USA > Georgia > Georgia as a proprietary province; the execution of a trust > Part 19
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
The earlier rules adopted by the Common Council were for its own guidance and they were not generally published ; but in 1735 it was definitely declared and widely published that to get five hundred acres of land an adventurer must
72 C. R. II: 14-22.
13 Ibid., 23, 30, 31.
" B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Oglethorpe, May 11, 1733.
266
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
take ten men servants and pay an annual rent of twenty shillings per hundred acres.75
These rules were not strictly followed; for after this time there were numerous maximum grants to men who -carried only four servants, and sometimes men were allowed to re- main in England themselves and to merely send their serv- ants to the colony.76 The fact is that the Common Council reserved the right to act as it thought best in each case, regardless of what the general rules might be. The tend- ency after 1735 was for the Trustees to become less rigid in enforcing their rules. We have already pointed out the fact that they changed their interpretation of the charter in regard to the amount of land that could be owned by one man ; at first they held that the charter restricting their grants to five hundred acres at the same time fixed that amount as the limit which any one could possess in the col- ony, but they later agreed that possessions could be accumu- lated to the amount of two thousand acres. 77 They also evaded in various ways the plain limitation on their grant- ing more than five hundred acres. One method of evasion was to grant to a man the maximum acreage allowed and then to lease him an additional amount on such terms as would practically make the lease a free grant.78 Another evasion was to grant to a man's brother or nephew or friend a tract of land that by private arrangement between them could be held for the benefit of one to whom the Trustees could not legally grant any more land.70 However, these evasions were not common enough to result in any large plantations in the colony.
It has been pointed out that the grants made to charity
"" Voyage to Georgia, Ga. Hist. Collec. I: 80, 84.
7º B. T., Ga., XII: 260-265. 78 C. R. V: 706.
"C. R. II: 338. 7º Ibid., 289.
267
The Land System
settlers were fifty acres for each head of a family. This amount of land was deemed sufficient to support a family and not too much to be kept in good condition; but many of the fifty acre lots in the early distributions were laid out in poor land known as pine barrens, and this was very unproductive. On December 12, 1739, the Trustees or- dered that enough land should be added to the estates of such persons as would increase their holdings of good land to fifty acres in addition to whatever of poor quality there might be.80
Two years later the officials in Georgia were enjoined to see that good land was given to each one whose grant had included that of poor quality, and it was to be allowed the grantee to choose his new land wherever he might find it most convenient. In addition, the Trustees agreed that when any freeholder of a fifty acre lot made it appear that he had improved the whole of it he might have the privi- lege of selecting another in the province wherever he might desire.81
In the early deeds to persons carrying servants to Geor- gia, it was specified that when the servants satisfactorily completed their terms of service they might each receive twenty-five acres of land. This quantity was later fixed at twenty acres, though in exceptional cases it might be made as much as fifty acres. 82 In 1741 it was found that more encouragement was needed to make servants faithful and to induce others to go to Georgia to take the places of those whose indentures were expiring ; and accordingly all the por- tions for faithful ex-servants were fixed at fifty acres.83
80 B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Stephens, Dec. 12, 1739.
81 C. R. II: 377.
82 Ibid., 23, 74.
& B. T., Ga., X: Verelst to Stephens, Apr. 24, 1741.
268
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
When Oglethorpe's regiment was settled in Georgia, the Common Council proposed to encourage the soldiers to be industrious by giving to each one five acres of land for his own use and profit ; and it was further agreed that if at the end of seven years of faithful service any soldier wished to leave the military life he might receive a grant of twenty acres.8+ This would seem far from generous. A soldier who had been in the colony seven years and who had become acclimated and accustomed to the conditions of the country would be a much more valuable colonist than a raw settler from the streets of London; but for the latter the Trustees would pay transportation to Georgia, give a year's support, and grant fifty acres of land, while to the soldier who had resigned and who would probably be almost as needy as the Londoner only twenty acres were allowed.
