USA > Georgia > A standard history of Georgia and Georgians > Part 29
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76
This was the last communication that passed between the general and the trustees, so far as the records show. The accounts of the trust do not show that he ever paid any money to extinguish the claims against him, nor, on the other hand, do they indicate that he received anything in consequence of his claims. It seems most probable that the' claims remained unsettled until the trust was dissolved.
Reviewing the whole connection of Oglethorpe with the Province of Georgia, we are led to a number of interesting conclusions. His per- sonal character was worthy of admiration. Though it was bitterly as- sailed by many of his enemies, both on general and specific charges, ± nothing unworthy or dishonorable was ever proved against him. In the beginning of the enterprise, he showed only the most disinterested and philanthropic motives, and at no time during his connection with it did he seem to act from purely selfish incentives. In his first visit to Georgia, he must have been actuated primarily by the desire to aid those who had been oppressed and to show them how to succeed in their undertaking. On his later journey the same desire to be of service was doubtless pres- ent also, though it was mixed with personal ambition. He was generous in his gifts of labor and sacrifice for the colony. His contributions in money, as shown in the receipts of the trustees, were small, ** but his services were given freely to the trust,tt and at times he even paid his
* Ibid., 565-566.
t Ibid., 566-567.
# In a number of pamphlets like the "True and Historical Narrative" (Ga. Hist. Collec. 11: 163 et seq.), he was bitterly assailed. Also by Rev. William Norris and others at the Parliamentary inquiry. (C. R. V: 573, 619.)
** They amounted to about £16. (C. R. III: 7, 14, 164.)
tt He was paid nothing at all until he was made colonel of the regiment and commander-in-chief of the forces of Sonth Carolina and Georgia, when he received abundant pay from the government, though nothing at any time from the trustees.
201
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
own expenses. He has been highly eulogized because he did not accept pay from the trustees and did not acquire any lands in Georgia, but we have already noted that the charter forbade him to do either .*
As to his official career in Georgia, in spite of his high aims, his pure motives, and his clean character, he did not meet with very great sue- eess. He started out on the friendliest terms with South Carolina, but it was not long until that province was completely alienated from him. Of course this was not entirely the fault of Oglethorpe, but in the mat- ter of the Indian trade and in regard to the expedition to Florida, he did not seem to use the tact that was needful to get the best results. Whether another could have succeeded better is of course an open ques- tion, but there was no difficulty with the colony after President Stephens took charge of the Indian affairs for Georgia. On the whole, his rela- tions to the civil affairs of the province were not entirely advantageous. Retaining all authority at first, he made the impression, whether inten- tionally or not, that the magistrates were to be subservient to his will, and that no important action was to be taken without his consent. This caused vexatious delays when he was out of the province or too far away to be readily reached; it was also a source of misunderstanding and hard feeling between him and the trustees later on. There was no set- tled way of doing things in Georgia until the trustees made it plain that their directions were to be fully carried out without consulting him un- less so ordered.
As long as his advice was followed regarding the land tenures, the introduction of rum, and the prohibition of negro slaves, the colony was kept backward. In theory he seemed to be right on all those matters, but, as Burke observed, the regulations were not adapted to the country and to the people concerned, and they could not succeed. The trustees in England had to depend on the advice given by Oglethorpe on the field, and he erred, though in all honesty, as to what was the best course to pursue. The loose government and the unsatisfactory economic con- ditions were the principal hindrances in the development of the colony.
In the matter of defense he was most successful, maintaining peace with the Indians and keeping the Spanish out of Georgia; yet even in this matter it is not certain but that another policy might have been better. The plan of pushing fortifieations and forts far to the south helped to arouse the hostility of the Spanish, and after they were estab- lished in 1735 and the following years, there was much disturbance from Spanish alarms. The people could not raise their crops and go quietly about their business. They might have been spared this anxiety if the Georgia settlements had been kept within the limits of the province, and especially if they had been kept in the northern part of it. How- ever, in the actual fighting necessary to drive off the Spanish in 1742, General Oglethorpe was abundantly successful. His zcal for defense led him to make quite extensive expenditures of money which neither the trustees nor the British government were willing to sustain. He was of that generous and somewhat reckless disposition that does on the impulse what seems necessary at the moment without waiting to weigh the expense and determine whether it is absolutely required. With his
* C. R. I: 16, 21-22.
