I have read several times the assumption that Howell Brewer Sr was a bit of a scoundrel. One account even suggested that he had questionable morals. As to that particular claim, I cannot give an opinion one way or the other.
I would like to, however, consider whether or not he had what some might call criminal leanings. For example, there are several cases in which Howell Brewer Sr was sued for unpaid debts while living in the old Orange County, North Carolina area. I would like to give some background information that might be helpful, and grant us the ability to see the larger picture here.
Something that should be noted is that Howell Sr's repeated run-ins with the law, involving unpaid debts, were not uncommon in that area at that time. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean that he was a dishonest or conniving person. These backwoods settlers had experienced a severe drought in 1758, and crop failures had diminished their income to the point of devastation.
When wealthy lawyers and merchants migrated from the eastern cities, flooding the area in the 1760's, the old settlers were compelled to rely upon these merchants for supplies, causing them to fall into debt. The number of court cases involving unpaid debts rose dramatically from 1765-1775. In Orange County, for example, these charges increased from 7 to 111 per year during this time period. Often the result in these cases was that the settlers lost their plantations to these wealthy newcomers as compensation.
In December of 1758 Howell Sr was found guilty of assault, having been accused by John Williams, and ordered to pay 1 pound and 10 shillings. It would be difficult to determine conclusively who this John Williams fellow might have been, but there was a man by this name who once lived in the Hillsborough District of Orange County. He was a wealthy planter with quite a number of slaves, and eventually went on to become a delegate to the North Carolina Congress in 1775.
Perhaps this information is significant for, if this is the right John Williams, he would have been exactly the kind of many toward whom animosity ran rampant among the back-country farmers. Did they get into a heated argument over political or economic viewpoints? Who's to say? Knowing the background of the conflicting ideas of the two classes of people, though, as will be explained below, it is entirely possible.
Perhaps this information is significant for, if this is the right John Williams, he would have been exactly the kind of many toward whom animosity ran rampant among the back-country farmers. Did they get into a heated argument over political or economic viewpoints? Who's to say? Knowing the background of the conflicting ideas of the two classes of people, though, as will be explained below, it is entirely possible.
In June of 1759 Howell Sr was sued by William Spruce for an unpaid debt. Although, at first, he stated that he had paid it, he later admitted to the jury that he had not. He was ordered to pay 3 pounds and 14 shillings, plus court costs.
In February of 1765, he was again sued for unpaid debt, this time by a man named Nathaniel Edwards in the amount of 2 pounds, 12 shillings and 1 penny. Howell admitted his fault in the matter and was commanded to pay the debt as well as the court costs. By May he was replaced as overseer of road by Charles Saxon. Whether this is relevant to the situation, I do not know.
In February of 1765, he was again sued for unpaid debt, this time by a man named Nathaniel Edwards in the amount of 2 pounds, 12 shillings and 1 penny. Howell admitted his fault in the matter and was commanded to pay the debt as well as the court costs. By May he was replaced as overseer of road by Charles Saxon. Whether this is relevant to the situation, I do not know.
Judging from the economic crisis in which the poorer farmers found themselves following the drought, the influx of the wealthy merchants and their much needed supplies, as well as the unlawfully high taxes and fees the settlers were afterwards being charged, it is not difficult to understand how Howell could have fallen into debt that he had a difficult time paying.
Many of his peers were having the exact same problem. To assume that Howell Sr was careless in his financial dealings or dishonest by nature, does not seem to be a provable judgment at this time. I would rather say that he was a victim of circumstance. It may or may not be realistic to suggest that part of the reason for his decision to sell some of his land could have been so that he could pay his debts and court fees.
Many of his peers were having the exact same problem. To assume that Howell Sr was careless in his financial dealings or dishonest by nature, does not seem to be a provable judgment at this time. I would rather say that he was a victim of circumstance. It may or may not be realistic to suggest that part of the reason for his decision to sell some of his land could have been so that he could pay his debts and court fees.
From 1765-1777 the War of the Regulation, also called the Regulator Movement or the Regulator Uprising, was in full force as the settlers fought to rid themselves of this deeply resented minority who had taken over their government and engaged in greed and extortion, to the settlers' detriment.
This uprising greatly effected the Cumberland and Orange County region, where Howell Brewer Sr and others of his family lived. Of the eight thousand Orange County residents, about six or seven thousand of them supported the uprising. It would be my assumption that, whether or not Howell Sr was actively involved, he undoubtedly agreed with the movement.
This uprising greatly effected the Cumberland and Orange County region, where Howell Brewer Sr and others of his family lived. Of the eight thousand Orange County residents, about six or seven thousand of them supported the uprising. It would be my assumption that, whether or not Howell Sr was actively involved, he undoubtedly agreed with the movement.