After the president and his assistants assumed the man- agement of making land grants, there were no decided changes in the rules that governed the subject ; but in prac- tice there were a number of important changes. The acreage granted no longer depended upon the number of servants employed upon the estates, but the determining factors were, somewhat as in the earliest days of the Common Council's management, the character of the applicant and his finan- cial ability to improve the land he was seeking. The old and the infirm were not allowed large grants. No grants were made out for unknown or fictitious persons. As a rule, it was more difficult for unworthy settlers to obtain lands than when the Common Council passed upon the applica- tions. The records during this period make it easier to ascertain the proportion of petitions that were granted and of those that were rejected than at any other time of the colony's existence.
" B. T., Ga., XII : 359 et seq.
269
The Land System
Since careful records were kept of all land grants in the province, it is of interest to notice in tabular form the yearly cessions. These tables furnish a rather accurate index of the growth of the colony. Since the records of the first nine years do not admit of as great detail as those of the last eleven years, the summaries will be given in separate tables for the two periods. The main difference in the records is that after the president and assistants took charge of the applications for land, they made careful note of those that were refused, while the Common Council usually recorded only those that were granted unless the refusals were of unusual interest.
TABLE NO. I.
LAND GRANTS IN GEORGIA FROM JUNE 9, 1732, TO OCTOBER 12, 1741 In trust for subdivision into
Year.
small tracts.
expense.
1732-3
5000 acres
4460 acres
1733-4
8100
5725
1734-5
2500
66
1900
1735-6
20000
66
9300
300 acres
1736-7
3000
4300
300
1737-8
3000
1000
66
1738-9
500
66
1739-40
500
300
1740-1
.
Totals
41600 acres
28185 acres
1400 acres
Grand total, 71185 acres
TABLE NO. II. (A). APPLICATIONS FOR LAND IN GEORGIA FROM OCTOBER 12, 1741, TO JUNE 23, 1752, THAT WERE FAVORABLY CONSIDERED.
Total No.
500
50 acres.
Town lots.
Other sizes.
Total acreage.
Year.
of grants.
acres.
1741
15
2
11
2
1560
1
1742
36
27
9
1395
To persons going at their own
For religious purposes.
1000
270
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
Year.
Total No of grants.
500 acres.
50 acres.
Town lots.
.
Other sizes.
Total acreage.
1743
17
1
10
6
1030
1744
9
3
3
3
1665
1745
11
1
8
2
910
1746
7
3
3
1
1950
1747
41
16
4
2
19
12410
1748
57
30
4
2
21
19744
1749
32
15
3
3
11
9667
1750
75
20
40
4
11
13660
1751
25
4
5
1
15
5455
1752
47
17
14
3
13
12515
Totals
372
119
132
37
91
82011
TABLE NO. II (B).
APPLICATIONS FOR LAND IN GEORGIA FROM OCTOBER 12, 1741, TO JUNE 23, 1752, THAT WERE REFUSED OR POSTPONED.
Year.
Total No. refused.
500
50 acres.
Town lots.
Other Total acre- sizes, age refused.
1741
9
8
1
4005
1742
8
8
4000
1743
19
18
1
9005
1744
2
2
1000
1745
0
1746
5
1
4
1050
1747
17
10
3
4
5800
1748
31
17
14
11250
1749
37
30
7
3950
1750
5
3
.
2
1700
1751
0
1752
0
Total
133
67
33
2
31
41760
acres.
In Table No. 1, all the land that was given in trust for subdivision is listed ; but it is to be observed that a consider- able portion of this was never distributed among settlers. It is impossible to tell just the proportion that was actually
271
The Land System
deeded to individual settlers; but it seems probable that about a third of it was never so used, so that the amounts of land granted to independent applicants and to those go- ing on charity must have been very nearly equal.
Comparing the two sections of Table No. II, we find that during the last eleven years of proprietary rule the land grants that were refused amounted to just half the acreage that was really granted. The average size of the grants made was two hundred and twenty acres, while the average size of the applications that were declined was for three hundred and fourteen acres.
It seems remarkable that when Georgia needed colonists so greatly that so many applications for land were refused. It was the constant policy of the Trustees not to grant land for speculation ; and the refusals between 1741 and 1743 were usually on the ground that the applicants were not financially able to handle the grants that were sought. Be- tween 1746 and 1749, most of the applicants for land were men who wished to move from Virginia or the Carolinas to Georgia, and they expected to bring their negro slaves with them; the Georgia authorities thought it best to lose de- sirable settlers rather than to risk the violation of the slavery rules. After 1749 the law against negroes was not in force, and almost no refusals were made after that time.