202
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
own money he was perfectly willing to make such expenditures, and so he was not likely to think it wrong to do so with that of the trust or of the government. Thus he had serious trouble himself because of his accounts, and he made trouble for the trustees.
If he was unsuccessful in Georgia, he was not more to blame than the trustees themselves, and perhaps he was not so much at fault as they. He was placed by them in a most embarrassing position, being sent to take charge of the colony and yet clothed with most insignificant powers. He could accomplish little if he stayed within his commission from them, and if he exceeded it he was open to censure, especially if his transgression proved troublesome in any way. They gave him very few instructions, but they were ready enough to expect that he act wisely without them. If he could have been appointed a regular governor of the province, with powers similar to those of the governor of South Carolina or of other provinces, and with sufficient assistants to help him, he would no doubt have made an excellent record in most respects, but the trustees were unwilling to surrender much power to anyone in the colony, and no member of the trust could fully occupy the position of governor on account of the charter provisions.
Therefore in our judgment it would have been better for the province if Oglethorpe had never gone to Georgia, or at least if he had gone there, only as the commander of the regiment and without any civil authority at all. Of course his help at the outset would have been greatly missed, and the first year might not have been so successful as it was. If Ogle- thorpe had not gone, however, it would have been necessary for the trus- tees to send some other person of experience and ability to manage the expedition, as it could not have been trusted to the raw colonists them- selves. Such a person would have been responsible to the trustees, as Oglethorpe was not; from him they could have required frequent and regular reports, as they did not feel free to require of Oglethorpe and as they did not get from him. Such a person, whether actually bearing the title of governor or not, would have centralized authority to some extent, and he would have been steadily in the province, whereas Ogle- thorpe did not feel bound to remain there and did not actually reside in Savannah, the central place of government, more than one year out of the ten that he was connected with the province. The trustees would have felt it necessary to send full instructions to such an official, as they did later to President Stephens, while they expected Oglethorpe to know what to do from his general knowledge of their purposes, and greater definiteness and certainty were much needed in the colony.
If the trustees had been compelled thus to appoint a governor, they might have put themselves into more cordial relations with the board of trade and the ministry in England, and so might have been aided rather than injured by the suggestions from these sources, as they feared they would be .*
It is unlikely that any person could have been found who had the natural qualifications and the enthusiasm possessed by Oglethorpe, and therefore so fit to be a governor, but whatever he lacked in personal fit- ness and zeal might be atoned for by the other advantages mentioned
* C. R. V: 415-416.
203
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
above. If Oglethorpe could have remained in England he would have made a most useful member of the trust, punctual in attendance, ready to work, successful in getting outsiders interested. He might thus have served the colony as faithfully, if not so prominently, and during the closing years he might have been still cordial with his associates instead of absenting himself from their meetings, dissenting from their actions when present, and disputing with them as to the balance of money due on his accounts with them.
CHAPTER XXI
PERSONNEL OF THE TRUSTEES-HIGH CHARACTER OF THE MEN WHO GOV- ERNED THE COLONY OF GEORGIA-HOW THE AFFAIRS OF THE TRUST WERE ADMINISTERED-HOW THE MEETINGS WERE ATTENDED- JAMES VERNON -- THE EARL OF EGMONT-THE EARL OF SHAFTSBURY.
(This chapter contributed by James Ross MeCain, A. M.)
