When Fanning First to Orange Came

DESCRIPTION: "When Fanning first to Orange came He looked both pale and wan, An old patched coat upon his back An old mare he rode on. Both man and mare wa'nt worth five pounds... but by his civil robberies He's laced his coat with gold."
AUTHOR: Rednap Howell? (source: Haywood)
EARLIEST DATE: 1826 (Raleigh Register and North-Carolina Gazette); the version in Cohen supposedly comes from 1765
KEYWORDS: robbery gold political
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1738?-1818 - Life of Edmund Fanning
May 16, 1771 - Battle of Alamances
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Brown/Belden/Hudson-FrankCBrownCollectionNCFolklore2 277, "When Fanning First to Orange Came" (1 text)
Cohen-AmericanFolkSongsARegionalEncyclopedia1, p. 231, "When Fanning First to Orange Came (1 short text)
ADDITIONAL: Marshall DeLancey Haywood, _Governor William Tryon and his Administration in the Province of North Carolina, 1765-1771_, 1903 (I use the 1958 Edwards & Broughton reprint with a dust jacket that reads "Governor Tryon of North Carolina" although the interior uses the original title), p. 102, "(no title)" (1 excerpt)
Annie Sutton Cameron, _Hillsborough and the Regulators_, Orange County Historical Museum, 1964, p. 6, "(no title)" (1 text)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "From Hillsborough Town the First of May" (subject)
cf. "Said Frohock to Fanning" (subject)
cf. "Who Would Have Tho't Harmon" (subject)
NOTES [5203 words]: One of four "regulator" songs in Brown. The Regulators were a group of protesters against high taxes and fees, found mostly in North Carolina though some also were active in South Carolina. Orange County, North Carolina, was the heart of Regulator country, and Edmund Fanning one of their chief targets; hence the title of this song.
Dunaway, p. 11, finds the earliest Fannings in Ireland, although he cannot prove a link between the Irish and American Fannings. The earliest of the American Fannings, another Edmund, came to Connecticut in 1653. He was our Edmund's great-grandfather; his son Thomas (1665-1704) was the father of James, who moved his family to New York (Dunaway, p. 13).
James Fanning worked as a carpenter (Dunaway, p. 15), and it seems that most of his children also worked in the trades. Edmund was the exception. The youngest son -- he was born twenty years after his oldest brother -- he had a twin sister Hannah. Dunaway gives his birth date as April 24, 1739, though the other sources I've seen (which I generally consider more reliable) often suggest 1738. (I wonder if this isn't based on his memorial carving at Kensington, England, shown on p. 73 of Dunway; it says that he died February 24, 1818 at age 79.)
Dunaway, pp. 15-16, finds it curious that the Fannings were a family of craft workers (though one source called them a family of wealth and standing -- I wonder if we shouldn't call James Fanning a "builder" rather than a "carpenter"), but Edmund went to Yale and earned a degree. Several of the sources he consulted say that Edmund earned his bachelor's degree as early as 1757, earning multiple Masters and Law degrees later. The collection of degrees is amazing and improbable, but clearly he had the best education in his family.
Fanning married wife Phoebe Maria Burns quite late (1785), and I suspect she was much younger than he was, since she lived until 1853; they had four children (Dunaway, pp. 19-20) -- though their only son died young and none of the three girls ever had children, so his line is extinct (Dunaway, p. 42).
It is not exactly certain when Fanning moved to the Hillsborough area, but he requested the right to practice law there in early 1761. It is possible that he followed other family members to North Carolina (Dunaway, p. 27). He evidently quickly came to the attention of Governor William Tryon, though we don't know how; Tryon made him a judge when he was just 27. Fanning certainly rewarded Tryon; when Fanning soon after became a member of the General Assembly, he made the motion to authorize Tryon to build his colossal Governor's mansion at Newburn (Dunaway, p. 29). When Tryon mounted his "Cherokee Boundary Expedition," he made Fanning Adjutant General (Dunaway, p. 30). After Fanning's house was burned, Tryon even appointed Fanning his private secretary (Dunaway, p. 35). It may be that Tryon even lent Fanning money; at least, in his will, Tryon forgave anything Fanning owed him (Dunaway, p. 42). It seems clear that the two were quite cozy -- and had similar views of their opponents, the Regulators.
