Microsoft Word - CO5 Georgia--centered continuous (413 pages).docx

David Library of the American Revolution

Finding Aid on Georgia

including the

British Colonial Office Papers (CO5)—Georgia

DLAR Microfilm Set 701

Prepared by David Swain, Volunteer Researcher, June 2018

Summary Contents

Note: The CO5 British Colonial Office Papers for Georgia owned on microfilm by the

David Library of the American Revolution include the documents contained in Volumes

648-665 and 676-680. Reel numbers refer to the microfilmed Georgia colonial papers

owned by DLAR. Their general contents are as follows:

Volumes 648-652 Board of Trade correspondence (incoming) 1760-1782

(Reels 1, 2, (BT numbers E through I in Volumes 648-652 respectively; for

3 begin) incoming correspondence from 1734 to 1760, see Volumes 636 to

647 below in list of microfilmed documents not owned by DLAR.)

Volume 653 Board of Trade correspondence (drafts of outgoing) 1754-1758

(Reel 3 end) Note: The Board of Trade, unlike the Secretary of State office, did

not distinguish “official” and other correspondence in its filing

system. Many but not all of the documents in the Board of Trade

incoming correspondence are what the Secretary of State office

would file as “official.” Board of Trade outgoing correspondence

microfilmed here dates from only the years 1754 to 1758 and

consists of drafts of official correspondence. For additional

outgoing correspondence between 1752 and 1781, see Volumes

672 to 674 in list of microfilmed documents not owned by DLAR.

Volumes 654-665 Secretary of State official correspondence (incoming) 1735-1780

(Reels 4 to 8) (except that Volume 657 contains other, mostly not official

correspondence, including documents, memorials, etc., out of

sequence with previous and next Volumes, dated 1733 to 1783)

Volumes 676-677 Secretary of State official correspondence (outgoing) 1766-1782

(Reel 9) (copies in letterbooks)

Volumes 678-680 Secretary of State summaries of official 1767-1781

(Reel 10) correspondence (incoming) in letterbooks, mostly summaries of

incoming letters, mostly from the Governor of Georgia to the

Secretary of State, letters that also (almost but not all) appear as

original, copy, or duplicate documents elsewhere in the Colonial

Georgia Papers

Note: The Secretary of State office, unlike the Board of Trade,

made a distinction between “official” and other, in both incoming

and outgoing correspondence. In practice, “official”

correspondence refers to letters by or to (especially between)

colonial governors and secretaries of state, along with other

correspondence from other governmental officials and from other

Secretary of State officials, including attachments to such letters,

which might be but were not necessarily “official” documents. Any

correspondence not filed as “official” correspondence is identified

here as “other” correspondence.

The general contents of Volumes of Georgia Colonial Papers not owned on microfilm by

the David Library are as follows:

Volumes 636-647 Board of Trade correspondence (incoming) 1734-1760

(BT numbers A to D in Volumes 644 to 647 respectively)

Volumes 666-669 Letters from Trustees establishing the colony etc. 1732-1752

Volumes 670-671 Grants of land, instructions, petitions etc. 1732-1752

Volumes 672-674 Letters from Board of Trade (outgoing) 1752-1781

(BT numbers A to C in Volumes 672 to 674 respectively)

Volume 675 Abstracts of grants of land 1760-1768

Volumes 681-685 Acts of Georgia colonial government 1732-1781

Volumes 686-688 Sessional Papers: Journal of Trustees 1732-1752

Volumes 689-691 Sessional Papers: Minutes of Trustee Council 1732-1752

Volumes 692-708 Sessional Papers: Minutes of Council and Assembly 1741-1780

Volumes 709-710 Shipping Returns 1752-1767

Volume 711 Miscellaneous: Account of the progress of the colony 1732-1740

Volume 712 Miscellaneous: Answer to the charges against the 1756

Rev. T. Bosomworth concerning the Indian war in 1749

Summary Contents of DLAR Microfilmed Papers

by Reel and Volume

Reel 1

Volume 648

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), begin

May 29, 1749 to July 17, 1764 Documents 1 to 99 [Frames 1 to 315]

Reel 2

Volume 649

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continued

March 25, 1764 to June 30, 1767 Documents 1 to 114 [Frames 1 to 285]

Volume 650

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continued

November 18, 1765 to January 20, 1770 Documents 115 to 170 [Frames 1 to 139]

Reel 3

Volume 651

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continued

August 15, 1769 to June 19, 1772 Documents 1 to 85 [Frames 1 to 215]

Volume 652

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), end

October 31, 1772 to December 7, 1782 Documents 86 to 105 [Frames 1 to 49]

Volume 653

Board of Trade Correspondence (outgoing), Drafts

June 21, 1754 to June 29, 1758 Documents 106 to 134 [Frames 1 to 115]

Reel 4

Volume 654 [not itemized in this finding aid]

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), begin

August 13, 1735 to December 12, 1741 Documents 1 to 217 [Frames 1 to 410]

Volume 655 [not itemized in this finding aid]

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

January 13, 1742 to May 18, 1747 Documents 218 to 399 [Frames 1 to 343]

Reel 5

Volume 656 [not itemized in this finding aid]

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

August 18, 1747 to August 28, 1751 Documents 1 to 178 [Frames 1 to 242]

Volume 657

Secretary of State Other Correspondence, (Board of Trade

correspondence to Secretary of State and other, not official

documents), continued

November 21, 1733 to February 2, 1785 Documents 179 to 279 [Frames 1 to 289]

Reel 6

Volume 658

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

October 17, 1761 to November 14, 1767 Documents 1 to 117 [Frames 1 to 282]

Volume 659

Secretary of State Official Correspondence, (incoming), continued

November 18, 1765 to December 10, 1768 Documents 118 to 161 [Frames 1 to 108]

Volume 660

Secretary of State Official Correspondence, (incoming), continued

November 15, 1768 to December 11, 1770 Documents 162 to 226 [Frames 1 to 153]

Volume 661

Secretary of State Official Correspondence, (incoming), continued

October 2, 1770 to December 12, 1772 Documents 227 to 287 [Frames 1 to 227]

Reel 7

Volume 662

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

December 16, 1772 to October 28, 1773 Documents 1 to 29 [Frames 1 to 78]

Volume 663

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

March 3, 1773 to December 10, 1774 Documents 30 to 112 [Frames 1 to 184]

Volume 664

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

September 14, 1774 to December 23, 1775 Documents 113 to 221 [Frames 1 to 251]

Reel 8

Volume 665

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), end

June 27, 1775 to December 7, 1780 Documents 1 to 146 [Frames 1 to 343]

Reel 9

Volume 676

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (outgoing), begin

August 8, 1766 to November 14, 1767 Document 1 [Frames 1 to 5]

Volume 677

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (outgoing), end

February 4, 1768 to June 27, 1782 Documents 2 to 5 [Frames –/1 to 107/218]

Reel 10

Volume 678

Secretary of State Summaries of Official Correspondence (incoming),

begin

February 15, 1762 to March 30, 1772 Documents 1 to 100 [Frames 1 to 132]

Volume 679

Secretary of State Summaries of Official Correspondence (incoming),

continued

April 24, 1772 to August 17, 1780 Documents 101 to 227 [Frames 1 to 178]

Volume 680

Secretary of State Summaries of Official Correspondence (incoming),

end

August 20, 1780 to December 31, 1781 Documents 228 to 265 [Frames 1 to 30]

Introduction

Xxdraft 2-21-2018xx

This introduction is divided into two main parts, a thematic timeline of colonial Georgia

history and a series of thematic sections. Both provide contextual information that

goes beyond what is found in the Georgia Colonial Office papers as available

microfilmed in the David Library of the American Revolution. The thematic timeline is

organized around dates, while the thematic sections are organized around aspects of

historical significance that relate to documents in the microfilmed papers. The themes

tend, at the same time, to be both discreet and interconnected. This introduction is not

a fully researched, academic article. Rather, it is contains reactions to the documents—

contextual observations, stories, and interpretation to help guide interested researchers

in a few possibly fruitful directions for future inquiry.

Much of the specific information contained in this introduction is not found in detail in the

microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia. The information selected provides context and

helps to tell the larger historical story in which the microfilmed papers are embedded.

Some of this information appears, in bits and pieces, in notes that follow specific

document entries in the annotated contents. Where a useful connection can be made

between the contextual information and particular microfilmed documents, references

are included here.

The documents of colonial Georgia’s government and governing naturally reflect the

British perspective on the subject, including the use of terminology. To preserve this

sense of perspective, the introduction uses British terminology in relation to the great

conflict that led to creation of the United States of America. For the British, the conflict

was a “rebellion” (not a “revolution”). And for them, the people involved on the two

sides of the conflict were “loyalists” on the right side and “rebels” on the wrong side, (not

“loyalists,” or “royalists” on the wrong side and “patriots” on the right side).

In addition, the colonial British in North America referred to the Native Americans, whom

they found when they arrived in Georgia and lived among in an uneasy relationship,

Indians, reflecting the geographic confusion of Christopher Columbus in 1492. This

introduction uses the persisting British (and latter-day American) term, despite the fact

that it had been proven inaccurate long before Georgia was settled.

Also, organized groups of interrelated Indians are today commonly called tribes, based

on the category of social and governing structure they are perceived to have

maintained. The British also used the term “tribe.” But they (and, later on, the U.S.

Government) also used another term, “nation,” when referring to a group of Indians as a

legal entity. The British understood that Indian tribes were constitutionally nations, with

a unique kind of sovereignty, which the British chose to recognize in establishing and

maintaining official relations with the Indians. This Finding Aid seeks to use both terms,

as appropriate.

The British also had a habit of calling Indians “savages.” This term was more culturally

demeaning, expressing (perhaps unconsciously) the cultural prejudices of the English,

as well as other Europeans. Perhaps realizing this, colonial Georgians tended not to

use this term in formal documents or in the direct presence of Indians. Still, in official

correspondence, the term “savage” is commonly, if not frequently used. The Finding

Aid uses the term only to reflect its use in a document.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents of the Introduction

A Thematic Timeline of Georgia Colonial History

Initial British Proprietary Colony of Georgia with Trustees

Subsequent British Royal Colony of Georgia

with Governor and Government

Geography of British Royal Colonial Rule

Rhythms of British Royal Colonial Rule

King

Secretaries of State for the Southern Department—

1727-1768

Secretaries of State for the Colonies—1768-1782

Secretaries of the Home Department—1782-1789

Royal Governors

John Reynolds—1752-1758

Henry Ellis—1758-1760

James Wright—1760-1782

Wright’s Leave of Absence—1771-1773

and James Habersham’s stand-in

American Protest Movement against British Colonial

Authority—Colonial Georgia’s Experience

Stamp Act—Enforcement and Protest—1765-1767

Townshend Acts—Reaction to Protest in Other

Colonies—1767-1768

Slide toward Protest in Georgia—1774

First Continental Congress—1774

Second Continental Congress—1775 to 1781

American Revolutionary War—Colonial Georgia’s Experience

British Loss of Savannah and Hiatus in British Colonial

Rule—1775-1776

War During the Absence of British Colonial Government

in Georgia—1776-1778

British Military “Southern Strategy”—Recapture of

Savannah and Re-establishment of British Colonial

Government in Georgia—1778-1779

Georgia Colonial Government Hangs on as its Power

Waxes, then Wanes, and then the Rebels Close In—

1779-1782, Including a Close Call—1779

Selected Themes of Georgia Colonial History

Running an Empire on Sailing Time

Governor Wright’s Steadfast Beliefs but Varying Opinions

about Governing Colonial Georgia

Constitutional Conflicts within Georgia Colonial Government

between the Governor and the Commons House:

Structure of Colonial Georgia Government

Constitutional Conflicts between the Governor and

Commons House in Georgia—1765 to 1776

Wartime Georgia Loyalist Government without

Internal Constitutional Conflicts—1779 to 1782

Early State Government in Georgia

General Clinton’s 1778 Proclamation of Pardon and

Governor Wright’s 1780 Reaction to it

Georgia’s Colonial Relations with African Slaves

and with Jewish People

Slavery in Colonial Georgia

Defining Slavery Legally

Taxing the Slave Trade

Economic Losses and Personal Dangers from Runaway or

Confiscated Slaves

Usefulness of Armed Slaves in War

Savannah’s Jewish Community

Georgia’s Colonial Relations with and Policies toward

Indians and Indian Nations

From Coexistence to Competition to Conflict on the

Georgia Frontier

Role of Boundaries in Colonial Georgia Indian Relations

Responses to Competition and Conflict on the Georgia

Frontier

Relations with Indians as Documented in the Microfilmed

Papers

Talks and Treaties

Shift from Indian Relations to Rebellion Control

The Bosomworth Story

Lady Huntingdon’s Orphan House and Complexities of

Loyalist-Rebel Relations:

The Lady Huntingdon Story

Family Fissures Between Loyalists and Rebels

The Habersham family

The Jones family

The Wright family

The Colony of Georgia: Financial Benefactor or Tax Consumer?

Selected References

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Thematic Timeline of Georgia Colonial History

Initial British Proprietary Colony of Georgia with Trustees

1732 A Proprietary Colony of Georgia was founded by formation of a Board of

Trustees. Most Trustees “ruled” from England and never set foot in

Georgia. Their joint purposes were both philanthropic and idealistic, to

establish an English colony that would prosper through individual family

entrepreneurialism, while also acting as a buffer for the English colonies to

Spanish-controlled territory to the south in Florida.

1733 Savannah was founded and settled by initial settlers led by Trustee

George Oglethorpe. He was the only Trustee to live in Georgia and to

play an active role in making the Colony a reality. As both philanthropic

leader and a general, he sought personally both to support family-oriented

settlement and enterprise and to protect the colony militarily from Spanish

encroachment.

1739-1748 The European War of Jenkins’ Ear between Britain and Spain included

hostilities along the Georgia-Florida border. In 1740, General

Oglethorpe led two English offensive thrusts into Spanish Florida territory,

without measurable success. In 1742, Spain retaliated with its own

offensive, which was repulsed by the English. A final offensive attempt by

Oglethorpe in 1743 against St. Augustine also failed. The entire war was

a draw, and the 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle returned all boundaries to

their former lines. For Georgia, this meant that the St. Johns River was

recognized as its boundary with Spanish Florida.

By 1743 Georgia’s social-reform experiment in family-oriented settlement

failed to prosper, and the colony’s economy reestablished itself on the

more familiar, proven-prosperous West Indian slave-plantation model.

This was not a pleasing outcome for the Trustees. Oglethorpe returned to

England in 1743, and the transition to plantation agriculture was difficult

and did not quickly yield prosperity.

1752 The King of England decided to take over governance of Georgia,

recreating it as a Royal Colony with a Governor and government

appointed by him. His purpose, given Georgia’s early failures to prosper,

was, through direct control, to reshape Georgia into a prosperous colony

that would economically benefit England and the British Empire. This

British colony existed for 30 years, from 1752 to 1782.

Early documents in the microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia date from the Trustee

period of Georgia’s governance. However, most of the papers document the official

governance of the Royal Colony, from when it was established in 1752 until it ceased to

exist in 1782.

Subsequent British Royal Colony of Georgia with Governor and

Government

Geography of British Royal Colonial Rule

As the British settled and organized life on the land in Georgia, they adapted the English

system of Church of England Parishes, named usually for Christian saints, as a familiar

way to divide the land for local rule. This was true for both the original proprietary and

the subsequent royal colony of Georgia. A major difference was, of course, that in

England parishes distinguished adjacent areas of long-settled, domesticated English

life, while in Georgia, parishes were carved out what the English perceived to be

wilderness, even though it was already populated by Native Americans.

As indicated on the map below, British colonial Georgia grew from a single parish

(Christ Church Parish) at Savannah to 12 parishes, strung both along the Atlantic

coastal area to the southwest from Savannah and up the Savannah River to the

northwest from Savannah. A thirteenth “parish” is included on this map, representing

the most recent addition of land on the edge of the frontier up the Savannah River.

Called “Ceded Lands” on the map, these lands had, at the time represented on the

map, just recently been ceded by the Cherokee Indian Nation in the so-called Cession

Treaty of June 1, 1773, and thus had not yet become sufficiently settled and organized

to be designated by a parish name.

For much of the colonial period, Georgia’s frontier expanded along these two bands of

settlement, southwest from and northwest from Savannah. By the end of the colonial

period, as the Royal Proclamation Line of 1763 was increasingly being disregarded,

Georgia’s frontier began to be more westward from all 12 of the parishes. But the

parish system did not spread westward. Instead, after the American Revolution, the

State of Georgia established a system of counties in the areas of newer settlement and

consolidated the old parishes into counties in the areas of earlier colonial settlement.

Rhythms of British Royal Colonial Rule

The rhythms of the royal colonial ruling process tended to respond to various catalysts

of change in personalities, policies, and/or power relations. Such catalysts might

include a change of king, changes of Secretaries of State (which reflected changes in

Prime Ministers and overall government policies), changes in power relations between

the Secretary of State and Board of Trade bureaucracies, changes in royal governors

plus, of course, events both in England and in Georgia.

1727-1820 Only one change of King of Britain occurred during the time of Georgia’s

colonial history. Having ruled since 1727, King George II died in October

1760 and was replaced by his grandson, George III. The third George

ruled until 1820. Thus royal longevity during this period brought stability at

the top. Even the one change of monarchs in 1760 did not cause

significant alterations of policy or power relationships. It occurred in the

same year that James Wright began his long tenure as Georgia’s royal

governor.

During the early years of Georgia’s colonial history, the British government’s focus was

more on economic development. This emphasis is visible in the official

correspondence, in which the relative importance of the Board of Trade to the Georgia

colonial government appears to be greater than that of the Secretary of State. After

1768, the power relationship seems to shift toward the Secretary of State, reflecting

organizational changes in London as well as changing events, with the rise of the

American colonial protest movement and other matters of political and governance

importance. The Board of Trade was governed by a group of commissioners, none of

whom tended to exert individual influence or leadership. Single secretaries of state, by

contrast, had considerable individual influence over policy (within a government led by a

prime minister).

1727-1768 Secretaries of State for the Southern Department (which included the

southern North American colonies plus the Caribbean and West Indian

colonies), most of whom appear in the microfilmed papers:

The Duke of Newcastle 1727 to 1748

Thomas Robinson 1748 to 1751

The Earl of Holderness 1751 to 1754

Henry Fox 1755 to 1756

William Pitt (Elder) 1756 to 1761

The Earl of Egremont October 1761 to August 1763

The Earl of Halifax September 1763 to July 1765

Henry Seymour Conway July 1765 to May 1766

The Duke of Richmond May to July 1766

The Earl of Shelburne July 1766 to October 1768

More than the others, Shelburne contributed considerably to organizing

the archiving effort in the Secretary of State office, including the

numbering of official letters.

In 1768, a reorganization in the Secretary of State office placed a single Secretary of

State in charge of all the American colonies. This change reflected the changing

emphasis, among colonial governance issues, toward political control over economic

development. One result was to diminish the relative influence of the Board of Trade.

Another was to increase the influence, as well as the stability, of the Secretary of State

position, since the days of the Duke of Newcastle

1768-1782 Secretaries of State for the Colonies who appear in the microfilmed

papers include:

The Earl of Hillsborough February 1768 to August 1772

Hillsborough previously had been a Board of Trade Commissioner. He

chose to continue Shelburne’s archiving and letter numbering system,

which was also used subsequently by Dartmouth and Germain.

The Earl of Dartmouth August 1772 to November 1775

Lord George Germain November 1775 to July 1782

Germain was the last of the Secretaries of State for the Colonies. When Lord North’s

“war government” fell in mid-1782, Germain’s term as Secretary of State ended. As

Britain sought to move on from a failed war in America, the Secretary of State office

again reorganized and changed terminology. What had been the colonial office now

became the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (or Home

Secretary). Political instability also returned temporarily.

1782-1789 Secretaries of State for the Home Department who appear in the

microfilmed papers include:

The Earl of Shelburne March to July 1782

This is the same Shelburne who, in the late 1760s, had been Secretary of

State for the Southern Department. He held the Home Secretary position

so briefly because he became prime minister in July 1782.

Thomas Townshend July 1782 to April 1783 and,

after a brief hiatus, again from

December 1783 to 1789

The terms of service for Georgia’s Royal Governors reflect both personal factors and

political events. Only three men held the position, the third of them for the last 22 of the

colony’s 30 years:

1752-1758 John Reynolds was an unfortunate failure at administration. However, it

took six years to replace him, which is not what the King had hoped for in

establishing the Royal Colony of Georgia.

1758-1760 Henry Ellis was a better administrator, but his health soon failed. He

requested to be replaced and left Georgia for England in November 1760.

His influence on Georgia’s colonial development and governance was

thus limited. Before his planned departure, his successor, James Wright

moved to Savannah from Charleston in the position of Lieutenant

Governor of Georgia. Upon Ellis’ departure, Wright was promptly

appointed Governor.

1760-1782 James Wright, by most accounts a capable administrator and popular

leader, was also a true believer in and rigid supporter of the King, the

English governmental system, and the British Empire. This split the

Georgia population when protests erupted, beginning in 1765. Despite the

disruption of protests, Wright maintained colonial governmental control

longer than any other royal governor among the 13 colonies that revolted

in 1775; for all but three years—from 1776 to 1779, during which the

British military occupied Savannah—Wright’s government continued to

function, on-site, until he and his government were finally, permanently

ousted by “rebel” military force—and officially ceased to exist—in July

1782. No other colonial government among the 13 retained control during

the Revolutionary War, and no other returned to rule after having been

ousted during the conflict.

1771-1773 Governor Wright’s leave of absence: During his long tenure as

Governor of Georgia, Wright left Savannah only three times. Two of these

were involuntary, during the Revolutionary War, when rebel forces

occupied Savannah, first in March 1776, when Wright’s government went

into English exile for three years before returning in July 1779, and second

in July 1782, when Savannah and most of Georgia were under rebel

control, the British had lost the war, and the colony of Georgia officially

ceased to exist.

One other time (the first time chronologically) Wright left Savannah

voluntarily in July 1771 on an official leave of absence he had requested

to attend to personal matters in England. Such leaves were not

uncommon, and, by the time Wright was granted his, he had been on duty

as Governor of Georgia for 11 years. He did not return to Savannah until

February 1773.

During his leave, Wright arranged, with royal approval, for a “stand-in”

governor, James Habersham, who had served for some time as

president of the governor’s Council. At Wright’s request, Habersham was

never appointed Acting Governor but retained his title of President of the

Council. He seems to have been a competent stand-in governor,

communicating regularly with the Secretary of State and others, and

managing the same sorts of economic-development and governance

issues with which Wright contended.

American Protest Movement against British Colonial Authority—

Colonial Georgia’s Experience

1765-1767 Stamp Act—enforcement and protest:

The Stamp Act was enacted by Parliament on March 22, 1765, based on

the presumed fairness of taxing North American colonists to help pay off

the British military debt from the successful French and Indian War/Seven

Years War, from which those colonists had directly benefited.

Governor Wright began enforcing the Stamp Act in Georgia in fall 1765

(Reel 2 documents 21 to 25) and continued doing so, despite protests,

until sometime in mid-1766. Georgia was the only colony among the 13

that enforced the Stamp Act.

Between January and March and in November 1766, Wright reported to

the Board of Trade and Secretary of State about opposition to and

disturbances against enforcement of the Stamp Act (Reel 2 documents 58

to 69, 104 to 106, and Reel 6 documents 46, 52 to 60). Secretary of State

Shelburne responded to Wright about this situation on September 22,

1766, encouraging enforcement of the law (Reel 9, in document 1).

Parliament repealed the Stamp Act on March 18, 1766, but reverberations

of the colonial protest movement continued to appear in Wright’s

correspondence in early 1767 (Reel 2 document 98 and Reel 6 document

91)

1767-1768 Townshend Acts—reaction to protests in other colonies

The Townshend Acts, enacted by Parliament in June and July 1767, were

mostly a set of import duties on selected goods the colonies had to import

from England. Parliament justified these as indirect taxes over which its

sovereign right of taxation could not be questioned and must be obeyed.

Nevertheless, protests quickly arose in many colonies, and, by 1770, all of

the duties had been repealed except for that on tea, which was retained to

make the point about Parliament’s power to tax.

Wright actively enforced collection of these import duties in Georgia and,

in early 1768, reported Georgia’s negative reactions to the protests

elsewhere, especially in Massachusetts (Reel 6 document 149, 166-167).

Secretary of State Hillsborough responded to Wright on February 23,

1768, encouraging enforcement of the duties (reel 9, in document 1).

1771-1773 During James Habersham’s stand-in governance of Georgia, the colony’s

official policies and actions regarding taxation and parliamentary

sovereignty changed little. During the same period, protests and tensions

were accelerating among other colonies, especially in Massachusetts but

also just across the Savannah River in South Carolina. Through 1773,

Georgia might be considered to be the most (comparatively) loyal among

the 13 colonies. However….

1774 By 1774, as protests were intensifying, even in Georgia, Wight looked

back to 1765 and the Stamp Act as the beginning of a dangerous slide

toward protest that Wright felt was undermining British colonial

authority. In the 1760s he had feared the slide would accelerate. Now,

he felt it had gone so far as to endanger imminently the continuing

existence of that authority (Reel 7 document 95, Wright’s letter No. 26

dated August 24, 1774, to Secretary of State Dartmouth).

Sept 1774 The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia. Georgia was

not represented.

Jan 1775 A Provincial Assembly convened as a first step toward a Georgia rebel

government, with only five of Georgia’s 12 parishes represented. It initially

relied on an executive Council of Safety to rule.

May 1775 The Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia. Although

arriving late, Georgia representatives attended—and continued to

attend—the last of the 13 colonies to join, thus setting Georgia on the path

toward becoming a State in the United States of America. This

Continental Congress met until 1781, when it evolved into the Congress

under the Articles of Confederation, which met until superseded by the

United States Congress in 1789, under the U.S. Constitution of 1787.

With hindsight, it appears that Wright’s efforts to maintain British colonial authority in

Georgia were essentially doomed by 1775. Yet neither the British government and

military nor Governor Wright accepted this view at the time. Britain fought a war to force

its authority on what it still defined as its colonies. And Wright made extraordinary and

(mostly) undiminished efforts to maintain the functions of his colonial government in

Georgia until the inevitability of its demise finally became evident to him in July 1782

and to the British government at about the same time.

American Revolutionary War—Colonial Georgia’s Experience

The Revolutionary War began in Massachusetts and took some time to move

southward. Between mid-1778 and mid-1782, Georgia endured repeated military

actions, most of them fairly small in scale but a few significantly bloody. The war in the

interior back country consisted of mostly brief, scattered encounters, while war in the

Augusta and Savannah areas occasionally grew into sieges and battles of larger scale,

longer duration, and greater bloodshed.

The fortunes of war ebbed and flowed in Georgia, as elsewhere. Until late 1778, the

rebels appeared to be on the offensive. Then, in 1779 and 1780, the British gained the

offensive, only to lose it again in 1781. After the British surrender at Yorktown, Virginia

in October 1781, the British military never regained the advantage, and by July 1782,

the shooting war in Georgia was over, the rebels had won, and the British colony of

Georgia had ceased to exist.

Note: Throughout the war, the British officials in Georgia, as elsewhere, referred to

their enemy as “rebels,” not as Americans or Continentals, and certainly not as the

military force of the United States. As would seem historically appropriate, the term

“rebels” is used here as well.

British Loss of Savannah and Hiatus in British Colonial Rule

1775 The rebels did not wait for formal, organized military action. Beginning in

May 1775, Wright began reporting to the Secretary of State instances in

which armed civilians (which he tended to identify as both South

Carolinians and Georgians) used force to steal arms and gunpowder.

Some were stolen from colonial government magazines and stores.

Others were seizures at sea or in port of vessels loaded with gunpowder

(Reel 7, in particular documents 154, 175 to 181, 182, 183, 202, and 212).

1776 Arrival in January 1776 of a British fleet at the mouth of the Savannah

River, on a mission to procure supplies of rice for British troops at Boston,

led to the first military action in Georgia. As a precaution, the rebels who

now controlled Savannah, placed Wright under house arrest. He

managed to escape on February 11 and, with loyalist assistance, fled to

Cockspur Island, where the supply fleet’s flagship HMS Scarborough was

moored.

Negotiations to return Wright to his home and his office failed, so on

March 1, the British sent several ships up the river to seize rice-laden

vessels docked at Savannah. The resulting battle (later named the Battle

of the Rice Boats) between Georgia (rebel) militia and British troops

assigned to the supply fleet (commanded by James Grant, former royal

governor of East Florida) was the first Revolutionary War military action in

Georgia. Meanwhile, other top officials of Wright’s colonial government

had been detained in Savannah. Negotiations followed for their release.

Departure and Hiatus: By the end of March, the remnants of Wright’s

government were aboard the Scarborough, and hopes for their quick

return to rule in Savannah had been dashed. So, the supply fleet sailed

north. By the time they arrived at Boston, General Thomas Gage had

already ordered the city’s evacuation by the British military. Wright and

his fellow colonial officials sailed on, via Halifax, to England. Although

they never capitulated and maintained the fiction of being the legitimate

(British colonial) government of Georgia, they spent three years “in exile”

in England before returning to re-establish their government in British

controlled Savannah in February 1779.

Wright did not tell most of the military story in his reports to the Secretary

of State. He did, however, inform Dartmouth about his forced m

ove to live

on the Scarborough, his failure to re-establish his government in

Savannah, and his subsequent voyage back to England (via North

Carolina, where he sought to rendezvous with British General Sir Henry

Clinton, whose army was headed south at the time, in a last-ditch effort to

turn around the misfortunes of his government by obtaining military

assistance in recapturing Savannah). The effort was in vein. Wright was

unable to meet with Clinton, who may not have been interested in any

case.

