Plantation Slavery in Georgia

By Ralph Betts Flanders

An examination of the foundation of slavery in Georgia, to trace the development and operation of the plantation régime to the outbreak of the Civil War. The book was awarded the Mrs. Simon Baruch University prize of 1931, given under the auspices of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

“Mr. Flanders sets a good example for future historians in other commonwealths by his book on Georgia.”—C. McD. Puckette, The New York Times Book Review

• Language: English
• Publisher: Barakaldo Books
• Release date: May 19, 2020
• ISBN: 9781839744839

Ralph Betts Flanders

Ralph Betts Flanders (1903-1963) was an Associate Professor of History at New York University. He was a renowned authority on Southern history. Dr. Flanders received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1924 and his Master’s degree in 1926, both from Emory University. He received a doctorate from Duke University in 1929 and became a history instructor at New York University. He was made Assistant Professor in 1940, and Associate Professor in 1944, retiring in 1962. He died in Chattanooga on July 9, 1963 aged 60. Dr. Flanders was a member of the American, Southern, and Georgia Historical Association.

Book preview

© Barakaldo Books 2020, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

PLANTATION SLAVERY IN GEORGIA

BY

RALPH BETTS FLANDERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

DEDICATION 4

PREFACE 5

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 6

I—THE ONE THING NEEDFUL 7

II—THE SLAVE AND COLONIAL LAW 20

III—SLAVEHOLDING IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 31

IV—THE EXPANSION OF THE SLAVE REGIME 42

V—TYPES OF PLANTATIONS 72

VI—PLANTATION MANAGEMENT: ECONOMIC 102

VII—PLANTATION MANAGEMENT: SOCIAL 116

VIII—THE ACQUISITION AND HIRE OF SLAVES 117

IX—THE ECONOMICS OF THE PLANTATION 117

X—THE SLAVE BEFORE THE LAW 117

XI—CRIME AND PUNISHMENT 117

XII—THE PLANTERS’ DEFENSE OF SLAVERY 117

BIBLIOGRAPHY 117

SOURCES—MANUSCRIPT 117

A. PUBLIC RECORDS 117

B. RECORDS IN PRIVATE POSSESSION 117

PRINTED 117

A. PUBLIC RECORDS 117

B. STATISTICAL COLLECTIONS 117

C. SOURCE COLLECTIONS 117

D. NEWSPAPERS 117

E. PERIODICALS, RECORDS, AND MINUTES 117

F. PAMPHLETS 117

G. MEMOIRS, REMINISCENCES, AND CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATIONS 117

H. MISCELLANEOUS CONTEMPORARY STUDIES 117

SECONDARY AUTHORITIES 117

A STATE AND LOCAL HISTORIES 117

B. RECENT STUDIES 117

C. BIOGRAPHY 117

DEDICATION

To

MY MOTHER

PREFACE

IT IS THE current opinion that the field of American Negro slavery has been exhausted by historians, and that specialized studies are unnecessary. This impression is due, perhaps, to the conspicuous place the slavery controversy has played in our national political history. An examination of Southern historical bibliography, however, reveals the somewhat surprising fact that no satisfactory study of the institution of slavery in its several phases exists for a single Southern state. The studies available are primarily legalistic in their approach, and with two exceptions the economic aspects of slavery have received no treatment at all. Even the domestic slave trade, a subject of bitter argument and debate for many decades, received no thorough investigation until Frederick Bancroft recently brought forth his excellent work on the subject. Until the workings of slavery in each Southern state have been investigated, no general work on the subject may be regarded as final. While the general outlines of the institution were the same throughout the South, the details and coloring differed widely.

My purpose here is to describe the foundation of slavery in Georgia, to trace the development and operation of the plantation régime to the outbreak of the Civil War. The method of treatment is evidenced by the table of contents, and the documentation, together with the bibliography, makes comment on the nature of materials consulted unnecessary.