In late 1774 Fanning was appointed Surveyor General of New York -- clearly a prestige job, since it was supposed to pay 1500 pounds per year, although Fanning apparently was never paid because of the American Revolution (Dunaway, p. 36). At the end of 1776, as a colonel in royal service, he was authorized to raise a regiment of loyalists. He would be twice wounded in the way (Dunaway, p. 39). After the war, Fanning became lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia and, in 1798, Governor of St. John's Island. He was made a full general in 1808 (with at least some of the promotions coming by purchase, I would presume, since I can't see have any particular military accomplishments on his record to justify such a rank) and retired to London in 1813 (Dunaway, p. 42). He would be one of the loyalists compensated by the British parliament for the losses of their American lands (Dunaway, p. 51).
Dunway constantly refers to his acquisitions of land. He also seems to have been quite haughty, and not overly honest. Little wonder the Regulators didn't like him and produced complaints such as this one!
Jameson, p. 549, described the Regulators this way:
"Regulators, the name given to a body of insurgents in North Carolina just before the Revolution. Heavy taxes and fees aroused the resistance of the back-country people against Governor Tryon in 1766. The rebellion spread, but Tryon [Governor William Tryon, 1725-1788; governor of North Carolina 1765-1771] signally defeated the armed bands at Almances, on the Haw, in 1771. His successor, Martin, compromised with the 'Regulators.'"
Powell-History, p. 50, has this description of the Regulator movement:
"Resentful of eastern control over their affairs, suspicious of the honesty of most local officeholders, and confident that they could manage their own government, many people in the [North Carolina] back country responded with enthusiasm to calls to attend local gatherings at which their problems might be discussed. After several clashes with local officials, the dissatisfied element coalesced into a body which called itself the Regulators, since its members wanted to regulate their own affairs. The objectives were stated quite clearly in a series of Regulator Advertisements that they issued, and their determination was demonstrated in several attacks on county courts and on individual officers. When the assembly meeting in New Bern was threatened, Governor Tryon called out the provincial militia and marched to the center of the Regulator country to quell the rebellion. In a battle fought near Alamance Creek on May 16, 1771, the Regulators were soundly defeated and scattered by the militia. The reform in local government which they so desperately sought was denied them. The west was not to be victorious in its struggle against eastern control until 1835."
Haywood, p. 77, says that the disgruntled citizens "called themselves Regulators, lest others should call them a mob. In fact, 'the mob' was really the only name by which they were at first known, even among themselves." He adds on p. 78 that "the Regulation was not an attempt at a revolution. It was rather a peasants' uprising, a popular upheaval."
According to Haywood, p. 88, there had been an earlier group of Regulators in South Carolina, but the South Carolina group doesn't seem to have been very important.
EncycNorthCarolina, p. 957, says that many now see religion as playing a role: few of the Regulators were Episcopalians, belonging mostly to sects which stressed individualism (though Haywood, pp. 188-190 denied this idea). They were openly anti-authoritarian. Their first protests (against appointed government officials) began in 1764, when the relatively open-minded Arthur Dobbs was still governor (EncycNorthCarolina, p. 958). But Dobbs was an old man, so London had appointed William Tryon as his lieutenant in 1764 (Haywood, pp. 10-11); Tryon took charge when Dobbs died in 1765 (Powell-War, p. 9. Tryon showed his true colors very early; he wanted Dobbs to get out of the way the moment he arrived, so he could start getting full pay and power, according to Haywood, p. 13).
To give the Regulators their due, the entire government of the state was strongly influenced by the governor, and much local administration was in the hands of sheriffs and court clerks, and the latter generally gained their office by purchase and then tried to make up for it in fines and fees. Thus local administration could indeed be very rapacious, and their record-keeping was poor. Dunaway, p. 7, seems to say that every officer he could check on was corrupt. What's more, a scarcity of money in western North Carolina made it hard for the locals to pay in cash (Powell-War, pp. 5-7). Even governor Tryon admitted that the sheriffs were embezzlers (Powell-War, p. 7), although it sounds as if he thought they were cheating the government, not the people.