Relevant microfilmed documents, written by Wright, include: On board the

warship HMS Scarborough at Cockspur Island (Reel 8 documents 29 to

39, dated between March 1 and March 27, 1776); On the Scarborough at

sea to Sir Henry Clinton (Reel 8 document 42, dated April 2, 1776); At

Halifax (Reel 8 document 41, dated April 26, 1776).

War During the Absence of British Colonial Government in Georgia

1776-1778 Ineffectual Rebel Attacks on East Florida: During the time the rebels

controlled Savannah and Georgia, they ruled through a Committee of

Safety plus a military organization based on the previous colonial militia.

Before Britain shifted its military strategy southward in 1778, the American

Continental Army was fully occupied far to the north, so rebel military

activities in the south were limited mostly to militia actions. Rebel Georgia

sought to mount three offensive thrusts of its militia into British East

Florida territory, in August to October 1776, in April to May 1777, and in

April to July 1778. None of these was successful, less because the East

Florida militia was any stronger (which it may have been) than because

Georgia’s military efforts were inept as well as weak.

British Military “Southern Strategy”—Recapture of Savannah and

Re-establishment of British Colonial Government in Georgia

1778 British Recapture of Savannah: By late 1778, the British strategic

decision to shift operations toward the southern colonies was beginning to

come into focus on the ground. A sizeable British army under the

command of Lieutenant Colonel Archibald Campbell sailed in early

December from New York to a landing near Savannah. After

disembarking on December 23, he attacked the city immediately and by

December 29, Savannah’s rebel defenders had surrendered. After the

fight was over, Campbell’s co-commander Brigadier General Augustine

Prevost arrived with additional troops from St. Augustine, East Florida.

1779 In Savannah, Campbell exercised British military rule of Georgia from

December 29, 1778 until July 1779, when he returned to England, leaving

Prevost in command at Savannah. Although Wright arrived back in

Savannah the same month and began the substantial task of re-

establishing civil colonial government, Augustine Prevost’s brother

Lieutenant Colonel Jacques Marc Prevost acted as provisional military

governor until the civil government became functional in September.

Meanwhile, in early January 1779, a British army, under Jacques Marc

Prevost, had recaptured Georgia’s second port, Sunbury, for the British.

Then, in late January 1779, J. M. Prevost’s army had succeeded in

recapturing Augusta. However, in this case, the rebels managed, in mid-

February, to wrest it back again.

Georgia Colonial Government Hangs On as its Power Waxes, then

Wanes, and then the Rebels Close In

Spring 1779 Waxing power: Given Britain’s southern-strategy military successes in

late 1778 and early 1779, the British government and its colonial

government in Georgia were optimistic. Riding on this wave, the British

government sent Governor Wright and his colonial government from

London back to Savannah (Reel 8 documents 57, 58, 62, 64 dated in

March and July 1779).

July 1779 Governor Wright and his government arrived at Savannah on July 14,

1779 (Reel 8 document 65, dated July 31, 1779) and began the process of

re-establishing British colonial civil government.

Fall 1779 Close Call: Wright was just getting his re-established civil government

operating when a major, dual military threat emerged from nowhere, intent

upon returning Savannah and Georgia to rebel control. The combined

forces of a French fleet and army commanded by the Comte d’Estaing

and a rebel army of Continental soldiers commanded by General

Benjamin Lincoln bore down on Savannah on September 16, 1779,

blockading the river, and digging in for a siege. Once again, the war had

come to Georgia, and once again Wright and his government had been

trapped by it.

Some kind of rebel attack had been expected, and defensive preparations

had been made. But the French fleet and army were unexpected (Reel 5

document 254, letter from Brigadier General Prevost to General Clinton

dated September 9, 1779). Although this confrontation has become

known as the Siege of Savannah, no lengthy siege ensued. Rather, the

outcome was resolved in a single, massive assault by the French and

rebels, attempted on October 9, 1779, in which the attackers were bloodily

repulsed. The Polish patriot hero Casimir Pulaski was killed in the action,

and rebel and French casualties were very high (Reel 8 documents 77, 78

include Wright’s letter reporting the event to the Secretary of State and a

“diary” Wright kept of the siege and its outcome).

May 1780 The high point of British resurgence through the Southern Strategy

came when a very real and lengthy siege of Charleston led to surrender,

on May 12, 1780, of General Lincoln’s large but soundly defeated

Continental army. During the same month, British troops also recaptured

Augusta.

Aug 1780 Continuing the string of British victories, General Cornwallis crushed

General Horatio Gates’ American army at Camden, South Carolina,

consolidating British control in the Carolinas and isolating Georgia from

the other rebelling colonies.

British optimism was high, and colonial Georgia dared hope that the war

had finally passed them by. But these turned out to be the last significant

British victories in the war. From here, Britain’s military fortunes went

downhill.

1780-1781 Waning power: A string of rebel military victories ensued in the interior

south, including King’s Mountain in October 1780 and Cowpens in

January 1781, both in South Carolina, and then, in April and May 1781,

back in Georgia, a siege of Augusta, including battles at Fort Dreadnought

(which the rebels called Fort Galphin) and Fort Grierson, leading to the

June 5 fall of Augusta to the rebels. This and British abandonment later in

June of the upland South Carolina military camp the British called Ninety-

Six opened the entire interior back country of Georgia to rebel control.

Fall 1781 As British control was disintegrating in the interior south, Cornwallis’ large

British army, in need of supplies, had headed toward Virginia’s low

country, attempting to connect with British supply ships. In the process,

they managed to get bottled up on a peninsula where the Continental

Army and a French fleet converged on them. The Siege of Yorktown,

from mid-September to mid-October 1781, ended in defeat, surrender,

and disaster for the British cause. For all practical purposes, the war

ended, with American victory, at Yorktown. But the war went on anyway,

and it did not pass Georgia by.

1782 Demise of British Colonial Georgia: In January 1782, American

General “Mad” Anthony Wayne, his army freed from Yorktown siege duty,

was sent south to recapture Savannah and ensure Georgia’s inclusion in

the new United States. Yet again, the war came to Savannah, and once

again, Governor Wright was there, seeking to maintain his government

and preserve British colonial sovereignty over Georgia. This time, his

failure had no recourse.

Wayne headed for Savannah with a force too small for either an effective

siege or a frontal attack, so he opted for a slow process of harassment

and limiting supplies and reinforcements, especially Indians, from entering

the city. The process took from January to late June but finally it forced

Wright, his government, and the remaining loyalist population to sue

for peace, which meant surrender, evacuation, and, on July 11, 1782,

the official end of the British colony of Georgia.

Selected Themes of Georgia Colonial History

Running an Empire on Sailing Time

A pervasive issue runs through the British Colonial Papers—and through similar records

of British and other empires of the 18

Century or of any time in human history until very

recently. This issue is variously contended with, but in general, it is accepted as a

relatively fixed aspect of reality. The issue is the time required for communication,

via sailing vessels, on a global scale.

From a 21

Century perspective of (almost) instantaneous, (almost) global, electronic

communication, it is difficult to imagine the slow pace of communications between

Governor James Wright of the British colonial Georgia in Savannah and his “bosses,”

the Commissioners of the Board of Trade and Plantations and the Secretary of State for

the Colonies in London.

As the official correspondence in the microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia reveals, the

time required for a letter to travel by ship across the Atlantic Ocean, from Savannah to

London or vice versa, was at least two months and usually longer. These transit times

assumed that the “speedy” “packet-boat” service was running smoothly. It frequently

was not, resulting usually from some combination of unpredictable and dangerous

delays and disruptions caused by either severe storms at sea or by marine hostilities,

whether by enemy ships, privateers, pirates, or even a mutiny. As a result, some official

mail traveled on slower merchant ships, and some was sent on longer, divergent routes

to avoid expected trouble areas. And, some encounters at sea led to politically

motivated theft of mail pouches or even to the sinking of vessels.

The best, though imperfect, insurance available to those sending correspondence was

to send multiple copies. The correspondence and other documents found in these

microfilmed papers are often identified as originals or copies—or as intentional, often

multiple, duplicates of the same correspondence, sent separately, by different

conveyances, via different routes, in hopes that at least one would be delivered.

In addition, most official letters began with a recitation of what correspondence had (or

had not) been recently received—to which the writer would proceed to respond. The

habit of numbering official correspondence, initiated in these documents by Secretary of

State for the Southern Department the Earl of Shelburne and used by colonial

governors and secretaries of state starting in the late 1760s, also helped to identify what

correspondence had been received and what had not.

Regardless of their attempts to make mail delivery more reliable, neither senders nor

recipients could speed the time ordinarily necessary for delivery by sailing ship across

the ocean. Since all involved understood the pace of correspondence, they sought to

accommodate their actions and requests for actions accordingly. Still, the

correspondence is filled with statements of frustration (or at least reluctant resignation)

about the delays and disruptions. And the pace of running the British colonial system

certainly was slowed down commensurately, causing instances in which decisions were

made based on obsolete, incomplete, and/or inaccurate information.

A specific example of the slow pace of communication is documented in the microfilmed

papers each time a secretary of state was replaced in London. The Georgia governor

invariably learned of the change well after it had occurred and usually sent at least one

letter to a secretary of state who had already been replaced by another. Usually this

was not disastrous and was, in fact, anticipated and accommodated by the incoming

secretaries of state. If, however, the relationships between colonial governors and

secretaries of state had been less gentlemanly and more managerial, such transitions

might have been more difficult.

Governor Wright’s Steadfast Beliefs but Varying Opinions about

Governing Colonial Georgia

The copious correspondence of James Wright, royal governor of colonial Georgia from

1760 until 1782, which is included in these microfilmed papers, is frequently matter-of-

fact and businesslike. During the early years, he focused mostly on issues of

economic development, which for colonial Georgia meant mostly slave/plantation

agriculture (especially rice and sea-island cotton), and the silk culture (growing mulberry

bushes, growing silkworms who like to eat mulberry bush leaves, and harvesting the silk

the worms created to make their cocoons). The colonial government supported both, by

adopting policies and laws to protect slaves as property and to control slaves as people,

and by providing bounties to subsidize efforts of settlers in the silk culture. These

bounties were discontinued when the silk culture was not thriving in 1769 but were

reinstituted in 1773, not long before neglect during the war years ended silk culture in

Georgia.

(Concerning Negro slaves: Regarding a 1760s law to “manage” Negroes, Reel 2,

documents 91, 128, 142, 143, 163; Reel 3 document 4; Reel 6 several documents

between 125 and 206; and Reel 9, October 8, 1767 in document 1; Regarding dealing

with runaway slaves in 1779, Reel 8 documents 70, 76; Regarding a 1774 import tax on

Negroes, Reel 3 document 90 and Reel 9, December 19, 1774 in document 4.)

(Concerning the silk culture, about 60 letters and other documents, dated between 1752

and 1772, scattered throughout Reels 1 through 3 [Board of Trade papers] and 5

through 6 [Secretary of State papers]; in particular 1752 Board of Trade reports on the

silk culture, Reel 5, documents 211, 214).

In practice, over the thirty years of colonial Georgia’s history, slave/plantation

agriculture, located mostly on the sea islands and low-country mainland, prospered for

the owner class. By contrast, the experiment in silk culture, which was encouraged in

interior, upland areas, never really prospered, partly, apparently, because the kind of

mulberry bush that was imported did not thrive in Georgia’s climate and soil.

As the colonial economy was in its building phase, through the early 1760s, Wright’s

reports to the Board of Trade and Secretary of State mixed practical details with some

booster optimism. At that time, the route to colonial success appeared to depend on

economic prosperity.

Beginning soon after enactment of the Stamp Act by Parliament in 1765, as the

American protest movement emerged out of opposition to “taxation without

representation,” political and constitutional considerations began to compete with

economic ones and then to supersede them in defining colonial success.

Governor Wright appears personally to have been particularly sensitive to this shift. He

took governing seriously, to the extent that fulfilling his duties as royal governor was for

him a commitment founded on “loyalist” fervor, as expressed in numerous of his

official letters. These expressions might be interpreted as “buttering up the boss,” but

their spontaneity and consistency suggest a set of deeply held beliefs that were very

important to his concept of himself. Essentially, he was a die-hard loyalist, had been

before the term was applied to those refusing to support the American protest

movement and rebellion, and continued so consistently to the last day of his service as

Georgia’s governor and beyond. For him, loyalty to the King, the Parliament, and the

institutions and practices of the British government was an inviolable concept, the

essence of his self-concept as well as his career.

Much of Wright’s correspondence from 1765 to 1782, in Reels 1 to 3 [Board of Trade

papers] and Reels 6 to 8 [Secretary of State papers] (too voluminous to reference

separately here) reflects his high ideals of loyalty to Britain. He expresses his own

loyalty with feeling. He seeks approbation, from his “bosses” at the Board of Trade and

especially the Secretaries of State, for trying hard to rule by these values in Georgia.

He exhorts both individuals institutions in Georgia government and in private life to live

and work by these values.

A single example (Reel 8 document 118) may help bring to life Wright’s sense of loyalist

expression, both to those who agree with him (his audience for this speech) and to

those who did not agree with him:

On May 9, 1780, after the hiatus of British colonial government in Georgia

between 1776 and 1779, and after Wright’s rebuilding of that government

in the latter half of 1779, Wright addressed a Georgia General Assembly

(the Upper and Commons Houses jointly) for the first time in five years.

The rhetoric is vintage Wright: He begins by lamenting the tyranny,

hardships, and destruction of property during the time of rebel control. He

celebrates the return of “peace and true liberty under just laws and his

Majesty’s protection [and] the advantages of trade and commerce with the

Mother Country,” assuring his audience that “The point of taxing America

is wholly given up by the King and Parliament, and only a power reserved

to impose such duties as may be expedient for the regulation of

commerce [remains]…and the nett produce of those duties are, in every

instance, to be applied to the use of the province.” He proceeds to give

thanks that “we have been rescued from ruin and destruction by his

Majesty’s arms…[and] are now under the protection of Great Britain.” He

urges the Assembly to embrace “true and unfeigned loyalty” to the King

and to abhor “treason and rebellion.” He suggests that many tasks lie

ahead for the civil government and encourages the Assembly to work with

him toward “the general good of the whole empire.”

The American protest movement tended to ignite Wright’s sensitivities, precisely

because its adherents questioned the loyalties which to him were unquestionable. For

him, the protesters were both evil and dangerous.

Wright’s sense of the dangers of the protest movement grew as the movement did. His

correspondence in these microfilmed papers raises questions about loyalty among

American or Georgian inhabitants as he was observing and trying to counteract

opposition to the Stamp Act. As many Americans defined their opposition to the Stamp

Act in terms of taxation-related rights, which they believed were guaranteed in the

British political system and constitution, Wright defined his support for the Stamp Act in

terms of unquestionable authority of the King and the Parliament, which for him was the

essence of the British political system and constitution. This and other constitutional

conflicts were played out, between 1765 and 1772, in a series of constitutional

confrontations within Georgia’s colonial government between “protesters” in the

Commons House of the Georgia Assembly and “loyalists” led by Governor Wright (see

the next section on constitutional conflicts).

By 1774 and 1775, the protest movements in the colonies to the north were beginning

to tip toward what the British called rebellion and the Americans called revolution. In

Georgia, Governor Wright was doing his best to resist pressures on and in his colony to

tip with the others.

His resistance to rebellion was consistent with his constitutional position during the

period of protests since 1765. Yet his perception of the current situation had changed

considerably. Gone was his optimism about colonial economic development. Gone

also was his former practical sense that the evil and dangers of the protest movement

could be both resisted and defeated. Now, in certain of his letters to the secretary of

state, he allowed himself to express a deep pessimism about the future of the British

colonial system in North America and a deep personal anxiety about the future of the

colony of Georgia and of his governorship of the colony.

In the midst of businesslike correspondence on many practical aspects of governing a

colony, Wright’s official correspondence occasionally turns quite personal and at times

surprisingly emotional. Apart from his fervent expressions of loyalty, Wright’s

pessimistic thinking on paper to the Secretary of State, mostly in 1774 and 1775, as his

colony and the values on which he felt it was founded appeared to be crumbling, seems

most evidently to have brought Wright’s own personal feelings to the surface.

As with Wright’s idealistic loyalist expressions, an example (this time a few) of his

pessimistic assessments of colonial Georgia’s situation, as protest moved toward

rebellion, will help bring Wright’s thinking alive. Each of these examples comes from an

official letter that Wright wrote to Secretary of State Dartmouth between August 1774

and October 1775:

On August 24, 1774, Wright wrote (Reel 7 document 95) a letter quite

different from his day to day, month to month official communications, as

well as different in tone than his previous letters assessing the situation in

colonial Georgia. More personal than official, in this letter Wright allowed

himself to express his deeper feelings about what was happening around

him and in his colonial-Georgia world.

He began with frustration that he had tried to prevent the “Liberty People”

in Georgia from meeting and proclaiming their resolutions but that he had

failed—and that similar groups in South Carolina, “who have been

Suffered to do whatever they pleased without the least mark of

disapprobation or Attempt to Check them”, had made the situation in

Georgia more difficult for him, a situation he compared with opposition to

the Stamp Act [in 1766]. He had learned that standing up in such times as

these with integrity for what is right can be costly. It had increased

people’s resentment of his power, and it made him feel like “being set up

as a mark to be shot at.” Yet he had vowed to persevere. He reported

knowing that another meeting would be held on August 30, which he felt

would also be illegitimate, and which, he believed, would label his

proclamation “arbitrary & oppressive & an attempt to debar them from their

natural and lawfull Rights & priviledges.” He stated his belief that “it will

require the interposition of higher Authority to remedy the Evil, for the

executive Powers of Government in the Colonies are too Weak to rectify

such abuses, and Prosecutions would only be Laughed at and no Grand

Jury would file a Bill of Indictment and the Persons ordered & carrying

them on Probably Insulted and abused.” He blamed the rise of a

“Licentious Spirit in America” during the protests against the Stamp Act;

believing that things has now gone so far that “neither Coercive or Lenient

measures will settle matters.” He believes that, if the American spirit could

be smothered for a time, it would appear again. Yet, he stated that British

governmental authority could not ignore the protests but must react to

preserve itself and British sovereignty.

On May 25, 1775, Wright wrote (Reel 7 document 157) that he had just

learned double bad news—that “things have taken a most Unhappy Turn,

for hearing of the Engagement or Skirmish Between the Kings Troops &

the Provincials near Boston” [on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord],

and that efforts were being made in South Carolina “to Liberate the Slaves

& Encourage them to attack their masters.” Expressing concern for the

future of Georgia, Wright concluded that “I see nothing but a Prospect of a

General Rebellion throughout America, and unless the [Second]

Continental Congress [which convened in May 1775] should have

Prudence & Moderation Enough to put a Stop to these things, I apprehend

Matters will go to the Utmost extremities.”

On July 8, 1775, Wright summed up (Reel 7 document 175) the gathering storm

of bad news, with a rebel Provincial Assembly meeting in Georgia, the Second

Continental Congress convening in Philadelphia, and now a confrontation at the

port of Sunbury, in which a Georgia customs collector was attacked, his vessel

seized, and the contraband goods he had aboard stolen. Wright concluded

almost fatalistically that he was now a governor in name only, such that “the

Powers of Government are wrested out of my Hands, [and] that Law &

Government are nearly if not quite annihilated”

On July 10, 1775, just two days later, Wright continued (Reel 7 document

182) on a more personal level, opining about the rising tide of rebel

activities all around him, and anguishing that “it being impossible My Lord

for me to submit to these daily Insults I begin to think a King’s Governor

has little or no business here.” In this letter, he repeated a previous

request for another leave of absence to escape (temporarily he hoped) to

England.

On August 7, 1775, he railed (Reel 7 document 195) against “the very

illegal, Insolent, and Dangerous Transactions, of the Liberty People here.”

On September 23, 1775, Wright issued (Reel 7 document 212) a strong

warning to those trying to maintain the British colonial system from London

that, without their quick action, the Georgia colonial government, already a

“wrecked state,” would be “totally annihilated, and assumed by

Congresses, Councils, and Committees, and the greatest acts of Tyranny,

oppression, gross Insults, &c &c &c Committed and not the least means of

Protection, Support, or even Personal Safety. and these almost daily

occurences are too much my Lord.”

On October 14, 1775, Wright commented extensively (Reel 8 document 1)

on the situation and how bad it seemed to him—reporting that “Back

Country People” had armed and seized a stockade fort in the frontier area

of Georgia recently ceded by Indians and concluding that, in general, “the

Poison has Infected the whole Province;” reporting the seizure of a slave

ship and its cargo and concluding that “the King’s Port, and mens

Property, are in the Absolute power of these People;” stating that he was

unable to receive letters from London because the shipping was controlled

by these people and that some of his letters to London were being held by

those in rebellion; repeating his plea for both ammunition and soldiers;

reporting that the Continental Congress is in “Talks” with “all the Indians

upon the Continent,” that similar talks are underway by Georgia’s [rebel]

Council of Safety, and concluding again that “all Powers are Assumed and

taken from the Kings Governors and their Officers;” stating that when the

General Court met to swear in office holders, some of them “Insolently”

refused to swear loyalty to the Crown, so that the court could not sit and

do business properly; concluding that “really My Lord there is hardly a

Shadow of Government remaining”—hoping that instructions were on the

way to guide him in “what course to take in every respect, to reduce this

Province, and People to the Obedience to the Kings Authority, law, and

Government.”

Despite his pessimism and his anxiety, Wright’s sense of duty propelled him to

continue doing his utmost to maintain British colonial government in Georgia. To fulfill

his duty, he endured increasingly militant opposition and disloyalty from Georgians he

now called “rebels.” As their opposition and disloyalty escalated into what for him were

treasonous acts (stealing gunpowder, seizing ships, etc.), he endured during the spring

of 1776 “arrest” and confinement by the rebels, followed by escape with the aid of

Georgia loyalists, temporary sanctuary on board a British warship at the mouth of the

Savannah River, and finally “exile” from Georgia to England. Through all of this, Wright

never wavered in believing and acting as a royal governor whose colonial government

remained a legitimate, legal reality, even during three years of inaction in England. The

British government supported this fiction, consistent with its insistence that the colonies

were merely rebelling and could be brought to heel and returned to colonial status.

Then, when the British military effort in the southern colonies “freed” Savannah from

rebel occupation, Wright took his government back to Georgia, seeking to re-establish

colonial governance in reality, still playing the role and doing the duty of a British

colonial governor.

Most of Wright’s wartime correspondence is more pragmatic than idealistic. Now, his

letters are full of dire warnings about what he felt was lack of adequate but deserved

military protection for the territory and inhabitants of Georgia, along with suggestions

about what should be done. For example,

On February 3, 1780, both Wright’s (temporary) wartime optimism over

the possible British capture of Charleston and his pessimism about what

might actually happen to South Carolina and Georgia if Charleston is not

captured were on display, as he wrote to General Sir Henry Clinton,

commander of the British on its way to capture Charleston (Reel 8

document 93). Wright was hopeful that British success at Charleston will

“give a Mortal Stab to the Rebellion and…in a Great Measure break the

Spine of it.” On the other hand, he predicted that if Carolina and Georgia

are lost, “it is much to be feared America will be lost.” He proceeded to

offer Clinton a detailed plan for his idea for a successful campaign in the

interior of South Carolina and Georgia.

When, after Charleston had fallen to Clinton’s army, the September-October 1779

“Siege of Savannah” brought the war to Wright and his government, he wrote up the

event, probably with double entendre—both to boast about the miraculous near-miss

escape of British Savannah from combined rebel/French attack, and to prove the

validity of his lament about inadequate military protection of Georgia and its people.

The attack of October 9 could easily have gone the other way, and British Georgia

would have been obliterated almost three years before it finally did succumb (Reel 5

document 250, 254, and Reel 8 document 78). For example:

The surrender of General Cornwallis’ army at Yorktown in October 1781

was a crushing blow to the British cause in general. For Georgia, it

represented yet another imminent threat, because, now that rebel/French

troops were freed up from siege duty at Yorktown, Savannah might soon

be attacked. Writing on December 18, 1781 to Secretary of State

Germain (Reel 10 document 261, a Secretary of State letterbook

“summary” [actually transcription] of a letter not otherwise microfilmed

here as an original, copy, or duplicate letter), Wright summarized the

situation as he saw it: British Colonial Georgia was still (or again) in great

“Danger and Distress” from a “formidable force” of rebels, including armies

under Generals St. Clair, Wayne, and Greene that were marching

southward. There was also word that the Marquis de Lafayette might also

be on his way with more troops, and that all these troops, plus possibly a

Spanish force coming from Pensacola, were planning a direct attack on

Savannah, after which they would move on to subdue East Florida,

Georgia, and South Carolina. Wright concluded that all these pieces of

bad news were the “Consequences of not protecting and holding these

two Provinces [Georgia and South Carolina],” and reminding Germain that

he (Wright) had predicted this result “from the moment Lord Cornwallis

went into Virginia.” He ended by exclaiming that “God knows what will

become of us; but without immediate Assistance, I think we shall not be

able to stand it; and if we fall, I much fear that St. Augustine & Charles

town will soon follow.”

In the end, the British army that came was smaller than Wright had imagined it would

be, only a small rebel force under General Wayne. Nevertheless, by July 1782, that

army did finally force Wright to relinquish his authority as a colonial governor and to

acknowledge the demise of “his” British colony. At about the same time, Lord North’s

“war government” in London was voted out of office, Lord Germain lost his job as

Secretary of State for the Colonies, and Britain acknowledged the fact of American

independence from colonial status. As a loyalist, Wright had to accept this reality as

well. Back in England, he devoted considerable time and effort toward supporting the

many claims against the British government for damages and losses suffered by both

government officials and loyalist inhabitants of the Georgia colony, a few of which are

found in the microfilmed papers.

Constitutional Conflicts within Georgia Colonial Government between

the Governor and the Commons House of the Assembly

The Structure of Colonial Georgia Government

British royal colonies shared similar governmental structures across the empire. In

Georgia, these were as follows:

* Governor Individual gentleman, with standing and political

connections; often from England; appointed

by “the King”; served at pleasure of the King

* Governor’s Council Gentlemen members appointed by “the King”;

in practice usually friends or colleagues of the

governor, suggested by the governor; served at

pleasure of the governor and King

* Commons House of Assembly Popular males of standing, elected by other male

inhabitants to represent a local area; elections called

by governor; sessions called by governor; assemblies

can be dissolved by governor

* Upper House of Assembly Gentlemen of standing, elected by other gentlemen of

standing to represent the local area; elections called

by governor; sessions called by governor; assemblies

can be dissolved by governor.

* Lieutenant Governor Other important

* Chief Justice colonial officials,

* Justices; various Judges generally appointed,

* Justices of the Peace officially, by the

* Provost Marshal King or governor,

* Attorney General but, in practice,

* Customs Officers based on suggestions

* Surveyor General from the governor.

* Commissary General

Constitutional Conflicts between the Governor and Commons House

in Georgia—1765 to 1776

Between 1754 and 1756, Georgia’s first colonial governor, John Reynolds, had

conflicts with Commons Hose, which set relational precedents for the future. However,

these were caused more by Reynolds’ inept administration and governance than by

constitutional issues (Reel 3 documents 120, 121; Reel 5 documents 223, 232).

Reynolds was recalled in early 1757 and replaced by Georgia’s second colonial

governor, Henry Ellis. He was more capable and smoothed relations with Commons

House. However, illness led him to request replacement by 1760.

Georgia’s third and last colonial governor, James Wright, was also its longest-serving

governor, from 1760 until 1782. During this long period, the American protest

movement sprang up, developed, and evolved into what the British termed a rebellion

and the Americans, after 1776, called a revolution. Wright’s inflexible sense of loyalty to

the established royal and parliamentary governmental system in Britain, combined with

the volatile events of American protest and rebellion, ignited many conflicts between

him as royal governor and Commons House as the colonial governmental institution

most attuned to protest and rebellion:

1765 Conflict over protesting and organizing in opposition to the established

British colonial government, with Commons House asserting rights of

English subjects, under the British constitution, to oppose the government

by organizing and supporting a “Fire Company”, aka, Sons of Liberty,

which Wright opposed because to him such actions were both illegal and

disloyal (Reel 2, documents 67 to 69).

1766-1768 ● Conflict over enforcement of the Mutiny Act (actually its amendment, the

Quartering Act), which required colonies to provide and pay for

“necessaries,” including accommodations and housing, to British troops

stationed in the colony, which American protesters felt to be a financial

imposition and an invasion of privacy, inconsistent with the British

constitution, but which Governor Wright felt duty-bound to enforce, since it

was a law (Reel 2 document 97, Reel 6 documents 90, 91, 116, 117, 125,

127, Reel 9 document 1 (secretary of state letters dated in July 1768).

 Conflict over enforcement of the Stamp Act of 1765, which American

protesters felt was unjustified taxation without representation, inconsistent

with the British constitution, but which Wright enforced because it was the

law (Reel 2 documents 98, 99).

 Conflict over enforcement of the Governor’s power of appointment and

power to control colonial finances, which the Commons House chose to

dispute by seeking to appoint and pay its own colonial agent, Charles

Garth, to represent financial interests of Georgia directly before the British

government, which Wright understood to be a violation of his constitutional

duties to appoint officials and to manage the finances of the colony, along

with a cooperative Assembly to approve the funds necessary (Reel 2

documents 101 to 108, 159 to 161, Reel 6 documents 94-103, 123).

1768 ● Conflict over control of the choice of a Speaker for Commons House, with

the House insisting on its right to select its own leader, and Wright vetoing

(“negativing,” as it was called at this time) its choice, Alexander Wylly,

because he was a “radical,” active in the protest movement (Reel 6

document 164). Over this issue, Wright dissolved the Assembly but soon

patched things up and created a new one.

 Conflict over the propriety of official communications with protesters in

Massachusetts, which Commons House felt was in the best interest of the

colony, but which Wright felt demonstrated illegal disloyalty to Georgia’s

and Britain’s government (Reel 6 documents 166-168).