I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the aid and advice given to me by Professor William Kenneth Boyd of Duke University, and to Professor Ulrich Bonnell Phillips of Yale University. To Mr. Louis S. Moore of Thomasville, Georgia, I am indebted for the use of his excellent collection of Georgiana, and to Mr. Orville A. Park, of Macon, Georgia, for the use of his library of Georgia history. I am deeply indebted to Mrs. John R. L. Smith, of Macon, through whose kindness I was able leisurely and thoroughly to examine the Carter manuscripts in her possession, and to her mother, the late Mrs. Emma LeConte Furman, of Macon, for the use of manuscripts relating to the early life and career of Colonel Farish Carter and the McDonald family. I wish especially to express my gratitude to Mr. Warren Grice, of Macon, whose friendly interest and aid resulted in the discovery of the Carter papers, whose private collection of Georgia history was placed at my disposal, and whose wide circle of friends and acquaintances greatly facilitated my research in the Georgia field. My thanks are also due Miss Mary Wescott, of the Duke University Library for her co-operation and aid in locating materials, and to Miss Ruth Blair, of the State Department of Archives and History, Atlanta, Georgia, for aid in using manuscripts in her keeping. In the reading and revision of proofs I was aided by Professor B. H. Flanders of Emory University, and Mr. James Wetterean, Instructor of History in New York University.

New York City, October, 1933.

R. B. F.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

The Holt Residence, Macon; Lowther Hall, Jones County...Frontispiece

Scenes from the Plantation of David Dickson

Town Residence of a Wilkes County Planter

Town Residence of Samuel Barnett

Baldwin County Residence of Farish Carter

Residence of a Wilkes County Planter

Scenes from the Murray County Plantation of Farish Carter

A Harris County Plantation

Emma Howard, Former Slave of David Dickson

Sam Benton, Former Slave of Farish Carter

Slave Market at Louisville

Typical Dwellings of Planters about 1840

Close-Up of Planter’s Residence in the Old Cotton Belt

Double Brick Slave Cabin, Cobb County

Planter’s Residence, Wilkes County

I—THE ONE THING NEEDFUL

THE STORY of the establishment of the thirteenth English colony on the Atlantic seaboard is ever interesting, for in many respects it was distinctive. The principal objects for its foundation were clearly stated in the charter: the relief of unfortunate Englishmen imprisoned for debt; the furtherance of the trade and wealth of the realm; and the erection of a barrier province to defend South Carolina against the attacks of the Spaniards and the incursions of the Indians.{1} Many of the causes for the founding of the other American colonies were noticeably absent in the case of Georgia. The fallacious idea of untold wealth in the New World had been dispelled through a century of struggle in the attempt to conquer a wilderness inhabited by savages. The religious settlement following the Glorious Revolution, while not granting full religious tolerance, improved the situation to such an extent that persecution no longer forced dissenting minorities to migrate. The rather peculiar situation attendant upon the establishment of Georgia, a situation which was reflected in the policy adopted by the trustees, so largely shaped the history of the colonial period, and was so intimately connected with slavery, that a familiar story will bear repetition.

The philanthropic motive for the foundation of the colony grew from the desire of certain benevolent Englishmen, led by James Oglethorpe,{2} to provide a refuge for the needy who were crowding the debtors’ prisons, who were a burden to themselves as well as to society. It was thought that if these were given the proper stimulus and advantages, they might become self-supporting. It was by no means the purpose of the founders of the province merely to empty the jails. They aimed rather to use discrimination in selecting, for transportation to the New World, those of the better families who possessed some degree of education. Many of the inmates of the debtors’ prisons were of this type, flotsam and jetsam cast upon the shore by the bursting of bubbles, victims of unwise investments in false stocks; if placed in a new environment they might at the same time improve their own condition and materially develop the province.{3}

Although the humanitarian motive first moved the founders to action, the economic arguments were presented more forcibly to the public. Figures were published, for example, to show that one hundred families in Georgia should earn in the course of a year six thousand pounds, clearing enough to purchase four thousand pounds’ worth of English products, whereas these same families, if they remained in London, would actually cost the public one thousand pounds.{4}

The plan for the establishment of the colony of Georgia came at a period in the history of England when every effort was being made to develop trade and manufactures, and when there was an ever increasing desire on the part of the statesmen to keep the balance of trade in favor of the mother country. Commodities which England could not produce, according to the prevailing theory, should be supplied by the colonies. Much stress, therefore, was laid upon the possibilities of Georgia in this respect. Remarkable success had attended the foreign settlements of France and Spain, it was held, but because of the natural resources thought to be present in the region south of the province of South Carolina, a colony in that territory would surpass all others.