"It was in Anson, Orange, and Granville counties in 1764 that these people first began to make themselves heard. They were called 'the mob' and created a number of local disturbances until Governor Arthur Dobbs issued a proclamation forbidding the taking of illegal fees, a practice which in large measure had led to the uprising. Within four years the group was joined by others with similar grievances and they came to be known as Regulators" (Powell-War, p. 5).
Powell-War, p. 8, describes one Herman Husband as the closest thing the movement had to an intellectual leader; a convert to Quakerism, he wrote pamphlets on behalf of the people's rights. But he backed away from the group as it turned violent; the army that fought at Alamance didn't really have a commander (Powell-War, p. 9; for more on Husband, see the notes to "From Hillsborough Town the First of May").
In 1766, perhaps inspired by resistance to the Stamp Act (Cameron, p. 6), people in Orange County called a gathering to petition for redress. This may well have been the inspiration for this song, because Edmund Fanning refused to allow any public official to attend. Things in Orange got worse in 1768, when the sheriff demanded that fees be paid at specific places and times, on penalty of a quite substantial fine of two shillings and eight pence. Since Governor Tryon was building an extremely expensive governor's mansion at the time, there was naturally grumbling (Powell-War, p. 11; Cameron, pp. 6-7). The regulators wanted a look at the government's books; this was denied (Powell-War, p. 12).
Things escalated from there. Officials seized a regulator's horse (allegedly for non-payment of taxes); the regulators stole it back and fired shots into Fanning's house (Cameron, p. 17; Dunaway, p. 32; this is probably the subject of "From Hillsborough Town the First of May"). Fanning, who was away, hurried home; he wanted to fight them but couldn't find enough militiamen who were on his side (Powell-War, p. 12; Haywood, pp. 88-89). Eventually, though, he arrested two men -- and there were so many protests that those who were holding them released them (Powell-War, pp. 12-14). From that time on, it was mostly Tryon who was in charge. The government went so far as to bring charges against several officials, including Fanning (Powell-War, p. 14), who by this time was a militia colonel (Powell-War, p. 15).
Three Regulators were convicted at this time -- and Fanning was convicted of five counts of extortion. But he was fined only one penny for each count (and it was later claimed that he had simply misunderstood the law; Powell-War, p. 15; Cameron, p. 20, adds that Francis Nash, who is probably one of the subjects of "Who Would Have Tho't Harmon," was also convicted). The conflict escalated, with Tryon twice calling new elections to get a legislature that would support his plans (Powell-War, pp. 15-16).
It certainly sounds as if this song concerns Fanning's self-enrichment in this period..
"Officials grew concerned for their own safety in 1770 after a mob seized a county officer against whom it held grievances -- the much-despised Edmund Fanning, a corrupt multi-office holder in Orange County -- grabbed his heels, and pulled him down the stairs, banging his head on each step. The home of another official was entered and his personal possessions were thrown out the window" (EncycNorthCarolina, p. 958, which has a portrait of Fanning -- "superior court judge and colonel of the militia" -- on the same page. Powell-War, p. 10, also has an image of Fanning, above his signature; on p. 16, Powell-War describes how Regulators in 1770 went after Judge Richard Henderson. According to Cameron, p. 20, about 150 of them crowded Henderson's court to interfere with the court's business). This is the apparent subject of "Who Would Have Tho't Harmon."
On September 24, 1770, "Windows were broken in private homes, stores of rum and brandy were seized in the taverns, and many citizens were whipped and beaten as the Regulators rioted through the streets of Hillsborough. They mob concentrated on Fanning's fine house, of course. His furniture was destroyed and his papers burned... Finally, his house was cut from its sills" (Cameron, p. 21; according to Dunaway, p. 35, Governor Tryon estimated Fanning's loss as 1200 pounds.). The Regulators then ran their own "court" on September 25.
