Scottish trade with colonial Charleston, 1683-1783
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charleston was established in 1670 soon becoming the pre-eminent port of the American South. Scottish economic links and settlement in South Carolina began in 1683 and expanded throughout the colonial period. This study considers various aspects of the Scottish-Charleston connection, ranging from emigration to social and trading patterns. Basically Charleston supplied raw materials and foodstuffs and in exchange Scotland supplied manufactured goods. The Scots of colonial Charleston and their trading activities are dealt with in detail, while the role of merchants in Scotland who traded with Charleston is also explored. Maritime aspects have not bee overlooked. The orthodox view of Scottish transatlantic trade of the eighteenth century is that Glasgow and Greenock had the virtual monopoly of trade with the American colonies, a belief which this thesis proves to be untrue as far as the Charleston trade was concerned. Evidently trade between Scotland and South Carolina was almost evenly split between the ports on the Clyde and those on the Forth. From the mid eighteenth century onwards Scottish emigration to the American colonies became significant, however relatively few Scots settled in Charleston or anywhere in South Carolina. This thesis considers the reasons why emigration from Scotland to South Carolina tended to be small scale and largely comprises of professional workers unlike neighbouring North Carolina which was the major destination of Highland emigrants at the time. The Scots are thought to have played a minor role in the Slave Trade however the evidence shows that Scottish merchants and planters based in Charleston and elsewhere in South Carolina were heavily involved in this enterprise, and indeed Scots could be found at virtually every stage of in the African slave trade. This thesis is a unique study of the Scots role in the development of colonial Charleston.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".