As the province of Georgia would lie in about the same latitude as part of China, Persia, Palestine, and the Madeiras, it was thought highly probable that when hereafter it shall be well peopled and rightly cultivated, England may be supplied from thence with raw silk, wine, oil, dyes, drugs, and many other materials which she is obliged to purchase from southern countries.{5} The silk-worm mulberry was indigenous to the colony, and since an excellent quality of silk had already been produced in the adjoining province of South Carolina, it was believed that Georgia would be able to produce the finest quality of raw silk, thereby not only saving England from the expense of purchasing the commodity from south European countries, but also furnishing employment, by the importation of raw material, to idle workers in England.{6} The legislation by the trustees with respect to realizing their aim concerning the culture of silk is very interesting.{7} It was also thought that the province was especially adapted to the production of flax, hemp, potash, and other products that England had been forced to buy from foreign countries. Thus it was argued that the foundation of a new colony would prove of great benefit to both colonists and mother country.

The third object for the creation of Georgia was of a defensive and military character. It was to erect a border province that would secure for England that disputed region between South Carolina and Florida; but as Great Britain at that time was at peace with both France and Spain, defence against savages was the reason given in the charter. The trustees were of the opinion that "as towns are established and grow populous along the rivers Savannah and Altamaha, they will make such a barrier as will render the southern frontier of the British Colonies on the Continent of America safe from Indian and other enemies"{8}

With these objects in view, The Corporation for Establishing Charitable Colonies in America petitioned the Privy Council for a charter. After the usual delay, due to the cumbersome machinery of British colonial administration, the request was granted, and the region south of Carolina, between the Altamaha{9} and Savannah rivers to the headwaters of the same, then west to the Mississippi, was given in trust for a period of twenty-one years, at the expiration of which time the province was to revert to the crown.

The policy adopted by the newly created board of trustees affords an excellent commentary on the colonial policy with regard to all of the English settlements. The regulations imposed at the very beginning, and the tenacity with which the trustees clung to them indicate a failure to appreciate the conditions and spirit of the times. At the very outset the prohibitions placed upon Georgia by the trustees with respect to land tenure, the use of spirituous liquors, and Negro slaves, were destined to make trouble, and did result in a decade of quarrelling and bickering which almost led to the complete failure of the enterprise. These restrictions were the logical corollaries to the motives of foundation advanced by the trustees, but, nevertheless, they were entirely out of harmony with the temper of eighteenth century colonial America.

As the male inhabitants of Georgia were regarded both as planters and as soldiers, the land system was shaped largely according to that concept. While the details of individual land grants had been left to the trustees, two restrictions were imposed; no land was to be granted to a trustee or for his indirect benefit, nor were grants to be made in units of over five hundred acres. As an illustration of the operation of the system, the following regulations might be laid down in a typical land deed: in the first place, the deed could be issued only to a male over twenty-one years of age, and the grantee must not leave the province within a period of three years without a proper license; moreover, he must come to Georgia and establish his abode within a year; the deed granted in tail to male heirs was for fifty acres, which must be cleared and cultivated as quickly as possible; on each unit of land the grantee was to plant and preserve one hundred white mulberry trees; save by special license from the Common Council, land could not be aliened, transferred, or assigned, and a quit rent of four shillings per hundred acres, to be paid annually after a lapse of ten years from the date of the grant, was required; finally, if these conditions had not been met within a ten-year period after the issuance of the grant, the trustees could re-enter on any such grants.{10}

The spirit of moral reform was manifested in the prohibition of the importation of rum, brandies, and strong waters into the province, as they were thought injurious both to health and morals. The restriction, however, was evaded, and traders from South Carolina supplied the inhabitants and the Indians with spirits which produced disease among the former and disorderly conduct on the part of the latter.{11}

More obnoxious than either of the above restrictions was the act excluding Negroes and slave labor from the province. The policy of the trustees with respect to land tenure and slavery drew the maximum of criticism from the settlers, and kept the colony in a turmoil for nearly two decades. No feature of the policy adopted by the trustees more flatly contradicted the ideas of the times, especially those which found expression in the British colonial system, than did the prohibition of Negro slavery, Osgood states.{12} In an official statement the trustees undertook to explain their motive in passing an ordinance against slavery. In the first place, they claimed, the colonists would be too poor to purchase slaves, and a white person could be equipped and sent over for the price of a Negro slave, which at that time was about thirty pounds. Moreover, it was thought that the possession of slaves would render the white settlers less inclined to labor for themselves, and that their whole time would be employed in keeping the Negroes at work and in watching for any danger from the slaves, who were likely to be enticed from their owners by the Spaniards at St. Augustine, or encouraged by them to revolt. In addition to these arguments, the trustees stated that the produce designed to be raised in the colony did not require Negro labor, for the province of Carolina produced chiefly rice which is a work of hardship proper for negroes, whereas the silk and other produces which the trustees proposed to have the people employed on in Georgia were such as women and children might be of as much use as negroes. If persons who went to Georgia at their own expense were permitted to use Negroes, it would dispirit and ruin the poor planters who could not get them, and who by their numbers were designed to be the strength of the province. Under such conditions it was held that people would not deign to work like Negroes, and that if they were allowed, wealthy planters, as in all the other colonies, would be more induced to absent themselves from their plantations and to live in other places, leaving their holdings in charge of overseers. Poor planters would be disposed to mortgage their land to Negro merchants for slaves. And finally, the presence of Negroes would facilitate the desertion of Carolina slaves through Georgia and thereby defeat one of the objects of settlement.{13} Throughout the arguments in justification of exclusion there runs an under-current of fear, a vague apprehension that an insurrection might occur. The experience of planters in the West Indies and in South Carolina was doubtless responsible for this. It is clear that the exclusion of slaves from the provinces was prompted, in the main, by economic and not by humanitarian motives.