In 1771, judges were afraid to attend court in the Regulator areas (Haywood, pp. 108-109, prints their protest to the governor), The assembly approved restrictions on the population; Edmund Fanning was part of the assembly's committee that reported on the rebellion and made suggestions (Haywood, p. 111; this Johnston Act, North Carolina's version of the Riot Act, which was authorized to last for one year (Cameron, p. 21), was so strenuous that even the harsh government of George III disallowed parts of it; Haywood, p. 113).
The Regulators in turn declared that they would pay no more taxes, branded Fanning an outlaw to be killed on sight, and declared the courts closed (Cameron, p. 22).
On March 11, 1771, a Grand Jury indicted dozens of Regulators, including Herman Husband, the group's intellectual leader, and Rednap Howell, the man credited with several of the Regulator songs (Haywoood, pp. 114-115). This resulted in Governor Tryon's calling up the militia on March 19, 1771.
When not enough militia turned out, Tryon offered a forty shilling bounty (Cameron, p. 23). He also ordered artillery and other military supplies, and set off after the Regulators (Powell-War, p.19). This eventually resulted in battle on Almances Creek.
The battle did not tale place on the creek, but it was the nearest water landmark. It took place about seven miles southwest of the town of Burlington, North Carolina (Haywood, p. 139 gives the distance as nine miles; some of this is probably because the battlefield was large).
The Regulators, in a sense, scored the first success, capturing and destroying the supplies of one of Tryon's support columns (Haywood, p. 122), but this didn't affect the main army
Neither side was entirely blameless in the lead-up to the battle; some of the Regulators captured a couple of militia officers (a legitimate act of taking prisoners, more or less) -- but beat them severely, which was not proper behavior for soldiers, and caused much dispute in the Regulator ranks (Powell-War, p. 22; Haywood, p. 124). Tryon then gave a one hour ultimatum demanding that the Regulators both submit to the government and disperse (Powell-War, p. 20-22. How Tryon expected them to do both is not clear; apparently he would have accepted it if they dispersed. Haywood, p. 123, mentions the ultimatum to submit and says that he ordered them to disperse once the ultimatum was rejected). They of course refused. Tryon had had enough negotiating; he ordered his men to start firing (Haywood, p. 125).
The men apparently hesitated, so an outraged Tryon allegedly shouted, "Fire! Fire on them or on me!" And so the battle was on.
Purcell, p. 4, describes the Battle of Almances this way:
"Tryon's fourteen hundred militia men met the force of twenty-five hundred regulators, which had gathered on Almance Creek, on May 16. Before attacking, Tryon paused half a mile from the Regulators' camp and demanded that they surrender up their 'outlawed ringleaders.' When no answer came, the two forces formed into lines only about three hundred yards apart. Through outnumbered, Tryon's force was armed with artillery [six swivel guns and two brass cannon, according to Cameron, p. 26], and sometime after 10 a.m. Tryon opened fire on the makeshift Regulator army. After firing grapeshot at the Regulators, many of whom did not even have weapons, Tryon ordered his men to push forward. In less than two hours, the militia drove the Regulators from the field."
Tryon's army had officers coming out his ears. In the attack on Hillsborough in 1768 (for which see "From Hillsborough Town the First of May"), he had a force on the order of a thousand men. Such a force would later be considered a colonel's command, or at most a brigadier general''s, but Tryon had six Lieutenant-generals, two Major-generals (who, in the British army, would command brigades), at least eight colonels including Edmund Fanning, at least five Lieutenant-colonels including John Frohock, and many junior officers (Haywood, pp. 95-96). That which fought at Alamances was not quite as extreme, but still had at least eight colonels (listed by Haywood, p. 118; they again included Fanning, who commanded the local Orange County militia) when two would surely have sufficed. Fanning himself commanded about a hundred men -- in other words, a colonel commanding the equivalent of a company, which should have been commanded by a captain (meaning Fanning was commanding a force that should have been led by an officer ranked *three* grades lower.) It's amazing the army functioned at all, but at least it had a command structure, which the Regulators did not.
Purcell gives Tryon's loss as ten men killed, sixty wounded, and says nine Regulators were killed, with many wounded and several dozen taken prisoner. (EncycNorthCarolina, p. 958, says however that Regulator losses are unknown, since they tended to carry their dead from the field; presumably the nine Regulator dead were the handful left on the field of battle. Cameron, p. 28, Powell-War, p. 22, and Haywood, p. 128, say Tryon lost nine killed, 61 wounded -- the same number of casualties as Purcell, even though Purcell lists one more as dead.)