In late 1768, a brief “honeymoon” blossomed between Wright and Commons House,

following the period of multiple conflicts since 1765 ( Reel 6, documents 171, 174, 196).

However, conflicts soon re-emerged in 1769:

1769-1771 Conflict over control of the election process, with Commons House

pressing for elections to add representatives from four new parishes along

Georgia’s southern coast, while Wright insisted on the letter of the law,

which did not allow him to increase the size of the Assembly without

specific instructions from the British government. After a long impasse,

Wright received the instructions he needed and was happy to call the

needed elections, under his own authority, but not before he had dissolved

the uncooperative Assembly a second time in early 1771 (Reel 3

documents 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 37-39; Reel 6 documents 207-210, 238-

243).

In July 1771, shortly after resolving the election issue, Governor Wright left Savannah

for an extended leave of absence in England. With royal consent, he placed Georgia’s

colonial government in the hands of James Habersham, President of the Council.

Although acting as governor, Habersham was not given the title of either Acting

Governor or Lieutenant Governor. In practice, Habersham successfully filled in as

Wright’s surrogate governor, including having to deal with ongoing conflicts with the

Commons House.

1771-1772 Repeat conflict in early 1771 and again in early 1772 over control of

selecting a speaker for Commons House, this time with Commons House

selecting Noble Wimberly Jones, whom Habersham considered a “radical”

in the same sense Wright had considered Alexander Wylly. Like Wright,

Habersham first negatived Common House’s choice and, when its

members resisted in 1772, he dissolved the Assembly (Reel 3 document

70, Reel 6 documents 244 to 246, 274 to 276).

In February 1773, Wright’s return to Savannah from his leave of absence led to another

brief honeymoon in relations between Wright and Commons House (Reel 7 documents

3, 6). But, once again, conflicts re-emerged:

Spring 1774 Repeat conflict over control of appointments and colonial finances. This

time, Commons House sought to engage Benjamin Franklin as Georgia’s

independent agent to the British government. Once again, Wright

objected on constitutional grounds, and once again, he eventually

prevailed (Reel 7 documents 59 to 63). (Franklin had been Georgia’s

accepted official agent on and off since about 1768. By 1774, however,

he had become too obviously supportive of the protest movement for

Wright to be comfortable with him. When Commons House sought to

appoint him independently, Wright intervened on constitutional grounds.)

Early 1775 As the American colonies slid from protest into rebellion, Wright tried

unsuccessfully to impress on Commons House his firm belief in the

constitutional limits of legitimate protest (Reel 7 documents 132-134).

By March 1776, after war had begun in the northern colonies, armed “rebels” took

control of Georgia and its governing. Wright and his government were forced to escape

from Savannah and return to England, where his colonial government existed only on

paper as British policy, and in Wright’s mind. The status of Georgia’s colonial

government did not change again until the British military successfully regained control

over Savannah at the end of December 1778. Following this victory, the British

government instructed Wright and his government to return to Savannah and to re-

establish civil colonial government. Wright arrived back in Savannah in July 1779.

Wartime Georgia Loyalist Government without Internal Constitutional

Conflicts—1779 to 1782

In September 1779, after a transition period, during which colonial Georgia was under

military rule and during which Wright re-established the institutions of civil government,

the colonial government of Georgia again began to function (at least in Savannah and

the surrounding lowlands area controlled by the British military). By July 1780, official

correspondence made clear that relations with the new Commons House were now

regularly positive, without constitutional conflict.

The reason for the lack of conflict was that by now, the “rebels” in Georgia had

established their own, parallel governmental institutions under a Georgia constitution

adopted in 1777, during the absence of a British colonial government in Georgia. Until

the outcome of the Revolutionary War ended British colonial rule in Georgia, Governor

Wright’s loyalist government functioned without constitutional conflicts about

independence from the British crown, while the “rebel” (or “patriot”) Georgia government

functioned without constitutional conflicts based on loyalty to the British Crown.

Early State Government in Georgia

During the Revolutionary period, as Georgia’s British colonial government was seeking

to survive and control the political destiny of Georgia, a parallel set of government

making and governing was under way by the leaders of the revolutionary movement

straining to recreate Georgia politically as a sovereign state in a new union of American

states. This is a story not told by the British colonial papers of Georgia but is

summarized here for purposes of contextual understanding.

Both the American protest movement and the beginnings of alternative governmental

bodies in what became the American states required public organizations. Those whom

the British called “rebels” and the Americans called “Patriots” began organizing public

bodies outside the British colonial system in the late 1760s and early 1770s. Many

were working groups often called committees (Committees of Safety, Committees of

Correspondence, etc.). Others, at various levels, were called congresses. Most were in

some way representative bodies, reflecting their adherents’ abhorrence of centralized

power, meaning British, royal, colonial governmental power. A Provincial Congress

for Georgia first convened in January 1775, with only five of 12 parishes represented. It

established a sort of executive Council of Safety with a president appointed by the

Congress.

Meanwhile, to help organize joint efforts among the protesting/rebelling colonies, a

Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in September 1774. Georgia did not

send representatives to its first session. When it reconvened in May 1775, Georgia did

send representatives, but late. In subsequent years, Georgia representatives remained

active in the Continental Congress.

Soon after Governor Wright’s colonial Georgia government had evacuated to England in

April, Georgia joined the 12 British colonies to the north in declaring their independence

from Britain in July 1776. Georgia’s Provincial Congress followed up, in January 1777,

to write and adopt a constitution, thus taking a large step toward statehood. In May of

that year, the 1777 Georgia Constitution went into effect when the House of

Assembly first met and elected a President. An Executive Council was also

established, and a Governor was elected by the Assembly.

This government continued to function until 1789, although its level of organization and

the territory it ruled, especially after British re-conquest of Savannah between

December 1778 and July 1781, were questionable. During 1779, a competing Supreme

Executive Council emerged, but by early 1780, it and its actions had been nullified by a

new Assembly, which created a new Executive Council and elected a new Governor.

In 1781, under the authority of this government, Georgia signed and ratified the Articles

of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and was represented in the first United States

Congress.

After the British colonial government evacuated Savannah in July 1782, the Georgia

government moved there, making Savannah the capital city of the State of Georgia.

Under Governors Lyman Hall, John Houstoun, Samuel Elbert, Edward Telfair, and

George Mathews, the State government matured and solidified its ties with the new

Union. On January 2, 1788, it was the fourth state to ratify the United States

Constitution, which finally reconstituted the British colonies into a sovereign nation.

Following ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Georgia rewrote its own constitution in the

mold of the new national constitution. This 1789 Georgia Constitution lasted until the

Civil War, when new challenges and upheavals led to substantial rewriting.

General Clinton’s 1778 Proclamation of Pardon and

Governor Wright’s 1780 Reaction to it

In 1780, after re-establishment of Georgia’s civil colonial government, Governor Wright

found himself in 1780 involved in a conflict with British General Sir Henry Clinton. More

broadly, it was a jurisdictional conflict between British civil government and British

military rule. More broadly yet, it was a conflict between policies relying hopefully for

post-war reconciliation with rebels willing to give up their rebel cause and reconfirm their

allegiance to the British King (which presumed British victory in the military conflict) and

policies that insisted on unyielding retribution against those who had committed treason

against the King and his lawful government.

As General Sir Henry Clinton was beginning his army’s march southward with the goal

of bringing the key city of Charleston under British control, he sought beforehand to

weaken rebel resolve against his army and to offer a measure of reconciliation to rebels

in general. To accomplish this, he issued a “manifesto and proclamation” in October

1778, which offered to rebels pardon (or amnesty, as some called it) from treason if they

would renounce their allegiance to the rebel cause and swear allegiance to the King of

England. Clinton perceived this to be an offensive strategy. However, after a lengthy

siege of Charleston, followed by American General Lincoln’s surrender of his entire

army in May 1780, captured rebel prisoners of war began trying to use the declaration

to their advantage, seeking parole, to be followed by pardon or amnesty, thus escaping

charges of treason from British colonial governments.

Governor Wright of Georgia was not happy with Clinton’s proclamation and opposed it

strongly to the Secretary of State, who, after consideration, sided with Wright against

the military generals. To enforce his view, Wright insisted that Clinton’s proclamation

had no standing in Georgia, which (unlike South Carolina, which was under military rule)

had a functioning British civil government, with laws against treason that his government

had a duty to enforce. To prove his determination, he pressed for prosecution of three

rebels, former prisoners of war, who had requested and received amnesty in South

Carolina and had then come openly to Savannah, expecting to be allowed to settle in

Georgia as free men. Wright had had the three men arrested and imprisoned, which

they protested as illegal under the terms of Clinton’s declaration.

Clinton had also appointed a Commission for Restoring Peace (which shortly was

renamed a Claims Commission to settle loyalist—and rebel-turned-loyalist—claims of

losses suffered because of the military action. This Commission, when appealed to by

the three accused men in Georgia, sided with Clinton, declaring that the three were free

men. Wright refused to back down, and two of the men, John Glen and Dr. James

Houstoun (both known rebel leaders) were tried in a Georgia court, but did avoid capital

punishment, and did remain in Savannah after the war. The third was a common

soldier who evidently had found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time and,

despite having been imprisoned, was not prosecuted.

Once the British government’s disapproval became known of the declaration’s use

where British civil governments were functioning, the declaration ceased to used,

except where South Carolina’s military rule was in force. (Reel 8, documents 98-100,

123, 133, 134)

Georgia Colonial Relations with African Slaves and with Jewish

People

Slavery in Colonial Georgia

By the time the colony of Georgia was established in 1733, slavery was a fact of life in

many British colonies, in particular those in the West Indies and Jamaica. It was also

prevalent in certain North American colonies, especially Virginia and the Carolinas,

where a plantation economy developed early in coastal lowland areas. And, even

where not prevalent in a plantation economy, slavery was legal in all of the British

colonies, even Quaker-oriented Pennsylvania.

In early British colonial days, slavery was a somewhat fluid concept. Early efforts were

made to enslave North American Indians (as the British called the Native Americans

whose civilizations had existed in America long before Europeans arrived). This did not

work well, as these Native Americans died rapidly from European diseases, and their

cultures did not include the concept of permanent, racially defined, hereditary,

economic-property slavery that England was developing in the West Indian colonies.

By 1733, the slavery that the idealistic Trustees of proprietary colonial Georgia sought

to prohibit was African slavery as practiced in the West Indian plantation model. Yet,

this was not an expression of toleration for racial differences. It reflected a prevalent

social-reform value at the time in England—to help bootstrap English and other

Europeans out of poverty and unemployment by recruiting them as labor for enlightened

versions of plantation agriculture. The less advertised hoped-for value was that

European colonial and imperial power would support African slavery less and

opportunities for European labor more.

As a practical matter, in British Georgia as in British East Florida, where non-slave

plantation labor was also tried, inducing “free” indentured European laborers to do

“slave labor,” without the plantation owners being able to use the coercive tools of

slavery, just didn’t work. In Georgia, economic pressure built up against social-reform

ideals, and, in 1750, the Trustees of proprietary Georgia, having been pressured heavily

to make their colony economically prosperous for England and the British Empire,

decreed that slavery would henceforth be legal. There was full understanding then that

a vote for slavery was a vote for the West Indian model of plantation slavery, which

applied to only Africans and African Americans, which relegated black slaves to a status

uniquely below that of free whites, and which thus accommodated white intolerance of

racially different Africans and African Americans.

In Georgia at this time, slave work meant mostly growing rice and sea-island cotton,

which, by some standards was easier than growing and processing indigo, as in East

Florida, or growing and processing sugar cane, as in the West Indies. Yet, slavery was

slavery, in all its inhuman aspects, regardless of a slave’s duties. And, in this sense, in

1750, Georgia (among other Southern colonies-soon-to-become-states) took a big

humanitarian step backwards that persisted until the U.S. Civil War, which abolished

slavery but not racial intolerance among white European inhabitants toward black

African individuals and families.

History and these microfilmed papers corroborate the reality that humanitarian concerns

about slavery were not on the minds of most colonial Georgians or in the policies of

colonial Georgia’s government between 1750 and 1782, when the British colony of

Georgia succumbed to the American Revolution. The opposite is more accurate.

Colonial Georgia was very much concerned about African slavery, but from the

perspective of:

 protecting the economic investments of slave owners,

 providing markets for slave importation, buying, and selling,

 giving slave owners legal means to control slave revolts and escapes and to force

slaves to work harder and more efficiently, and

 protecting white inhabitants from potential violence at the hands of African slaves.

It is worth noting that most of the political leaders in Georgia, on both the loyalist and

rebel sides, were slave-owning, plantation owning, wealthy, white males. Governor

James Wright alone, among the very wealthy in Georgia, came to own about 19,000

acres of Georgia land, in multiple plantations, and owned over 500 slaves. Thus, for

Georgia’s top leaders, seeking to promote policies consistent with the four-point

perspective above was good both for the collective wellbeing of the colony and for the

direct, personal wellbeing of most of its individual leaders.

As found in particular groups of documents among those microfilmed here, the British

and Georgia colonial governments grappled with a number of issues relating to what

they tended to call “Negro slavery” or, synonymously, just “slavery.” (The legal

language was “Negroes and other slaves,” but in practice, no other groups of slaves

existed in Georgia except for African or African-American slaves.). These issues

include the following:

Defining Slavery Legally

In May 1765, responding to a policy issue perceived to be of major importance,

consistent with the prevailing view of slaves as valuable assets, productive labor, but

also possibly dangerous property, Georgia’s colonial government adopted a law

regulating and “managing” slaves. When reviewed by an attorney under contract for

this purpose to the Board of Trade (as was the case for all laws passed by colonial

governments), this law was initially declared (officially by the King, of course) to be

legal, in October 1766. However, controversy in England about this legal opinion led

another attorney to review the law again, concluding this time, in late 1767, that it was

not legal and was thus “disallowed” by the King.

The problem with the law in England concerned how slavery was defined. In Georgia,

slavery was mostly agricultural, plantation slavery, and slaves were defined legally as

property—actually “real estate” property under the law. But around the British Empire

(even in Georgia, but less so), some slaves were personal servants, legally called

“chattel slaves.” Those in England who objected to Georgia’s law wanted it changed to

make an exception in the regulation and management of slaves for chattel slaves, which

they considered to be at least personal property and possibly, at some level, both

property and people.

With communications traveling slowly back and forth by sea during 1768 and 1769,

Georgia and the British government negotiated terms of a redrafted Negro law.

Governor Wright took the matter to the Georgia Assembly, which agreed to consider it.

However, Wright’s ongoing conflicts with the Commons House of the Assembly over

constitutional issues disrupted and delayed its consideration.

So did a late second demand from the King—that not only did the new law have to

exclude chattel slaves, it also had to contain a provision that the new regulations and

management of slaves would not be put into effect until the King’s explicit approval had

been received. A new Georgia law, containing both required provisions, was adopted in

Georgia in May 1770 and was (finally) accepted by the King in June 1771.

(Reel 2 documents 91, 128, 142-143, 163; Reel 3 documents 4, 27, 78, 80, 92; Reel 6

documents 125, 128-129, 130, 137, 156, 168-169, 176, 178, 192, 195, 206, 250; Reel 9

document 11, October 8, 1767.)

Taxing the Slave Trade

Beginning in 1765, taxation became a contentious issue between American protesters

and British colonial authorities—and specifically between Georgia’s Governor Wright

and the Commons House. In 1774, as rebel protests were moving toward rebellion,

Commons House adopted a law (which Governor Wright did not veto) placing Georgia

duties on a number of imported “Goods, Wares, and Merchandize” plus “Negroes and

other Slaves.” It did not take the British government long to disallow these duties.

Besides ratcheting up the taxation issue, for Commons House, this represented a way

of attempting to obtain additional public revenue that could be controlled independently,

within Georgia (Reel 3 document 92; Reel 6 document 125).

Economic Losses and Personal Dangers from Runaway or Confiscated Slaves

During the period between 1776 and 1779 when British colonial Government was in

exile in London, rebels took advantage of the opportunity to confiscate loyalist property,

including slaves, and slaves on abandoned plantations took advantage of opportunities

to run away. When the British colonial government returned, one of its early concerns

was to minimize the economic losses of planters, to regain control of the Negro

population in Georgia, and to protect white Georgians from fugitive slaves (Reel 8,

document 1, 51, 70, 76, 114).

Usefulness of Armed Slaves in War

During the Revolutionary War in Georgia, As documented in a number of the

microfilmed papers, both sides used slaves extensively during the Revolutionary War in

Georgia for manual labor, mostly to build fortifications. While this may have helped the

two combating war efforts, it also tended to weaken the civilian economy and especially

the families who relied on those slaves for their own livelihood.

When sufficiently threatened, each side also threatened back that they would, in

different ways, arm Negro slaves to fight. Neither side did quite what it had threatened,

but, on both sides, the contrast is remarkable between in long-time policies of

controlling slave property with laws and violence, and the subsequent suggestion of

trusting the same property/persons, in a dire crisis, with arms to fight not their owners

but their owners’ enemies. One example for each side in the microfilmed papers makes

the point:

As the military conflict was beginning, and as Governor Wright’s fears for

the future became more pessimistic, he reported to Secretary of State

Dartmouth (Reel 7 document 187) on a July 17, 1775 meeting of the

Georgia Council, which recorded a sworn statement that a man in Augusta

had made a public statement that “In Case there should be Occasion for

any Assistance from them, the Negroes, in Killing the King’s Troops Each

Negroe for so doing should be entitled to or have his Freedom”, which

information the Council had referred to the Chief Justice and Attorney

General.

Five years later, as Georgia’s future was hung more tangibly in the

balance, Wright informed Secretary of State Germain, on December 1,

1780, (Reel 10 document 238, a letterbook summary document [but

actually a full transcript] for which no original, copy, or duplicate letter is

found in these microfilmed papers) that Georgia had passed a new law

giving Wright the authority to call up Negroes to defend Savannah with the

militia, but “only in time of Alarms actually fixed.”

Savannah’s Jewish Community

Among “outsider” groups in colonial Georgia, African slaves were at one extreme,

considered almost but not quite sub-human. Near the opposite extreme, Jewish people

were considered, and considered themselves to be outsiders, having fled to preserve

lives and fortune from less tolerant Catholic Spanish rule. (Simultaneously, they lived

as unique cultural-religious insiders within their own community.) Yet, in many ways,

their move to more tolerant English Protestant rule (and initially at least to idealistic,

social-reform-oriented proprietary colonial Georgia), offered them opportunities to be

“almost English” within a familiar European class society and economic system. At the

least, Jewish people were considered “white.”

A Jewish community has existed in Savannah since 1733, when an organized group of

mostly Sephardic (Spanish/Portuguese) Jews responded to the opportunity offered by

the first Trustees of the proprietary colony to settle in Georgia. Between 1733 and

1735, about 350 Jewish people emigrated to Savannah. Early in the colony’s history,

this group was said to represent a third of the entire colonial population. Most of them

had been living in London for a decade or more, after having fled from (probably) the

Netherlands to escape the Spanish Inquisition (during the period when Spain ruled this

country). This group organized a synagogue in Savannah (one of the first in British

America) and settled in as inhabitants of the new British colony.

In 1742, when the European War of Jenkins’ Ear spilled over into the American

colonies, Spain staged an attack into Georgia territory (St. Simons Island) from its

Colony of Florida. Although the attack was unsuccessful, it so scared the Sephardic

Jews in Savannah that, on first news of the attack, they quickly dispersed, many to

Charleston, leaving the Savannah Jewish community substantially reduced, led now by

a few remaining Ashkenazi (Eastern Europe) Jewish families, one named Sheftall.

Several generations of Sheftalls (Benjamin, Mordecai, Levi, and later Moses) led the

Jewish community from the 1740s until at least the 1830s. A second family named

Nunes (one of the original Sephardic families, especially Daniel and Moses) also played

leadership roles. The congregation gradually regained members after the 1742 scare,

but during the Revolutionary War, the congregation did not meet regularly. After the

war, starting in 1786, they began meeting again, in the home of Mordecai Sheftall. Four

years later, the new state government of Georgia, officially recognizing the

congregation’s existence, granted it a charter in 1790, which remains in effect today. As

the congregation grew and prospered, its next priority was to build a synagogue, which,

under the leadership of Dr. Moses Sheftall and others, was accomplished in 1820. The

current imposing, stone, Gothic Revival synagogue was built in

1876.

Little of this history is evident from the few relevant documents in the microfilmed

papers of colonial Georgia. What documents are found relate to a few activities that

Jewish people were visibly involved in at Savannah. For instance:

Between 1759 and 1761, the firm of Wood & Sheftall and three individuals

were involved in a court case over a debt involving a Negro slave (Reel 1

document 55).

In 1769, Mr. Nunes, an Indian interpreter, was reported by Governor

Wright to be working for the colonial government (Reel 2 document 167).

In February 1775, Moses Nunes was among those testifying about the

theft of seized goods. The Georgia coastal and river schooner St. John,

armed by the British Navy to capture vessels not paying customs duties at

Savannah, had seized a vessel filled with trade goods and “King’s arms.”

Armed rebels had subsequently stolen the arms, and the sworn

statements pertain to that theft. Although not stated, the context suggests

that Nunes was testifying favorably for the government (Reel 7 document

140).

In September 1775, a Captain Bissell of a vessel shipping goods,

including molasses, from Jamaica to Savannah, testified to the colonial

government that, when his vessel arrived at Savannah, he was told to

appear before the Parochial Committee (perhaps a religiously oriented

committee of the rebel protest movement). When he appeared there, a

man named Mordecai Sheftall told him that he could not sell his molasses

in Savannah and should return to Jamaica—apparently supporting rebel

efforts to disrupt (loyalist) trade into Georgia (Reel 7 document 215).

Few conclusions can be suggested from this sparse correspondence. One is that

Jewish people were visible in various ways in the public record of colonial government.

Yet the interesting conclusion is not their presence in the record but the absence of their

presence as members of a Jewish community and congregation. From these few

examples, one might conclude that the Jewish population in Savannah at this time was

not isolated or treated differently from the rest of the population.

At most, however, this would be a supposition looking for more evidence rather than a

conclusion. We do know, centuries later, that the Jewish community in the “deep-south”

city of Savannah has, for a long time, been an established, recognized, and accepted

element in the overall (white) community, perhaps to a degree not found in some other

American cities.

Georgia’s Colonial Relations with and Policies toward Indians and

Indian Nations

From Coexistence to Competition to Conflict on the Georgia Frontier

Compared with African slaves and members of the Jewish community, the tribal

communities of Native Americans living in colonial Georgia shared the status of being

considered outsiders (although they themselves did not see it that way). Yet their

communities, governance, cultures, and civilization as a whole were in fact uniquely

different and separate. And, European Georgians considered the people they called

Indians somewhere in the indeterminate middle, between slaves and Jews, on a scale

of human value and toleration.

The Indians had a point, of course, about not being outsiders. They, after all, were the

ultimate first insiders, the aboriginal people who had come to eastern North America

long before Europeans dreamed there were American continents and had lived there,

with their unique cultures, tribal organizations, and subsistence economies, for centuries

and millennia.

When Europeans did come to the American continent—first exploring, then settling—

they were perplexed, thankful, and hostile all at once. Like black Africans, Indians did

not look “civilized,” so they must be some combination of inferior and exotic. In some

early instances, Indian survival skills saved less clever European settlers from

starvation. So, the Europeans tended to be curious, occasionally thankful, and at least

tentatively friendly toward the Indians they encountered.

This lasted only until the Indians became competitors. The competition was for land

and other natural resources. Early European perceptions included the fiction that the

“New World” they had come to settle was essentially “empty” for the taking. Only as the

European population grew and settlement expanded did the settlers discover that

Indians also lived there, occupying land and using natural resources—increasingly, land

and resources the settlers wanted for themselves.

Once Indians had been found to be competitors, the settlers in the British colonies up

and down the Atlantic coast redefined their concept of Indians. Already understood to

be culturally different and inferior, the Indians now became thought of as essentially

hostile—occasionally otherwise in person or in tribal groups, but presumably and

potentially hostile until proven otherwise.

For their part, many Native Americans initially were curious, tolerant, and friendly toward

Europeans with whom they came into contact. Their own civilization had a highly

developed set of expectations for interactions with other tribal groups, more so than

Europeans were aware. These expectations included friendship and mutual toleration.

But, if threatened, they also included warlike hostility. Indian tribal organization was

based in many ways on a warrior-culture model that routinely expected and practiced

intertribal warfare. As a result, European settlers whose presence, land use, and

disregard for Indian ways and lives threatened the Indians, found themselves, initially

unexpectedly, the victims of the warrior-culture’s hostile, violent response.

As in other British colonies, Georgia’s territory, as drawn on a map, turned out to be

relatively “full” of Indians. Four large and powerful nations lived in what became the

southeastern U.S.—Creek, Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Choctaw. For them, Georgia’s

territory was home. But home had never meant a fixed place with a house and a fence.

Instead, it was a shifting communal territory of land bounded organically by the limits of

living by the nation. An Indian nation’s territory shifted with the season, the climate, and

the ever-shifting interactions among nations, some friendly and some hostile.

Regardless of how “full” Georgia was with Indians, the European people who emigrated,

settled, and lived in colonial Georgia considered the frontier to be “empty” land waiting

to be settled and developed by themselves. When settlers and Indians came into early

contact on the land that was Georgia’s frontier and the Indians’ home, the Indians often

responded initially by flexibly shifting their living areas, but the settlers responded by

staking claims, defining land ownership, building houses, and surrounding themselves

with fences and stockades. In the long run, these differing responses led to net losses

of Indian territory and net increases of white man’s territory. And, as both population

and population density increased on the land, pressures mounted for more land,

resulting in increased hostility and violence.

Role of Boundaries in Colonial Georgia Indian Relations

As competition and conflict came to dominate relations between Indians and colonial

Georgia settlers, establishing and enforcing geographic boundary lines became

important for colonial governments.

For the British, colonial boundaries had always been important to separate one colony’s

territory from another’s. For Indian relations, the most important boundary was that

between Indian lands and white settler lands.

For colonial governments to meet the goals of their charters for economic expansion

and prosperity, they needed to be able to define and expand their colonial territories.

Thus, they needed to be able to negotiate fixed boundaries with the Indians and enforce

these boundaries based on European, not Indian, concepts of land ownership and

property rights.

Lands in transition between Indian and white-settler occupation thus became potential

hotspots for both competition and conflict. And thus, treaties between colonial

governments and Indian Nations became the accepted way of determining and

enforcing boundaries and of seeking to prevent or to settle conflicts.

Responses to Competition and Conflict on the Georgia Frontier

In colonial Georgia, various groups—in particular farmers, traders, and missionaries

living on the frontier, and the colonial government in Savannah—responded differently

to the rising pressure and hostility.

Many backwoods farmers hunkered down and sought to defend themselves and their

families from external dangers while trying to make a subsistence living off the land

through agriculture, hunting, and fishing. If necessary, they were prepared, when

threatened, to use violence against Indians, and the same was true for many Indians

when threatened by whites. Rather than resorting to violence, most people on both

sides sought to maintain a reasonable level of peaceful interaction—or separation.

Some settlers became traders with the Indians, establishing trading posts and selling

manufactured and other goods, including guns and ammunition. Some of these lived in

the Indian village where they traded goods, and sometimes they married into an Indian

family. An extraordinary few of them leveraged intermarriage and economic resources

to rise to leadership positions within Indian tribal groups.

Some Christian missionaries mirrored the experience of Indian traders, selling salvation

rather goods, living with the Indians, and becoming influential in their nations. Traders

and missionaries both sought to avoid the use of violence and to promote peace and

friendship, since they lived not in frontier separation but in the midst of settler-Indian

interaction.

British colonial officials in Georgia, as elsewhere, sought to implement established

policies for maintaining peaceful, friendly tribal relations. Government relations with

Indian nations were premised on a concept of sovereignty. The two main tools of the

relationship were Talks and Treaties. Talks were structured meetings of Indian chiefs

and warriors with colonial government officials. Each side made alternating, formal,

declaratory position statements that, as the process unfolded, allowed each side to

respond to the other, leading to negotiated agreements, which, after a Talk, could be

written up (by the colonial officials, in English) into a Treaty.

In the Talk-Treaty process, Indian chiefs were not recognized as equal to colonial

officials, but their status was respected, in order to lubricate the process. The King of

England was routinely invoked as the great head leader, to whom both colonial officials

and Indian tribal chiefs owed allegiance. The colonial governor was a venerated mid-

level leader, and the tribal chiefs were also leaders, but clearly subordinate to the

English governor, who ambiguously tended in Talks to refer to Indians as either

“brothers” or “children.”

Treaties served several purposes, often intermixed, such as:

 Establishing and enforcing behavioral norms for peaceful and friendly co-existence

between Indians and white settlers, especially on the frontier.

 Establishing European-style, surveyed boundaries between Indian territory and

colonial territory, to regularize the settlement process and minimize chances for

violence.

 Establishing formal, cooperative alliances between British colonial governments and

particular Indian nations. Some of these alliances sought to influence certain

nations or alliances of nations to side with and fight with a colonial government or

governments against an enemy, foreign nation, (e.g. France or Spain during this

period), which was itself using treaties to amass its own alliances of Indian nations to

fight against Britain.

Presents went hand-in-hand with Talks and Treaties. Large sums of British money

were spent on shipping and distributing presents (cheap trinkets but also supply goods

and even arms and ammunition) to Indians and Indian nations. These were in essence

bribes, meant to keep the Indians peaceful, friendly, and perhaps fighting on the British

side. If a treaty didn’t work, presents might, and, if both of these failed, but only if they

failed, colonial officials did not hesitate to threaten and to use military power. The

present distribution process was intertwined with the Indian trading process. Colonial

governments licensed Indian traders, in some cases granting them geographic

monopolies, to regularize and control the combined processes of trading with and

offering presents to Indians.