Obviously, these arguments of the trustees contained much truth, apparent or not at the time, which has since been confirmed. However, during the colonial period such a policy for Georgia was contrary to human nature, for every one of the twelve colonies had received slaves within its borders, and it was natural that Georgia colonists should view such a policy as an unfair discrimination.

The impractical ideas of the trustees were well expressed by Benjamin Martyn, secretary of the board, who seemed to conceive the newly founded province as nothing short of a Utopia. He drew the following picture of Georgia after a few years:

Let him see those, who are now a Prey to all the Calamities of Want, who are starving with Hunger, and seeing their wives and children in the same Distress....Let him, I say, see these living under a sober and orderly Government, settled in Towns which are rising at Distances along navigable Rivers; Flocks and Herds in the neighboring Pastures, and adjoining to them Plantations of regular Rows of Mulberry-Trees entwined with Vines, the Branches of which are loaded with Grapes; let him see orchards of Oranges, Pomegranates, and Olives; in other Places extended fields of Corn, of Flax and Hemp. In short, the whole Face of the Country chang’d by Agriculture, and Plenty in every Part of it. Let him see the People all in Employment of various Kinds, Women and Children feeding and Nursing the Silkworms, winding off the Silk, or gathering Olives, the Men ploughing and planting their Lands, tending their Cattle, or felling the Forest, which they burn for Potashes, or square for the builder....{14}

But such idyllic scenes failed to materialize. Instead of happy, contented inhabitants strolling among groves of orange trees, and vineyards whose very boughs groaned beneath the weight of purple fruit, miasmic swamps and a hot southern sun repelled the cultivators of the soil, and the discontented colonists brooded over their hardships and suffering. Certain obstacles to progress were unavoidable. The task of clearing the land was exhausting, quite beyond the strength of the average white man. Again, much of the land was sandy or swampy, and not productive enough to yield a living. The settlers sent over were apparently easily discouraged, and either loitered around the town of Savannah or drifted over into the adjoining province. The Scotch, however, who settled at Darien, at the mouth of the Altamaha River, were an exception. Accustomed as they were to hard labor, by their thrift and industry they were more successful than the others in combating the forces of nature, and appeared to be contented.

To aggravate the situation further, relations between Georgia and South Carolina became somewhat strained. The circumstances attendant upon many of the Georgia colonists might have made them more sensitive than would otherwise have been the case. It was evident that the province to the north viewed the experiment with feelings of mingled contempt and jealousy, and what with the dispute about Indian trade and Georgia’s novel policy concerning rum and negroes, taken in connection with unfavorable winds and other obstacles to navigation, it was doubtful whether the new colony could count on the effective aid of its northern neighbors against the Spaniards, At the same time, South Carolina seemed to many the land of promise and the danger was ever present that by removals thither the population of Georgia might be seriously depleted.{15}

Whatever the importance of the rift between the two colonies, it is certain that one of the greatest hindrances to progress was the land system. Probably no stronger evidence of the lack of common sense on the part of the trustees can be advanced than this attempt to force upon a new province such an unfortunate system of land tenure. Because of the lack of a free title to the land and the restricted acreage, settlers who would have come in to add their strength to the weak young colony were repelled, and many left the province because of this fact. The quit rents, fixed at four shillings per hundred acres, were higher than in the other provinces, and were a constant reminder of the stain on the land title.

Combined with this was the question of the labor supply. The white indentured servants, who had been allowed to become a part of the social system, were physically and numerically too weak to clear the wilderness or to cultivate the unhealthy areas which made up the colony at that time. This appeared to the colonists to be the major cause of their backwardness. Slaves were prohibited, the indentured servants were either unable or unwilling to perform the hard labor, and the settlers alone could make little progress in so doing.