Tryon's report, as transcribed by Haywood, pp. 125-126, stated, "[I]t has pleased God to bless His Majesty's arms in this province with a signal victory over the Regulators. The action began before twelve o'clock on Thursday, the 16th instant, five miles to the westward of the Great Alamance river, on the road leading from Hillsborough to Salisbury. The loss of our army in killed, wounded, and missing amounts to about sixty men. We had but one officer killed and one dangerously wounded. The action lasted two hours; but, after about half an hour, the enemy took to tree-fighting and much annoyed the men who stood at their guns, which obliged me to cease the artillery for a short time and advance the first lines to force the rebels from the covering. This succeeded, and we pursued them half a mile beyond their camp, and took many of their horses and the little provision and ammunition they left behind them."
"James Few, one of the Regulators' leaders, was executed for treason on the battlefield on May 17. Twelve others who had taken part in the Regulator uprising were convicted of treason and six were hanged in June" (Purcell; EncycNorthCarolina, p. 958, which says that Few was hanged without trial, and Powell-War, p. 22, says that one man was hanged on the spot. According to Haywood, p. 133, Few was such a religious fanatic that he was arguably insane, Tryon justified the execution without trial on the grounds that his soldiers were demanding that someone be punished on the spot. Haywood, p. 135, tells of a folktale that Few lost his mind because none other than Edmund Fanning had seduced his bride-to-be, but Haywood declares it false; Few was already married. But it proves how strong the feeling against Fanning was!).
Executing Fee did not end Tryon's drive for revenge; he took prisoners back with him in chains, and he burned buildings of suspected Regulators (Haywood, pp. 141-143). And, as noted, twelve others were later condemned by juries (no doubt carefully chosen); Tryon requested that six be reprieved, and the government granted it (Haywood, pp. 144-145), but there is no mention of them getting their forfeited property back. The most respected of the six men executed, Benjamin Merrill, was actually captured by Fanning.
The hanging was very, very public, with a large force there to make it a big show. Tryon's methods also wiped out the memories of the executed: we don't even know the names of two of them, or the precise site of their common grave (Cameron, pp. 30-31).
Eventually Tryon offered a pardon to any Regulators who would take a loyalty oath, and 6409 are recorded as having taken it (EncycNorthCarolina, p. 958; Haywood, p. 144, adds that many hundred turned in their weapons). This didn't cover everyone, though; in late 1771, the Assembly petitioned Tryon's replacement, Governor Martin, to pardon everyone except Hermon Husband (the alleged brains of the group), Rednap Howell (the author of the Regulator poetry), and William Butler (Haywood, p. 172). In the end, only Husband was entirely un-forgiven (Haywood, p. 175; based on Haywood, p. 176, it sounds as if everyone was trying to get credit for giving pardons because they wanted popular support).
In the aftermath, North Carolina largely turned against the Regulators; in the election of 1771, Orange County's assembly delegates were anti-Regulators (Powell-War, p. 23). But at least 1500 Regulator families packed up and headed further west to get away from the government they despised (Powell-War, p. 25). Yet when the colonies turned against Britain, "when an opportunity to fight for liberty presented itself year later, they [the former regulators] nearly all become Tories" (Haywood, p. 77). "The very word Regulator became a synonym for Tory" (Haywood, p. 177).
McLynn, p. 389, lists the rise of the Regulators as one of several "direct or indirect responses to the definitive appearance of Britain as the first global superpower." I assume he is referring to the colonials' anger over the taxes needed to support superpowerdom.
Some source I've lost states that Fanning, a Yale graduate of 1757, was a favorite of Tryon's; after moving to North Carolina, he went from being a local attorney to a Superior Court clerk and legislator. He also built a reputation for extreme avarice, making him a particular target for the regulators (and vice versa). A loyalist during the Revolution (commanded the King's American Regiment of Foot), he died in London.
