Steven Coker wrote:
> 
> ... Continued from part 2.
> 
>   The horse thieves, their associates, and other criminals, who, from causes
> already mentioned, were numerous, made a counter common cause in supporting
> themselves against these regulators.  Most of the inhabitants favored one or
> other of these parties.  The one justified their proceedings on the score of
> necessity and substantial, though irregular justice; the other alleged the
> rights of British subjects to a legal trial by a court and jury.  Though the
> former meant well, yet justice is of so delicate a nature that form as well as
> substance must be regarded.  It is therefore probable, that in some cases, the
> proceedings of the regulators may have so far partaken of the infirmities of
> human nature, as to furnish real grounds of complaint against them.  Their
> adversaries made such high colored representations of their conduct, that the
> civil authority interposed.  Lord Charles Greville Montague, Governor of the
> province, adopted measures for their suppression.  With this view he conferred a
> high commission on a man named Scouil, whose conduct, character and standing in
> society, had rendered him in the opinion of his neighbors, and especially of the
> regulators, very unfit for the office.  As if the country had been in rebellion,
> Scouil erected something which was intended to be a royal standard; and
> afterwards called upon the regulators to answer for their transgressions of the
> law.  In addition to many other acts of severity, he arrested two of their
> number and sent them under a guard to Charlestown, where they were imprisoned.
> The regulators and the Scouilites contending for the superiority, were arranged
> under their leaders and formed camps in opposition to each other.  A civil war
> was on the point of commencing; both were armed and prepared for the last
> extremity.  Each party was ready to return a fire from their adversaries, but
> both dreaded the odium of beginning hostilities.  Instead thereof, a flag was
> sent from one to the other -- a capitulation ensued, in which both agreed to
> break up their camps, go home and respectively petition the Governor for a
> redress of their grievances.  This was done and eventuated in the circuit court
> law, passed in the year 1769.  The establishment of courts of justice at
> Ninety-Six, now Cambridge, at Orangeburgh, and Camden, removed that necessity
> which was an apology for the proceedings of the regulators.  These gloried in
> having obtained their ends for bringing criminals to justice.  Their exertions
> henceforward took a different direction; they applied to law and ceased to
> regulate.  In less than two years they brought thirty-two horse thieves to
> trial, condemnation and punishment, under the authority of the new and adjacent
> circuit courts.  The cause of justice triumphed, and a wholesome exertion of
> judicial authority re-established order.  The country enjoyed peace and
> prosperity for the five following years.  At the end of that period new scenes
> of distress, connected with the revolution, opened on the inhabitants.  The
> animosities between these parties continued to rankle in their hearts, but were
> not called into action until the year 1775.  When the revolution commenced, the
> actors in these late scenes of contention took opposite sides; and the names of
> Scouilites and regulators were insensibly exchanged for the appellation of
> tories and whigs, or the friends of the old and new order of things.  Many of
> the former were called Scouilites, and probably had co-operated with Scouil in
> opposing the regulators; but the name was applied to others as a term of
> reproach on the alleged similarity of their principles as being both abettors of
> royal government, in opposition to the struggles of the people for justice and
> liberty.  The tories or Scouilites, for the opposers of revolutionary measures
> were called by both names, insisted that the King had laid no new burdens or
> taxes on the people, and that therefore their opposition to royal government was
> groundless.  The act, as it respected Carolina, was true; but the conclusion
> drawn from it did not follow.  No new burdens had been laid on the inhabitants
> of the province, but the most grievous had been laid on Massachusetts, in
> pursuance of principles which equally applied to Carolina, and struck at the
> foundation of all her boasted rights.  This train of reasoning was too refined
> for selfish individuals who had not energy enough to encounter a present evil to
> obtain a future good.  Respectable well-informed persons were sent by the
> council of safety to explain the nature of the controversy to these misjudging
> people, and to induce their co-operation with their fellow-citizens in the
> common cause of American liberty.  Partial success followed their explanations,
> and a treaty of neutrality was granted to the disaffected.  But the old grudge
> still subsisted, and they continued to thwart the measures of Congress.  The
> friends of the revolution marched in army into their settlements.  Opposition
> was subdued with little or no bloodshed, and a temporary calm succeeded.  But
> many of the disheartened royalists abandoned their plantations and went either
> to the province of Florida, or among the Indians.  In both cases they were tools
> in the hands of the British, and ready to co-operate with them against their
> countrymen who favored revolutionary measures.  They lent their aid to a project
> for attacking the western settlements of South Carolina, at the moment
> Charlestown was to be invaded by a powerful fleet and army.  They performed
> their part.  Under the direction of Britain, and in concert with Indians,
> dressed and painted like them, they began to murder the white settlers nearly on
> the same day Sullivan's Island was attacked by the British.  Measures of
> discrimination had been proposed among themselves to restrain the Indians from
> disturbing the tories, but they were unavailing.  Both classes of white people
> fell by a common massacre.  The repulse of the British in their attack on fort
> Moultrie, disconcerted the tories and Indians, and gave the whigs leisure to
> chastise them both.  This was done with spirit and effect by an army commanded
> by Colonel Williamson.  A calm succeeded for three or four years, but guards
> were kept on the frontiers and the inhabitants lived in terror; for they were
> apprehensive of a renewed attack.  After the fall of Charlestown in 1780,
> everything was reversed.  The British, the tories and Indians, had the upper
> hand.  Robbery, desolation and murder, became common and continued till the
> revolutionary war was ended.  Many were killed -- several fled -- the country
> was filled with widows and orphans, and adult male population was sensibly
> diminished.
> 
> to be continued .....
> 
>This Scouil I`m pretty sure is either my GGGGG-grandfather or uncle do you have anymore information on him? His name is Scofield, this is how 
his father spelled it.
I also want to thank you for all the information you send to the list 
it`s wonderful and has really helped me.
Thank You soooooooooo much
Sandra