The idea of temperance which the trustees held was far too advanced for the times, and the habits of the colonists too fixed to permit a change. The regulation against rum continued to be violated, and so numerous and widespread were the violations that enforcement failed, and the act was repealed in 1742. President Stephens, in writing to the trustees, expressed the opinion that less rum was consumed in the colony after its use was permitted than when it was obtained and drunk clandestinely. He further stated that a beverage compounded of one part rum, three parts of water, and a little brown sugar, was very fit to be taken at meals, and that it was during the warm season, far more wholesome than malt liquors.{16}

In like manner the trustees were forced to abandon their land policy. Earlier concessions were insufficient; the colonists insisted on free title to their land and no restriction in acreage. The Scotch, who had at first appeared to be contented, threatened in 1738 to leave the colony in a body if the restrictions were not removed,{17} and about the same time a petition, signed by over a hundred freeholders of Savannah and the surrounding region, was sent to England. The petitioners claimed that the conditions necessary for their reasonable prosperity were: tenure of land in fee simple, and the introduction of Negro slaves.{18} By 1750 the trustees had complied with the requests as related to the land policy.

The hottest battle was waged in the endeavor to obtain the removal of the third prohibition and the prime obstacle to the progress of the colony. In 1738, five years after the founding of the province, agitation for the introduction of slaves was begun. The true condition of the province was obvious. The impoverishment, the scarcity of supplies, the spasmodic and unsatisfactory nature of agricultural operations in the region about Savannah had seriously handicapped the settlers; the enervating climate had decimated the population; the settlers had failed to accumulate wealth, and many had gone over into South Carolina, where lands were granted in fee, and the ownership of slaves was permitted. The competition between the two provinces had been rendered unequal by the absence of slave labor in Georgia.

A substitution of white for black labor had failed because of the paucity of numbers and the general characteristics of the indentured servants. The settlers were unable to hire them in numbers sufficient to clear and cultivate the land, and as a result, had gathered in and about the town of Savannah, hiring out their servants to the enterprising few and abandoning their plantations. While numerically the number of white servants sent over seemed large, in reality able-bodied males were few. Reverend John Martin Bolzius, pastor of the German Salzburgers at Ebenezer, in speaking of some sixty-one Germans brought over in one vessel, said that no more than nineteen husbandmen could be supplied with servants, each with one servant, and some of these with small families.{19} The indentured servants in many cases did not fulfil the terms of their contracts, and even the Germans, usually satisfactory, were characterized as being refractory, filled with ideas of liberty, and clandestinely quitting their masters.{20} One of the most highly esteemed of the clergymen, Reverend Bartholomew Zouberbuhler, sent by the trustees as a missionary to Savannah in 1745, thus expressed himself on the subject: I cannot learn, nor do I know any planters who have employed servants in cultivating lands, that have found them advantageous. On the contrary, I have heard frequent complaints that servants so employed have rather been an expense than a benefit.{21} The cultivation of silk had practically failed for want of encouragement, the planting of indigo had been abandoned, and the preparation of timber, the one industry in which Georgia should have excelled, had become impossible, because of the lack of labor. Gloom, discontent, and despair seized the colonists.

Among the unsettled, dissatisfied, and discouraged inhabitants moved one Patrick Tailfer, an Apothecary Surgeon who gives Physick, and Robert Williams, a merchant who quit planting to sell rum. It appeared that these two men had extended credit to the inhabitants until practically all were in debt to them. Tailfer, characterized by his contemporaries as a fast money maker, was naturally opposed to the land system and the exclusion of slaves, and being a prime agitator, furnished the inspiration for a petition from certain freeholders to the trustees.{22}

In 1738, therefore, a petition was sent to the trustees asking for a free title to land, which if granted would occasion great numbers of new settlers to come amongst us and encourage those here to try again, and the use of negro slaves, with proper limitations, to raise provisions and make produce fit for export to balance the imports. The one hundred and twenty-eight freemen who signed the petition held the opinion that mischief might arise from an unlimited use of Negroes, and therefore suggested that a proportional number to each white man and to the quality of land be admitted. If their requests were granted, they felt that the impending ruin of the province would be averted, and that Georgia would rapidly become the most flourishing colony in America.{23}