Jameson, p. 229, gives this biography of Fanning: "Fanning, Edmund (1737-1818), at first a clerk of the North Carolina Supreme Court and a legislator. In 1777 he commanded a corps of loyalists, and fled to Nova Scotia at the close of the war, having been notorious for his barbarity as a leader of partisan warfare."
Cameron, p. 5: "The person these Orange County Regulators considered their chief enemy and the man whom they really hated, even more than Governor Tryon, was Colonel Edmund Fanning, the Register of Deeds of the County of Orange. Fanning was a native of New York, a Yale graduate, a lawyer and a scholar who held the rank of 'gentleman' but who in reality was harsh and overbearing and not too honest in his dealings, having a sharp eye out for his own wealth and quick advancement."
Haywood, pp. 78-79, says "The man whose name, above all others, has been associated with the official abuses complained of, was Colonel Edmund Fanning. This person graduated from Yale in the class of 1757. Though certainly not so black as painted, history charges him with being guilty of many extortionate and irregular practices; and we are told that he conducted himself with an insufferable hauteur in his dealing with people.... During the Revolution (at which time he had returned to New York) he remained loyal to Great Britain and was Colonel of the 'King's American Regiment.'" On p. 79 Haywood reports that he was found guilty of extortion in 1768, for "charging six shillings for registering a deed, while the law was supposed to allow only two shillings and eight pence." On page 81, Haywood recounts a report that Fanning working with John Frohock (for whom perhaps see "Said Frohock to Fanning") to charge fifteen dollars for a marriage license, and charging five dollars for a deed when the law allowed a fee of just one dollar -- though Haywood thinks this is an error.
Cameron, p. 8: "Edmund Fanning had come to Childsburg [renamed Hillsborough in 1766; it was the center of Regulator activity]... in 1762. Some people have always maintained that he came with the sole idea of getting rich quick. In March, 1763, Fanning had become Register (sic.) of Deeds for the County of Orange and had bought several lots on King Street. On one of these lots (No. 23) he had buit what was then considered a very fine house.
Some have accused Fanning of cowardice at Alamance, in addition to his graft; Haywood, pp. 82-83, points out that Fanning was given a unanimous vote of confidence by the North Carolina Assembly in 1771, and was praised by Tryon for his courage. But Tryon liked Fanning -- and could have influenced the Assembly.
After the Revolution, the loyalist Fanning went to the Maritime Provinces of what is now Canada; he was for a time governor of Prince Edward Island (although he seemingly didn't do much; my one history of the Island never mentions him) before eventually retiring to Britain (Haywood, p. 83).
The one thing about him that seems genuinely positive is that he was apparently highly regarded in literary circles, being awarded quite a few literature degrees by multiple schools (Haywood, pp. 83-84). If he published anything, though, I can't find a copy.
Haywood, p. 87, concludes that although Fanning was far from an ethical pillar, he was not completely vile. I suspect Haywood is right -- but given how much was written about his crimes (according to Haywood, p. 150, a writer named Caruthers claimed that "nearly everything which happened to the Regulators was 'at the instigation of Fanning'"), I also have to suspect that, where there is smoke, there is fire.
Stewart Dunaway's Life and Times of Edmund Fanning (1739-1818), here cited as Dunaway, seems to be the only book primarily about Fanning, but it isn't really a biography (and is so ill-written as to hardly qualify as English); it's mostly a collection of old records, many of them minimally legible reproductions.
Jameson' biography of Tryon (p. 664) reads as follows: "Tryon, William (1725-1788), born in Ireland, was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of North Carolina in 1764. He was Governor from 1765 to 1771. He suppressed the revolt of the 'Regulators' with great cruelty. He became Governor of New York in 1771, and continued in office until 1778. He was detested by the patriots for his inhumanity and the destruction of Danbury, Fairfield and Norwalk, Conn."
Makes it rather easier to understand why the Regulators were as upset as they were....
Powell-War, p. 9, says that Tryon "seems... to have had decided executive ability, great tact, and broad ideas." (For example, he gave real thought to improving the colony's mail; Haywood, p. 14. And he tried to found a college that would be open to all Protestants, not just Anglicans, until George III shot him down; Haywood, pp. 26-28.) But he clearly was authoritarian in the extreme.