It will be recalled that the trustees for settling Georgia were organ- ized into an open corporation whose membership could be indefinitely increased. It was a wise provision of the charter, since it allowed the trustees to associate with them as many good and influential men as they might be able to interest in their enterprise. From the nature of the undertaking, it was not to be expected that many men would seek membership in the trust; only those who were willing to do hard work without remuneration could be induced to join in carrying on the settling and support of the colony. In addition to the twenty-one trustees named in the charter, fifty others were elected to office during the twenty years of the corporation's existence. Twenty-six of these were chosen during the first two years of the trust, while the remaining twenty-four were scattered somewhat uniformly through the last eighteen years. This inequality of distribution in the adding of members is readily explained by the great amount of interest in the colony and enthusiasm for its development that we have previously noticed was especially manifest during the years 1733 and 1734.
The trustees named in the charter did not belong to any one profes- sion or rank in society, though all were gentlemen. Interest in the charitable work proposed seems to have been the general basis of ap- pointment. Five of the twenty-one members were ministers of the gospel, all of the Church of England. Ten were members of the House of Commons. Two held seats in the House of Lords. One was a com- missioner of the excise, another was a philanthropist noted for his work in establishing and supporting hospitals, still another was a elerk in the South Sea House, while the last was a country gentleman. None of the men were distinguished nobles or noted political leaders at the time, nor were they of such wealth that they would be able to carry on the work by their own financial contributions, in fact the records for the whole twenty years of the trust show gifts from these twenty-one mem- bers of only about £225 .*
In the choice of members at the annual meeting of 1733, it would seem that interest in the financial progress of the colony had weight.
* C. R. TII: 1-208.
204
205
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
Of the seventeen trustees chosen on that occasion, twelve had shown their personal interest either by making contributions in money or by securing commissions to solieit funds from others for the purposes of the charter. Of the five who do not appear to have been thus interested, one was a member of the House of Lords, three of the House of Com- mons, and the last was a country gentleman.
The financial support was the basis of choice in 1733, it did not con- tinue to be, for the next year nine trustees were chosen, none of whom had contributed to the colony or had tried to get others to do so, though six of them made contributions shortly after their election. Four of them were members of the House of Commons, one was of the House of Lords, another was a clergyman, still another was an eminent lawyer, while about the remaining two very little is known. The next trustee, who was chosen in 1737, was undoubtedly selected on account of his great financial assistance. IIe had given £1000 from a trust fund in his possession for the development of Georgia, this sum being much in exeess of the combined contributions of all the other trustees during the proprietary period.#
Between the years 1738 and 1743 inelusive there were elected thirteen members of the corporation, and all of these were members of Parlia- ment. There had been a strong tendeney heretofore to choose members from those who could be useful in seeuring the support of Parliament, and as the support became more doubtful it is not surprising that mem- bers of the House of Commons would make the most acceptable trustees.
Of the ten members ehosen during the last decade of the trust, six were members of Parliament, one a elergyman, another was lord mayor of London, still another was a merchant, while nothing is known of the remaining one.t
Of the seventy-one ¿ trustees, eleven never qualified by attending a single meeting and seven others attended only three meetings or less, so that the active membership of the trust was only fifty-three, and it must not be supposed that all of these did much work either in attend- ing meetings or in looking after the details of the colony. In view of the large number who were indifferent, we can understand why the average attendanee was so small at both corporation and common eouneil meetings. For the purpose of our study, the activity of a man in Georgia affairs and his general usefulness to the trust are of more im- portanee than the facts of his personal or private life. Some of those eleeted members of the corporation were in many respects very noted and influential men, and yet their participation in the business of the trust was so slight that they do not merit individual attention in study- ing the personnel of the working members of the board. The following table will indieate those who were most diligent in attending to the duties which devolved on the members of the corporation :
* C. R. I: 273-275.
t Stevens. I: 474-475.
# Jones, Stevens, and others give lists of seventy-two members of the trust, but they overlook the fact that Robert Kendall, Esq., and Sir Robert Cater were two names for the same man. (. R. I: 28.
