Talk:Regulator Movement

Confusing

Wait, were the regulators the tax collectors, or the people against tax collectors? Seems to me that whoever was against tax collectors would be more likely to be Patriots --AW 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a little late for a reply, but the Regulators were pissed off at the tax collectors (mostly). But you see the catch with the Regulation is that the issue was power structure and representation in the North Carolina Assembly. Due to the large county imbalance in the Assembly, eastern counties had much more representation in the Assembly than western counties.

As it turned out though, many of the colonial leaders in the Revolutionary War from North Carolina were in the Assembly, and were part of that entrenched power structure in the eastern part of the State. This sectionalism didn't really give way until the Constitutional Convention of 1839. –Pakman044 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable edit

"In 1764, several thousand people from North Carolina, mainly from Orange, Anson, and Granville counties in the western region (that also included areas within present day Notheast Tennessee), were extremely dissatisfied with North Carolina officials whom they considered cruel, arbitrary, tyrannical and corrupt." (emphasis added)

I'm not really sure it's accurate to say that northeastern Tennessee was really involved. They had similar issues, but the primary phenomenon radiated from the past area of Orange, Anson, and Granville Counties (there was some activity I think in Charlotte too I think, but I don't remember)...which back then was pretty much was western North Carolina. I'm not going to revert this though because it's been nearly ten years since I last did any kind of research on this topic (and I more or less stuck to the Orange County components). –Pakman044 06:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The Proclamation Act of 1763 forbade white settlers from living or even traveling anywhere on the western side of the Appalachian Ridge...in theory anyway. Enforceability was to be left to only 7500 British troops. 98.16.44.16 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Proclamation of 1763 didn't stop settlement to the west, so that doesn't disprove the northeast Tennessee claim. Rather than saying "northeast Tennessee" it probably makes more sense to say "upper Holston Valley area", since the early settlement was in southwest Virginia as well as northeast Tennessee. I don't know whether the people here took part in the War of Regulation -- the area was only just beginning to attract settlers at the time of the war. One could argue that there was at least a connection between the Regulator movement and the upper Holston Valley. The book A History of Appalachia has a few passages on the topic that suggest a connection.

One passage: Significant settlement in the Watauga area and the upper Holston Valley had begun in 1768 after the Treaty of Hard Labor secured the area. Persons moving down the Great Valley of Virginia had built substantial settlements on the upper Holston by 1772. A number of those who came to the Watauga and upper Holston area were upcountry yeomen who had participated in the Regulator Movement, a protest movement of Yadkin-area farmers who had been defeated ... at the Battle of Alamance in May of 1771. And a second passage: The Regulator Movement (1767-1771) was particularly closely associated with Appalachian settlement, for it as the Scotch-Irish and German settlers who had migrated down the Valley of Virginia and then out of the mountains down the Roanoke River into the Yadkin country, who formed the backbone of the Regulators.

While neither passage indicates that settlers of the Holston/Watauga area journeyed east to fight. It sounds more like the migration pattern down the Valley of Virginia (Shenandoah, New River Valley, Holston Valley) had settled the Yadkin area first and only after the Regulation Movement collapsed (or just barely before) did the pattern include settlement in the upper Holston and Watauga areas. It's not impossible that people from what is now northeast Tennessee took part in the Battle of Alamance, but even if they did they must have been few in number. A more likely relationship, it seems to me, is that some people who had only recently settled the Yadkin area, joined the Regulator Movement only to be defeated, decided to move west, joining the more recently arriving kith and kin coming down the Great Valley directly into Tennessee. (of course, this book could have it all wrong too!) Anyway, I just wanted to add these comments. I agree with the removal of the northeast Tennessee claim. If nothing else, it seems like the kind of claim that needs a reference citation to stand. Pfly (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good research, good response. My main objections start with the beginning of the sentence "In 1764,...". The timing is all wrong for any kind of inclusion of Tennesee settlers into this fight. It would need a citation to support it as you point out. Why do I object?..because I believe the author has confused regional ties with that area that occurred after the fact. Every reference that I have found about Tennessee (with regard to the War of Regulation/ Battle of Alamance) occurs after the Battle in 1771. The Watauga Association doesn't occur until afterwards. Hence, there is no foundation for a 1764 claim. Additionally, I don't believe anyone from that region came down for the Battle...wikipedia has been the only reference that I have seen so far to make that claim. Can someone name a source?69.69.213.157 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More on the Proclamation Act of 1763. You are correct in that it didn't stop western settlement, that is why I said "...in theory, anyway"...but I believe that it created a new western boundary for the jurisdiction of the office of governor for the Province of North Carolina. No land claims west of the Proclamation line were recognized and therefore the individuals weren't subject to the Governor or taxes in the conventional sense. They were by theory, however, subject to having their pockets rolled out and having to pay duties for whatever they transported with them every time they crossed the Proclamation Line. But what grievances would they have against Tryon and other NC Officials? The Proclamation had been royal and this money wasn't to flow through the Governor's hands. 98.16.44.16 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All preceding IP addresses in this section were written by me...have new login. Any way to get them associated to my user handle?Berean Hunter (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article lacks any references (inline or otherwise). The extensive list at the end is what I would expect from a high school student who was required to have a certain number of references. It has been three years since the lack of references was mentioned. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia has gotten a bad reputation.

