hillsborough_Riots.pdf: Attorney General McGuire? judges the incident a riot, not treason, and consequently recommends that the Assembly pass a Riot Act

• Johnston_Riot_Act.pdf: The Johnston Riot Act, enacted on January 15, 1771.

• Letter_from_Governor_Martin,_30_Aug_1772.pdf: Letter from Governor Martin describing his tour through the Western counties, and assessing the causes of insurrection.

• Letter_from_Governor_Martin,_16_March_1775.pdf: Letter from Governor Martin assessing political sympathies on the eve of the Revolution.

• Letter_from_James_Iredell,_21_Dec_1770.pdf: Letter from James Iredell describing the Johnston Riot Act.

• Minutes_from_the_Assembly,_17_Dec_1770.pdf: Minutes from the Assembly following the Regulator insurrection. The Assembly addresses fraudulent land conveyances, official fees, the expansion of inferior courts, and empowering Presbyterian ministers to solemnize marriages.

• Minutes_from_the_Assembly,_17_Dec_1770.pdf: Minutes from the Assembly following the Regulator insurrection. The Assembly addresses fraudulent land conveyances, official fees, the expansion of inferior courts, and empowering Presbyterian ministers to solemnize marriages.

• Hillsborough_Riots_24_Sept._1770.pdf: An account of the Hillsborough Riots, which took place on September 4, 1770.

• Anti-Regulator_Petition.pdf: An anti-Regulator petition, signed by Edmond Fanning.

Progress Report

This is still very much a work in progress. I'm currently in the process of reading primary source material from the Colonial Records of North Carolina, which I will attach to the wikipage. I've also read Herman Husband's account of the Regulation, which I have attached. Once I have finished reading and attaching the Colonial Records of North Carolina, I plan to research Governor Tryon's collected works.

One question I had about the wikipage was how to address historiography (if I should address it at all). In my analysis section, should I describe the different historiographic approaches to the Regulation?

• Letter_to_Herman_Husband,_14_Sept_1769.pdf: Letter to Herman Husband, detailing the difficulties that some backcountry farmers experienced in suing for extortion at the local courthouse.

• Assembly_Resolutions,_06_Nov_1769.pdf: Assembly resolutions discussing the collection of public funds, and subsequent address by Governor Tryon.

• Tax_Collection,_Rowan_County_1770.pdf: Sheriff describes Regulators refusal to pay taxes in Rowan County

• Orange_County_Petitions.pdf: Petitions from Orange County

• An_Impartial_Relation,_First_Part.pdf: Herman Husband's "An Impartial Relation," printed in 1770. This document contains pages 1-25.

• An_Impartial_Relation,_Second_Part.pdf: Herman Husband's "An Impartial Relation," printed in 1770. This document contains pages 26-50.

• An_Impartial_Relation,_Third_Part.pdf: Herman Husband's "An Impartial Relation," printed in 1770. This document contains pages 21-75.

• An_Impartial_Relation,_Fourth_Part.pdf: Herman Husband's "An Impartial Relation," printed in 1770. This document contains pages 76-104, the final page in the tract.

-- ChrisFasano - 05 Nov 2009

Regulators of North Carolina

Project Description and Research Questions

Project Description

Who were the Regulators? What were their grievances? How did this movement seek to address these grievances? What did the insurrection's ultimate failure demonstrate about the colony's economic, political and legal structure?

Primary Source Documents

-- ChrisFasano - 04 Nov 2009

-- ChrisFasano - 03 Nov 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->