These men regularly committed minor violent crimes in the area to vent their frustrations or to get their voices heard, so to speak. They were tired of being charged higher taxes than was lawful, having tax collectors come at random times and steal their livestock if they could not pay, being treated unfairly in the courts and, basically, being ruled by a group of people who they felt were greedy, unlawful and completely out of touch with their plight. It was not a rebellion against the king, but rather against unjust representation and abuse of the laws.
In May of 1768 Howell Brewer Sr and his brother, Nicholas, signed the Regulator Advertisement #9 ➚ petition protesting high recording fees. After numerous pleas to the governor, and professing their loyalty to the king (possibly in order to protect their leaders from execution as traitors), but having their petitions not taken seriously, some of the regulators finally resorted to a more open rebellion. In September of 1770 a group of Howell's peers broke into the Hillsborough Courthouse and dragged lawyers out into the streets and beat them with clubs, and pretty much pillaged the town.
By the evening of 16 May 1771, the situation had escalated, and both the governor's militia and the regulators were camped near the Great Alamance Creek. It is interesting to note that the governor had a hard time gathering militia members to go against the regulators. He allegedly had to offer them a 40 shilling bonus in order to convince them. The governor demanded they agree to be loyal subjects, and turn their arms and their leaders over to him within an hour and ten minutes, or fight to the death. They determined to fight.
It has been reported that the governor's men fired the first shot, prior to the expiration of the allotted time, and the conflict ensued. During the Battle of Alamance ➚ the regulators resorted to guerrilla warfare, wisely using the woods for cover, while the governor's troops marched in conventional British formation. This made them easy targets for the backwoods sharpshooters. However, the settlers lacked proper leadership and sufficient ammunition and were, thus, soon forced to give up their fight and their dreams for the time being. Several of their leaders were hanged.
Though both signed the Regulator Advertisement, as mentioned above, Nicholas was in the battle, but Howell Sr was not. It is hard to say why he wasn't there. Does this mean that he backed down in the heat of the moment? I highly doubt it. The Brewers were notoriously stouthearted and unflinching in the face of opposition, as indicated later in Revolutionary War pension records by those who knew them well.
Can we assume that Nicholas was a violent, blood thirsty, man for being actively involved in the conflict? Absolutely not. He was simply standing up for the rights and laws of his countrymen and trying to put an end to the abuse of power inflicted by the deeply resented rich elite. In fact, many of the regulators who gathered at the Alamance thought that the governor was finally going to listen to their petitions, letters and pleas. They did not come with the intention of battling, and only fought that day when it was forced upon them.
Can we assume that Nicholas was a violent, blood thirsty, man for being actively involved in the conflict? Absolutely not. He was simply standing up for the rights and laws of his countrymen and trying to put an end to the abuse of power inflicted by the deeply resented rich elite. In fact, many of the regulators who gathered at the Alamance thought that the governor was finally going to listen to their petitions, letters and pleas. They did not come with the intention of battling, and only fought that day when it was forced upon them.
We may never know for sure whether or not Howell Brewer Sr was scandalous by nature, or if he was, instead, unflinchingly stouthearted and determined to stand up for what he believed was right, even if it led to a conflict. Was he a rebel or a hero, or both? Was he dishonest or a poor money manager, or had he simply fallen on hard times as had many of his peers? You will have to judge for yourselves, I suppose.
I don't think it is possible to say with absolute certainty, one way or the other, but I am not inclined to look harshly upon his decisions. I would like to think that he was a brave man, one who courageously blazed the trail in the backwoods frontier. Certainly, things did not always go his way, and he saw his share of trials and hardships. He made mistakes, undoubtedly, as we all do, but I believe that he had the perseverance to keep going, despite injustice and financial setbacks.
There is much to be learned from these strong, determined ancestors. Personally, some of these more colorful ones tend to be my favorites. You just never know what fascinating situations you might uncover when digging into their past.
By Mary Andersen (2015)
I don't think it is possible to say with absolute certainty, one way or the other, but I am not inclined to look harshly upon his decisions. I would like to think that he was a brave man, one who courageously blazed the trail in the backwoods frontier. Certainly, things did not always go his way, and he saw his share of trials and hardships. He made mistakes, undoubtedly, as we all do, but I believe that he had the perseverance to keep going, despite injustice and financial setbacks.
There is much to be learned from these strong, determined ancestors. Personally, some of these more colorful ones tend to be my favorites. You just never know what fascinating situations you might uncover when digging into their past.
By Mary Andersen (2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment