In 1707 the Commons House of Assembly created the Board of Indian Commissioners to regulate the traffic between Indian traders and nations such as the Cherokees, Creeks, and Catawbas.
https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/commission-of-indian-trade
A map to get your bearings…compliments of Mr. Thomas Nairne (who in 1715 or so would be tied to a stake and burning embers inserted in various places of his body until he died a few days later). Take particular notice of the Western Part of the Map to get my concept of where these happenings…. happened. Since Thomas Nairne drew the map, I take his word for it. I mean, it seems rather obvious he was there and knew what he was talking about.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3870.ct001123/?r=-0.044,-0.07,0.984,0.752,0
The Mr Wright of whom this Page is about was captured along with Mr. Nairne but avoided the unpleasant experience apparently by escaping the highly irritated Indegenes. The Yamasse War broke out a bit later and almost wiped South Carolina settlers out. Meanwhile, the North Carolina settlers had their own problems with the Tuscarora Indians.
The foremost account of these two men are found in this 1926 article by A.S. Salley Jr.:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uga1.32108005335198&seq=5
This is the present account of John Wright as proposed by the Know it All (Grok 4.1) as of 2026:
Biography of John Wright, Indian Agent of South Carolina (ca. 1680s–after 1715)
John Wright was a colonial Indian trader and agent active in the early 18th-century southeastern frontier, primarily in South Carolina but with ties to Virginia’s Southside region. His biography is largely drawn from the Journal of the Commissioners of the Indian Trade of South Carolina, September 20, 1710–April 12, 1715 (edited by Alexander Samuel Salley, published 1926 by the Historical Commission of South Carolina), which documents the regulation of Indian trade during a period of escalating tensions leading to the Yamasee War. The journals portray Wright as a controversial figure: a licensed trader turned agent who prioritized aggressive commerce over diplomacy, clashed with rivals, and survived a major native uprising. Below is a detailed account based on the journals and related historical analyses.Early Life and Entry into TradeLittle is known about Wright’s origins, but he likely hailed from Virginia’s Tidewater or Southside (e.g., Isle of Wight or Prince George Counties), where many traders operated near the North Carolina border.
I am interested in finding out where and why the Know it All thinks he originated in Virginia. The very specific date of 1710 has captured my curiosity as a starting point.
_________________________________________
I have been engaged to ferret out various Virginia WRIGHTS using my “mapping” methodology and have been busily doing just that. However, when I ran across this fellow in South Carolina who without a doubt was an Indian Trader but also a highfalutin’ Indian Agent no less I just could not pass up the challenge to track his happy ass down. When I realized it also presented the opportunity to take on a genuine Musk Artificially Brained robot then I am all in. Its you n’ me Grok…mano y boto.
__________________________________________
Classic account…
In April 1715, John Wright and Thomas Nairne were part of a small but critically important peace delegation sent by the South Carolina colonial government to Pocotaligo, the principal town of the Upper Yamasee Indians (located near modern Yemassee in Hampton/Beaufort County, South Carolina, along the Pocotaligo River).
Why They Were Sent
By early spring 1715, alarming rumors had reached Charles Town that the Yamasee were on the verge of war. The Yamasee had long-standing grievances against English traders, including:
- Massive unpaid debts
- Cheating and unfair trade practices
- The enslavement of Indian women and children
- Encroachment on Yamasee lands
Governor Charles Craven and the Board of Commissioners of the Indian Trade decided to send a high-level delegation to calm the situation before it exploded. The goal was to listen to complaints, offer concessions, and reassure the Yamasee that abuses would be stopped.Who Was in the DelegationThe group was small but powerful — six men total:
- Thomas Nairne — experienced diplomat, former Indian Agent, known for being relatively sympathetic to Native concerns
- John Wright — the current or recent Indian Agent, Nairne’s bitter rival, viewed by many as aggressive and harsh toward the Indians
- Samuel Warner and William Bray — commissioners sent directly by the Board
- Seymour Burroughs (or sometimes listed as John Cochran)
- One unidentified trader
Wright and Nairne’s inclusion was deliberate — they were the two most important figures in South Carolina’s entire Indian trade system, and their joint presence was meant to show the colony was taking the crisis seriously.What Happened
- April 14, 1715 (the day before Good Friday): The delegation arrived at Pocotaligo. They held a formal council with Yamasee leaders that evening, shared a feast, and promised that the colony would address the grievances. The Englishmen went to bed believing the talks had been successful and that peace had been restored.
- During the night: While the delegation slept, the Yamasee held their own secret war council and decided to strike. Many accounts note that one of the Englishmen (often identified as Wright) made a provocative statement during the meeting — threatening to enslave the Yamasee and hang their leaders — which helped tip the balance toward war.
- Dawn, April 15, 1715 (Good Friday): The Yamasee warriors launched a surprise attack on the sleeping delegation. Most members were killed immediately.
- William Bray and Samuel Warner died right away.
- Thomas Nairne was captured alive. He was subjected to ritual torture for approximately three days (burning wood splinters and hot cinders were driven into his skin — a common form of execution in Southeastern Native warfare at the time). He died around April 17.
- John Wright was also killed in the initial massacre (most primary and modern accounts confirm this; a few older reports suggest he may have briefly escaped or been spared, but the consensus is that he died at Pocotaligo).
Only one or two members of the delegation escaped (hiding in a nearby swamp) and lived to tell the story.Historical SignificanceThis ambush at Pocotaligo is universally regarded as the event that ignited the Yamasee War (1715–1717). What began as a diplomatic mission turned into the opening massacre of one of the bloodiest conflicts in colonial American history. Within weeks, the Yamasee and their allies attacked plantations across South Carolina, killing hundreds of settlers and nearly destroying the colony.The delegation’s failure — and the gruesome deaths of Nairne and Wright — became a turning point that forced South Carolina to reorganize its Indian policy and military defenses for years afterward.This event is described in detail in later colonial reports, survivor testimonies, and histories such as William L. Ramsey’s The Yamasee War (2008) and contemporary letters preserved in the South Carolina archives. The 1926 Salley edition of the Indian Trade Journals ends just days before the delegation (April 12), so the attack itself is documented in follow-up colonial correspondence rather than the main journal.
……………………
Here is the closest primary survivor-derived account of the Pocotaligo massacre and the torture of Thomas Nairne (and the fate of John Wright) from April 1715.
It comes from a contemporary letter written from South Carolina to a gentleman in London (dated May 8, 1715, based on direct reports from one or more traders who escaped the initial attack and hid in the swamp). This is the most detailed eyewitness-based description that survives.
Exact Wording from the 1715 Survivor Account
“But next morning at dawn their terrible war-whoop was heard and a great multitude was seen whose faces and several other parts of their bodies were painted with red and black streaks, resembling devils come out of Hell…
They threw themselves first upon the Agents and on Mr. Wright, seized their houses and effects, fired on everybody without distinction, and put to death, with torture, in the most cruel manner in the world, those who escaped the fire of their weapons…
I do not know if Mr. Wright was burnt piece-meal, or not: but it is said that the criminals loaded Mr. Nairne with a great number of pieces of wood, to which they set fire, and burnt him in this manner so that he suffered horrible torture, during several days, before he was allowed to die.”
Key Notes on This Account
- The “pieces of wood” refer to lightwood splinters (resinous pine sticks) that were driven into Nairne’s skin and then ignited — a ritual torture method used by some Southeastern tribes at the time.
- The account is second-hand but comes directly from survivors (most historians believe one was Seymour Burroughs, who was wounded but escaped and reported the events; another unnamed trader hid in the swamp and witnessed the torture).
- It explicitly notes uncertainty about John Wright’s exact fate (some later reports say he was killed quickly in the initial attack, while others suggest he may have suffered similarly).
This passage is the standard primary description quoted in virtually every modern history of the Yamasee War. It appears in British Colonial Office Records (CO 5/387) and was later reproduced in works such as William L. Ramsey’s The Yamasee War (2008).
……………………
Some accounts suggest John Wright escaped or survived the Pocotaligo massacre (April 15, 1715) mainly because of uncertainty and confusion in the very first reports that reached Charles Town and London. These early dispatches were incomplete, second-hand, and written amid chaos — only 1–2 members of the six-man delegation actually escaped, and the details they provided were not crystal-clear about every individual.
The Key Source of the Confusion
The single most important early account is a May 8, 1715 letter written from South Carolina to a gentleman in London (based on survivor testimony). It contains this exact sentence that created lasting ambiguity:
“I do not know if Mr. Wright was burnt piece-meal, or not: but it is said that the criminals loaded Mr. Nairne with a great number of pieces of wood, to which they set fire…”
This phrasing — “I do not know if…” — left open the possibility that Wright might have escaped the initial attack or avoided the prolonged torture that Nairne endured. Because this letter was widely circulated in colonial correspondence and early newspapers, later writers and historians sometimes repeated the uncertainty or interpreted it as Wright possibly getting away.
Additional Reasons for the Conflicting Accounts
- Two men really did escape
- Seymour Burroughs (wounded by two shots) fled and raised the alarm in Port Royal.
- An unnamed trader hid in a nearby swamp and witnessed Nairne’s torture.
Early reports sometimes mixed up names or simply said “some of the delegation escaped,” leading people to wonder if Wright was one of them.
- The attack was chaotic and sudden
The Yamasee struck at dawn after a night of feasting. Most of the delegation (including Wright, Nairne, Warner, and Bray) were killed quickly. The swamp survivor’s view was limited, so he could not confirm Wright’s fate with certainty. - Wright was especially hated
He had reportedly made a provocative threat during the council (threatening to enslave the Yamasee). Some retellings focused on Nairne’s dramatic torture and quietly left Wright’s death ambiguous because the Yamasee may have targeted him differently (or killed him instantly). - Common name + later retellings
“John Wright” was not an uncommon name, and 19th-century popular histories sometimes blended details or relied on incomplete newspaper summaries, perpetuating the “maybe he escaped” idea.
Modern Scholarly ConsensusToday, virtually all historians (William L. Ramsey, Steven Oatis, and others) agree that John Wright was killed in the initial attack on the morning of April 15, 1715 — along with most of the delegation. Nairne was the one singled out for three days of ritual torture. The “escaped” rumor simply stems from that one uncertain sentence in the May 1715 letter and the fog of war.
……………………..
Seymour Burroughs
The Massacre and His Escape
At dawn on Good Friday, April 15, 1715, the Yamasee launched a surprise attack. Four members of the delegation were killed immediately or shortly afterward (Nairne was captured and tortured for three days before dying). Burroughs was shot twice — contemporary accounts vary on the exact locations (some say “twice in the head,” others “in the cheek” or “back and mouth”) — but he somehow fought his way through the warriors, fled the town, and escaped into the woods. en.wikipedia.org +1One early account describes him as “a strong robust man” who made his escape while being hotly pursued and fired upon. He reportedly swam a river or creek while wounded. Despite his injuries, he reached the plantation of Colonel John Barnwell (a prominent militia leader) near Port Royal and raised the alarm. His warning gave settlers critical time to flee to safety, take refuge in makeshift forts, or prepare defenses. A ship in Port Royal harbor also fired cannons in response.
Impact and Later Life
Burroughs’ escape is credited with saving many lives in the Port Royal and Beaufort area during the opening hours of the war. The second survivor (an unnamed trader) hid in a nearby swamp and later described Nairne’s torture.Very little else is known about Burroughs’ personal life — no confirmed birth/death dates, family, or occupation beyond “trader/planter” and occasional service as a scout-boat captain or commissioner. Some later 1715–1716 militia records mention a Seymour Burroughs commanding boat crews during the war, suggesting he may have survived his wounds and continued serving. Other accounts say he “succumbed to his wounds” shortly after delivering the alarm. Either way, he disappears from the historical record after 1716.
In short, Seymour Burroughs is a minor but heroic footnote in South Carolina colonial history — the wounded man who ran through the woods and swam a river to warn the colony that the Yamasee War had begun.
__________________
update:
I suspect that John Wright was a contemporary of Robert Hicks/Hix of Virginia. This is what I have dug up…
In September 1707, South Carolina officials intercepted and seized goods belonging to Capt. Robert “Robin” Hicks (the prominent Virginia Indian trader, c. 1658–1739/40) and his trading partners while they were operating in the Catawba (Usheree/Esaw) Nation—without a South Carolina license or permission.
Background and Context
South Carolina had been trying for years to monopolize the lucrative Indian trade (especially deerskins, beaver, and Indian slaves) within its claimed territory. Virginia traders like Hicks had been ranging freely into the backcountry (including present-day South Carolina) since the 1650s, using the Western Trading Path from Fort Henry (Petersburg area).
- 1698: South Carolina Commons House debated banning Virginia traders outright.
- 1701: A failed proposal to confiscate all Virginia traders’ goods; instead, they passed a heavy tax on every horse brought into the colony (contrary to royal free-trade decrees between colonies).
- 1702–1707: South Carolina enacted stricter licensing and regulation acts for Indian traders. Virginia traders largely ignored them, viewing the trade as open under English common law and royal policy.
Hicks and his partners (including John Evans, David Crawley, Richard Jones, Nathaniel Urvin/Irwin, etc.) were among the most active and successful “Southside” Virginia traders. They dealt directly with the Catawba (Usherees) and pushed even farther west to the “Western Indians.”
The 1707 Seizure
While Hicks and his party were trading farther west, they left a large quantity of skins and trade goods cached/stored in one of the Catawba towns. South Carolina officials learned of this and invoked their 1701/1702 trade acts to seize the cache.The explicit order was to “seize the said Traders in their return and take from them all they had and strip them and send them back to Virginia.”In September 1707, officials intercepted Robert Hicks on his return journey. They confiscated:
- A considerable quantity of deerskins and other furs.
- “Diverse other goods” (trade items, horses, etc.).
This was one of the first major enforcement actions against Virginia traders under the new South Carolina rules. Hicks was not physically harmed or imprisoned (the accounts do not mention arrest or violence), but his goods were taken outright as a deterrent and as revenue for South Carolina.
Outcome and Aftermath
- The seizure created lasting bitterness between Virginia and South Carolina traders.
- Hicks and his partners continued trading (they posted bonds in Charleston in 1710/11 to operate legally under the new rules).
- The incident is cited in genealogical and historical accounts as a prime example of the fierce competition and regulatory warfare in the colonial Indian trade.
- Hicks later became even more prominent: he commanded a detachment of tributary Indians in 1713 during the Tuscarora War, established Fort Christanna, and maintained his trading network for decades.
1. Journal of the Commons House of Assembly of South CarolinaSession: June–July 1707
Key entry: Friday, June 29, 1707 (address to Governor Nathaniel Johnson)
“May it please your Hon^r.
The House highly aproves of your Hon^rs Commisson and care of Reduceing the Savanas as to the Seizure of the goods belonging to y^e Virginia Indian Traders, now dealing within this Goverm^t it does not appeare to us that they are Seizable by any Law of this jn-ovince but if it may be done by the Laws of England we pray your Hon^r. to put them in Execution in this case and for any Deficiency that are in our present laws, relateing to the Importac^on of goods by Land the House will Effectually provide against the Same for the future.”
Context: This was part of a larger debate on regulating the Indian trade and dealing with “Revolted Savanas” (displaced Indian groups). The House endorsed the Governor’s plan to seize Virginia traders’ goods (including those cached by Hicks and partners in Catawba/Usheree towns) but noted that South Carolina provincial law might not explicitly allow it—suggesting reliance on English law instead. They also committed to closing loopholes in future legislation.
Direct link to full digitized journal (public, no login):
https://www.carolana.com/Carolina/Commons_House/Journal_of_the_Commons_House_of_Assembly_of_South_Carolina_1707_June.pdf
2. Journal of the Commons House of Assembly of South CarolinaSession: October 1707–February 1708
Key entry: Saturday, October 25, 1707 (p. 9 of the journal)
“Read the petition of Rob^t : Hix Virginia Indian Trader
Resolved That the matters contained in the said petition does not lie before this House —”
Context: This is Robert Hicks himself (spelled “Hicks” or “Hix” in the record) petitioning the Commons House shortly after the September 1707 seizure of his and his partners’ deerskins and trade goods. The House dismissed the petition on procedural grounds (it was deemed outside their jurisdiction, likely because it was an executive seizure matter better suited to the Governor/Council or courts). No further details of the petition’s contents survive in the journal.
Direct link to full digitized journal (public, no login):
https://www.carolana.com/Carolina/Commons_House/Journal_of_the_Commons_House_of_Assembly_of_South_Carolina_1707_October.pdf