Haywood, p. 67, admits that "with all his strong points, he was vain to a marked degree." I think an open letter written to Tryon and the people of New York, by "Atticus" (a pseudonym for a judge named Maurice Moore who had been in the assembly that ordered the war measures; Haywood, p. 155) after Tryon left North Carolina, sums it up; it says to Tryon, "I am too well acquainted with your character to suppose you can bear to be told of your faults with temper. You re too much of the soldier, and too little of the philosopher, for reprehension. With this opinion of Your Excellency, I have reason to believe that this letter will be more serviceable to the province of New York, than useful or entertaining to its governor." It goes on to accuse Tryon of enforcing brutal policies while uttering contradictory words (Haywood, p. 156), and rehearses the complaints about high fees in a state with no money (Haywood, p. 157). It charges Tryon with using military force when the courts could have done what was needed, and accuses him of lawlessness afterward; there appears to be an oblique reference to Tryon's support of Fanning (Haywood, pp. 157-160). "Atticus" does not sound like he was a Regulator, but he shows that many North Carolinians felt Tryon was an oppressor.
North Carolina briefly had a "Tryon County," but it was broken up in 1779 into Lincoln and Rutherford counties (Haywood, p. 72). I read somewhere that North Carolina politicians were fond of splitting counties for their own ends, but in this case, it was a pretty revolutionary rejection of a British governor. On the other hand, the small town of Tryon still exists.
I find it ironic that Tryon's tombstone, as quoted on p. 200 of Haywood, mentions his rank of lieutenant general, and his time as Governor of New York (a title he held, at least nominally, until 1780; Haywood, p. 198) -- but does not mention his time in North Carolina, which was surely the most significant service he did for the British crown.
Views about the Regulators have varied over the years. Haywood clearly despised them. Others saw them as forerunners of the American Revolution, which is ironic since they mostly were loyalists. (Indeed, Dunaway, p. 6, says that "Almost every founding father of the State of N.C. [that is, those who governed the state after it joined the independence movement]... served with Gov. Tryon at [Almances].") But Cameron, pp. 32-33, says that most moderns now take a middle view: "that the Regulators were right in principle, as the American Revolution later demonstrated, although wrong in strategy and tactics, and that they contributed much of permanent worth to the American political scene." With this I mostly agree, though I think they were a little too right-wing to really be good at self-government. I think most would agree that their views of Fanning were mostly right: he wasn't as bad as they painted him, but he certainly should not have been permitted to be as abusive as he was. This poem is unfair, but it is accurate in a caricature-ish sort of way.
Cohen's notes say that this song was first recorded in 1765. But note Fanning's dates. He was probably not worth writing about in 1765. I think there is an error somewhere.
There are several books about the Regulators and related topics:
- John S. Bassett, The Regulators of North Carolina (1765-1771) (be careful not to get one of the cheap print-on-demand reprints!).
- Annie Sutton Cameron, Hillsborough and the Regulators, Orange County Historical Museum, 1964 (cited here as Cameron). This is a 36 page pamphlet, with more details about Hillsborough than most of the other sources
- Marshall DeLancey Haywood, Governor William Tryon, and his Administration in the Province of North Carolina, 1765-1771. (cited here as Haywood).
- Marjoleine Kars, Breaking Loose Together: The Regulator Rebellion in Pre-Revolutionary North Carolina.
- William S. Powell, The War of the Regulation and the Battle of Alamance, May 16, 1771 (cited here as Powell-War). This too is a pamphlet; it's only 32 pages, issued by North Carolina's Department of Archives and History.
- Carole Watterson Troxler, Farming Dissenters: The Regulator Movement in Piedmont North Carolina.
- James Otis, [A Boy Spy] With the Regulators: A Story of North Carolina in 1768, appears to be fiction. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 6.5
File: BrII277

Go to the Ballad Search form
Go to the Ballad Index Song List

Go to the Ballad Index Instructions
Go to the Ballad Index Bibliography or Discography

The Ballad Index Copyright 2024 by Robert B. Waltz and David G. Engle.