Indian nations usually responded to Talk-Treaties and Presents intelligently and flexibly,

as they did to the actual settlement of colonial farmers, traders, missionaries, and

others. However, a pattern of signing treaties eventually sucked tribal organizations into

conducting relations in British ways, on British terms. This, of course, was not

accidental on the colonial officials’ part. Similarly, accepting presents tended to lead

tribal organizations and individual Indians into increasing material dependency on the

British, which, again, was not accidental on the part of colonial officials.

These microfilmed papers are full of documents demonstrating the importance, to

Georgia colonial officials and the British government, of Britain’s relations with the

Indians. They also reveal how colonial Georgia handled the complexities of actual talk-

treaty situations, the use of presents, occasional threats of military force, and a shifting

web of alliances with Indian nations designed to enhance British military power and

intelligence gathering during the Revolutionary War.

Among the colonial officials responsible for Georgia’s relations with the Indians, the

royal governor was one key player. So were the local British military commander and

the colony’s militia. Perhaps the most influential official was the royally appointed

Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southern District (which included Virginia, the

Carolinas, Georgia—and, after 1763, the Floridas). From 1761 to 1779, when he died,

John Stuart held this key position, focusing as needed on crises or treaty opportunities

wherever they sprang up among the five most powerful Indian nations in his district, the

Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw plus, in southern Florida, the Seminole.

Stuart’s long-time deputy and successor as Superintendent, Alexander Cameron,

Stuart’s long-time deputy and successor as Superintendent, worked primarily as deputy

with the Cherokee. Another deputy, John McIntosh, worked with the Chickasaw.

Each of these men had extensive and intimate experience working and living with the

Indians. They developed empathic views of Indians and their nations, which were

valuable assets in Britain’s efforts to keep the Indians peaceful and friendly, while also

extracting from them additional lands for white-man settlement and alliances to support

the British side—especially during the French and Indian War and later the

Revolutionary War. Stuart and his deputies were largely successful in keeping the

southern nations loyal to the British side during the Revolutionary War.

Relations with Indians as Documented in the Microfilmed Papers

Talks and Treaties

Much of colonial Georgia’s

relations with Indians has to do

with boundaries, which were

negotiated in treaties among

European powers in Europe as

well as in Talks and Treaties

with Indian nations. This map

offers a general idea of trends

in Georgia’s boundaries.

Georgia’s initial 1732 western

boundary theoretically went all

the way to the Pacific Ocean.

French control of the Mississippi

River soon redrew this

boundary. Georgia’s 1732

proprietary charter created a

dog-legged territory with only

about 50 miles of Atlantic coast,

between the Savannah and

Altamaha Rivers. Before 1763,

South Carolina contended for

the coastal stretch between

Georgia and Spanish Florida. After 1763, that coastal region went to Georgia when

East Florida became a British colony and claimed the coast northward to the St. Marys

River. West Florida and Georgia contended over the territory of what is now Mississippi

and Alabama.

Also in 1763, King George III issued a Proclamation declaring the boundary between

the British colonies and the Indian territories to be the watershed ridge of the

Appalachian Mountains. This didn’t last long, as colonies such as Georgia negotiated

later treaties with the Indian Nations, in which the Indians invariably ceded additional

territory for white colonial settlement.

Several formal treaties and agreements between colonial government and Indian

nations are documented, as follows:

 April 22, 1758 Treaty signed at Savannah between the Creek Nation and the

Georgia colonial government. British purpose: To reinforce the alliance between

the Creeks and the British so that the Creek Nation will support Britain in the French

and Indian War against France and its ally the Cherokee Nation (Reel 1 documents

1-4, 6, 8; treaty text in document 13).

 November 10, 1763 Treaty signed at Augusta between the Creek, Chickasaw,

Choctaw, Cherokee, and Catawba Nations and by the British colonial governments

of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. British purpose: To obtain

Indian approval to cede “Indian territory” and regularize new boundaries between

colonial and Indian territory along a lengthy western frontier, including, in Georgia,

the southern portion of the colony’s Atlantic Ocean coast, opening it up for

occupation by colonial settlers (Reel 1 documents 77-79, 85; Reel 5 document 179;

Reel 6 document 25 [Reel 1 document 79 is a handwritten copy of the treaty; Reel 6

document 25 is a printed copy).

Until 1763, Georgia’s southern border had been with Spanish Florida. Since Spain

was, during these times, a colonial competitor of Britain in America and a

military/political enemy in Europe, the southern coastal area of Georgia had been a

no-man’s land. As a loser in the Seven Years War/French and Indian War, Spain

was forced, at the 1763 Treaty of Versailles, to give Florida to the winner, Britain.

Thus came into being the new British colonies of East Florida and West Florida.

With the border area no longer hostile territory, it became valuable for colonial

settlement.

Without Georgia’s being able to intervene, British East Florida’s first royal governor,

James Grant, used his personal influence in London, before sailing for his colonial

capital of St. Augustine, to obtain a piece of this territory for his new colony. Under

the Spanish, the official boundary between Florida and Georgia had been the St.

Johns River. Grant took advantage of the unsettled situation to persuade the British

government to accept moving that boundary northward about 20 miles to the St.

Marys River (where the state boundary has remained since). In practice, then, the

1763 treaty between the Creek Nation and colonial Georgia opened up new territory

for settlement from the Altamaha River down to the St. Marys River.

Georgia was not the only British colony interested in the coastal lands between the

Altamaha and St. Marys Rivers. South Carolina, although lacking a contiguous

border with the area, made a concerted effort to settle South Carolinians there

between early 1763 and 1767 (Reel 1 documents 63-66). Colonial Georgia officially

objected to South Carolina and to the British government in London. The situation

festered for some time, until the Board of Trade finally imposed a resolution in June

1767, invalidating the land grants of South Carolina settlers, thus requiring them to

leave or to obtain new Georgia land grants (Reel 2 document 109).

The British government also technically dictated the western border of this piece of

Georgia territory. In October 1763, the King drew a line on the map of North

America that became known as the Royal Proclamation Line of 1763. It delineating

a boundary between colonial lands open to settlement to the east, and Indian

territory reserved for the Indians to the west. The King’s purpose was to maintain

both legal and economic control over an orderly process of colonial settlement and

development. The boundary was not anticipated to be firm and unchangeable but

rather firm at the moment and flexibly changeable, through royally approved treaties

with the Indians that would gradually allow colonial expansion to move westward.

Since the initial line on the map was along the height of the Appalachian Mountains,

it was not an immediate deterrent to settlement in Georgia’s accessible frontier,

which remained, in practice in 1763, east of the mountains. The close timing

between treaty and proclamation suggests direct coordination between London and

the colonies in drawing western frontier lines. However, the long delays in

communication suggest that this was not the case.

In fact, the reality was the opposite of coordination. On June 28, 1766, Governor

Wright wrote a letter to the Board of Trade (Reel 6 document 63) critical of the

Proclamation, its boundary line, and the trade regulations that were imposed in

conjunction with it. Stating that “I think I pretty clearly see disturbances and mischief

gathering and breaking out amongst the Indians,” he blamed the King’s October 7,

1763 regulations of the Indian trade and concluded that “I look upon the Hands of

the governor to be tyed up by His Majesty’s Royal Proclamation”

 November 18, 1765 Treaty signed at Picolata, East Florida (inland, up the St. Johns

River) between the Creek Nation and the colonial government of East Florida.

Britain’s purpose: Following the examples of the Proclamation of 1763 and the

Augusta Treaty of 1763, to establish similar boundaries in East Florida between

colonial territory and Indian territory. Colonial Georgia had a particular interest in the

outcome of this treaty, since aligning borders across colony lines would benefit both

East Florida and Georgia. For this reason, the results of the 1763 treaty were

consulted during negotiations of the Treaty of Picolata. However, detailed

negotiation of the Georgia boundary line was delegated (see below) (Reel 2

documents 145, 146; Reel 6 document 145).

 January 10, 1766 Declaration of Agreement, signed by Governor Wright of Georgia

and Creek Indian headman Captain Alleck (Reel 2 document 248; Reel 6 document

146). Britain’s purpose: To settle the western boundary along the southern coastal

area of Georgia between colonial lands and Indian lands. Although this line had

been drawn before in the more general Treaty of Augusta in 1763, this specific

redrawing of it coordinated with the boundary lines drawn for East Florida at

Picolata. The signers at Picolata had designated that Captain Alleck, a respected

Creek chief, should separately negotiate the details and sign this agreement with

Wright. Captain Alleck lived near the Altamaha River, so he was negotiating about

known territory, and apparently he represented his own interests adequately, while

agreeing to terms Governor Wright could accept.

 July 27, 1768 Talk at Savannah between Governor Wright and Superintendent of

Indian Affairs John Stuart with several Creek chiefs and warriors (Reel 2 document

147). Britain’s purpose: To discuss reconfirming and extending the western line

between colonial Georgia land and Indian land in southern Georgia. Beginning with

provisions of previous treaties and using a “sketch on paper of the Line as we

Propose it should be continued from Conoochee to the Alatamaha and from thence

to St Marys”, Wright and Stuart argued for an extended line also including the

Oconee, Ogeechee, and Apalachee Rivers. Four of these rivers flow directly into

the Atlantic Ocean. The Conoochee is a tributary of the Oconee, and the Apalachee

River flows into the Altamaha. The new lines represented a substantial new cession

of what had been Indian lands to become colonial lands open for settlement. As

colonial settlement moved farther into the frontier, the rivers acted as both

boundaries and highways. Presumably this discussion culminated in a formal

agreement, but this is not documented in the microfilmed papers.

 June 1, 1773 Treaty on a “Cession Plan” among colonial Georgia Government, the

Cherokee Nation, and Georgia Indian traders. Britain’s purpose: To support the

expansion of orderly colonial settlement on the frontier by proposing and

implementing a complex plan designed to induce the Cherokee Nation to cede for

colonial settlement large expanses of Indian territory on the western Georgia frontier

in a huge area associated with the Broad River (still on the Atlantic Ocean side of

the Appalachian Mountains). This more inland Cherokee land had previously not

figured in the border negotiations, the Cherokee had less experience than the

Creeks in losing land by legal document, and colonial Georgians were not (yet)

necessary eager to settle in the Cherokee uplands. So, the scheme was quite

speculative.

To induce the Indians, colonial officials developed a complicated scheme with

carrots all around and no sticks, at least in theory. To “bribe” the Indians and to

finance the scheme, the colonial government agreed first to forgive the accumulated

debts of Creek Indians to the licensed Indian traders. Once Indians had agreed to

having their debts liquidated and had ceded their lands, colonial settlers would be

invited in to buy frontier property from the colonial government. The government

would then use the revenue from the land sales to pay off the Indian traders’ debts.

This scheme was initiated by Governor Wright, working with John Stuart, beginning

in early 1771 (Reel 3 documents 140-149, 57, 61, 71) and remained in consideration

and negotiation until near the end of 1772 (Reel 6 documents 269, 270, 273, 286,

287).

 Implementing the Cession Treaty in the Face of Frontier Violence: Seeking to

Modify Indian Behavior by Curtailing the Indian Trade and Practicing Equal Justice:

After British government approval for the scheme had been received, and the treaty

had been signed, Georgia began implementing it (Reel 7 documents 1, 5, 7, 8, 10,

13-18). A first, predictable challenge was to accomplish a survey of the entire area

of ceded territory, which the surveyor general estimated to contain 1,616,298 acres

(Reel 7 document 24), so as to facilitate orderly settlement.

A second, unanticipated, and more serious challenge was a series of incidents of

violence within Georgia’s frontier territory during much of 1773 and 1774. The

violence consisted of isolated, violent, murderous attacks in the newly ceded

territory, each involving only a few individual Indian and colonial antagonists.

Murderers and victims were found on each side in different incidents. Colonial

officials and Cherokee leaders Talked and Talked about the need for peace and

tranquility, blaming backwoods colonials and renegade Indians unconnected with

and unresponsive to public policies, but the leaders seemed for some time unable to

quell the bloodshed. Governor Wright worried about the imminent breakout of a full-

scale Indian war (Reel 7 documents 26, 34, 45, 47, 66, 67, 68-73, 77, 80-85, 90).

Frontier violence was nothing new. The microfilmed papers reference nine reported

instances of frontier murder in colonial Georgia scattered over eight years, between

1764 and 1772, prior to implementation of the Cession Plan. Among these, in seven

instances, Indians murdered of whites. In two cases, whites murdered Indians

(documents are scattered from Reel 8 document 86 to Reel 7 document 21). During

about a year between late 1773 and early 1774, three instances of murder are

reported in the microfilmed papers, two of them white murders of Indians and one of

Indians murdering whites (in which case, Wright suggests, the white family had

failed to take normally expected precautions) (Reel 7 documents 21, 26, 45, 47, 70,

71, 82). Yet, On May 4, 1774, Wright reported to Dartmouth that the murder

problem was mostly one of Indians killing settlers (Reel 7 document 82).

Curtailing Trading with Indians:

Because of the increasing violence and lack of control over settlement in the ceded

territory, Governor Wright became worried about the possibility of a full-scale Indian

War (Reel 7 documents 66, 67, 85). Still seeking to avoid using military force,

Wright began considering, in January 1774, taking a less violent but still, for him,

strong hurtful step of curtailing trading with the Indians. By late October 1774, he felt

he had to take this step, authorizing at least a partial closure of Indian trading as, a

lever to force the Indian leaders to gain control over their violent warriors and

requiring Indian traders, who, Wright felt, were helping stoke the violence, to apply

for new licenses (Reel 7 documents 47, 72, 73, 79, 82, 84, 102, 105, 106, 115).

Practicing Equal Justice:

At the same time that Wright was using the stick of curtailing Indian trading, he also

was using a carrot by seeking to enforce the law fully and equally in the punishment

of frontier murderers. He and his government took the initiative to apprehend, try,

and punish white murderers of Indians.

After the colonial Georgia government had taken the initiative on equal justice, the

British government concurred with the principle. A British legal opinion dated March

23, 1775 (Reel 3 document 91) stated that a Georgia act, which declared “that to

murder any free Indian in Amity within this Province is equally penal as the

murdering of any White Person, and that to rescue a Prisoner committed for such

offence is Felony”, was legal under British law.

Wright also strongly urged the leaders of Indian nations to apply their own approach

of equal justice, punishing those “renegade” Indians who had murdered settlers

(Reel 7 documents 26, 82, 109). This approach led to another treaty.

 October 20, 1774 Treaty signed at Savannah between the colonial Georgia

government and the Creek (but not the Cherokee) Nation. Britain’s purpose: to

codify, cooperatively with the Indians, jointly agreed-on practices that would

minimize frontier violence and reinforce equal justice. Although a major positive

step, the absence of the Cherokee nation suggests that this treaty did not solve the

violence problems in the former Cherokee lands of the 1773 cession treaty (Reel 7

documents 115-117).

Shift from Indian Relations to Rebellion Control

Before Wright’s carrot and stick approaches to reducing violence and establishing

orderly frontier settlement had a chance to succeed, his other big worry, escalation of

the British colonial protest movement into a full-scale rebellion, overwhelmed him and

his government.

Indian affairs could not be ignored, but their priorities changed quite suddenly from

managing Indian behavior and expanding colonial settlement to doing the utmost to

maintain friendship with Indian nations and to recruit friendly Indians to be active

combatants on the British side of the emerging Revolutionary War.

Perhaps inevitably, certain British policies from earlier times began to conflict with those

being enacted as war measures. For instance, colonial Georgia’s interruption of the

Indian trade in 1774 took a risk, in order to regulate Indian behavior to reduce frontier

violence, of further increasing tensions between the colonial government and the Indian

nations.

In spring 1776, the King issued an even stronger measure (Reel 8 document 32),

prohibiting, as a war measure, all trade between Britain and the rebellious colonies. For

Governor Wright and his loyalist colonial government, these two policies restricting

trade for different reasons created a new problem, specifically in relation to the Indians,

because he needed trade (and presents) to maintain friendly relations with the Indians,

whom he now need, not just to be peaceful and friendly, but to take up arms on the

British side in the war. Failure on his part to maintain friendly Indian allies during the

war might well mean that, if alienated, the same Indians would ally with the rebels,

against the British (Reel 8 documents 6, 39, 40).

A decade before, Wright had anticipated this problem in his June 28, 1766 letter to the

Board of Trade (Reel 6 document 63), in which he complained about the trade

regulations imposed in conjunction with the Proclamation of 1763. As he put it then, “I

think I pretty clearly see disturbances and mischief gathering and breaking out amongst

the Indians.” He turned out to be right, and, when Georgia had to deal with these

disturbances and mischief, he was still there as governor.

In March 1776, colonial Georgia came apart. Armed rebels took control of Savannah,

forcing Wright and his government to flee from Georgia all the way to England, leaving

no British colonial government in Georgia for over three years. In July 1779, when

Wright and his government returned to Savannah, one of several immediate concerns

was how to regain the support of Indian nations as reliable allies, or at least as neutral

noncombatants. After some time spent testing the waters of Indian Relations, Wright

reported to Secretary of State for the Colonies Lord George Germain that, as of May 25,

1780, most of the Indians had “gone home” and didn’t seem to present a threat to

Britain (Reel 8 document 122). This optimistic assessment may have been accurate at

the time. In 1780, British military fortunes seemed to be improving. In September 1780,

Wright reported that Indian allies had fought well side by side with Georgia militia at

Augusta (Reel 8 document 146).

A major concern when Wright’s government returned to Savannah was management of

slaves, many of whom had run away when loyalist plantations were abandoned

between 1776 and 1779. One aspect of this concern was a feeling, with some

evidence, that Indians were protecting fugitive slaves. In practice, the difficulties loyalist

plantation owners were experiencing controlling their property, including slaves, and the

perceived public-safety problem resulting from Indians protecting slaves were soon

overshadowed by the dangers of rebel attack and the demise of colonial Britain in

America.

The Bosomworth Story

This unique episode in colonial Georgia history combines issues of Indian/European

relations and land speculation along Georgia’s sea islands south of Savannah, along

with a character sporting an unpredictably delightful name.

Rev. Thomas Bosomworth was a man of the cloth, a Christian missionary, and a man

of social standing. In 1742, he married a lady named Mary Griffin. Or perhaps she

married him. Or maybe they each had designs on one other. At any rate, they together

had designs on valuable Georgia real estate, as found in the microfilmed papers of

colonial Georgia, in documents dated between 1749 and 1766 (Reel 1, documents 10-

17, 73, 76, 107, 132).

Mary Griffin had been born about 1700 to an English trader father named Edward

Griffin and a Creek Indian mother. She was brought up bilingual and bicultural

somewhere in South Carolina. In 1717 she married English trader John Musgrove.

Using Mary’s connections and influence, they established a successful trading post near

the Savannah River. In 1734, Musgrove joined a group James Oglethorpe took to

England to promote his new colony, resulting in the Trustees of Georgia granting him

land four miles upstream from Savannah for his trading post. Musgrove died there in

1735.

Mary continued operating the trading post, began offering her services as an interpreter

for the colonial government, and sought to promote peace between the colony and the

Indians. In 1737 she remarried, to yet another English trader, Jacob Matthews, who

had a trading post to the south, on the Altamaha River. After he too died, Mary

remarried yet again in 1742, this time to the Rev. Thomas Bosomworth.

For Mary, this marriage differed from her previous ones because of the higher social

standing of the reverend. She was able to use this higher standing in the white man’s

society to increase her influence as a member of the Creek Nation. Tribal chiefs

rewarded her with several additional grants of land, especially grants of three of the Sea

Islands, just south of Savannah—Ossabaw Island, Sapelo Island, and St. Catherines

Island—lands which had been granted to them by James Oglethorpe when Georgia was

a proprietary colony.

When Mary sought to have her land claims approved by British colonial authorities, they

refused, stating that lands owned by an (Indian) nation could be granted only to another

(British) nation. With her husband’s assistance, Mary pursued her claims from 1749

until 1760. In 1754, she traveled to England, where the Board of Trade heard her case.

They simply referred the matter back to the Georgia courts. Finally, in 1760, Royal

Governor Ellis negotiated a compromise, whereby Mary received ownership of St.

Catherines Island plus a cash payment of £2,100, while relinquishing claim to Ossabaw

and Sapelo Islands.

In a letter dated June 27, 1760 (Reel 1 document 10), Governor Ellis of Georgia

described to the Board of Trade how he had satisfactorily resolved “pretensions [by

Thomas and Mary Bosomworth] to certain lands which the Creek Indians had reserved

to themselves by treaty with General Oglethorpe.” He explained that, as Governor, he

had negotiated a subsequent treaty with the Creek Indians on April 22, 1758 (Reel 1,

document 13), which gave the English ownership of certain of those Indian lands near

Savannah, including Ossabaw and Sapelo Islands, to be made available for auction for

colonial settlement, and how he had used the two treaties to craft a compromise

solution that was acceptable to both sides.

Soon after the deal had been consummated, two claimants came forward to challenge

the result. Neither succeeded.

In July 1760, a man named Pickering Robinson petitioned the Board of Trade (Reel 1

document 17), claiming that since 1755, he had owned and made improvements on

Ossabaw and Sapelo Islands. He therefore requested that these two islands be deeded

to him as land grants. The microfilmed papers do not include any response to this

petition, but the evidence suggests that it may in practice have been ignored.

Another challenge was more serious but, ultimately also unsuccessful. In this case, the

challenger claiming that he owned half the value of all three of the islands, resulting

from a deal he had made with Bosomworth. Isaac Levy was a successful merchant

and trader born early in the 1700s in New York City. He did business in both

Philadelphia and London at different times. In 1754, according to his testimony, a

speculative opportunity had brought him into contact with Thomas Bosomworth, who,

through his Creek Indian wife Mary, had become owner of the Georgia Sea Islands of

Ossabaw, Sapelo, and St. Catherines. In October 1754, Levy had bought one-half

interest in the three islands from Bosomworth.

In 1758, Bosomworth, who then needed money more than islands, offered to sell

Ossabaw and Sapelo to the British Crown. Georgia Governor Ellis arranged the deal in

1760, but not before Levy discovered the deal and began legal action, since

Bosomworth had ignored Levy’s interest. Fearing he would not prevail in the Georgia

courts, Levy resorted to a strategy of petitioning the Crown. In an undated petition to

the Board of Trade from sometime in 1763, Levy wrote, as a part of his legal efforts,

“desiring Copies of the Resolutions & matters that passed at a conference between the

Creek Indians & the Gov

of Georgia in 1755 relative to the Islands of S

. Catherine &c &

two papers respective the Claims of M

. B. and his Wife” (Reel 1 document 76; Reel 2,

documents 129, 130).

Unfortunately for Levy, the Board of Trade referred the matter back to the Georgia

courts. Levy persevered with legal appeals into the late 1760s but never prevailed. In

the meantime, Bosomworth, still needing money, had sold St. Catherines Island to

Button Gwinnett in 1765.

[Button Gwinnet is another colorful figure in Georgia history. A wealthy plantation

owner and political leader on the rebel side of the rebellion, he was one of three

Georgia signers of the Declaration of Independence. In 1777, he managed to become

so deeply embroiled with his (also rebel) arch political rival Lachlan McIntosh that the

two fought a duel, in which Gwinnet was killed. McIntosh came from a family that had

settled New Inverness (now Darien) Georgia in 1736. In 1775, he chose to support the

rebel cause in the military. As a colonel in the Georgia Militia and then Brigadier

General in the Continental Army, he was put in charge of defending Georgia from British

East Florida. His great political rival Button Gwinnett ordered McIntosh to lead the ill-

conceived and disastrous Georgia invasion of East Florida in 1777 that led to the duel

and Gwinnet’s death. This has nothing to do with the Bosomworth story, but it helps

illustrate, again, how intertwined the stories are of various colonial Georgia leaders.]

Lady Huntingdon’s Orphan House and Complexities of

Loyalist-Rebel Relations

The Lady Huntingdon Story

Beyond being interesting, with colorful characters, this story reveals either uncertainty

about the identity of certain individuals and/or complexity in the practical relations of

identified loyalists and rebels in Savannah in 1780-1781.

The Countess of Huntingdon, Selina Hastings, known as Lady Huntingdon, was a

strong-willed English lady whose great mission in life was to promote and finance

Christian missions and development of the Methodist movement in England, Wales, and

several British colonies. In England and Wales, she financed 64 chapels plus a college

to train Methodist ministers. In her foreign missions, located in Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, South Carolina, and Georgia, she promoted religious writings by Indians,

former slaves, and black loyalists. The mission in Georgia was an “orphan house” in

Bethesda, now a suburban area of Savannah, south of the city, between tidal tributaries

of the Little Ogoochee River.

[Lady Huntingdon’s “orphan house” had a prior history not revealed in these microfilmed

papers. It had been founded in 1740 as the Bethesda Orphanage by the English,

Methodist (and “Great Awakening”) evangelist preacher George Whitefield, while he

was in America on a preaching tour. (James Habersham worked with Whitefield on the

orphanage project in the 1740s; see below). Lady Huntingdon had been one of

Whitefield’s major charitable donors for the orphanage.

In 1764, Whitefield was apparently thinking about adding a “college” to the orphanage.

The one microfilmed document that reveals this thinking is identified as a “Copy of an

Address of both Houses of Assembly to the Gov

in favour of the Rev

Whitefield’s

Application for Lands in order to the endowment of a College” (Reel 2 document 32).

Lady Huntingdon’s correspondence refers to only an orphan house. Perhaps the

college was never built. Or, perhaps, it did not become part of Lady Huntingdon’s

property.

When Whitefield died in England in 1770, he bequeathed the orphanage to Lady

Huntingdon, who then became responsible for trying to operate and manage it, long

distance, from England. This cannot have been easy, especially after the orphanage

building burned to the ground in 1773 (apparently not a politically influenced

conflagration). The fire required rebuilding and establishing a new organization in

Georgia to operate the orphanage. Whether the rebuilt orphanage was functioning by

December 1780 is not clear.]

In December 1780, Lady Huntingdon’s problem appeared to revolve less around

fundraising for or managing a functioning orphanage than around determining the status

of the Bethesda property itself during the turmoil in Georgia concerning “abandoned

estates” that had belonged to loyalists and had been taken over, perhaps plundered,

and perhaps damaged or destroyed by the rebels. Lady Huntingdon had used her

excellent contacts, and Secretary of State Germain had been happy to oblige her by

writing to Governor Wright, asking him, in a letter dated December 7, 1780 (Reel 8

document 136), to honor her request to inform Messrs. Baillie and Telfair, who

apparently had been put in charge of protecting and managing her property in Georgia,

that “they will Account to her for whatever has come to their hands of her Property.”

Mr. Baillie’s identity is known. However, there is uncertainty about Mr. Telfair. He is

most likely one of two well known brothers, businessmen William or Edward Telfair,

who lived and worked in Savannah. William was a loyalist (In 1775, he was

Commissary General of colonial Georgia.) Edward, on the other hand, was a rebel

leader. (He represented Georgia in the Continental Congress and, in this capacity,

signed the Articles of Confederation. After the war, he served as Governor of the State

of Georgia in 1786-1787 and again, as the first governor under the state’s new 1789

constitution, in 1790-1793). William appears the more likely possibility to be a protector

of loyalist property. However, since rebels had taken over many loyalist properties,

assistance from a well-connected rebel might also have been helpful. Which Telfair

brother (or perhaps another member of the family) was supposed to be working with

George Baillie to protect and manage Lady Huntingdon’s orphan house and other

property remains unclear.

On February 25, 1781, Wright responded to Germain about Lady Huntingdon’s request

(Reel 10 document 246, a Secretary of State letterbook “summary” [actually

transcription] of a letter not otherwise microfilmed here as an original, copy, or duplicate

letter). Rather than describing how he had conveyed her request to Messrs. Baillie and

Telfair and how they had responded, he reported (with no mention of a Mr. Telfair) that

he thought George Baillie had been given charge over Lady Huntingdon’s property by

Colonel Archibald Campbell (presumably when Campbell had briefly been military

governor of Georgia in summer 1779), but that more recently that responsibility had

been given to [perhaps Josiah] Tattnall and [?] Hall “who have now the Management of

it.” Wright recommended that these two men, who are “(both very good Men)” should

be given full power of attorney “to call M

Baillie to an Account for his transactions &c in

case he should refuse so to do.”

Again, the identity of those Wright says were the new property managers and “both very

good Men” is unclear. The loyalist family of Josiah Tattnall had left Georgia for

England in 1776. When a son, also Josiah Tattnall, returned to America late in the war,

he chose to join the Continental Army under General Anthony Wayne. (After the war,

this Josiah Tattnall served as a Georgia State Representative and as a U.S. Senator.

His son, a third Josiah Tattnall, grew up to be a high-ranking career officer in the U.S.

Navy from the War of 1812 through the Civil War.) Nevertheless, confusing the

situation further, a Josiah Tattnall was a cosigner with loyalist Georgia government

officials, probably in late 1778, of a petition to Secretary of State Germain (Reel 8,

undated document 51) requesting that the British military do what it could to protect and

return to their owners, any slave and other property belonging to the co-signers.

The identity of Mr. Hall is also unclear. Dr. Lyman Hall is a prominent possibility, but he

too supported the Revolution, represented Georgia in the Continental Congress, and

signed the Declaration of Independence for Georgia. If these two rebel leaders actually

were supposed to be protecting Lady Huntingdon’s property, it suggests that control of

certain affairs, at least, in Georgia in 1781 was already in the hands of rebels, even

though the British colonial government was still functioning.

[This correspondence provides no clues about the actual status of Lady Huntingdon’s

orphan-house property in 1780-1781. However, after the war, the Bethesda Orphanage

was again functioning. As times changed during the 19

Century, its name was

changed to Bethesda Home for Boys. During the 20

Century, it evolved from being a

home into being a school. Today, it remains active as the religiously oriented Bethesda

Academy, a private boarding and day school for boys in grades 6 through 12.]