206
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS ON THE MEETINGS OF THE TRUSTEES FOR ES- TABLISHING THE COLONY OF GEORGIA IN AMERICA, 1732-1752.
Name
Chosen
Meetings attended 343
Meetings held during membership 450
John Lord Viscount Perceval
1732
(Later Earl of Egmont.)
Hon. Edward Digby, Esq.
1732
97
512
George Carpenter, Esq.
1732
70
463
(Later Lord Carpenter.)
James Oglethorpe, Esq.
1732
147
512
George Heathcote, Esq.
1732
84
512
Thomas Towers, Esq.
1732
193
512
Robert More, Esq.
1732
39
512
Robert Hucks, Esq.
1732
187
423
Rogers Holland, Esq.
1732
87
512
William Sloper, Esq.
1732
36
388
Francis Eyles, Esq.
1732
26
512
John Laroche, Esq.
1732
161
512
Hon. James Vernon, Esq.
1732
394
512
William Belitha, Esq.
1732
152
512
Rev. John Burton
1732
46
512
Rev. Arthur Bedford
1732
36
423
Rev. Samuel Smith
1732
352
512
Mr. Adam Anderson
1732
129
512
Mr. Thomas Coram
1732
129
494
James Earl of Derby
1733
None
476
Anthony Ashley Earl of Shaftesbury
1733
138
476
John Lord Viscount Tyrconnel.
1733
10
476
James Lord Viscount Limerick
1733
27
476
James Lord D'Arcy
1733
None
64
Hon. Richard Chandler, Esq.
1733
61
476
Thomas Frederick, Esq.
1733
30
320
Henry L'Apostre, Esq.
1733
294
476
William Heathcote, Esq.
1733
125
476
(Later Sir Wm. Heathcote, Bart.)
Robert Kendall, Esq.
1733
29
273
(Later Sir Robert Cater.)
John Page, Esq.
1733
16
476
William Hanbury, Esq.
1733
1
476
Erasmus Phillips, Esq.
1733
1
476
(Later Sir E. Phillips, Bart.)
Christopher Towers, Esq.
1733
23
476
Sir John Gonson, Knight
1733
6
476
George Tyrer, Esq.
1733
None
476
John White, Esq.
1733
38
476
Rev. Thomas Rundle, D. D. (Later Lord Bishop of Londonderry.)
1734
4
272
IIon. William Talbot, Esq.
1734
8
412
(Later Lord Talbot.)
1732
18
512
Rev. Stephen Hales, D. D.
1732
81
274
Rev. Richard Bundy, D. D.
207
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
Name
Chosen
Meetings attended
Meetings held during membership
Richard Coope, Esq.
1734
None
412
William Wollaston, Esq.
1734
2
412
Hon. Robert Eyre, Esq.
1734
63
412
Thomas Archer, Esq.
1734
39
412
(Later Lord Archer.)
Henry Archer, Esq.
1734
62
412
Robert Tracy, Esq.
1734
57
412
Francis Wollaston, Esq.
1734
None
412
Sir Jacob Des Bouveric, Bart.
1737
1
283
(Later Lord Viscount Folkstone.)
Sir Harry Gough, Bart.
1738
10
238
Sir Roger Burgoyne, Bart.
1738
1
238
Lord Sidney Beauclerk
1739
19
101
Hon. Henry Bathurst, Esq.
1741
8.
165
Hon. Philip Perceval, Esq.
1741
33
116
John Frederick, Esq.
1741
10
165
Hon. Alexander Hume Campbell, Esq.
1742
None
146
Sir John Barrington, Bart
1742
26
146
Samuel Tuffnell, Esq.
1742
46
146
Henry Calthrope, Esq.
1742
3
146
(Later Sir Henry Calthrope.)
John Phillips, Esq.
1743
22
130
(Later Sir John Phillips, Bart.)
Velters Cornewall, Esq.
1743
9
130
John Wright, Esq.