CaptBlackEagle (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

State Militia?

Under causes is the sentence "Ultimately they brought in state militia to crush the rebellion, and then hanged their leaders" (emphasis added).

Was there truly a state militia in colonial North Carolina?

Snowgen (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

unsupported claim

I took out this claim:

Judge Richard Henderson condemned the six captured Regulators to death.

Because, having looking at the reference cited I see no such claim. Perhaps it is the late and I am bleary eyed and not seeing it. But it took to me like there there is nothing on the pages numbers mentioned to support this claim. Please correct me if I am wrong. It is late, as I said. Pfly (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Possible vandalism or typo?

In the "causes" section, it has the date 8787. Does anyone know the correct date to change it to?USMonarchist2008 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

Why did they call themselves Regulators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.38.222 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about this too. In particular, I'd like to know the relation between the use of the name "Regulators" for a band of armed civilians opposed to the government, and the phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Was "regulation" a synonym for "vigilantism" in the 18th century? 167.206.122.66 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Vigilantism doesn't relate to either. And regulators is in no way related to the Second Amendment prefatory clause. The Regulators' Wars were a resistance to what the Regulators saw as systematic tyrannical acts. Vigilantism refers generally to summery acts against criminality in the absence of legal framework. Wars of Regulation were not so much about absence of legal framework or law enforcement but about perversion of legal framework enforcement. The term "well-regulated" was never used at the time for government regulation in the sense we use the term today. The scholarly consensus, and hundred of examples from the time show 'well regulated" meant: well working. A water wheel, a plow, a clock, etc could be described as "well regulated."In that sense it makes sense is a "prefatory clause." I.e. one of the reasons for the right. One must always consider that the Second Amendment main "operational" clause is "the right of the people." There are a couple dozen instances in various state constitutions, and even more general legal writing of the time, that used prefatory clauses for rights related to speech, assembly, warrants etc where a prefatory clause is used. It was a common legal language structure in the era. We do know in the state constitutions, and the US Constitution, "the people" was never used to mean a collective or government right, never a right reserved to a government (colonial, federal, state or local) but always referred to a right of the individual. We do know "the people" in the various state constitutions was not used to mean the "body" of the people such as a Soviet style constitution, but rather used to mean the individual.

For example the 19th century Rhode Island constitution states: The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty ...

The fact that "the press", meant today as a profession is mentioned in the prefatory clause, doesn't not limit the right it to members of the press as the operative clause following it recognizes the right to all people. there are dozens of such examples of colonial and post colonial prefatory clauses state one of the reasons for the operative clause, but where the prefatory clause is not a limit to the operative clause.

I found a very good explanation of all this in the NYU Law Review (one of the most well regarded legal journals in the US) here: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.pdf N34B2 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Second Amendment

Is there any relation to the "well regulated militia" in the second amendment?

No. "Well regulated" was not used at the time to mean government regulated, but rather well working. "Well regulated" in the Second Amendment is a "prefatory clause" anyway, ie used in the language at the time to mean one of the reasons, not the exclusive reason for a right. EG for example Rhode Island state constitution stating "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty" does not mean the right to making a contention in writing only applied to members of the professional press. N34B2 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

change title to Regulator movement in North Carolina

South Carolina has an entirely separate and different movement --they also called it "regulator". I created a new article on "Regulator movement in South Carolina" and moved most of the relevant text over there. To minimize confusion I recommend renaming this article "Regulator Movement in North Carolina." -- any comments? Rjensen (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)