Family Fissures Between Loyalists and Rebels

Another complexity in relations between loyalists and rebels was the division of

allegiance within some families, usually between brothers or father and son. Two

examples in prominent Georgia families are found in the microfilmed papers of colonial

Georgia:

The Habersham Family

James Habersham came to Georgia in 1738 as a poor, Methodist schoolmaster. For

several years after 1740, he worked with his friend George Whitefield (the “Great

Awakening” evangelist) in the development and operation of Whitefield’s Bethesda

Orphanage near Savannah (see the Lady Huntingdon story above). Then, sometime in

the 1740s, he decided to reinvent himself and soon became wealthy as a planter,

producing both silk and cotton. He also studied and practiced law, and his business

interests led him into lucrative commercial-trade ventures. By the mid-1750s, he had

become active in colonial government, serving first as secretary of the colony and soon

after for many years after 1759, as a member and then president of the Georgia

Council. This leadership position put him in position, when Governor Wright took a

leave of absence from 1771 to 1773, to serve as acting governor of Georgia. From

1773 until his death in 1775, he continued to serve under Governor Wright as President

of the Council. As such, he was and remained until his death a devoted loyalist.

When the Revolution came in 1775, James Habersham’s sons James Jr., John, and

Joseph all sided with America and became leaders in rebel Georgia, while their father

remained a determined loyalist—but died that same year, thus saving the family from

lengthy internal strife. By 1774, John was directly involved in efforts to abscond with

royal arms and gunpowder and to intimidate Savannah inhabitants to join the rebel

cause. Both John and Joseph served in the Continental Army, while James Jr.

managed the family businesses. The first U.S. President, George Washington,

appointed Joseph to be the first Postmaster General and John to be Port Collector in

Savannah. Although both John and James Jr. died in 1799, Joseph continued his

career as Postmaster General under President Adams. In 1801, resigned as

Postmaster General to serve as first president of the United States Bank branch in

Savannah until his death in 1815.

The Jones Family

The family of Noble Jones was among those who settled Georgia early with James

Oglethorpe in 1733, when Noble was 31 years old. Noble served in many public

positions over many years, including constable, physician, surveyor, Indian agent,

soldier, treasurer, senior justice, and member of the Georgia Council. As Americans

began to split from each other in the 1760s, Noble Jones remained a dedicated loyalist

until his death in 1775.

Noble’s son, Noble Wimberly Jones, born in 1723, grew up in the colonial Georgia that

his father helped shape. As a young man, he trained in and practiced medicine. In

public life, he found his political base not with the Governor’s Council but with the

popularly elected Commons House of the Georgia Assembly. As he rose in stature as a

political leader, he was repeatedly elected to serve the one-year term as President of

the Commons House. Governor Wright liked neither the protest politics of Commons

House, nor Noble Wimberly Jones, the body’s perennial leader.

During apparently several years, Wright used both his powers to “negative” (veto)

Common House’s choice of president and to dissolve the entire Assembly (until he

called a new election) when he didn’t like their choice of president or what they were

doing. As documented in these microfilmed papers, this occurred in both 1771 and

1772 (Reel 3 documents 70, 74 and Reel 6 document 244, 274-276 and note after

document 276), when Noble W. Jones was elected Commons House President. In

1771 Governor Wright did the negativing and dissolving. In 1772, James Habersham,

as acting governor, did both. In each case, the presidency issue was solved by

Commons House after further deliberation, by electing a second-choice president,

Archibald Bulloch, whom, in each case, the governor accepted. Bulloch was an

attorney who, like Jones, shared the protest-movement political views of the Commons

House. (During the war, Bulloch served in the Continental Army, was president of the

Georgia Provincial Assembly and was a Georgia representative to the Continental

Congress.)

Why each governor negatived Jones as president of Commons House, but soon after

accepted Bulloch, is not made clear. One possibility is that, since the elder Noble Jones

was a close friend and loyalist political colleague of both Wright and Habersham, they

may have found it too painful to contemplate facing Noble Jones’ son, the young, radical

Noble Wimberly Jones, as their adversary leader in Commons House.

During the hiatus of British colonial government in Georgia, Jones was active in

establishing an alternative government and in writing its 1777 constitution. When the

British captured Savannah at the end of 1777, he fled to Charleston, where in 1778, he

was captured when it fell to the British. After being imprisoned at St. Augustine, he was

exchanged in 1781 and sent to Philadelphia, where he promptly was elected to the

Congress. Back in Savannah after the war, he practiced medicine, served as speaker

of the Georgia State House. He died in 1805.

The Wright Family

Apparently, no loyalist-rebel conflict existed in the family of Governor James Wright,

partly because he seems not to have had politically active offspring or other relatives in

America, and partly, perhaps, because he himself was so intensely loyalist had no

relative would have felt comfortable opposing him.

James Wright’s father, attorney and judge Robert Wright, had come to South Carolina

in 1730 to serve as Chief Justice for the colony of South Carolina, which he did until his

death in 1739. James, who probably was educated in England, came to Charleston

sometime near the date of his father’s death and opened his own law practice there. In

1740, he married. During the next 23 years, James and his wife had nine children, of

whom three were sons, James, Alexander, and Charles. In 1763, James’ wife was

drowned during a trip back to England. James never remarried, and none of his three

sons became public figures.

James Wright also had two brothers, Charles and Jermyn, who also had initially come

to South Carolina, and probably by the late 1760s had moved to British East Florida,

where they were loyalist plantation owners. Apparently Jermyn and Charles knew how

to build roads as well as manage plantations. In the mid-1770s, they built what became

known as the King’s Highway (Now U.S. 1) between St. Augustine and the Georgia

boundary (at today’s St. Marys, Georgia), via the St. Johns River ferry at Cowford (now

Jacksonville). They also constructed a causeway across the wide area of salt marshes

between coastal South Carolina and the main channel of the Savannah River, across

the town of Savannah. Neither brother was a public figure, and both remained reliably

loyalist.

The Colony of Georgia: Financial Benefactor or Tax Consumer?

The British colonial system was designed to provide financial gain to the mother country

and, presumably, to its taxpayers. The Colony of Georgia existed for just about 50

years, 20 years as a proprietary colony and 30 years as a royal colony. A major

contributing reason for King George II’s decision to terminate the proprietary charter for

Georgia in 1752 and to replace it with a royal charter is that he wanted it to become

more profitable, after being placed under his royal-colony control. The private

investment of Georgia’s Trustees and other speculators does not seem to have yielded

great financial rewards.

The Georgia Colonial Papers are more political-governance papers than economic

papers, so they do not clearly document the economic gains and losses of the royal

colonial enterprise. They do, however, contain many reports about and references to

economic-development efforts, especially in the Board of Trade papers.

For instance, Georgia’s difficulties trying to develop a silk industry that would accrue

financial benefits to Britain are reported on extensively. Apparently this was an

experiment that did not pan out. The British taxpayers subsidized it for a while through

bounties to settlers producing raw silk. But, when that didn’t succeed, the bounties

were withdrawn by the British government, to the dismay of Georgia’s governor, who

understood that the industry could not develop without bounties.

On the other hand, multiple Georgia plantation owners, some colonial-government

officials (including especially Governor Wright) plus perhaps others, became quite

wealthy by obtaining free or inexpensive land through the colonial government,

developing large plantations, each purchasing hundreds of slaves, and each turning

great profits growing and exporting rice and sea-island cotton. The extent to which

these exports enriched the mother country is not recorded in these microfilmed papers.

With incomplete evidence, no definitive conclusion can be drawn from these papers

alone about the overall profitability of Georgia as a colonial enterprise. But nothing in

the microfilmed papers suggests that it was recognized at the time as a major success.

What the microfilmed papers do tell us more clearly is the magnitude of the annual

amounts of British public funding that was appropriated in annual budgets for public

support of the “civil establishment” of colonial Georgia. Since they were “official

correspondence,” notifications of many of the annual “estimates” are found in the

microfilmed papers. The following table summarizes the estimate amounts documented

by year:

Summary of Estimates for the Civil Establishment of Georgia colonial government

as found in the microfilmed papers, with notes:

Fiscal Year Amount Note

1755-1756 £3,557 Amounts for 1755 through 1761 do not appear to be

1756-1757 £3,557 comparable to the estimate amounts reported

consistently from 1764 through 1782.

1759-1760 £588

1760-1761 £581

1764-1765 £2,120 Following the French and Indian War, the amount may have

dropped, perhaps a harbinger of tight finances, leading to

the Stamp Act in 1765.

1767-1768 £3,086 The amount became constant from 1767 through 1776,

1768-1769 £3,086 except for one year.

1769-1770 £3,086

1770-1771 £3,086

1771-1772 £3,186 The amount was increased by £100 for this year alone,

because of an added subsidy for producers of raw silk,

which was not continued the following year.

1772-1773 £3,086

1773-1774 £3,086

1774-1775 £3,086

1775-1776 £3,086

1776-1777 £2,816 From 1776 to 1779, the Georgia colonial government was in

1777-1778 £2,866 “exile” in London, having been expelled by rebel armed

1778-1779 £2,900 force. Accordingly, the annual estimate was decreased in

1776-1777. However, the estimate was not discontinued,

and it gradually increased until the government returned to

Georgia in July 1779.

1779-1780 £2,866 In 1779-1780, the amount did not rebound to pre-war highs,

1780-1781 £2,986 but it did stabilize, until the colony ceased to exist in July

1781-1782 £2,986 1782, at slightly more than the amount approved during the

years of “exile.”

The value of these annual estimates was considerable. £3,000 in 1776 is equivalent to

about $500,000 in today’s U.S. dollars. Not a multi-million dollar budget, but, when

multiplied by 13 rebellious colonies plus many more that remained loyal, a substantial

tax burden for those who actually paid the taxes in Britain to keep the Empire going.

If the American colonies had not gone to revolutionary war especially and visibly over

issues of taxation, this might not be a pertinent observation. The British population itself

was split over the value of fighting—and paying for—another expensive war to keep the

rebellious colonies in the Empire, and, by near the end of the war, a large enough

proportion of the voting (and taxpaying) population had soured enough on the war to

bring down Lord North’s “war government.” Perhaps by then, Georgia’s annual

estimate had begun to rankle among many in England who recognized the irony of “The

World Turned Upside Down” financially as well as politically and militarily.

Selected References

The following selected references suggest a few useful sources on particular aspects of

the history of British Georgia.

Cashin, Edward J., Governor Henry Ellis and the Transformation of British North

America, University of Georgia Press, 1994

Coleman, Kenneth, Georgia History in Outline, Revised, Third Edition, Gainesville,

Georgia, University of Georgia Press, 1978 (originally 1955)

Crook, Ray, A Place Known as Chocolate [about the Bosomworth story]; Report of

Investigations, Antonio J. Waring Jr. Archeological Laboratory, University of West

Georgia, Carrollton, 2007

Friedenwald, Herbert, Isaac Levy’s Claim to Property in Georgia, Johns Hopkins

University Press, Publications of The American Jewish Historical Society, No. 9

(1901), pp. 57-62

Georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/topics/history/Georgia-as-an-English-colony-1732-

1775/timeline-Georgia-as-an-English-colony (Internet link)

Lambert, Frank, James Habersham: Loyalty, Politics, and Commerce in Colonial

Georgia, Wormsloe Foundation Publication Series

Sheftall, Mordecai, The Jews in Savannah,

www.jewish.history.com/occident/volume1/Jan1844/Savannah3.html (Internet Link)

David Swain, Volunteer Researcher

David Library of the American Revolution

June 2018

Reel 1 (Volume 648)

Volume 648—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), begin

May 29, 1749 to July 17, 1764 Documents 1 to 99 [Frames 1 to 315]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: DLAR microfilmed papers of Board of Trade incoming correspondence for

colonial Georgia begin with Volume 648 of the Colonial Office Papers for Georgia. This

Volume contains documents dated beginning in spring 1760 (including a few prior

documents). At this time, Georgia had been a Royal Colony since 1752. Prior to that, it

had been a proprietary Trustee Colony since its founding in 1732. Previous Volumes

636 through 647 (1734-1760) of this Board of Trade incoming correspondence are not

included in DLAR’s microfilmed documents.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: Archivists (probably in the Board of Trade Office) wrote descriptive notes for

many of the manuscript documents, which are microfilmed with the documents. On

these notes, archivists provided their own numbers by manuscript Bundle or Volume.

Where found, this Finding Aid reports these numbers as “BT numbers.” Volume 648

begins with E.1 and ends with E.106. Although all microfilmed documents are assigned

a BT number, occasional gaps in counting suggest either that a few documents were

lost or for other reasons were not microfilmed or that the BT numbering process was

sloppy in its assignment of numbers. Documents in Volumes 644 through 647 (not

included in the DLAR microfilmed papers) were also assigned BT numbers (A. through

D. respectively).

Note: Georgia Governor Henry Ellis (perhaps as directed by the Board of Trade)

followed the practice of numbering each letter he sent to the Board of Trade and

Plantations. These numbers are included in this Finding Aid for Ellis letters No. 33

through No. 40, found in Reel 1, between DLAR document numbers 1 and 10.

Georgia’s next governor, James Wright, did not number his letters to the Board of

Trade.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. April 16, 1760 [1]

Letter No. 33 from Henry Ellis, governor of the British Colony of Georgia to the

Lords of the Board of Trade and Plantations, reporting on efforts, both public and

private, to engage the Creek Indians in a war against the Cherokee Indians

[allied with the French], a task proving difficult “as the French and Cherokees

have great influence in that [Creek] Nation”; describing the use of money and

goods to entice the Creeks; stating that “It is of the last importance that the

Creeks should be induced to assist us, for otherwise the War with the Cherokees

may prove a very tedious & expensive one”; stating that “I have already set the

Chickasaws [Indians] upon the enemy, who will be serviceable but Expensive

Auxiliaries”; “urging the Necessity of a fresh Supply of Presents [i.e. trading

goods and gifts], in order to engage the Creeks to act against the Cherokees”

[BT number E.1]

[Note: The chronological sequence of microfilmed Board of Trade documents in

Volumes 648 through 652 (Reels 1 through 3) runs from mid-1760 to 1782 (with

a major gap between 1775 and 1781, mostly during a time between 1776 and

1779 when the colonial government of Georgia was in exile in England). Prior

years of Board of Trade incoming correspondence (when Georgia was a

proprietary colony, from 1734 to 1752, and subsequently a royal colony, from

1752 to 1760) are found in Volumes 636 to 647, which are not owned by DLAR.

Volume 653 in Reel 3 contains a set of drafts of outgoing documents dated

between 1754 and 1758, just as Governor Ellis was becoming governor. Thus,

for instance, this document (Reel 1 document 1, the first microfilmed document in

Volume 648) is the 33

numbered letter Ellis sent to the Board of Trade. Ellis’

letters No. 1 through No. 32 are not microfilmed here but may be found early in

Volumes 672 to 674, which are not owned by DLAR.

[Note: Henry Ellis (1721-1806), after serving briefly as Lieutenant Governor,

was Georgia’s 2

royal governor from 1758 to 1760. His predecessor, John

Reynolds (governor from 1752-1758) had proven to be an administrative failure.

Before Reynolds, the royal colony of Georgia had been governed, since its

founding in 1732, by a group of royally appointed trustees, most of whom lived in

England. Among the trustees, only James Oglethorpe had moved to Georgia

and played an active leading role in designing and settling Savannah and in

governing the new colony. Ellis had gone to sea young, sailing in his 20s on an

explorer ship to Hudson’s Bay in search of a Northwest Passage. From 1750 to

1755, he had operated a profitable (and reputedly relatively humane) slave-

trading operation between West Africa and Jamaica. Connections in the Board

of Trade got him appointed in 1757 as Lieutenant Governor, to act as governor

while Reynolds was in England defending himself. By 1758, he had replaced

Reynolds as governor. He proved his worth as a capable administrator in

Georgia, as well as a skilled diplomat in relation to the Indian nations on the

Georgia frontier. In particular, he negotiated a 1758 treaty with the Creeks and

managed to maintain their neutrality, if not friendship, against the Cherokees

(who were allied with the French during the French and Indian War/Seven Years

War). However, ill health contracted in Georgia led Ellis to request replacement

in fall 1760. In November 1760, James Wright of South Carolina replaced him

as governor. Back in England, Ellis became influential in crafting British policy in

America, including helping to write the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that sought to

define a boundary between European and Indian settlement areas in the frontier

lands just vacated by the French. This document also defined Georgia’s

boundaries favorably for it, to the St Mary’s River in the south and the Mississippi

River to the west.]

[Note: The British Board of Trade and Plantations somewhat resembled a

chamber of commerce in an age of royal mercantilism. It was governed by a

group of Lords appointed by the Crown and thus was a part of government. Yet

its purpose was to encourage settlement and economic development that would

benefit the mother country’s economy as well as the royal government. Until

America became a political and military problem for England in the mid-1760s,

British colonial governors looked to the Board of Trade for direction and financial

support. Later, Secretaries of State for the Colonies would eclipse the Board of

Trade’s colonial powers.]

[Note: The interior of the southeastern North American continent had long been

occupied by multiple tribes of Native Americans (who are identified here as

Indians, as did 18

Century Europeans and American colonists). By the 1750s,

four primary tribes (which the British recognized to be “nations” because of their

sovereign status) had been recognized by the Spanish, French, and English

Europeans who had settled around the coastal rim of the Indian interior. These

included the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee Nations. After

generations of relations with one another, in war and in diplomacy, these tribes

had developed complex ways of interacting based on mutually understood terms.

The arrival of European settlers upset the intertribal status quo and injected new

allies and enemies into the mix. In the 1750s and 1760s, colonial Georgia was

seeking ways to accommodate the reality of Indian nations into its plans for an

expanding European royal colony, while the Indian tribes were seeking ways to

defend their lands and to dealing with European leaders who negotiated and

fought in ways unfamiliar to and often dangerous to them.

Further complicating the situation, the Europeans themselves were split among

warring nations, and Indian tribes had to learn how to ally themselves not only

with one tribe or another but with one European nation over another. Between

1756 and 1763, these complex relationships were reshuffled by what the

Americans called the French and Indian War and the English called the Seven

Years War. In North America, England fought France to the northwest and Spain

to the south, while each nation sought to ally with as many Indian tribes as

possible. Georgia’s problem was that the Cherokees allied with the French,

forcing Georgia to do what it could to befriend or at least neutralize the other

three tribes, especially their more immediate neighbors, the Creeks.]

2. May 15, 1760 [3]

Letter No. 34 from Ellis at Georgia to Board of Trade, stating that while efforts by

Georgia Rangers and [friendly] Indians have prevented Cherokee Indian

“outrages” against the inhabitants of Georgia, “the Cherokees continue to do

much mischief in the neighbouring Provinces”; stating that the Chickasaw Indians

do not “resent” Cherokee hostilities, which makes it expensive to entice them to

ally with the British against the Cherokee [and French]; stating that on an

unnamed matter of internal unrest, the situation is quiet at the moment, mostly

because of the external threats; requesting that, given “the accumulated load of

business and fatigue,” he be relieved as governor [BT number E.2] [Ellis’ letter

No. 35 is not microfilmed here]

3. June 7, 1760 [5]

Copy of letter No. 36 from Ellis at Georgia to Board of Trade, reporting “with

very great Concern” “that the Endeavours of our Enemies, the French and

Cherokees, seem to have been more prevalent with the Creeks, than those we

have been employing”; reporting that “on the 4

Instant, I was by an Express

from the Creek Nation informed, that several of our Traders in the Upper Towns

were on the 16

Ult murdered, and their affects Seized, and divided amongst

some of those Savages. This step is always lookd upon as a declaration of

War.”; reporting doing his best to respond by redoubling his efforts to retain the

Creeks as allies; reporting that the colonial government of South Carolina is

thinking and acting in similar ways; stressing the “insecure state of this Colony,

the weakest in itself”; stating that “my remonstrances [to obtain support from

London] have not had sufficient effect” [BT number E.3]

4. July 10, 1760 [8]

Copy of letter No. 37 from Ellis at Georgia to Board of Trade, describing his

successes “so far” in keeping the Creeks allied with Britain against the Cherokee

[and French]; stating that a policy of making only generalized demands on the

Creeks was “the only course we could take with prudence” because of the

danger of being refused “had we specified the Nature and Extend of the

satisfaction we expected”; followed by

July 13, 1760

Postscript reporting intelligence of how the French had met with the Creek

headmen and “used every Argument to persuade them to break with the English

and join the Cherokees, but with no effect” [BT number E.4]

5. August 25, 1760 [11]

Letter No. 38 from Ellis at Georgia to Board of Trade, concerning receipt of

several new acts applying to Georgia, including two which appear to replace two

repealed Georgia acts, one an act on juries and another on the recovery of small

debts; stating that there are no objections to the jury act, but that the small debts

act appears to put a hardship on the poor inhabitants of Georgia by making such

debt payments more difficult and more expensive; reporting that the colony’s

General Assembly had completed its work, been dissolved, and a new one had

met; reporting that steps were being taken for the colony’s defense, including “a

very good Logg Fort” at Sunbury, with others being built at Barrington, two on the

Ogeechee River, and one on the northeast corner of “this Town” [Savannah] [BT

number E.5]

[Note: Sunbury, now a ghost town but once a fortified port town, was located on

the Medway River (now called Blackbeard’s Creek), north of Sapelo Island.

Barrington, not a town, was the site of a fort by that name on the Altamaha River,

south of Sapelo Island. Ogeechee River flows into Ossabaw Sound, north of

Ossabaw Island and south of Savannah. The location of forts up the tidal

estuaries of the rivers that flow around the Sea Islands south of Savannah was

strategic, since these estuaries could act as highways for waterborne invading

military forces.]

6. September 5, 1760 [14]

Letter No. 39 from Ellis at Georgia to Board of Trade, observing no particular

influence on Georgia of the news from South Carolina of “the Retreat of the Army

under Colonel Montgomery, and the Surrender of Fort Loudon and its Garrison to

the Cherokees”; stating that “the Creeks still remain quiet”; providing a more

detailed description of the recent incident in which four traders had been

murdered by Creek Indians and Ellis’ efforts to re-establish friendly relations with

the Creeks, while urging them to punish those who carried out the murders;

reporting that the Choctaw Indians are generally friendly with the Creeks [and

thus perhaps with Britain] [BT number E.6]

[Note: In 1756-1757, the British built a line of forts in Cherokee territory of

northern Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, in preparation for expected

French incursions from the north and west. One of these was Fort Loudon (on

the Little Tennessee River, actually in today’s State of Tennessee). At this time,

the Cherokee were considered allies of the British, but the British expedition in

1758 that succeeded in capturing Fort Duquesne changed Cherokee minds, and

in 1759-1760 they began attacking British frontier settlements. They also laid

siege to Fort Loudoun. Colonel Archibald Montgomerie’s 77

Regiment of

Foot (Montgomerie’s Highlanders) was sent to relieve the fort but was beaten by

the Cherokees and retreated before reaching the Fort. Soon after, the British

garrison at fort Loudoun surrendered and the fort was abandoned.]

7. January 7, 1761 [17]

Letter from J. West, a secretary at Treasury Chambers to John Pownall,

secretary to the Board of Trade, requesting that the Board of Trade prepare and

submit to the House of Commons an estimate of expenses for the Province of

Georgia from June 24, 1760 “to Midsummer 1761” [BT number E.7]

[Note: John Pownall held the position of Secretary to the Board of Trade and

Plantations from 1758 to 1776. Between 1768 and 1776 he also held the

position of Undersecretary of State. John’s older brother Thomas Pownall was

also active for some time in American affairs, serving in several capacities in the

colonies, including Governor of Massachusetts from 1757 to 1760.]

[Note: While the British established and maintained “colonies” within the British

Empire, during this period, they often referred to particular colonies as

“provinces.” In this Finding Aid, the two terms are considered to be

synonymous.]

8. October 20, 1760 [19]

Letter No. 40 from Ellis at Georgia to Board of Trade, stating that the Creeks are

still behaving with civility, but “that the French had instigated some Choctaws to

murder a Pack-Horse man belonging to the Traders who went to that Country

last Summer”, and that some Choctaws had killed two of the murderers of the

traders; expressing “surprise that his Majestys Southern Provinces should be

suffered so long to continue exposed as they are” to threats from the French and

hostile Indians; stating that the Creeks had come down to [Savannah] for a

“National Talk” to confirm friendship between them and the British [BT number

E.8]

9. October 23, 1760 [22]

Letter from James Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, informing them that he

had arrived at Savannah and had met with Governor Ellis prior to succeeding him

as Governor of Georgia; stating his assessment of the danger Georgia was in

and making his own plea for help from England [BT number E.9]

[Note: Unlike Governor Ellis, Governor Wright did not number his letters to the

Board of Trade.]

[Note: Ellis left Georgia in November 1760, having requested to be replaced

because of poor health. He returned to England, via New York, where he made

another plea for more support from England for the southern colonies.]

[Note: James Wright (1716-1785) had come from England to South Carolina in

1730, where he became a prominent attorney and plantation owner. When

Governor Ellis requested that he be replaced because of illness, Wright was

already serving as Georgia’s Lieutenant Governor (appointed in May 1760 and

arrived in Savannah from Charleston in October 1760). He served as Georgia’s

and last royal governor, from 1760 until 1782, when he left for England, once

the war against the rebellious colonies was lost. He was the only colonial

governor among the rebellious 13 colonies to remain in office in America during

the war. In Georgia, he encouraged the expansion of British settlement into

Indian territories, negotiating successive agreements with the Indians that

reduced Indian territory. Meanwhile, he developed for himself a network of 11

plantations, eventually owning more than 500 slaves. Before the Revolution,

Wright’s capable administration dampened and delayed Georgians’ enthusiasm

for rebellion against British rule. He was the only royal governor, among the 13,

who actively enforced the Stamp Act of 1765. By 1776, however, Georgians

were siding with the other 12 rebellious colonies. Wright was arrested by “rebels”

but escaped to London. When the British Army captured Savannah in 1779, he

returned to carry on British colonial rule in Georgia for three more years. In

1782, the tables were turned again when the British were forced to evacuate

Savannah. This time, Wright left Georgia for England, never to return. After the

war, he became head of an American loyalist group seeking British

compensation for their wartime losses.]

10. June 27, 1760 [24]

Letter No. 36 from Ellis at Savannah to Board of Trade, describing how he had

satisfactorily resolved “pretensions [by Thomas and Mary Bosomworth] to certain

lands which the Creek Indians had reserved to themselves by treaty with General

Oglethorpe”, describing how Ellis, as Governor, had negotiated a subsequent

treaty with the Creek Indians on April 22, 1758, which gave the English

ownership of certain of those Indian lands near Savannah, including Ossabaw

and Sapelo Islands, to be made available for auction for colonial settlement;

including details of Mary Bosomworth’s land ownership claims and actions taken

to resolve them; including five microfilmed enclosures, identified as A, B, C

(twice), and D [documents 11 to 15] [BT number E.10]

[Note: This letter appears to be an addition to Ellis’ previous Letter No. 36

(document 3), dated June 7, 1760.]

[Note: Mary Griffin (c. 1700-c. 1763) was born of an English trader father

named Edward Griffin and a Creek Indian mother. She was brought up bilingual

and bicultural somewhere in South Carolina. In 1717 she married English trader

John Musgrove. Using Mary’s connections and influence, they established a

successful trading post near the Savannah River. In 1734, Musgrove joined a

group James Oglethorpe took to England to promote his new colony, resulting in

the Trustees of Georgia granting him land four miles upstream from Savannah

for his trading post. Musgrove died there in 1735. Mary continued operating the

trading post, began offering her services as an interpreter for the colonial

government, and sought to promote peace between the colony and the Indians.

In 1737 she remarried to yet another English trader, Jacob Matthews, who had a

trading post to the south, on the Altamaha River. After he too died, Mary

remarried yet again in 1742, this time to the Rev. Thomas Bosomworth, a

Christian missionary and man of social status. She used her new husband’s

higher social standing to increase her influence in the colony and within the

Indian tribe. Tribal chiefs rewarded her with several additional grants of land,

especially grants of three of the Sea Islands, just south of Savannah, Ossabaw

Island, Sapelo Island, and St. Catherines Island. When Mary sought to have her

land claims approved by British colonial authorities, they refused, stating that

lands owned by an (Indian) nation could be granted only to anot

her (British)

nation. With her husband’s assistance, Mary pursued her claims from 1749 until

1760. In 1754, she traveled to England, where the Board of Trade heard her

case. They simply referred the matter back to the Georgia courts. Finally, in

1760, Royal Governor Ellis negotiated a compromise, whereby Mary received

ownership of St. Catherines Island plus a cash payment of £2,100, while

relinquishing claim to Ossabaw and Sapelo Islands.]

[Note: Georgia’s Atlantic Coast Sea Islands consist of a string of barrier

islands with salt-marsh interior areas separated by tidal estuaries. Along

Georgia’s approximately 100 miles of seacoast, its Sea Islands are strung from

north to south as follows:

Savannah River (Georgia-South Carolina Line)

Tybee Island

Wilmington River

Wassau Island

Ogeechee River

Ossabaw Island

Medway River (Blackbeard Creek today, with multiple channels)

St. Catherines Island

Medway River (Blackbeard Creek today, with multiple channels)

Sapelo Island

Doboy Sound

Wolf Island

Altamaha River

St. Simons Island

Fancy Bluff Creek (multiple channels)

Jekyll Island

Fancy Bluff Creek (multiple channels)

Cumberland Island

St. Marys River (Georgia-Florida line)]

11. July 23, 1759 [28]

Statement by Thomas Bosomworth at Savannah to Ellis, concerning his wife’s

land ownership claim, going back to before Georgia’s colonial charter, with

details in 33 numbered points [BT number E.11] [enclosure A with Ellis’ June

27, 1760 letter to Board of Trade, document 10]

12. May 29, 1749 [37]

Account of Mary Bosomworth in “His Majesty’s Service in the Province…of

Georgia”; describing services rendered in relation to the Creek Indians “in the

british Interest” with debit and credit entries for years between 1740 and 1749

[BT number E.12] [enclosure B with Ellis’ June 27, 1760 letter to Board of Trade,

document 10]

13. April 22, 1758 [38]

Copy of the text of a treaty between the Province of Georgia and certain Indians,

concerning land ownership, with the names of 57 Indians as “witnesses”;

followed by

July 24, 1759

Copy of agreement between the Province of Georgia and Thomas Bosomworth,

concerning his wife’s claim, signed by Ellis plus 7 others plus Thomas and Mary

Bosomworth

[part of BT number E.13] [part of enclosure C with Ellis’ June 27, 1760 letter to

Board of Trade, document 10]

14. April 19, 1760 [42]

Copy of indenture between Thomas and Mary Bosomworth and Henry Ellis, as

Governor of Georgia, part of settlement of the Bosomworth land claim, acquiring

St. Catherines Island and selling Ossabaw and Sapelo Islands; followed by

Copy of receipt with the same date for £2,050 in payment by the Province of

Georgia to Mary Bosomworth.

[part of BT number E.13] [enclosure D with Ellis’ June 27, 1760 letter to Board of

Trade, document 10]

15. April 18, 1760 [48]

Copy of deed to Thomas Bosomworth for the Island of St. Catherines, part of the

settlement between the Province of Georgia and the Bosomworths of Mary

Bosomworth’s land claims

[part of BT number E.13] [part of enclosure C with Ellis’ June 27, 1760 letter to

Board of Trade, document 10]

16. April 14, 1760 [51]

Account of sales of Ossabaw and Sapelo Islands by Province of Georgia to

private owners, including £50 in costs for advertising and action of the properties,

and [dated April 18, 1760] sales of the islands to Grey Elliott (£1,350 for

Ossabaw and £700 for Sapelo); followed by

October 20, 1760

Account of sale by Province of Georgia of 146 acres south of Savannah for

£638.10, including auction expense, to John Gordon and others [dated May 14,

1760]; followed by

Abstract account of the itemized three sales, with a total value of £2,656.10.3

[BT number E.14]

17. July 7, 1760 [54]

Petition to Board of Trade from Dickering Robinson, at Savannah, claiming that

since 1755, he had owned and made improvements on the property (Ossabaw

and Sapelo Islands) which Thomas Bosomworth has just sold to the Province of

Georgia; asking that the Board of Trade direct the proper officials “to cause his

Majesties free Grants of the said tracts to be made out to your Petitioner” [BT

number E.15]

18. December 2, 1760 [56]

Opinion in point of law from Sir Matthew Lamb at Lincoln’s Inn to the Board of

Trade, as requested by Pownall, concerning laws passed by Georgia in 1759 and

1760, listing four acts, one concerning repair of the lighthouse on Tybee Island,

two about property ownership and sale, and one concerning extraordinary courts

of common pleas to hear cases “arising between Merchants Strangers and

Mariners”; Lamb expressing no objections in point of law to any of these [BT

number E.16]

[Note: Sir Matthew Lamb (1705-1768) was a distinguished barrister associated

with the Lincoln’s Inn, perhaps the most prestigious of the four private legal

societies called the Inns of Court in London. He apparently was providing legal

advice to the Board of Trade as a private attorney, not a government official.]

19. October 23, 1760 [58]

Letter from Lieutenant Governor James Wright to Board of Trade, concerning

relations with the Creek Indians, need for more troops available in Georgia, and

need for presents to ensure friendship of the Indians [BT number E.17]

[Note: The King’s appointment of Wright as Governor of Georgia is dated March

21, 1761 (document 22), but he was already taking the lead in practice, as

lieutenant governor, by October 1760. After Governor Ellis departed for England

in November 1760, Wright was governor in every sense except for his royal

appointment.]

[Note: James Wright, as Lieutenant Governor and Governor, did not number his

letters to the Board of Trade.]

20. November 20, 1760 [64]

Address of the Commons House of Assembly of Georgia to Lieutenant Governor

Wright, concerning the colony’s inability to raise sufficient money to afford the

fortifications necessary to be constructed; hoping for Board of Trade approval to

sell new lands in the colony to help raise needed funds [BT number E.18]

21. January 16, 1761 [66]

Order of the King, concerning the status of certain lands between Savannah and

Pipemakers Creek in Georgia, instructing the Board of Trade to open up these

lands for sale to and settlement by English settlers [BT number E.19]

[Note: Pipemakers Creek was at this time a tributary creek flowing into the

Savannah River on the Georgia side, about 10 miles north of Savannah. In the

Century it was dredged into a canal connecting to the Ogeechee River.

Today, it is closed off by a raised railroad right-of-way running along the

Savannah River. Parts of it are being developed into amenities for subdivisions.]

22. March 20, 1761 [68]

Order of the King, appointing James Wright to become Governor of Georgia [BT

number E.20]

[Note: News of this royal order probably reached Savannah by about May 1761.

Since October or November 1760, Lieutenant Governor Wright had been acting

as governor.]

23. March 17, 1761 [70]

Order of the King, appointing William Grover Chief Justice of Georgia, William

Clifton Attorney General, and James Habersham Secretary of the Colony

[actually a reappointment under Wright’s governance, since Grover had been

Chief Justice of Georgia under Governor Ellis since 1759] [BT number E.21]

24. March 20, 1761 [72]

Order of the King, appointing Grey Elliott as a member of the Council in Georgia

[BT number E.22]

25. February 20, 1761 [74]

Copy of letter from Wright to Board of Trade, concerning his having “reprieved a

person under sentence of Death for Murder, till His Majesty’s pleasure should be

known” [BT number E.23]

26. [?] 1761 [78]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, enclosing address by Wright

to the Georgia Council concerning the King’s “Recession” to the crown [BT

number E.24]

27. May 19, 1761 [80]

Legal opinion from Sir Matthew Lamb at Lincoln’s Inn to Board of Trade,

concerning 14 acts of the Province of Georgia passed in April through June

1760; Lamb expressing no objection in point of law to any of the first 12,

concerning various issues of a governor’s house, defense, courts, legal matters,

and paper currency; raising objections about the last two, concerning

qualification of jurors and the method of balloting, and concerning establishing a

“Court for Trial of Actions of Eight Pounds Sterling” [BT number E.25]

28. June 19, 1761 [82]

Order from Secretary Samuel Martin at Treasury Chambers to [Board of Trade],

conveying a memorial of Henry Ellis requesting money owed while serving as

Governor, so that he can pay for accumulated expenses [BT number E.26]

29. April 15, 1761 [84]

Copy of letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, concerning the

financial status of the colony and its paper currency; including an accounting with

explanations of expenses totaling £4,422.16.

; also concerning Indian affairs

and matters of the colonial government [BT number E.27]

30. April 13, 1761 [90]

Copy of summary of addresses of both houses of the Georgia Assembly to

Wright, supporting the act adopted to restamp paper currency and issue £7,410

in paper bills of credit [BT number E.28] [no microfilmed documents are

identified as BT number E.29 or E.30.]

31. May 16, 1761 [91]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, concerning various aspects of

the status of the colony as he assumes his duties officially as Governor; making

comparisons with South Carolina, where he previously lived and served [BT

number E.31]

32. July 13, 1761 [95]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, concerning the seven laws he

has had passed for Georgia and their efficacy, with details; seeking the Board of

Trade’s approbation [BT number E.32]

33. November 14, 1759 [103]

Copy of annual itemized estimate for funding of Georgia’s colonial government

from September 29, 1759 through September 29, 1760, totaling £588.6.2; signed

at Savannah by Governor Henry Ellis [evidently provided by Wright for

comparison] [BT number E.33]

34. March 27, 1761 [105]

Copy of annual itemized estimate for funding of Georgia’s colonial government

from September 29, 1760 through September 29, 1761, totaling £581.11.6;

signed by Wright [BT number E.34]

35. April 14, 1761 [107]

Copy of “Deductions Resolved to [be] made from the Estimate”, totaling

£148.10.0 [based on the report in document 37] [BT number E.35]

36. June 9, 1761 [108]

Address from the Upper House of the Assembly to Wright, concerning questions

of the “Truth of the Facts on which” the tax bill was based; having conducted a

review of extracts from the Commons House Journals, submitting a corrected tax

bill to be forwarded to the Board of Trade [BT number E.36]

37. [no date] [109]

“Report from the Committee of the whole House appointed to take into

Consideration the Extracts from the Journals of the Commons House of

Assembly in the present Session of general Assembly” [BT number E.37]

38. December 16, 1761 [118]

Order from Samuel Martin at Treasury Chambers to Pownall at the Board of

Trade instructing him that an estimate of expenses should be prepared for

Georgia from June 24, 1761 to Midsummer 1762 [BT number E.38]

39. September 15, 1761 [120]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing an account of the

present State of the Colony, of the artifices used by the French at Mobille to

excite the Creek Indians to Hostilities, & referring to the Consideration of the B

to make some further allowance to M

Oglethorpe to induce him to instruct a

person in the Silk Culture” [BT number E.39]

40. October 17, 1761 [125]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “acquainting the B

. that the

persons who in 1758 settled themselves at New Hanover & were removed from

thence by His late Majesty’s [George II’s] Order, have lately return’d to their

Settlem

.& that the[y] have transmitted an acc

. of it to the Sec

of State” [BT

number E.40]

41. January 22, 1762 [128]

Legal opinions from Sir Matthew Lamb at Lincolns Inn to Board of Trade,

concerning seven laws passed by Georgia in June 1761, concerning various

governance and funding issues; Lamb expressing no objections on points of law

to any of them [BT number E.41]

42. December 28, 1761 [130]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, seeking direction on the use

of “a sum of money in his hands, which has arisen by the Sale of some forfeited

Lots of Lands near the Town of Savannah” [BT number E.42]

43. February 20, 1762 [133]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing an acc

of the

endeavoures he had taken to put the province into a better state of Defence”;

including notification of the death of Sir Patrick Houstoun, a Council member;

including “the particulars of some negroes & Cattle escheated to His Majesty by

the death of a half breed Indian with

Heirs”; including the appointment of a joint

[crown] agent with Mr. [?] Martin for the affairs of Georgia [BT number E.43]

[Note: Sir Patrick Houstoun, 5

Baronet (1698-1762) came to Georgia from

Scotland sometime before 1744 and settled at Waynesboro. He served the

Georgia colony as registrar of land grants and collector of quit rents, as well as a

member of Governor Wright’s Council until his death in 1762. Several of his

sons made overlapping contributions with their brothers as public leaders. Sir

Patrick Houstoun (Jr.) became 6

Baronet. John Houstoun (1744-1796) was

a Savannah attorney and statesman. Following his father, he too served on the

Georgia Governor’s Council under Governor Wright. However in 1774, he chose

to follow the path to revolution, serving on Georgia’s Committee of Safety and

then its Provincial Congress in 1775-1776, in the Second Continental Congress

(which convened in 1775 and continued until 1783; Georgia was not represented

in the First Continental Congress in 1774), as Georgia’s 2

revolutionary

governor in 1778-1779, as Georgia State Governor in 1784-1785, as Mayor of

Savannah in 1790-1791, and as a justice of Georgia’s Superior Court for several

years starting in 1791. In early 1778, he led an ill-fated attempt by the Georgia

militia to capture St. Augustine. Yet another son, Sir George Houstoun became

Baronet and was active with John on the Georgia Provincial Congress and

Council of Safety. James Houstoun became a physician and served in the

Continental Army as a surgeon for the Georgia Brigade. When Charleston was

captured by the British, James became a prisoner of war. See Reel 8,

documents 132, 133 for the unusual story of James as a prisoner of war accused

of treason in British Savannah in August 1780.]

[Note: Crown agents for British colonies served primarily as financial go-

betweens, advocating for funding requested by colonial governments, processing

requests for funds, and allocating funds approved.]

44. April 26, 1762 [137]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “transmitting Journals of the

Council & assembly [not microfilmed here], also such Acts passed there with

[Wright’s] Observations upon them & upon a Bill passed by the Council and

Assembly for better collecting His Maj

Quit Rent” [BT number E.45] [no

microfilmed document is identified as BT number E.44]

45. June 10, 1762 [140]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “giving an Acc

of the State of

Affairs in his Gov

with respect to the Indians, the Silk Culture &c” [BT number

E.47] [no microfilmed document is identified as BT number E.46]

46. [no date] [144]

Map of portion of Savannah River showing Cockspur Island and part of Tybee

Island, along with a diagram of the British fort built on the island; including

descriptions of the fortifications; stating “projected & Directed by [John William

Gerrard] De Brahm, Late Cap

Ingeneer” [BT number E.48]

[Note: Cockspur Island separates the northern and southern channels of the

Savannah River as it empties into the Atlantic Ocean. The Georgia-South

Carolina boundary follows the northern channel, placing Cockspur Island in

Georgia. Later, a more substantial fortification, named Fort Pulaski, was built on

the mainland just south of the southern channel. While named for a

Polish/American Revolutionary War hero, the fort saw its most important military

action during the American Civil War.]

[Note: John William Gerrard de Brahm (1718-c. 1799) was a talented German

mapmaker and engineer. After serving as a “Captain Engineer” in the German

military, he moved to Georgia and was appointed its Surveyor General in 1754.

By 1764, he had been appointed to the equivalent position in newly British East

Florida, but his increasingly negative views about European imperialism caused

him to be relieved of his position by Governor James Grant of East Florida in

1770. After spending the Revolutionary War years in Europe, he returned in

1791 to live his later years in Philadelphia.]

47. July 26, 1762 [145]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “inclosing the Copy of a Bill

for better collecting the Quit rents” in Georgia [copy of bill microfilmed in

document 48] [BT number E.49]

48. [no date] [147]

Copy of “A Bill Intitled An Act more Easy and effectual collecting and securing the

payment of His Majesty’s Quit Rents”; read and passed in the Assembly between

February 18 and 26, 1762; read and passed in the “Upper House” between

February 26 and March 2, 1762 [BT number E.50]

49. October 1, 1762 [152]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, concerning “the State of the

Silk Culture & other affairs” in Georgia [BT number E.51]

50. [no date] [155]

Memorial of William Knox, Province [Crown] Agent for Georgia, to Board of

Trade, setting forth the advantages of the Silk Culture there & praying that the

Encouragem

given to it by the Publick might continue” [BT number E.52]

[Note: William Knox later served for a number of years as crown agent for East

Florida.]

51. [no date] [157]

Petition of William Gray to Board of Trade, “praying for a Copy of the Boards”

records on a piece of property now owned by a Mr. Reynolds but, Gray

maintains, actually belonging to him; seeking clarification of his ownership

[Reynolds was no longer Georgia’s Governor but apparently still claimed

ownership of land in Georgia; the location is not clear] [BT number E.53]

52. February 14, 1763 [159]

Letter from Samuel Martin at Treasury Chambers to Pownall, secretary to the

Board of Trade, informing him that the Board of Trade is to “prepare and lay

before the House of Commons an Estimate of the expence attending the Colony

of Georgia from 24

of June 1762 to 24

of June 1763” [BT number E.54]

53. March 16, 1763 [161]

Order by the King, removing William Grover as Chief Justice and member of the

Council of Georgia, as recommended by the Georgia Council, because of a

dispute over the use of fees [BT number E.55]

[Note: William Grover served as Chief Justice in Georgia from 1759 to 1763.

He did not get along well with Georgia’s previous Governor, Henry Ellis, but his

relations with the next Governor, James Wright, were worse. Wright, an

attorney, felt that a number of Grover’s judicial decisions did not constitute sound

law. Beyond that, the issue that brought Grover down related to fees. He

consistently asserted that his judicial instructions in 1759 had forbidden his

approving the collection of fees in Georgia to support the salaries of public

officials. When he sought to implement this instruction by vetoing certain items in

Georgia’s annual estimate of expenses, starting in 1761, he incurred the wrath of

the colony’s public officials, especially the Governor’s. In response, Grover had

angrily refused to attend Council meetings and later resigned from his Council

membership, to which Wright had responded by rounding up sufficient political

support from both the Council and the Assembly to suspend Grover in late 1762

as Chief Justice and request Royal action to remove him from office and to

replace him. Wright made his case for suspending Grover in document 54.

Documents 55 to 60 appear to be documentation for Wright’s decision and may

have been enclosed with Wright’s letter. All were sent to and received by the

Board of Trade. Some are difficult to read as microfilmed.]

54. November 8, 1762 [163]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “respecting the Behaviour of

Mr. Grover Chief Justice & his Reasons for suspending him & transmitting” [BT

number E.56]

55. [no date] [169]

“The Case of Wood [&] Shoftal [Sheftall] against Ephraim Alexander, Samuel

Piles and Joseph Rumiere”, including detailed information on the case with

scattered dates from August 28, 1759 to October 13, 1761, concerning a debt

owed by Sheftall to Alexander, involving a Negro slave, and more; signed by

Wright [copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 11; followed by

June 11, 1761

Additional information about the same case; signed by both Chief Justice Grover

and by Wright [BT number E.57]

56. March 1, 1762 [175]

“Extract of a letter from Capt Brownie [?] Drake of [the vessel?] Indonesia”

[apparently at St. Augustine], to Samuel Pylos; evidently pertaining to the

situation of Grover’s suspension; identified as [exhibit] “A” [BT number E.58]

57. November 22, 1762 [176]

Copy of sworn statement in a court case of a Captain Thomas Goldsmith before

a justice of the peace from Berkeley County, South Carolina [BT number E.59]

[copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

12]

[Note: this might be the Captain Thomas Goldsmith who later organized a

company of Georgia Loyalists in 1779.]

58. [no date] [178]

A paper evidently concerning another court case [BT number E.60]

59. [no date] [179]

Address, apparently by Wright, to the [Commons] House of the Georgia

Assembly, apparently relating apparently to the situation of Chief Justice Grover

[BT number E.61]

60. September 21, 1762 [181]

Extract from minutes of a meeting of the Georgia Council, concerning

“Consideration of the Conduct and Behaviour of Mr. Grover the chief Justice”,

including documentation of that conduct and behavior, including extracts from

other documents, such as petitions from a Captain Rivers, a John Luke

(represented by attorney Alexander Wylly of Savannah); followed by

October 5, 1762

Extract from minutes of a meeting of the Georgia Council, concerning continued

consideration of the Grover situation, reconfirming their earlier unanimous advice

that Grover be suspended [BT number E.62] [copies of both minutes in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 13]

61. February 22, 1763 [189]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “giving an Account of the

flourishing state of the Province & other Affairs of Government” [BT number

E.63]

62. [no date] [191]

Memorial of Joseph Ottolinghe of Georgia to Board of Trade, concerning

developing the silk culture in Georgia [BT number E.64]

63. March 30, 1763 [193]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Thomas Boone, Royal Governor of South

Carolina, concerning the boundary between their two colonies and his

unhappiness with South Carolina settlements being granted south of the

Altamaha River to the East Florida boundary [BT number E.65]

[Note: Thomas Boone (c. 1736-1812) was an English gentleman with no

preparation for politics or governing but strong family connections that led to his

being appointed a colonial royal governor. Shortly after moving to South

Carolina to possess his plantation inheritance, he was appointed to be Governor

of New Jersey. He served here, from 1759 to 1761, too briefly to make much of

an impression. From 1761 to 1764 he was Governor of his adopted colony,

South Carolina. In this capacity, he appears to have exercised a skill for

antagonizing important interests—first the Creek Indians (during the French and

Indian War), next the Assembly of South Carolina, and finally, Governor Wright of

Georgia, with his strangely conceived plan to sell land grants to speculators and

wealthy friends in the strip of Atlantic coast south of the Altamaha River and

north of the St. Marys River. At this time, the coastal lands between these rivers

were still recognized as Creek Indian territory. In any case, they were

geographically separated from the rest of South Carolina by the recognized

colonial territory of Georgia, from the Savannah to the Altamaha River (south of

the St. Marys River was about to become territory of the new British colony of

East Florida). While Boone pressed his scheme in 1763, Wright complained to

the Board of Trade (documents 64, 65) and also negotiated a new treaty with the

Creek Indians, approved in November 1763, by which they ceded the coastal

territory between the Altamaha and St. Marys Rivers to Georgia. By 1764,

Boone was forced by the South Carolina Assembly to return to England to

defend his policies before the Board of Trade—which sided with the Assembly

and Wright, relieving Boone of his governorship. Boone remained in England for

the remainder of his life. In 1782, his South Carolina property was confiscated by

the victorious revolutionaries.]

64. April 20, 1763 [195]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, concerning the dispute over

the boundary between Georgia and South Carolina and South Carolina grants

being made south of the Altamaha River [BT number E.66] [copy in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 16]

65. March 30, 1763 [200]

“Protestation and Caveat” from Wright at Savannah to Thomas Boone, Governor

of South Carolina, concerning South Carolina settlement south of the Altamaha

River; [copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 17]; followed by

April 20, 1763

Sworn statement of Grey Elliott, member of the Georgia Council, stating that,

while in Charleston, he had personally seen Governor Boone’s proclamation

concerning making land grants south of the Altamaha River [copy in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 18] [BT number E.67]

66. May 6, 1763 [203]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “respecting Gov granting

Lands to the Southward of the Alatamaha [Altamaha] with the Names of several

Persons & the numbers of acres granted” [BT number E.69; no microfilmed

document is identified as BT number E.68] [similar letter with same date sent to

the Earl of Egremont in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 19]

67. June 3, 1763 [206]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “informing the Board of the

uneasiness of the Creek Ind and upon the Grants of Land & encluding note with

Observations upon six of them” [BT number E.70]

68. June 10, 1763 [210]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “respecting the advantage

that arises by the Contribution of the Bounty on the [silkworm] Cocoons &

congratulate their Lord

upon the great Advantage that will acrue to this

Kingdom by the lessons of Louisiana & Florida” [BT number E.72; no

microfilmed document is identified as BT number E.71]

69. June 22, 1763 [212]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Pownall, “acknowledging the receipt of...

Instruction respecting Indian Land &c &c—No application was ever made to him

for Grant of Indian Lands—The French & Spaniards [?] bad Notions [?] the

Indians” [BT number E.73]

70. [no date] [214]

Petition to Board of Trade from Denys Rolle and others “relative to their Design

of settling a Colony between the Rivers Apalachicola & Alatamaha; & inclosing

Copy of a memorial presented to L

Shelburne, stating their Intention &

Proposals on that Subject” [BT number E.74]

[Note: Denys Rolle (c. 1725-1797) was a wealthy member of Parliament, an

idealistic dreamer, and an economic speculator. The expansion of British

territory in Georgia and East and West Floridas after 1763 appeared to offer him

a vast new opportunity. He looked first in the Apalachicola and Altamaha region.

When the big concept of a new colony failed, he sought to focus on settling in the

St. Marks area, east of the Apalachicola River on the Gulf Coast. When that

didn’t pan out either, he gravitated after 1766 toward East Florida lands up the

St. Johns River. Here, he acquired large land grants both to become wealthy

from agricultural enterprise and to enhance social justice by settling and

employing large numbers of England’s poor, who worked as indentured servants

on his plantations. During the late 1760s he amassed 78,000 acres in several

plantations across the St. Johns River from present-day Palatka, an area still

called Rollestown. His experiments with poor indentured servants soon failed,

and he replaced them with African slaves, producing naval stores, beef, and

citrus on his plantations. See document 63 and the note that follows it.]

[Note: A coastal colony between the Apalachicola and Altamaha Rivers would

potentially include territory in the existing British Colonies of Georgia and East

Florida—including most of British-settled East Florida. The only coastal territory

in this area not clearly open for British settlement (except for the largely unsettled

Atlantic and Gulf coasts of central and south Florida) was the strip between the

Altamaha River and the St. Marys River, legally controlled by the Creek Indians,

that South Carolina Governor Boone had his eye on [see document 63].

However Georgia Governor Wright was quick to squelch Boone’s ploy by

negotiating a treaty with the Creek [see document 79] in which they ceded the

coastal strip of this territory to Georgia.]

[Note: William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne (1737-1805) was active in the

higher levels of British politics by the early 1760s. In 1763, he was serving as the

First Lord of Trade, the leading member of the Board of Trade. Between 1766

and 1768, and again in 1782, before becoming prime minister, he served as a

secretary of state, initially for the Southern Department, thus exercising

considerable influence over British colonial policy in Georgia and the other

southern North America colonies.]

71. July 7, 1763 [218]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, informing them of receipt of

several correspondences, including a proclamation removing Chief Justice

Grover; and “containing an Account of the Prosperous State of the Colony—the

expediency of a Quit Rent Law—and the Produce of the Silk this Year” [BT

number E.75]

72. January 30, 1763 [222]

Petition to Board of Trade from Denys Rolle, at the Old Palace Yard,

Westminster, and others, concerning “his proposals for a Settlement on the

Rivers Alatamaha & Apalachicola” [BT number E.77; no microfilmed document is

identified as BT number E.76]

73. [no date] [224]

Petition to Board of Trade from Isaac Levy, “late of Philadelphia but now in

London”, “desiring Copies of the Resolutions & matters that passed at a

conference between the Creek Indians & the Gov

of Georgia in 1755 relative to

the Islands of S

. Catherine &c & two papers respective the Claims of M

. B. and

his Wife” [BT number E.78]

[Note: Isaac Levy, a successful merchant and trader born early in the 1700s in

New York City, moved his business to London in 1752. Two years later, a

speculative opportunity brought him in contact with Thomas Bosomworth, who,

through his Creek Indian wife Mary, had become owner of the Georgia Sea

Islands of Ossabaw, Sapelo, and St. Catherines. In October 1754, Levy bought

one-half interest in the three islands. In 1756, Levy moved to Philadelphia. In

1758, Bosomworth, needing money more than islands, offered to sell Ossabaw

and Sapelo to the British Crown. Georgia Governor Ellis arranged the deal in

1760, but not before Levy discovered the deal and began legal action, since

Bosomworth had ignored Levy’s interest. Fearing he would not prevail in the

Georgia courts, Levy resorted to a strategy of petitioning the Crown. However,

the Board of Trade referred the matter back to the Georgia courts. Levy

persevered with legal appeals into the late 1760s but never prevailed. In the

meantime, Bosomworth, still needing money, had sold St. Catherines Island to

Button Gwinnett in 1765. See document 10 and the note after it for more

detailed information about Mary (née) Griffin and Rev. Thomas Bosomworth.]

[Note: Button Gwinnett (1735-1777) was a prosperous Georgia plantation

owner who became deeply involved in politics. He joined the patriot side during

the Revolution, serving in the Second Continental Congress. He was one of

three Georgia signers of the Declaration of Independence. In 1777, he became

politically embroiled with his arch political rival Lachlan McIntosh. The two fought

a duel (on one of Governor Wright’s plantations), and Gwinnett was killed. The

proximate issue that forced the dual concerned a blame game between the two

for the failure of a patriot Georgia invasion of British East Florida.

Lachlan McIntosh (1725-1806) was one of many McIntoshes in a family who

came to Georgia in 1736 and helped found the town of New Inverness, now

Darien, at the mouth of the Altamaha River. In 1775, he joined the Revolutionary

cause, but through the military, not directly in politics. As a colonel in the

Georgia Militia and then Brigadier General in the Continental Army, he was put in

charge of defending Georgia from British East Florida. His great political rival

Button Gwinnett ordered McIntosh to lead the ill-conceived and disastrous

Georgia invasion of East Florida that led to the Gwinnet-McIntosh duel and

Gwinnet’s death.]

74. May 25, 1764 [228]

Letter from C. Jenkinson at Treasury Chambers to Pownall, sending a copy of a

letter sent to the Agents for Georgia and for East and West Florida; followed by

May 24, 1764

Copy of letter from C. Jenkinson to the Agents for Georgia and for East and West

Florida “relative to their conduct in applying for the Grant of Parliament for the

Service of those Colonies & containing directions thereupon” [BT number E.79]

75. June 22, 1764 [230]

Memorial to Board of Trade from Charles Garth, Crown Agent for the Colony of

Georgia, at the Inner Temple, concerning payment of salary for pilots “for the

Barr of Tybee and River of Savannah” [BT number E.80]

76. [no date] [232]

Memorial to Board of Trade from Isaac Levy, concerning his prior interest in the

three islands in Georgia owned by the Bosomworths, as agreed on with former

Georgia Governor Henry Ellis; seeking redress [BT number E.81]

77. November 23, 1763 [234]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, informing the Board that “the

Creeks at the late congress made a voluntary Cession of a large Tract to the

Westward, which includes all our Settlements, & other contiguous Lands claimed

by the Indians” [BT number E.82]

78. December 23, 1763 [236]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “respecting the Advantages

arising from the Cession made by the Creeks; containing his Sentiments on the

best methods of peopling the Colony” [with enclosures, documents 79 to 85]

[BT number E.83]

79. November 10, 1763 [238]

Copy of the treaty [enclosed with Wright’s December 23, 1763 letter to Board of

Trade, document 78] negotiated at a Congress held at Augusta, Georgia,

between, on the British side, Governor Wright of Georgia, Governor Arthur

Dobbs of North Carolina, Governor Boone of South Carolina, Lieutenant

Governor Francis Fauquier of Virginia, and John Stuart, “Agent and

Superintendant of Southern Indian Affairs”, and, on the Indian side, “the several

Indian Chiefs” of the Chickasaws, Upper and Lower Creeks, Choctaws,

Cherokees, and Catawbas; containing 4 articles; defining the boundaries of the

lands ceded by the Indians and stating that the King promises that “none of his

Subjects shall settle upon or disturb the Indians in the Grounds or Lands

Westward of the Lines herein before described”; signed by the 5 English leaders

and 20 named Indian chiefs [BT number E.84] [printed copy of this treaty in

Secretary of State document papers, Reel 5 document 179; cover letter for treaty

from Governors and Stuart to Earl of Egremont dated November 10, 1763 in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 25; see

also more complete manuscript proceedings, including quoted correspondence

during the planning phase for the Congress starting on October 1, 1763 in the

South Carolina Colonial Office Papers, DLAR Finding Aid, Reel 1 document

177—still in preparation]

[Note: John Stuart (1718-1779) was a Scottish native who moved in 1748 to

South Carolina. In America, he became familiar with the southern tribes of

Native Americans. From 1761 until 1779, he served as British Superintendent of

Indian Affairs for the Southern District. In this capacity, he helped negotiate

many treaties with Indian nations and otherwise sought to maintain positive

relations for the British with the Indians in southeastern North America. When

the Revolution occurred, he left his long-time home in Charleston, first for

Georgia and then to Pensacola, where he died in 1779.]