1743
None
130
Rev. Thomas Wilson, D. D.
1745
16
79
Francis Cokayne, Esq.
1747
2
59
Samuel Lloyd, Esq.
1747
37
59
Hon. John Earl of Egmont.
1749
None
39
Anthony Ewer, Esq.
1749
20
39
Edward Hooper, Esq.
1749
23
39
Sir John Cust, Bart.
1749
None
39
Slingsby Bethel, Esq.
1749
None
39
Stephen Theodore Jansen, Esq.
1749
None
39
Richard Cavendish
?
3
?
In addition to the regular members listed above, there were chosen on March 19, 1747, two corresponding members of the trust for the serv- ice of Salzburgers and other Germans who might be inclined to go to Georgia. These were Mr. Chretien Von Munch and Rev. Samuel Url- sperger of Augsburgh. They never attended any meetings of the trust but they frequently gave information and advice through letters to the trustees .*
Since the common council of the trustees was a closed board and since it was necessary for it to have eight members present in order to do business, it was more important that its membership be selected from active and interested persons than that such should be chosen for the corporation only. There were in all forty-eight members of the common
* C. R. I: 499.
208
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
council appointed or selected. Of this number, two never accepted the office to which they were elected, so that only forty-six actually took the oath which inaugurated them into service. Six members served during the whole period of proprietary control, and two others served from the completion of the first council on March 15, 1733, to the end of the period. Since the duties of a common councilman were in many respects more arduous than those of an ordinary member of the corporation, it is worth while to tabulate the faithfulness of its members.
ATTENDANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ON ITS MEETINGS, 1732-1752
Name
Chosen
Meetings attended
Meetings held during membership
Remarks
Egmont
1732
161
201
Resigned July 7, 1742.
Digby
1732
50
210
Died 1745.
Carpenter
1732
42
127
Resigned March 8, 1738. Re- elected and resigned April 12, 1740.
*Oglethorpe
1732
70
215
G. Heathcote
1732
65
215
*Laroche
1732
110
215
* Vernon
1732
176
215
Belitha
1732
7
15
Resigned March 15, 1733.
*Hales
1732
95
215
*T. Towers
1732
125
215
Hucks
1732
82
111
More
1732
28
98
# Holland
1732
68
215
Sloper
1732
29
193
Resigned February 20, 1742. Resigned February 11, 1742.
Eyles
1732
29
193
#Shaftesbury
1733
80
186
Resigned 1739; re-elected 1740.
*Tyrconnel
1733
80
200
Limerick
1733
14
128
Resigned 1739.
#Chandler
1733
34
200
T. Frederick
1733
25
141
L'Apostre
1733
138
189
Resigned 1747.
White
1733
28
96
Resigned April 26, 1736.
Cater
1733
25
112
Resigned March 8, 1738.
Bundy
1733
52
112
Resigned March 8, 1738.
Talbot
1736
2
16
Resigned March 8, 1738.
T. Archer
1736
11
72
Resigned March 18, 1742.
* Eyre
1736
39
104
*Smith
1737
75
88
*Tracy
1737
32
88
*Page
1737
2
88
II. Archer
1737
31
69
Resigned January 28, 1744.
C. Towers
1737
14
75
Resigned 1747.
Beanclerk
1738
15
46
Died November 23, 1744.
"J. Frederick
1740
13
45
1
Died 1740.
W. Heathcote.
1733
42
141
Resigned July 30, 1739.
Resigned March 8, 1738.
Resigned March 17, 1737. Resigned April 16, 1736.
209
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
Name
Chosen
Meetings attended
Meetings held during
#Bathurst
1740
7
45
Remarks Resigned March 9, 1744.
*Barrington
1741
12
32
*Tuffnel
1741
19
32
*Phillips
1742
10
25
P. Perceval
1743
None
8
Died 1747.
*Cornewall
1743
6
19
Bonverie
1744
None
17
(Resigned ?)