It is surprising that during the twenty years of govern- ment under the charter so little land was granted for settle- ment. Including all that was granted in trust during the first nine years, the entire grants amounted to only one hundred fifty-three thousand acres, practically all of which if placed in one tract could have been included in a lot fif- teen miles square. These facts emphasize the point already made that the Trustees believed in and practiced a policy of economy in the granting of the lands which were com-
272
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
mitted to them by the charter.85
G. Methods of Laying Out Grants
It is an interesting fact that Georgia was largely settled in communities or towns somewhat resembling those of New England. This was the result of the policy already men- tioned of making trust deeds for several thousand acres to be laid out and subdivided among the settlers sent over by the Trust. There were in all eight of these large tracts, varying in size from twenty-five hundred to ten thousand acres ; and most of the people of the province were located in one of the towns or villages that developed from these trust deeds. Savannah was the first of the towns to be estab- lished, and it served as a model for the later ones. Since this is true, it may be worth while to study the general plan of Savannah as a type of the Georgia towns.
It was laid off for two hundred and forty freeholds, the quantity of land necessary being twenty-four square miles or fifteen thousand three hundred and sixty acres. Of this land, twelve thousand acres were used for actual grants to settlers, while the remainder was used for roadways, streets, Trust reserves, commons, and the like. The town proper was laid off into wards of forty building lots each, and these wards were subdivided into tithings of ten lots each. Wide streets and numerous squares for market purposes were left ; and in every ward was left one large square to accommodate people from the country if these should ever need to seek
& The material on which Tables I and II and the comments on them are based is so scattered that specific references to sources are impossible. The facts are drawn from the Minutes of the President and Assistants, C. R. VI; the Minutes of the Common Council, C. R. II; and the Account Showing Progress, etc., C. R. III: 368 et seq.
273
The Land System
the protection of the town. Around the residence and busi- ness portions of the town were the commons which were planned for grazing cattle and for recreation.86
The building lots were each sixty by ninety feet, front- ing two streets. Each owner of such a lot would have a garden plot beyond the town commons, and this was large enough to make the combined area of lot and garden amount to five acres. Still further from the center of town, but within the domain of the town, each settler was allowed a farm of forty-five acres, so that his whole estate would be fifty acres as planned by the Trustees.
As a rule, adventurers would not have their lands laid off within the limits of one of these especially assigned tracts, but they were given estates adjoining the towns or villages, though not infrequently they were allowed a building lot within the town for a residence only.
While the general arrangement of the Georgia villages, with Savannah as a type, was something like that of Massa- chusetts or other New England colonies, there were several points of difference that should be noted. In general ap- pearance, the Georgia villages were much more compact, duc to the small building lots, though the streets and squares were perhaps wider than the average ones in New Eng- land towns. This compactness was due to the fact that Georgia was designed as a buffer colony against the Spanish ; and each town was therefore considered, and to a degree arranged, as a garrison.
In respects other than appearance, the settlements in Georgia were still more unlike the New England towns. The latter owned all the land within their limits and could prescribe what should be done with it, while in Georgia all vacant land was owned by the Common Council three thou-
86 Voyage to Georgia, Ga. Hist. Collec. I: 97-99.
274
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
sand miles away. Again, a town in Massachusetts was to a considerable extent self-governing and could regulate en- tirely its internal affairs, while no Georgia village ever enjoyed this privilege under proprietary rule.
There were some decided disadvantages in laying out lots and farms so regularly. Much of the land in Georgia was not well adapted to cultivation; and it was impossible to find large tracts of it that would all be good. As a result, when towns were laid out and when the various divisions were distributed, some settlers would surely get poor land either for their gardens or for their farms or for both.87
While most of the colonists in the earlier days were lo- cated in villages, yet even at the beginning of the colony there were a few five hundred acre plantations located on streams or on other favorable sites. Islands were eagerly sought by many applicants, as they were regarded as par- ticularly valuable; but they were reserved by the Trust for
several years.88 After the president and assistants took over the consideration of grants in the colony, the planta- tion came to be the most common form of settlement; for no trust deeds of large tracts were made after 1738. In all country grants, care was taken to reserve roads to towns or to rivers, tow paths along streams, and other essentials for the welfare of the colony as a whole.89
A reasonable effort seems to have been made to allow ad- venturers to select locations in the province best suited to their purposes. Care was also taken to mix the lands of each grant, so as to have some of it high and some low for crop variation ; but these details depended largely upon the surveyor in charge. Vacant land was regarded as a detri-
87 C. R. V: 90; C. R. II: 302.
88 C. R. V: 287.
& B. T., Ga., XII: 46 et seq .; C. R. I: 93.