[Note: Francis Fauquier (1703-1768) was from a well-to-do French family who

had emigrated to England. In 1758, he came to Virginia after having been

appointed Lieutenant Governor. He never rose to the title of Governor, yet he

acted as chief administrative officer (Governor in all but name) under two

absentee Governors, the Earl of Louden (1756-1763) and Jeffrey Amherst (1763-

1768). Thus it was that he represented Virginia in negotiating this treaty, along

with the other governors of southern British colonies.]

80. January 7, 1763 [243]

Accounts of “Duty received...in Christmas Quarter ended the 5 Jan 1762

[apparently actually 1763]” for the Port of Sunbury; prepared by duty collector

Thomas Carr, signed by Wright January 7, 1763; including duties on: “Goods

Emported to or imported from other Plantations”, “Foreign Rum Spirits Malasses

Syrup Sugar Panels”, “His Majestys Share of Fines and forfeitures received”,

“Incidents paid [by the] Collector”, and the total of duties “Currant for Christmas

Quarter Ended” [enclosed with Wright’s December 23, 1763 letter to Board of

Trade, document 78] [part of BT number E.85]

81. April 11, 1763 [249]

Accounts of “Duty received...in Lady Day Quarter ended the 5 April 1763” for the

Port of Sunbury; prepared by duty collector Thomas Carr, signed by Wright April

11, 1763; including duties on: “Goods Emported to or imported from other

Plantations”; “Foreign Rum Spirits Malasses Syrup Sugar Panels”, “His Majestys

Share of Fines and forfeitures received”, “Incidents paid [by the] Collector”, and

the total of duties “Currant for Lady Day Quarter Ended” [enclosed with Wright’s

December 23, 1763 letter to Board of Trade, document 78] [part of BT number

E.85]

82. July 30, 1763 [256]

Accounts of “Duty received...in Midsummer Quarter ended the 18 July 1763” for

the Port of Sunbury; prepared by duty collector Thomas Carr, signed by Wright

July 30, 1763; including duties on: “Goods Emported to or imported from other

Plantations”; “Foreign Rum Spirits Malasses Syrup Sugar Panels”, “His Majestys

Share of Fines and forfeitures received”, “Incidents paid [by the] Collector”, and

the total of duties “Currant for Lady Day Quarter Ended” [enclosed with Wright’s

December 23, 1763 letter to Board of Trade, document 78] [BT number E.86]

83. January 12, 1764 [264]

Accounts of “Duty received...in Michaelmas Quarter ended the 10 October 1763”

for the Port of Sunbury; prepared by duty collector Thomas Carr, signed by

Wright January 12, 1764; including duties on: “Goods Emported to or imported

from other Plantations”; “Foreign Rum Spirits Malasses Syrup Sugar Panels”,

“His Majestys Share of Fines and forfeitures received”, “Incidents paid [by the]

Collector”, and the total of duties “Currant for Michaelmas Quarter Ended”

[enclosed with Wright’s December 23, 1763 letter to Board of Trade, document

78] [BT number E.87]

Note from Public Record Office: “Folios [Frames] 269 to 273 are blank and have

not been copied.”

84. January 12, 1764 [275]

Accounts of “Duty received...in Christmas Quarter ended the 5 January 1764” for

the Port of Sunbury; prepared by duty collector Thomas Carr, signed by Wright

January 12, 1764; including duties on: “Goods Emported to or imported from

other Plantations”; “Foreign Rum Spirits Malasses Syrup Sugar Panels”, “His

Majestys Share of Fines and forfeitures received”, “Incidents paid [by the]

Collector”, and the total of duties “Currant for Christmas Quarter Ended”

[enclosed with Wright’s December 23, 1763 letter to Board of Trade, document

78] [BT number E.88]

85. [no date] [280]

“Names of Persons Applying to Settle Altogether or Part of the Lands lately

Ceded by the Creek Indians”; list of male names, wife, number of children, and

number of Negroes plus number of acres granted for a total of 22,800 acres

settled by 19 families [enclosed with Wright’s December 23, 1763 letter to Board

of Trade, document 78] [BT number E.89]

86. January 17, 1764 [282]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing an Account of the

murder of fourteen persons in South Carolina by some renegade Creek Indians,

& of the Measures taken by him on this occasion” [BT number E.90]

87. December 28, 1763 [284]

“Copy of Arthur Coodey’s Affidavit respecting the Murder of sev

. persons by the

Creeks”; [enclosed with Wright’s January 17, 1764 letter to Board of Trade,

document 86] [Frame 285 microfilmed twice] [BT number E.91]

88. [no date] [286]

Additional page of testimony, apparently by Arthur Coodey, concerning the

murder of several persons by Creeks [enclosed with Wright’s January 17 letter

to Board of Trade, document 86] [BT number E.92]

89. February 4, 1764 [287]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Silk Culture—

purchases from the Spaniards—S

Carolina Grants of Land to the S

of the

Alatamaha—...illicit Trade—and the murders lately committed by some of the

Creeks” [BT number E.93]

90. January 14, 1764 [291]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to the Commissioners of Customs, “informing

that Board of the measures he has taken to prevent illicit trade” [BT number

E.94; no microfilmed documents are identified as BT numbers E.95 through E.97]

91. March 27, 1764 [293]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the measures to

be taken in the murders committed by the Indians, & expressing his fear for the

Province in case of an Indian War—complaining of the attempt of S

Carolina to

distress Georgia—and containing a remark on the arrears of Quit Rents” [BT

number E.98]

92. February 22, 1764 [295]

“Extract out of my Letter to M

Stuart the Supervisor of Indian Affairs”; followed by

March 7, 1764

“Copy of a Letter sent from Gov

Boone”; followed by

March 21, 1764

“Copy of a letter from me to [?] Boone”;

[all identified by Wright and enclosed with his March 27, 1764 letter to Board of

Trade, document 91] [BT number E.99]

93. March 26, 1764 [299]

Audited account of parish tax collections to support the government of Georgia

for the year 1761, balanced against court and other expenses, each totaling

£1,326.13.2; signed by Grey Elliott, Deputy Auditor General [BT number E.100]

94. March 26, 1764 [300]

Audited account of parish tax collections to support the government of Georgia

for the year 1762, balanced against court and other expenses, each totaling

£1,833.14.10¾; signed by Grey Elliott, Deputy Auditor General [BT number

E.101]

95. February 5, 1764 [301]

Legal opinion from Matthew Lamb at Lincolns Inn to Board of Trade concerning

points of law on certain Georgia laws passed in April 1763 concerning: Two

recommended not to be confirmed: Empowering the General Court of Pleas to

grant “Writs of Partition of Lands and Tenements” and Concerning preventing

fraudulent mortgages; 11 others with no objections to being confirmed [BT

number E.102]

96. July 16, 1764 [303]

Memorial to Board of Trade from Georgia Agent Charles Garth at Inner Temple,

concerning approval for a bill received from Georgia; followed by

July 16, 1764

Copy of note from Pownall at Whitehall [to the Treasury] explaining that the

Board of Trade had approved the Georgia bill for payment [BT number E.103]

97. July 16, 1764 [305]

Petition-like statement signed by Thomas LeBreton on behalf of himself and John

Whiteside [attorneys representing Levy], at Sun Court Cornhill, to Pownall,

concerning the claim of Isaac Levy; followed by:

January 9, 1761

Copy of letter from Pownall at Whitehall to Messrs. LeBreton and Whiteside at

Sun Court Cornhill, requesting their attendance at a Board of Trade session to

consider Isaac Levy’s claim [see note after document 73]; [BT number E.104]

98. July 17, 1764 [309]

Statement by the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs [of the Board of

Trade], referring the petition [probably that of Alexander, Earl of Eglinton] to the

Board of Trade; followed by

[no date]

Petition to the King from Alexander, Earl of Eglinton with others, seeking support

to obtain land for development in Georgia, East Florida, and West Florida [BT

number E.105]

[Note: Alexander Montgomerie, 10

Earl of Eglinton (1723-1769), was a

Scottish nobleman whose interest in land development was clearly speculative.

Five years after the date of this letter, while still residing on his Scottish estate,

Eglinton was mortally wounded in a shooting argument with another Scottish

nobleman.]

99. June 2, 1764 [313]

Letter from Thomas Whately at Treasury Chambers to Pownall, concerning a bill

received from Agent Garth for payment of former Chief Justice Grover’s salary;

referring it to Board of Trade for its consideration [BT number E.106]

[Note: Thomas Whately (1726-1772) was active in British politics. In 1764 and

1765 he was Secretary of the Treasury, during which time he wrote an influential

(in England) piece justifying the Stamp Act. Before 1764, he had served as a

Commissioner of the Board of Trade and Plantations.]

Reel 2 (Volumes 649, 650)

Volume 649—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continued

March 25, 1764 to June 30, 1767 Documents 1 to 114 [Frames 1 to 285]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 649 continues from Volume 648 the Board of Trade (mostly) incoming

correspondence, in the microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: Archivists (probably in the Board of Trade) wrote descriptive notes for many of

the manuscript documents, which are microfilmed with the documents. On these notes,

archivists provided their own numbers by manuscript Bundle or Volume. Where found,

this Finding Aid reports these numbers as “BT numbers.” Volume 649 begins with F.1

and ends with F.110. Documents 1 through 95 are all numbered, although occasional

gaps exist in numbering, suggesting either that a few documents were lost or for other

reasons were not microfilmed or that the BT numbering process was sloppy in its

assignment of numbers. Documents 96 through 114 are intermittently numbered. The

reason for the change in archival practice is not clear.

Note: Starting under the Earl of Shelburne, Secretaries of State used the practice (also

used starting in the 1750s by the Board of Trade, as found in letters from Georgia

Governor Henry Ellis in Volume 648) of numbering the Secretary of State’s outgoing

letters and having colonial governors letter their incoming letters to the Secretary of

State. Use of and reference to these letter numbers begins in Volume 649 with

document 112. Where found, these numbers are included in this Finding Aid.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. [no date] [2]

Memorial from Charles Garth, Crown Agent for the Colony of Georgia, to the

Board of Trade and Plantations, conveying a bill for the Georgia Attorney

General’s salary due in June 1763, for Board approval [see the note after Reel 1

document 1 for more on the Board of Trade and Plantations] [BT number F.1]

2. November 15, 1764 [4]

Memorial from Garth to Board of Trade, “desiring the Board’s Directions with

respect to the payment of the Salaries due to the officers of the Crown” in

Georgia [BT number F.2]

3. [no date] [6]

Memorial of Garth to Board of Trade, concerning a bill from the Georgia

Governor for contingencies from Christmas 1763 to midsummer 1764; followed

December 10, 1764

Note by John Pownall, Secretary to the Board of Trade, indicating that the Board

had approved payment of the bill for the Governor’s contingent expenses [BT

number F.3] [see note after Reel 1 document 7 for more on John Pownall]

4. [no date] [8]

Memorial of Garth to Board of Trade, concerning payment of “the exceedings on

account of the Silk culture” from midsummer 1763 to midsummer 1764, to be

paid out of “the amount of the Sale of Silk for 1763 & 1764”; followed by

December 10, 1764

Note by Pownall indicating that the Board had approved payment of the silk

account expenses [BT number F.4.]

5. May 26, 1764 [10]

Copy of letter from James Wright, Governor of the Colony of Georgia, to Board of

Trade, concerning Georgia acts recently passed, small pox in Savannah, trade

with the Creeks, the merit of Georgia Surveyor General Henry Yonge, repairs

needed at Fort Augusta, and other matters [BT number F.5] [documents 6

through 9 may have been enclosed with document 5, Wright’s letter to the Board

of Trade dated May 26, 1764]

6. April 4, 1764 [14]

Extract from minutes of a Georgia Council meeting at Savannah, “relative to the

State of Indian affairs” [BT number F.6]

7. March 25, 1764 [16]

Table of “Totals of Quit Rents Due to His Majesty”, reported by parish, including,

for each, the number of acres, quit rent this year, arrears from last year, and sum

due, for a total of £986.3.2½ due [BT number F.7]

8. May 25, 1764 [18]

Audited account of parish tax collections to support the government of Georgia

for the year 1763, balanced against court and other expenses, each totaling

£2,532.16.5¼; signed by Grey Elliott, Deputy Auditor General [BT number F.8

but not so identified]

9. April 4, 1764 [19]

Extract from minutes of a Georgia Council meeting at Savannah, “relative to the

Inexpediency of stopping the Trade to the Creek +s” [BT number F.9]

10. July 5, 1764 [20]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to Gen

Gage’s

Sentiments on the inexpediency of stopping the Trade with the Creek Indians; to

the last Indian Talk—and desiring their Lordships directions with respect to those

Grants”; Indian “Talks” enclosed [document 11] [BT number F.12; no microfilmed

documents are identified as F.10 or F.11]

[Note: General Thomas Gage (1718-1787) served in the British Army as

commander in chief in North America from 1763 to 1775. After the American

Revolution began, he was recalled to England and replaced by General William

Howe.]

11. April 10, 1764 [23]

Summary of “A meeting [talk] of [Creek Indian] headmen at Little Talsey”

[Tallassee lies westward from Savannah near present-day Montgomery,

Alabama]; those listed as present include 6 traders and 15 Indians; includes

several “Talks” by individual Indians, pertaining to issues of land and trade

[enclosed with Wright’s July 5, 1764 letter to the Board of Trade, document 10]

[Frames 23 and 24 microfilmed twice] [BT number F.13]

12. July 5, 1764 [26]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, concerning various matters of

trade [BT number F.14]

13. July 23, 1764 [28]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, reporting that “the tranquility

still subsisting in the Indian Country;—& the weather having been unfavourable

to the Silk Culture” [BT number F.15]

14. August 6, 1764 [30]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Silk of that

Province” [BT number F.16]

15. August 27, 1764 [32]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing his sentiments on

the Indian Trade” [BT number F.17]

16. August 13, 1764 [35]

“Copy of a Talk from [Creek leader] the Mortar in his Creek [?] delivered at Fort

Augusta”; followed by

August 24, 1764

“My [Wright’s] Answer to the above”; both concerning trade and British-Indian

relations [BT number F.18]

17. September 13, 1764 [38]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, sending enclosures [not

microfilmed here]. [Numbered BT number F.18 but actually F.19 in sequence]

18. September 26, 1764 [40]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Silk Culture”

[BT number F.20]

19. March 4, 1765 [42]

Order of the Privy Council, concerning the petition of William Knox, seeking a

grant of 5,000 acres of land in Georgia; referring the petition to the Board of

Trade; followed by

[no date]

Petition of William Knox to the Privy Council seeking a grant of 5,000 acres of

land in Georgia [BT number F.21]

[Note: During the 1760s, the person filling the position of Crown Agent for

Georgia seems to have changed frequently. William Knox had been Georgia’s

Agent in the early 1760s. Sometime apparently in 1765, John Campbell

assumed the position (see document 20).]

20. [no date] [46]

Memorial of John Campbell, Crown Agent for Georgia, to the Board of Trade,

seeking permission to pay certain bills received from Wright [BT number F.22]

21. November 9, 1765 [48]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Silk Culture,

the contingent & Indian Expenses, the murder of three Creek Indians—& the

difficulties [we?] labour under with respect to the execution of the Stamp Act”

[BT number F.23]

22. December 2, 1765 [50]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Stamp Act, &

the settlement of Townships proposed by Persons from Ireland & Pennsylvania”

[with enclosures, documents 23 to 25] [BT number F.24]

23. October 31, 1765 [52]

Minutes of Georgia Council meeting at Savannah, concerning enforcement of the

Stamp Act in Georgia [enclosed with Wright’s December 2, 1765 letter to Board

of Trade, document 22] [BT number F.25]

24. November 12, 1765 [53]

Minutes of Georgia Council meeting at Savannah, concerning how to effectively

enforce the Stamp Act, avoiding the tumult and protests in adjoining colonies

[enclosed with Wright’s December 2, 1765 letter to Board of Trade, document 22]

[BT number F.26]

25. November 22, 1765 [55]

Minutes of Georgia Council meeting at Savannah, concerning execution of the

Stamp Act provisions in Georgia [enclosed with Wright’s December 2, 1765

letter to Board of Trade, document 22] [BT number F.27]

26. December 4, 1764 [56]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to Grants of Land, &

Quit Rents” [BT number F.28] [no microfilmed documents are identified as F.29

or F.30]

27. December 10, 1764 [58]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the

correspondence with the Agent for the receipt & payment of publick money

granted by Parliament” [BT number F.31]

28. December 10, 1764 [60]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, acknowledging receipt of Acts

of Parliament pertaining to the American Colonies [BT number F.32]

29. December 11, 1764 [62]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, acknowledging receipt of a

“plan for regulating the Indian Trade & the Fees of the Officers of Government”

[BT number F.33]

30. December 14, 1764 [64]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Creek

Indians;—the Grants to the Southward of the Altamaha;—and the Law for

partition of Lands & register of Deeds, and containing an Extract of a Letter from

Genl. Gage on Indian Affairs [dated August 11, 1764]” [BT number F.34]

31. December 14, 1764 [66]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, acknowledging receipt of

“Estimate for the support of the civil Establishment of [Georgia];—and containing

his Observations thereupon” [BT number F.35]

32. December 20, 1764 [70]

“Copy of an Address of both Houses of Assembly to the Gov

in favour of the

Rev

Whitefield’s Application for Lands in order to the endowment of a

College” [BT number F.37] [no microfilmed document is identified as F.36]

33. February 20, 1765 [71]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, enclosing “the Naval officers

Accounts of Vessels Enter

& Cleared at the Port of Sunbury” from January [?] 5,

1764 to January 5, 1765 [accounts not microfilmed here] [BT number F.38]

34. February 20, 1765 [73]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, enclosing the “Naval officers

list of Vessels Enter

& Clear

of this Port [Savannah], from the 10

of October

1764 to the 5

of January 1765” [list not microfilmed here] [Frame 73

microfilmed twice] [BT number F.39]

35. April 4, 1765 [75]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing remarks on an Act

lately passed those respecting the Carolina Grants to the Southward of the

Altamaha” [with microfilmed enclosure, document 36] [BT number F.40]

36. March 30, 1765 [79]

Copy of letter from Wright at Savannah to Lieutenant Governor Bull of South

Carolina, “inclosing copy of an Act passed in Georgia relative to the Carolina

Grants of Land to the Southward of the Altamaha” [Act not microfilmed here]

[enclosed with Wright’s April 4, 1765 letter to Board of Trade, document 35] [BT

number F.41] [no microfilmed document is identified as F.42]

[Note: William Bull II (1710-1791) served for a long time as Lieutenant

Governor of South Carolina, from 1759 until 1775. Although never earning the

title of Acting Governor, five times during his long tenure as Lieutenant Governor,

he was called upon to rule the colony during the absence of a governor in the

colony—a total combined time period of almost nine years. His father, William

Bull I, had earlier served as King’s Counsel for South Carolina. For more on

Lieutenant Governor Bull, see note after document 64.]

37. April 10, 1765 [80]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, informing them of receipt of

various correspondence from them “& promising to comply with their Orders” [BT

number F.43]

38. April 10, 1765 [82]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Pownall, informing him of receipt of Treasury

Board minutes “respecting Governors drawing for money expended in the publick

Service” [BT number F.44]

39. April 23, 1765 [84]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Bounty to be

allowed for encouraging the Silk Culture” in Georgia [BT number F.45]

40. June 28, 1765 [88]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to his conduct with

regard to Spanish Vessels coming into the Ports” of Georgia [BT number F.46]

41. March 22, 1765 [91]

Petition of Don Gabriel Garcia Palenzualas, a Spanish citizen and ship owner, to

Grey Ellicott, Judge Surrogate of the British Court of Vice Admiralty in Georgia,

concerning the petitioner’s complaint that his ship had been boarded on at least

two occasions by a British ship of war, without any formal charges being filed

afterwards; seeking relief and protection under international law [part of BT

number F.47]

42. March 26, 1765 [93]

Copy of document of the Court of Vice Admiralty concerning the Don Gabriel

Garcia Palenzualas case; the vessel involved being the brigantine Neustra

Senora de’l Rosario, which had put into the port of Savannah “in Distress” and

subsequently had been seized by Thomas Foley, commander of the British

frigate of war Escorte and remained in British possession; Palenzualas seeking

relief in the Admiralty Court; the court therefore ordering that Foley be cited and

admonished and that he appear at the Court’s next session; followed by

March 29, 1765

Copy of document of the Court of Vice Admiralty concerning the Palenzualas

case, granting Foley time to prepare and deliver a statement of why he had

seized and held the Spanish vessel; followed by

April 1, 1765

Copy of Foley’s statement that he had seized the vessel so that he could inquire

into several matters: the vessel’s commander “had refused or not produced” a

proper “Passport and other necessary Papers”; a single handwritten paper had

been offered, which did not appear valid; the pilot had said he was told the vessel

was bound for Charleston, not to any Spanish port; the vessel was discovered to

be armed with cannon “and a very large Quantity of Warlike Stores”, perhaps for

use in illicit trade; it also appeared that several parcels had been thrown

overboard from the vessel; followed by

June 25, 1765

Copy of document of the Court of Vice Admiralty concerning the Palenzualas

case, making its decision to clear and discharge Palenzualas because the

evidence presented was not sufficient to justify seizure and holding of the vessel

[Frame 97 microfilmed twice because of a double-image on the first] [part of BT

number F.47]

43. June 29, 1765 [100]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Acts lately

passed;—the Silk Culture,—& some Gentlemen of Bermuda, who desire to settle

in [Georgia] or East Florida” [BT number F.48]

44. July 16, 1765 [106]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing remarks on the

Act for partition of Lands & register of Deeds” [BT number F.49]

45. August 12, 1765 [108]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting information [not

microfilmed here] [BT number F.50]

46. August 19, 1765 [110]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the management

of Indian Affairs” [with enclosures, documents 47 to 52] [BT number F.51]

47. March 31, 1765 [112]

Copy of letter from John Stuart, British agent and Superintendent of Southern

Indian Affairs, at Mobile [West Florida], to Wright, concerning West Florida

Governor George Johnstone’s trade and other relations with the Indians; [see

more on West Florida and Governor Johnstone’s relations with the Indians in

DLAR’s Finding Aid on the East and West Florida British Colonial Papers]

[enclosed with Wright’s August 19, 1765 letter to Board of Trade, document 46]

[BT number F.52] [for more on John Stuart, see note after Reel 1 document 79]

48. July 25, 1765 [114]

Copy of letter from Stuart at Charleston to Wright, concerning Indian affairs

[enclosed with Wright’s August 19, 1765 letter to Board of Trade, document 46]

[BT number F.53]

49. March 31, 1765 [120]

“Regulations Settl

as necessary for the better Carrying on the trade with the

Indian Nations Surrounding the Province of West Florida”, drawn up in 18

itemized provisions by Stuart and Johnstone; plus lists of trade goods and

proposed tariffs [enclosed with Wright’s August 19, 1765 letter to Board of

Trade, document 46] [BT number F.54]

50. [no date] [124]

Printed “Instructions,” issued by Wright regulating the behavior and practices of

traders to the Indians; followed by

Printed Indian trader’s license form, dating from October 7, 1763, issued by

Wright to regulate trading with the Indians

[enclosed with Wright’s August 19, 1765 letter to Board of Trade, document 46]

[BT number F.55]

51. [no date] [126]

“Tariff on Price of foods as observed In the Creek Trade & other Indian Trade

under Licenses from Georgia” [enclosed with Wright’s August 19, 1765 letter to

Board of Trade, document 46] [BT number F.56]

52. August 17, 1765 [127]

Copy of letter from Wright to Stuart, concerning Indian affairs [enclosed with

Wright’s August 19, 1765 letter to Board of Trade, document 46] [Frame 129

microfilmed twice] [BT number F.57]

53. August 21, 1765 [131]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “on his having rec

the Repeal

of two [Georgia] Laws relating to granting Writs of partition of Lands, &c.—and for

preventing fraudulent Conveyances, &c.—& desiring their Lordships directions

for passing other Laws for the same purposes, not liable to the same objections”

[BT number F.58]

54. September 2, 1765 [134]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting “the Naval

officers quarterly Account of Vessels Enterd & Cleard” at Savannah from April 5

to July 5, 1765 [BT number F.59]

55. September 2, 1765 [136]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, reporting having received the

estimate for the civil establishment of Georgia for June 24, 1764 through June

24, 1765, totaling £2,120 [BT number F.60]

56. October 5, 1765 [138]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting the Naval

Officer’s list of vessels entered and cleared at the port of Sunbury from January 5

to July 5, 1765 [BT number F.61]

57. October 18, 1765 [140]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the amount of the

Silk culture this year,—the Act respecting the Carolina Grants;—& three Lads

suspected to have been murdered by some Indians” [BT number F.62]

58. January 15, 1766 [142]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the opposition

made to the execution of the Stamp Act” [whose execution he supported], which

he describes as having been the result of “mob or Tumult,” with details [BT

number F.64]

[Note: Parliament saw the Stamp Act as a fair way for American colonists to

help pay for the considerable military cost of the Seven Years War/French and

Indian War that had successfully defended the Americans against French,

Spanish, and Indian incursions between 1754 and 1763. Many Americans saw

the same act as a precedent-setting direct tax, imposed only on Americans,

without direct American representation in voting on the tax. The King approved

Parliament’s Stamp Act on March 22, 1765, making it legally binding. Yet

actually collecting tax revenue on paper transactions could not begin until official

“stamps” could be printed and governmental distributors could be deployed

throughout the colonies, a process that took months, while American protest

movements organized and grew bellicose. In the meantime, the only purely legal

strategy for colonial governors was to attempt to shut down businesses,

newspapers, seaports, and the like so that they would not engage in illegal, non-

taxed paper transactions.

In Georgia, an official distributor of stamps did not arrive in Savannah until

January 1766. When he did arrive, the situation had deteriorated so far that the

distributor’s only official action was to resign his position. Governor Wright,

however, remained a staunch advocate of full enforcement—the only colonial

governor among the 13 rebellious colonies to do so (see documents 58, 60, 62,

63, and 65). In November, he defiantly closed the ports of Georgia. For a short

time, some Savannah merchants paid for stamps to maintain their shipping

businesses. In January 1766, incensed rural Georgians invaded Savannah,

physically threatening the governor—who then joined the other colonial

governors, suspending efforts to enforce the Stamp Act.

By February, northern and southern ports were all open and trading without

stamps. By March 18, 1766, Parliament, having learned the lesson that the costs

of the Stamp Act were far greater than the revenues it generated, repealed the

Act.]

59. January 14, 1766 [146]

Printed issue of “The South Carolina and Country Gazette; Journal”, No. 5,

whose top headline reads “No STAMPED PAPER to be had.” [four full pages of

print microfilmed; fourth page microfilmed twice] [enclosed with Wright’s January

15, 1766 letter to Board of Trade, document 58] [BT number F.65]

[Note: By January 1766, Georgia’s Governor Wright had assumed the role of

colonial informer, sending documentation to the Board of Trade in London

incriminating other colonies—specifically South Carolina—that were violating or

neglecting enforcement of the Stamp Act (see documents 59, 64, 66, 67, 68, and

69).]

60. January 22, 1766 [148]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting “a Faithfull

Account of all Occurrences in this Province” of protests against enforcement of

the Stamp Act [account not microfilmed here] [BT number F.66]

61. January 22, 1766 [150]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “promising compliance with

their Lordships directions concerning the reservation of wood lands near Ports”

[BT number F.67]

62. February 1, 1766 [152]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to his securing the

Stamped Papers” [BT number F.68]

63. February 7, 1766 [154]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to Disturbances in

[Georgia] on account of the Stamp Act” [BT number F.69]

64. February 10, 1766 [156]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to L

Gov

Bull’s

opening the Port in S

Carolina, under pretence that no stamped papers are to

be had” [BT number F.70]

[Note: William Bull II (1710-1791) served for a long time as Lieutenant

Governor of South Carolina, from 1759 until 1775. During this long period, he

repeatedly was called to serve as Acting Governor during times when the

Governor was absent, resigned, or otherwise could not himself rule. One such

period occurred between May 1764 and June 17, 1766, leaving Bull in charge

during the height of the “Stamp Act Crisis” in South Carolina. Bull sought with

little success to chart a complicated middle course between full official

enforcement and total neglect of enforcement. When a supply of stamps arrived

in Charleston, he had them locked up in Fort Johnson, arguing that if they were

not accessible to be distributed properly, not using them was at least temporarily

justifiable, given the ugly mood of the local citizens against the stamp tax. When

faced with the issue of closing South Carolina’s ports, he balked, seeking to find

a justifiable way to maintain the colony’s valuable trade while waiting for a time

when the stamps might more safely be used (see documents 66 to 69). He was

still waiting for that time when the Stamp Act was repealed. See also note after

document 36 above.]