#Wilson
1746
6
13
*Lloyd
1749
9
9
*Hooper
1749
6
9
*Ewer
1749
9
*Cavendish
2
1
COMMITTEE SERVICE OF THE CORPORATION AND OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE TRUSTEES FOR ESTABLISHING THE COLONY OF GEORGIA IN AMERICA.
Name
Corporation Common Council
Total
Vernon
47
95
142
Egmont
12
98
110
T. Towers
26
74
100
L'Apostre
6
88
94
Laroche
11
51
62
Hucks
14
46
60
Hales
7
46
53
Oglethorpe
19
31
50
Shaftesbury
12
36
48
Eyre
6
40
46
Smith
20
23
43
Holland
4
33
37
Tyrconnel
6
22
28
H. Archer
8
11
19
W. Heathcote
2
17
19
G. Heathcote
6
11
17
Digby
1
17
18
* Those whose names are thus marked above formed the Common Conneil when the charter was surrendered in 1752. The minutes of the Trustees are not quite complete as to the changes made during the last few years and it is not certain when Cavendish was chosen to the Council or whether Bouverie ever resigned from the body or not.
Besides attending the meetings of the corporation and the Common Council, the more active Trustees frequently had duties to perform on some of the permanent or special committees which were so frequently employed by both bodies. Although servico on the committees was very often assigned to any three or more of the mem- bers, it usually devolved on a very few persons who were willing to sacrifice their time for the good of the colony. The various journals and minutes which describe the work of the committees frequently fail to indicate the individuals who composed the committees, but sufficient information may be gleaned from them to show with reasonable accuracy the members both of the corporation and of the Common Council who were most prominent in this work.
Vol. 1-14
membership
210
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
Chandler
6
12
18
Tracy
3
14
17
Hooper
6
8
14
J. Frederick
2
10
12
T. Frederick
3
7
10
Bundy
6
3
9
More
4
5
9
White
2
7
9
Bathurst
3
6
9
Lloyd
4
9
13
Ewer
3
8
11
Cavendish
2
5
7
J. Phillips
2
4
6
Coram
6
6
Wright
2
3
5
T. Archer
3
3
Wilson
1
1
2
Campbell
1
1
2
Page
1
1
2
Burton
1
1
Anderson
1
-
1
Bedford
2
2
Carpenter
3
3
Sloper
4
4
Eyles
-
8
8
Belitha
7
7
Cater
3
11
14
Talbot
1
1
Limerick
1
1
Beauclerk
3
3
C. Towers
3
3
Barrington
3
3
Tuffnel
1
1
This table furnishes the clearest evidence available that a very few men did the actual work of the trust. So far as information is available, there were in all 1,162 reports for committee duty, and more than half of these were made by seven men. These seven seem to have had more to do with the constructive policy of the trustees than all the other sixty- four members of the trust combined; for the minutes of the common council and the journal of the trustees make it evident that very much of their business consisted of hearing and approving the work of their committees. However, lest it give undue prominence to the committee work to select as the most prominent trustees those who led in it, it will be best to combine in one table the various activities of those who ranked highest in all departments of service for the colony. The results are col- lated in the summary following :
211
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
THE LEADING WORKERS AMONG THE TRUSTEES IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE, 1732-1752.
Name
Corporation Meetings
Council Meetings
Committees
Total
Vernon
394
176
142
712
Egmont
343
161
110
614
L'Apostre
294
138
94
526
Smith
352
75
43
470
T. Towers
193
125
100
418
Laroche
161
110
62
334
Hucks
187
82
60
329
Hales
152
95
53
300
Oglethorpe
147
70
50
267
Shaftesbury
138
80
48
266
Since these ten men by every test appear to have done the major part of the work in founding and supporting Georgia, it is highly im- portant that they be studied in detail; while, on the other hand, it is not essential that those who contributed almost no service to Georgia should be discussed, however eminent and important they may have been in other fields.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.