275
The Land System
ment to all near it; and, to prevent having such, the lots of adventurers were laid out contiguously whenever possible.90
H. Indian Land Grants to the Trustees
It was the general policy of the Trustees and of the set- tlers of Georgia to recognize the Indians as the rightful owners of the soil; and no settlements were made during the proprietary period without the consent of the natives. Before the first colony landed at Savannah, Oglethorpe ar- ranged for the settlement with the handful of Yamacraw Indians who lived in the neighborhood. This small tribe or group of natives made no claim to the entire ownership of the land, but acknowledged that it was vested in the nation of Creeks as a whole. Accordingly, after the Savannah settlement was well under way, a conference was arranged by Tomochichi between Oglethorpe and representatives of the eight principal tribes of the Creek nation. After a conference of several days, on May 21, 1733, a treaty was concluded. This contained regulations relating to both trade and land grants, but we are concerned only with the latter. The Indians gave a general grant of lands to the Trustees, yielding to them, their successors and assigns "all such lands and territories as we shall have no occasion to use, provided always, that they, upon settling every new town, shall set out for the use of ourselves and the people of our nation such lands as shall be agreed upon between their beloved men and the head men of our nation, and that those lands shall remain to us forever." 91 In general, the understanding was that the English might settle all the lands between the Savannah and the Altamaha rivers from
90 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Parker, July 10, 1750.
" A. W. I. 535 (No folio cited).
276
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
the ocean to the head of tide water. They also yielded to the Trustees all the islands along the coast except three, which they reserved with a strip of land along the Savannah river near the town of Savannah for the use of the nation. This treaty was approved by all the Indians affected by the cession. The Upper Creeks were not represented at the meeting, but they later ratified the treaty, as did the Chero- kees, though the claim of neither the Upper Creeks nor the Cherokees to this portion of Georgia, seems to have been very clear. No definite price was paid by the Trustees for the land grant. They presented valuable gifts to repre- sentative chiefs and their followers; but these were regarded rather as tokens of esteem than as remuneration for the land.92
As new towns, such as Ebenezer, Augusta, Frederica, and the like were established, the Indians were usually assembled to assent to the settlements under the general treaty of 1733. On these occasions, gifts of friendship were presented to the chiefs, but no mention was made of purchasing lands.
The most notable confirmation and extension of the treaty of 1733 was on the occasion of the journey of Oglethorpe to Coweta in the year 1739. Here in the heart of the Indian country, he met the chiefs of the Creek nation; and they ceded to the English all the coast with the adjacent islands from the Savannah to the St. John's river as far inland as the tide flowed, excepting still however the three islands mentioned in the treaty of 1733. The English agreed on their part that they would appropriate no lands except those ceded by the Creeks and that they would punish any one trespassing on the reserved lands of the Indians.93 This treaty differed in a number of particulars from that of 1733.
92 Polit. State of Great Britain XLVI: 237 et seq.
93 B. T., Ga., XXIV: Oglethorpe to Verelst, Sept. 5, 1739.
277
The Land System
It was made by Oglethorpe, not as a direct representative of the Trustees, but rather of the British government under whom he held a colonel's commission. The lands ceded ex- tended considerably below the boundaries of Georgia, and these outside lands could not be held by the Trustees. The promises made by Oglethorpe in return for the land cession were not rendered in the name of the Trustees, but rather on the authority of the British government.