But the sentiment of the colony regarding the introduction of slaves was by no means unanimous. Learning of the action of the citizenry of Savannah, the Scotch at Darien wrote Oglethorpe protesting against the admission of Negroes. It was their feeling that the proximity of the Spaniards, who proclaimed freedom to all runaway slaves, would make it impossible to keep them without the expenditure of more labor than would be worthwhile. Moreover, they were not convinced of the efficiency of Negro labor, for we are laborious and know that a white man may be by the year more usefully employed than a negro. The Scotch did not feel financially able to purchase slaves, and must needs become indebted to the Negro merchants, and should any slaves thus purchased run away, they would be ruined. This would result in the Scotch becoming greater slaves to the slave dealers. In addition to these objections it was maintained that the presence of Negroes would necessitate a guard as if for an invasion, as there would be enemies both within and without. Finally, they claimed, it is shocking to human nature that any race of Man and posterity be sentenced to perpetual slavery. In concluding their appeal for the exclusion of Negroes the Scotch asked that more of their countrymen be sent over to labor with them.{24} This final statement indicated that a shortage of labor actually existed, and that pecuniary circumstances were largely responsible for their position.

A like sentiment was expressed by the German Salzburgers at Ebenezer, a settlement located above Savannah, in what is today Effingham County. In the counter-petition from these colonists the lack of labor was evidenced by their request for another shipload of Salzburgers. They expressed their disapproval of the introduction of slaves, basing their opposition upon fear of the Negro, whose presence would only endanger the whites, and who might rob gardens and ruin the white laborers through a lowering of the dignity of labor. The statement made by the Savannah freeholders that white men could not perform the necessary work was flatly contradicted by the Salzburgers, who claimed that rice-cultivation was not harmful to them; they did raise rice, more than enough for their own needs, and though the season was hotter than they were accustomed to in their native land, during the heat of the day inside work could be performed, while early morning and evening might be devoted to field work. Others might demand slaves, but as for themselves, they insisted that they could easily gain bread and subsistence, and lead a quiet and peaceful life in all Godliness and honesty.{25}

The attitude of Oglethorpe toward slavery is puzzling. While a member of the Royal African Company, trading in slaves, and the owner of a plantation in South Carolina some few miles from Savannah, he was opposed to the use of Negroes in Georgia.{26} Certainly this great philanthropist was not averse to the institution of slavery, and his opposition to its establishment in Georgia must have received its impulse from some other source. In an attempt to account for the discrepancy between the functions of Oglethorpe as a tender-hearted, philanthropic individual and a dealer in human chattels, one writer states that the conflict cannot be relieved except by one of the greatest of all reconciling considerations, the spirit of the time. Whatever else the radicals of that period might have wished to reform or abolish, the slave trade was held either as a matter of course or as a positive benefit to the people who constituted its merchandise.{27} Probably Oglethorpe was convinced that slaves would be injurious to the colonists of Georgia and financially beyond the reach of the poverty-stricken Englishmen rescued from debtors’ prisons. It was policy and not philanthropy that dictated the position of the trustees in their prohibition of slavery.

At the time of the first petition for Negroes, in 1738, Oglethorpe added his private opinion that admission would be unwise as, in his belief, the agitation was due largely to the work of Williams and Tailfer,{28} to whom many of the poor people of Savannah were in debt. In the mind of Oglethorpe the granting of the petition would ruin the province, for Williams and Tailfer would buy up most of the land with the debts due them, introduce slaves, and force the white inhabitants to leave. He also believed that much of the agitation had been artfully fomented by the Negro Merchants.{29} Those complaining had not taken care of what they possessed, and added responsibilities would only serve to make matters worse. Therefore he urged that no countenance be given the petition for slaves, and he protested against any material change in the existing land tenure.

Contrasted with the views of the founder of the colony were those of the eminent eighteenth century divine, the Reverend George Whitefield. Sometime prior to his embarkation for Georgia in December, 1737, Whitefield had stated that while the regulations against the use of rum, Negro slaves, and fee simple land titles were well meant, he believed them incapable of enforcement in so hot a country; and a visit to the new colony made firm his conviction. To locate people in Georgia on such a footing is little better than tying their legs and bidding them to walk, he stated, and it was his belief that the exclusion of slavery was the main cause of the condition of the colony. Whitefield was the owner of a plantation in South Carolina which comprised some 640 acres, on which he employed slave labor. The profits were used to aid in financing his orphan house at Bethesda, in Georgia. He was convinced that Georgia never can, or will be a flourishing province without negroes are allowed.{30}

The views of Whitefield were shared by