As a rule, the English were careful not to trespass on territory which the Indians had not granted. One of the few exceptions to this policy was the occupation of the Uchee lands near New Ebenezer. The Salzburghers who settled the town soon found that they had a scarcity of good land, while the Uchee domain which stretched for a hun- dred miles along the Savannah river afforded splendid soil. They desired that the Trustees take steps to purchase these lands ; but Oglethorpe discouraged the movement in 1741 on the ground that the Indians might be offended and turn to the Spanish at that critical period, and nothing was done about the matter. The whites gradually encroached on the Indian lands, however ; and this was resented by the natives who robbed and plundered the intruders. By 1746 the Uchees, who were a small tribe of the Creeks, had become much reduced in number and had withdrawn from the imme- diate English settlements, so that the president and his assistants thought there would be no difficulty in securing their lands for settlement. The matter was referred to the Trustees, who seem not to have considered it; but the Geor- gia settlers proceeded to occupy and use the lands without further trouble, so far as the records indicate.9+
This incident is chiefly interesting because it was excep- tional in the relations of the whites and natives and because " B. T., Ga., XXII: 205: C. R. VI: 147-148, 339-349.
278
Georgia as .a Proprietary Province
it illustrates the dangers that might have resulted if the Trustees had not adopted a conciliatory policy toward the Indians.
The most difficult problem that confronted the early Geor- gians in obtaining land from the Indians grew out of the tracts reserved by the Indians in the treaty of 1733. It will be recalled that the reserved lands consisted of three islands along the coast and a strip of land near Savannah. An enterprising white man Thomas Bosomworth, who had been at one time the pastor at Savannah and who had married an Indian half breed, claimed to have secured for himself and wife deeds from the Indians to all the reserved lands; and he proposed to take possession of them. The Trustees claimed all the territory within the limits of Geor- gia under the grant of the king; and, while they were willing enough to concede that this might not extinguish all Indian claims, they held that no Englishman could have any right to lands in the colony except by the grant of the Trust. Logically it would seem that the Bosomworths had a fair claim to the lands. If it was conceded that the Indians owned the lands, there would seem to be no good reason why they might not deed them to Mrs. Bosomworth if they chose to do so. As a matter of equity, there was no doubt that the Bosomworths were attempting a land grabbing scheme on a large scale.
The Trustees determined to treat the whole deed to the Bosomworths as illegal, and they then attempted to secure a deed to these lands for themselves. Liberal gifts were fur- nished the Georgia authorities with which to carry on the negotiations. The Upper Creeks willingly ceded their rights, which were indeed of very doubtful force; but the Lower Creeks, who were considerably under the influence of the Bosomworths, refused to cede their claims to the Trustees,
i
-
1
279
The Land System
Finally they were persuaded to grant a temporary loan of the land to the colony. The trouble began early in 1749, and it continued to be one of the vexing problems of the province during the remainder of the proprietary control, being finally settled by compromise after Georgia became a royal province.95
Reviewing the whole of the land system of Georgia, we may conclude that it was very successful in its relation to the Indians, for it avoided friction with them and kept them contented ; but it was a failure to a large extent in its rela- tion to the white people of the colony because it stirred up friction between the settlers and the Trustees and because it did not make the colonists contented. The Trustees were really concerned to please the settlers, but at the distance of three thousand miles they could not understand the situa- tion in Georgia. The land system was perhaps better admin- istered in the province than any other department of the colony's affairs, and yet the local officials did not take the proper pains to let the authorities in England know what changes ought to be made. The fundamental weakness of the whole system was the multiplicity of restrictions of vari- ous kinds that were placed on landholders in Georgia. The entails, forfeitures, quit rents, requirements as to houses, requirements as to cultivation, requirements as to mulberry trees, penalties for leaving the colony, and penalties for numerous other deficiencies or neglects-all these were things that vexed the colonists and made them discontented and unhappy in spite of the fact that few cases of real hardship resulted from all those regulations.
95 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Parker, July 11, 1750; B. T., Ga., XXIII: 63; B. T., Ga., XXIV : 85.
CHAPTER IX
EDUCATION IN GEORGIA
O NE of the pastors in Georgia in writing to his mis- sionary society at home in 1739 stated that the Trus- tees were running so many schools in the province that they were unable to give any help to his field at Darien.1 Such a statement might lead one to infer that a rather full edu- cational program was being carried out in the colony ; but we shall find that this was far from being the case. It is true that the educational development of the province was perhaps as advanced as any other department of work; but at best it was scattered and weak. Besides, there were no very accurate records kept in the schools that were oper- ated; and it is difficult to construct an account of what was done.
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.