65. March 10, 1766 [158]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the difficulty with

which he has kept the people quiet” as he has attempted to enforce the Stamp

Act [enclosing several documents concerning neighboring South Carolina’s

protests against the Stamp Act, documents 66 to 69 [BT number F.71]

66. February 2, 3, 1766 [160]

Printed excerpts from the proceedings of the South Carolina House of Assembly,

relative to the opening of the ports in South Carolina while not enforcing the

Stamp Act; including:

February 2, 1766

Letter from Colonel Peter Randolph, Surveyor General of Customs in South

Carolina, to William Bull, Lieutenant [actually Acting] Governor of South Carolina,

not willing to open the ports of South Carolina without Bull’s political leadership;

followed by

[no date]

Letter from Bull to Randolph, telling Randolph that he had no authority to

intervene in the port-opening decision making; followed by

February 2, 1766

Letter from Randolph to Bull, continuing the disagreement; followed by

February 3, 1766

Letter from Bull to Randolph, declining to continue the disagreement by face-to-

face meeting or in writing; followed by

[no date]

Excerpt from “his majesty’s 49

INSTRUCTION, to governor Boone”, including

the authority of the Surveyor General to appoint certain officials in order to fill

vacancies; followed by

February 2, 1766

Letter from Bull to Randolph responding to the Assembly’s reminder of the

Surveyor-General’s appointment authority, stating that, since stamps are not

available, the ports will be opened without the requirement that stamps be issued

[enclosed with Wright’s March 10, 1766 letter to Board of Trade, document 65]

[BT number F.72]

67. November 29, 1765 [164]

Printed resolution of the Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina,

emphasizing the equal rights of Englishmen, both in England and in the Colonies,

among which is the right against direct taxation without direct representation

[enclosed with Wright’s March 10, 1766 letter to Board of Trade, document 65]

[BT number F.73]

68. January 22-28, 1766 [165]

Printed orders of the Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina, and

messages documenting the House’s attempt to ascertain, from Lieutenant

[actually Acting] Governor Bull, whether or not the new Stamp Act text had

actually been received from the government in England by the South Carolina

government; Bull not responding definitively to the House’s messages, the House

concluded that the Stamp Act had not been officially received in South Carolina

[and thus could not be either enforced or not enforced]; Bull concluded that he

had indeed received the valid text, though from different sources, and had no

reason to believe the text was not accurate [and thus felt justified in taking steps

to reopen the ports] [see note after document 64] [enclosed with Wright’s March

10, 1766 letter to Board of Trade, document 65] [BT number F.74]

69. March 1, 1766 [167a]

Extract from minutes of a “meeting of the FIRE Company in Charleston,” acting

as “Sons of Liberty,” adopting resolutions favoring free trade [thus anti Stamp

Act] and specifically forbidding any trading with Georgia [which was seeking to

enforce the Stamp Act] [enclosed with Wright’s March 10, 1766 letter to Board of

Trade, document 65] [BT number F.75] [another copy in Secretary of State

official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 215]

[Note: The Sons of Liberty first sprang up as organized groups in the American

colonies as a part of the emerging resistance movement against enforcement of

the Stamp Act of 1765. Most of these emerged out of older civic organizations

such as volunteer fire companies. In Charleston (and in Albany, New York) the

Sons of Liberty called themselves a Fire Company, presumably evoking

intentionally the sense of a dangerous emergency followed by an incendiary

response. In Savannah, Georgia, a Sons of Liberty group organized early during

the resistance period but was frustrated by Governor Wright’s staunch loyalist

position. The Charleston Fire Company experienced similar frustrations from

South Carolina’s Lieutenant Governor William Bull II. However, Wright seems to

have exercised more control over the Georgia Government than Bull succeeded

in doing over the South Carolina Government.]

70. April 28, 1766 [168a]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting documents [BT

number F.76]

71. May 20, 1765 [169]

Legal opinions by Matthew Lamb, at Lincolns Inn, as requested by Board of

Trade, concerning certain Georgia laws passed in January, February, and May

1764, including laws concerning lotteries, accounting by executors, Savannah

market regulations, empowering surveyors, punishing vagabonds, rebuilding the

Savannah courthouse, vessels not carrying persons in debt, appointing Crown

Agent for Georgia, approving Georgia’s contribution to Crown for operating

Georgia government, repairing Christ Church in Savannah, regulating the militia,

controlling slaves; stating no objections to any of these [BT number F.78] [no

microfilmed document is identified as F.77] [for more on Sir Matthew Lamb, see

note after Reel 1 document 18]

72. November 20, 1765 [171]

Legal opinions of Matthew Lamb at Lincolns Inn to Board of Trade, concerning

certain Georgia laws passed in March 1765, including an act concerning

disposition by Georgia of grants made by South Carolina in Georgia territory and

an ordinance “appointing William Knox Esq

. Agent to Solicit the Affairs of this

Province in Great Britain”; stating no objections to either of these [BT number

F.79]

73. June 26, 1766 [173]

“Proposals [to the Board of Trade] by Henry Kennan Esq

. [at London] for

carrying on the Silk Filature at Savannah in Georgia” [BT number F.80]

[Note: Silk Filature is the process of reeling silk from silk-worm cocoons. Silk

Culture is, more generally, the production of silk thread from the nurturing of silk

worms among mulberry bushes to the harvesting of silkworm cocoons and their

filature into threads.]

74. April 5, 1766 [175]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the apprehension

& discharge of John Bishop, against whom a complaint had been made by the

Spanish Ambassador; & the Sums, for which the Gov

has given him & the

Provost Marshall Certificates;—& to the certificates given other Officers of

Government” [BT number F.81]

75. May 5, 1766 [177]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing remarks on

several Acts lately passed in” Georgia [BT number F.82]

76. June 24, 1766 [181]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relating to the Silk Culture”

[BT number F.83]

77. June 28, 1766 [184]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Indian Trade,

and the disturbances likely to arise in consequence thereof” [BT number F.84]

[copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

63]

78. August 2, 1766 [186]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting various

documents, including some Georgia Council minutes [not microfilmed here] [BT

number F.85]

79. August 23, 1766 [188]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “expressing his hopes to

receive directions in respect to the Silk Culture, & Indian Affairs” [BT number

F.86]

80. September 25, 1766 [190]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Silk Culture

and the Act respecting the South Carolina Grants of Lands to the Southward of

the” Altamaha River [BT number F.87]

81. October 10, 1766 [192]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the State of the

Silk Culture” [with enclosures, documents 82, 83] [BT number F.88]

82. October 2, 1766 [194]

Letter from F. Holenghe to Wright [not to Governor Grant of East Florida, as

stated in the archivist note], “containing an Account of the Silk Culture”, which

begins “In answer to your Excellency’s letter of this morning I shall give a true

and just account of the Cause that so little silk is made from so large a quantity of

cocoons” [enclosed with Wright’s October 10, 1766 letter to Board of Trade,

document 81] [BT number F.89]

83. April 4, 1764 [196]

Copy of “Articles of Agreement” between Wright, Georgia Superintendent of Silk

Culture Joseph Ottolenghe, and Isaac Baillou [Ballou?] of Savannah, concerning

development of the silk culture in Georgia; [enclosed with Wright’s October 10,

1766 letter to Board of Trade, document 81] [Frame 197 microfilmed twice] [BT

number F.90]

[Note: Joseph Solomon Ottolenghi (1711-1775), a German/Jewish/American,

served not only as Georgia’s “superintendent” of silk culture but as a teacher of

reading to African Americans.]

84. October 21, 1766 [198]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “informing their Lordships of

his having given Certificates to two School masters for payments from June 24,

1765 to June 24, 1766” [BT number F.92] [no microfilmed document is identified

as F.91]

85. October 21, 1766 [200]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, concerning the silk culture

efforts in Georgia, with details and financial figures [BT number F.93]

86. January 10, 1767 [206]

Letter from Charles Garth, Crown Agent to South Carolina, to Pownall, “desiring

him to move the Board, that the Hearing on the Georgia Act for Strengthening the

Province [and pertaining to disposition of South Carolina land grants in southern

Georgia] & appointed to be on the 22

. instant, may be put off for a fortnight or

three weeks” [BT number F.94]

87. November 18, 1766 [208]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing an Account of the

manufactures set up and carried on in [Georgia]” [BT number F.95]

88. November 29, 1766 [210]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing remarks on the

Laws for making partition of Lands—registering of deeds, and the S

. Carolina

Grants” [with enclosures, documents 89, 90] [BT number F.96]

89. February 15, 1762 [214]

Copy of Wright’s answer to inquiry from the Board of Trade dated October 1,

1761, with updated notes dated November 1766, including sections concerning:

description of the lands along the southern coast of Georgia, running down

toward Florida; boundaries of the Georgia colony; British and colonial

destinations of trade from Georgia; British manufactures consumed by Georgia

colonists; trade with foreign destinations (which is very limited); enforcement of

trade regulations; Georgia’s agricultural products; Georgia’s population; Georgia

militia, forts, and defense; Indians and trade and relations with them; the French

in neighboring provinces; British military presence in Georgia; civil government in

Georgia with positions and salaries; and the constitution of the colony [enclosed

with Wright’s November 29, 1766 letter to Board of Trade, document 88] [BT

number F.97]

90. October 1766 [230]

“A General State of the Trade [of Georgia] from Oct

1765 to Oct

1766” with

financial figures [enclosed with Wright’s November 29, 1766 letter to Board of

Trade, document 88] [BT number F.98]

91. October 29, 1766 [231]

Legal opinions of Matthew Lamb at Lincolns Inn to Board of Trade, concerning

certain Georgia laws passed between December 1764 and March 1765,

including acts pertaining to: preventing small pox; the better ordering of the

militia; maintaining river channels; ordering and governing Negroes and other

slaves; a tax to raise money to repair and rebuild the Tybee Island lighthouse

and pilot house; extending enforcement of Georgia laws to newly annexed

territory (Jekyll Island); continuing laws prohibiting transport of debtors on

vessels, maintaining roads, and forbidding stealing horses and cattle;

suppressing lotteries and gaming; building forts and barracks; permitting taxation

by the King of trade with colonies north of South Carolina; prohibiting fraud and

abuses; prohibiting purchase of land from the Indians; appropriation of Georgia

funds for 1765 for governing of the colony; appointments of several officials;

stating no objections to any of these [BT number F.99]

92. February 12, 1767 [233]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the present state

of the Province, and transmitting several publick Papers” [with enclosures,

documents 93, 94] [Frame 235 microfilmed twice] [BT number F.100]

93. February 6, 1767 [236]

“Account of the Produce & Application of the Aid granted to his Majesty by Act of

Assembly passed the 29

day of Feb

1764 for the support of Government for

the year 1764, &c” [enclosed with Wright’s February 12, 1767 letter to Board of

Trade, document 92] [BT number F.101]

94. February 6, 1767 [238]

“Account of the Produce & Application of the Aid granted to his Majesty by Act of

Assembly passed the 25

day of March 1765 for the support of Government for

the year 1765, &c” [enclosed with Wright’s February 12, 1767 letter to Board of

Trade, document 92] [BT number F.102]

95. April 6, 1767 [239]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, with note by Wright “Copy of

my letter to [Secretary of State] the Earl of Shelburne,” “relative to the conduct &

principly of the House of Assembly and inclosing several papers thereupon”

[with microfilmed documents 96 to 106 and 108] [BT number F.103] [copy to

Shelburne in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 88]

[Note: William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne, served as Secretary of State for

the Southern Department from July 30, 1766 until October 20, 1768. For several

months in 1782, he served as Secretary of State for the Home Department.]

96. January 20, 1767 [245]

“Extract from the Journals of the upper House of [Georgia] Assembly”, including

text of letter from Wright to Upper House concerning paying for certain

“Necessaries allowed by the Mutiny Act to Soldiers in America”; including extract

from letter dated January 6, 1767, from Captain Lieutenant Ralph Phillips at

Charlestown, requesting provision of the necessaries; including communication

to Phillips of the Upper House’s positive response at its January 20, 1767

meeting, to pay for and provide the necessaries [enclosed with Wright’s April 6,

1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 95] [no BT number assigned] [copy to

Secretary of State Shelburne in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 89]

[Note: A Mutiny Act was a British law designed to control British soldiers’ and

sailors’ behavior when living among civilians. A Mutiny Act was in force for just

one year and had to be renewed annual. The issue that upset the American

colonies, and the Georgia Assembly, first emerged in the Quartering Act of

1765, which was an amendment to the Mutiny Act of that year. For that and

subsequent years, it required civilians to provide and pay for “necessaries,”

including accommodations and housing, when British soldiers were stationed

within a British colony. Many Americans felt this to be a financial imposition and

an invasion of privacy.]

97. January 10, 1767 [247]

Extract from journal of Commons House of Georgia Assembly, including text of

letter from Wright to Commons House explaining request from Captain

Lieutenant Phillips for provision of necessaries for his soldiers; including text of

Phillips’ request, dated at Charleston January 6, 1767; including relevant text

from the Mutiny Act; followed by

February 10, 1767

Extract from journal of Commons House, including report of a committee

appointed to consider Wright’s request to honor Phillips’ request and to prepare

an address to Wright with the Commons House’s response; including the

amended and approved text of the address, stating the House’s conclusion that

“complying with the Requisition contained in your Excellency’s message would

be a Violation of the Trust reposed in them by their Constituents and founding a

Precedent they by no Means think themselves justifiable in introducing”

[enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 95] [no

BT number assigned]

98. February 5, 1767 [249]

Extract from journal of Commons House of Georgia Assembly, including text of a

petition from merchants of Georgia pleading against enforcement of the Stamp

Act because of its many inconveniences and hardships; a joint committee with

the Upper House was assigned to consider the petition; followed by

February 10, 1767

Report of the joint committee on the merchants’ petition, which had agreed that

the Assembly should send a petition to the King and Parliament praying for

repeal of the Act; followed by

February 13, 1767

Recommendation from the joint committee that the Assembly should also

address the Governor, requesting that he report annually to the Assembly

information such as the status of the militia, the slave population, and exports

and imports; followed by

February 16, 1767

Report by those who delivered the address to the Governor, stating that he had

agreed to prepare and provide the requested information

[enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 95] [no

BT number assigned] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 91]

99. March 26, 1767 [251]

[Extracts from journal of Commons House], concerning a petition to the King and

Parliament “respecting the Scarcity of Paper Currency” in Georgia, adopted by

the Commons House to be delivered to Crown Agent Charles Garth with

instructions; concerning seeking the King’s “confirmation of an Act of the General

Assembly of this Province passed the 22

day of March 1765 intitled an Act for

the better strengthening and settling of this Province by compelling” provinces

holding lands within boundaries of other provinces (e.g. South Carolina in

Georgia) to relinquish the land grants in these areas; concerning seeking to enlist

Charles Garth to act as agent for the Commons House and agreeing to pay his

salary; concerning notice from the British Army commander in North America,

General Gage, that troop levels in Georgia will be reduced, necessitating the

closing of Fort George on Cockspur Island; addressing the Governor with the

Commons House’s wish that he use his powers to replace the soldiers withdrawn

from Fort George with other British troops “now doing Duty in this Province”;

including text of the address to the Governor about the troops issue; including

report with details from the Governor that he could not comply with the Commons

House’s wishes concerning the assignment of British troops because insufficient

other troops are available, but stating that he would use his influence with

General Gage to try to get an officer and troops reassigned to Fort George;

approving certain amounts of funding to pay for such troops as can be assigned

to Fort George [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade,

document 95] [no BT number assigned] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne

in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 97]

[Note: Cockspur Island is located between the north and south channels of the

Savannah River, at the river’s mouth into the Atlantic Ocean, a strategically

important location for protecting Savannah up the river. Fort George was

constructed there in the early 1760s. Besides a fort, the complex included a

customs house and a Lazarette, a quarantine facility for persons seeking to enter

Georgia who were suffering from possibly contagious diseases. British Fort

George was abandoned by patriot Georgia early in the Revolutionary War

because it was perceived to be too exposed. Instead, the isolated area became

a haven for loyalists, and in March 1776, British Governor Wright escaped to this

place from Savannah, before sailing to England, technically making Cockspur

Island (or more accurately the British warship HMS Scarborough moored here

that served as Wright’s home and the seat of Georgia’s government from at least

March 1 through March 27, 1776) very briefly the colonial capital. In the 1790s,

Fort George was rebuilt and renamed Fort Greene after American Revolutionary

War General Nathanael Greene. Not long after, in 1804, it was completely

destroyed by a hurricane. Many years passed before the fort structure still in

place today was completed in 1847, this time renamed Fort Pulaski for the

Polish military commander and American patriot of the Revolutionary War,

Casimir Pulaski, who was killed during the unsuccessful French-Continental

siege of and battle for British-occupied Savannah in October 1779. Vacated after

the Civil War, it is now a National Monument.]

100. [no date] [254]

Copy of “An [itemized] Estimate of the necessary Charges of Government in the

Province of Georgia for one year commencing the 29

September 1766 and

ending the 29

September 1767” [probably enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767

letter to Board of Trade, document 95, although not so identified] [no BT number

assigned] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 92]

101. March 20, 1767 [255]

Extract from journal of the Upper House of the Georgia Assembly, concerning

approval and disapproval of money from Georgia, as adopted by the Commons

House, to defray costs of government; objecting to an item to pay Agent Charles

Garth’s salary and another item to reimburse certain expenses of Garth because

they were “irregular” and not properly proposed previously and approved

[enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 95] [no

BT number assigned] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 93]

102. March 20, 1767 [257]

Extract from journal of Commons House of the Georgia Assembly, including text

of address to the Governor requesting that the General Assembly be dissolved

and that a new election be held; followed by

March 20, 1767

Including text of message from the Governor, declining to dissolve the General

Assembly and call a new election because he can see no benefit in doing so

[enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 95] [no

BT number assigned] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 94]

103. March 26, 1767 [259]

Extract from Journal of Upper House of the Georgia Assembly, concerning the

Commons House having taken on the power of appointment, in the case of

Charles Garth, resolving that the Upper House will not recognize this

appointment, and that William Knox is currently the recognized Crown Agent for

Georgia; followed by text of address from Upper House to the Governor

concerning the proper appointment power for a Crown Agent; reporting the

Governor’s response, that he would look into the proceedings of the Commons

House and seek to reverse any improper actions [enclosed with Wright’s April 6,

1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 95] [no BT number assigned] [copy to

Secretary of State Shelburne in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 95]

104. [no date] [261]

Petition of the Commons House to the King, declaring the overall loyalty of

Georgians but complaining about the Stamp Act as an aberration of the Crown’s

benevolent rule [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade,

document 95] [no BT number assigned] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne

in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 98]

105. [no date] [263]

Petition of the Commons House to House of Lords of Parliament, declaring

overall loyalty but complaining about the Stamp Act and requesting redress from

its hardships [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade,

document 95] [no BT number assigned] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne

in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 99]

106. [no date] [264]

Petition of the Commons House to House of Commons of Parliament, declaring

overall loyalty but complaining about the Stamp Act and requesting redress from

its hardships [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade,

document 95] [no BT number assigned] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne

in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 100]

107. [no date] [266]

Petition to the Board of Trade from Isaac Levy, in London, again seeking the

Board of Trade’s intervention in his dispute with the colony of Georgia over the

legality of land grants to him through Thomas Bosomworth on certain Georgia

islands; seeking an opportunity to meet with the Board of Trade and requesting

that the Board of Trade report to the King Levy’s case and request for redress

[see the note after Reel 1 document 10 and subsequent documents for more on

Thomas Bosomworth; see the note after Reel 1 document 73 for more on Isaac

Levy] [BT number F.104]

108. November 10, 1766 [268]

Extract from minutes of the Commons House of the Georgia Assembly,

authorizing payment to Charles Garth of £105 for services rendered as Crown

Agent to Georgia [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Board of Trade,

document 95] [no BT number assigned]

109. June 30, 1767 [269]

Recommendation of the Board of Trade’s Committee of Council for Plantation

Affairs to the Board of Trade, concerning the issue of South Carolina land grants

for land within the boundaries of Georgia, that clear instructions be prepared and

sent to the Governors of South Carolina and Georgia specifying how each is to

resolve the situation; signed by Robert Walpole for the committee [BT number

F.105]

110. May 15, 1767 [271]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the conduct of the

Assembly”, with enclosures [not microfilmed here] [BT number F.106]

111. [no date] [273]

Legal opinion of Matthew Lamb concerning 17 acts passed in Georgia between

November 1765 and March 1766, including acts concerning control of slaves,

deserting seamen, requiring white males to carry firearms to increase safety,

regulating taverns, surveying of public roads, relief of debtors, piloting of vessels,

preventing fraud in sale of certain items, preventing theft of cattle, appointment of

packers and inspectors for the ports of Savannah and Sunbury, establishing a

new ferry across the Savannah River, giving a portion of the Savannah Common

to a private person, appointment of a beadle for Christ Church in Savannah,

encouraging new settlers in Georgia and constructing needed public buildings,

preventing the absconding of slaves, authorizing local funding to support

government in the Georgia colony; Lamb expressing no objections in point of law

to any of these acts [BT number F.108] [no microfilmed document is identified

as F.107]

[Note: A beadle was a minor official in English parish churches who ushered,

kept order, and, in particular, was responsible for the parish’s charity activities.]

112. June 15, 1767 [275]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing observations on

several Laws lately passed [in Georgia], & respecting his tour through the

Southern parts of that province” [with enclosures, documents 113, 114] [BT

number F.109] [similar letter with same date to Secretary of State Shelburne,

Wright’s letter No. 6, in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 103; extract from letter to Shelburne in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 125]

[Note: When Shelburne became Secretary of State for the Southern

Department, he began numbering his letters to colonial governors and had them

do the same in response. Most of the letters addressed by Wright to a Secretary

of State but found in the Board of Trade incoming correspondence are copies or

duplicates. The numerical sequence of these copy or duplicate letters is

incomplete. Yet, between December 1768 and May 1771, Wright made a

concerted effort to send to the Board of Trade copies or duplicates of his letters

to Secretary of State for the Colonies the Earl of Hillsborough. Most of Wright’s

letters from No. 24 through No. 58 are therefore included in the Board of Trade

incoming correspondence.]

113. February 2, 1767 [281]

Address of Commons House of Georgia Assembly to Wright, concerning building

a Lazarette to receive infected persons coming into the province; followed by

February 5, 1767

Message from Wright supporting helping infected people and proposing use of

money received from the public sale of gunpowder to build the needed Lazarette

[enclosed with Wright’s June 15, 1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 112]

[BT number F.110] [copy to Secretary of State Shelburne in Secretary of State

official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 104]

[Note: In this context, a Lazarette is a quarantine station at a point of entry from

abroad by sea, where people thought to be infected with contagious diseases

could be confined. More generally, a Lazarette was a shelter for “infected”

people, from which, like Lazarus, they could hope to emerge well again.]

114. February 3, 1767 [283]

Extract from Georgia Council minutes, supporting building a Lazarette, with

details on its proposed location and the use of gunpowder money to pay for it

[enclosed with Wright’s June 15, 1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 112]

[no BT number assigned]

Volume 650—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continued

November 18, 1765 to January 20, 1770 Documents 115 to 170 [Frames 1 to 139]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 650 continues from Volume 649 the Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, in the microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: Archivists (probably in the Board of Trade) wrote descriptive notes for many of

the manuscript documents, which are microfilmed with the documents. On these notes,

archivists provided their own numbers by manuscript Bundle or Volume. Where found,

this Finding Aid reports these numbers as “BT numbers.” Volume 650 begins with G.1

and ends with G.52. Almost all microfilmed documents in this Volume are assigned BT

numbers. Occasional gaps exist in the numbering, suggesting either that a few

documents were lost or for other reasons were not microfilmed or that the BT

numbering process was sloppy in its assignment of numbers. One document

(enclosure with a letter) was assigned no BT number.

Note: Starting under the Earl of Shelburne and following under the Earl of Hillsborough,

Secretaries of State used the practice (also used starting in the 1750s by the Board of

Trade, as found in letters from Georgia Governor Henry Ellis in Volume 648) of

numbering the Secretary of State’s outgoing letters and having colonial governors letter

their incoming letters to the Secretary of State. Use of and reference to these letter

numbers began in Volume 649 with document 112 for Shelburne. Both use and

references continue in Volume 650 for Hillsborough. Where found, these numbers are

included in this Finding Aid.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

115. October 9, 1767 [1]

Notice to the Board of Trade and Plantations, from its Committee of Council for

Plantation Affairs, referring to the Board the memorial of Lieutenant John Pigott

of the 62

Regiment of Foot, requesting approval for a land grant in Georgia of

5,000 acres; followed by

Memorial of John Pigott requesting a land grant in Georgia of 5,000 acres [see

the note after Reel 1 document 1 for more on the Board of Trade and

Plantations] [BT number G.1]

116. April 15, 1767 [5]

Letter from Governor of Georgia James Wright, at Savannah, Georgia, to Board

of Trade, “relative to the State of defence of” Georgia; with note stating that “I

have wrote to the Earl of Shelburne to the Same Effect”

[see note after Reel 1 document 9 for more on James Wright; see notes after

Reel 1 document 70 and Reel 2 document 95 for more on the Earl of

Shelburne] [BT number G.2]

117. April 2, 1767 [7]

“Extract or Substance of my Letter to General [Thomas] Gage”, British

Commander of British Army forces in North America, concerning the reduced

state of defense in Georgia, with details, especially concerning Augusta [similar

or copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

109]; followed by

May 26, 1767

Extract from Gage’s reply to Wright; followed by

July 4, 1767

Extract from letter from Wright to the commander of British troops in Georgia and

South Carolina concerning troop levels; followed by

July 20, 1767

Extract from letter from Gage to Wright; followed by

August 6, 1767

Extract from letter from Wright to Gage; followed by

July 24, 1767

Note from Lord Charles Montagu to [?], concerning the number of troops

available

[enclosed with Wright’s April 15, 1767 letter to Board of Trade, document 116]

[no BT number assigned]

[Note: General Thomas Gage (1718-1787) served in the British Army as

commander in chief in North America from 1763 to 1775. After the American

Revolution began, he was recalled to England and replaced by General William

Howe.]

[Note: Sir Charles Greville Montagu (1741-1784) served as South Carolina’s

colonial governor from 1766 until 1773 (with Lieutenant Governor William Bull II

stepping into the governor’s position as needed when Montagu was variously

indisposed, in 1768 and again in 1769 to 1771). In the mid-1760s, Montagu

sought, despite great unpopularity, to enforce the Stamp Act in South Carolina.

The parallel with Governor Wright is evident.]

118. August 25, 1767 [11]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing an Account of the

State of the Silk Culture” in Georgia [BT number G.3]

119. September 16, 1767 [13]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, enclosing lists of Naval

Officers lists of vessels entering and clearing the port of Sunbury from October 5,

1766 to July 5, 1767 and of the port of Savannah from April 5, 1767 to July 5,

1767 [lists not microfilmed here] [BT number G.4]

120. October 13, 1767 [15]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the Sums

expended for the service” of Georgia [BT number G.5]

121. October 24, 1767 [17]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relating to the murder of two

Inhabitants of East Florida by some Creek Indians; & including Copies of two

affidavits on that subject” [with two microfilmed enclosures, both part of

document 122] [part of BT number G.6] [similar letter to Secretary of State

Shelburne in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 113]

122. October 21, 1767 [19]

Affidavit of William Clark of St. Marys Parish [East Florida], taken in St. Andrew

Parish [Altamaha River area, Georgia], concerning the murder of two inhabitants

of East Florida; followed by:

October 15, 1767

Affidavit of James Lemon, ferryman at Satilla, taken in St. Marys Parish,

concerning the murder of two inhabitants of East Florida

[both enclosed with Wright’s October 24, 1767 letter to Board of Trade, document

121] [part of BT number G.6] [copy of each in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 114]

123. October 24, 1767 [21]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Pownall, “informing him that the Vessel on

board which a [?] of 0 of the Province of Georgia was shipped, and also a Box of

publick papers was shipped, was lost” [BT number G.7]

124. November 14, 1767 [23]

Letter from [Secretary of State for the Southern Department the Earl of]

Shelburne to Board of Trade, concerning “the expediency of directing the Gov

Of Georgia to assent to a Law for the sale of such Gunpowder now in the

Magazines of that province as may be in danger of perishing, and for the

commutation of the Duty on that commodity into money” [see notes after Reel 1

document 70 and Reel 2 document 95 for more on the Earl of Shelburne] [part

of BT number G.8]

125. June 15, 1767 [25]

Extract from letter from Wright to Shelburne, concerning the act to erect a

lazarette and keeper’s house on Tybee Island to be paid for by money not

exceeding £300 from the sale of gunpowder, to which Wright had consented

because of lack of other money to accomplish this necessary purpose; including

justification of the legality of this approach to funding [part of BT number G.8]

[original letter No. 6 from Wright to Shelburne in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 103; similar letter with same date to

Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

112]

126. February 22, 1767 [27]

Extract from minutes of a meeting of the Commons House; containing the

House’s address to the Governor, suggesting use of gunpowder money to fund

the lazarette and keeper’s house; including Wright’s response, dated February 5,

1767 (?) [enclosed in Wright’s letter of June 15, 1767 to Shelburne, document

125]; [part of BT number G.8]

127. December 22, 1767 [30]

Account of John Campbell, Agent of Georgia, at London, with entries dating from

1764 to 1767 [BT number G.9]

128. June 26, 1767 [31]

Royal order disallowing a Georgia law concerning the “ordering and governing” of

“Negroes and other slaves” and preventing the “inseighing [inciting] or carrying

away Slaves from their Masters or Employers” [BT number G.10]

129. October 9, 1767 [33]

Report of the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs to the Board of Trade,

“referring to the Board [of Trade], for their report, the petition of Isaac Levy for the

restitution of a moiety of two Islands on the Coast of Georgia, of which he alleges

he was illegally dispossessed by the late Gov

. of that province, or otherwise, for

a Grand of Land in the Ceded Islands in the West Indies, or of a Coal mine in the

Island of Caple Breton”; followed by

[no date]

Petition of Isaac Levy to the King on the above subject

[both are parts of BT number G.11]

130. January [?], 1768 [39]

Memorial to the Board of Trade from Isaac Levy, concerning his unresolved

petitions for relief regarding his ownership of islands on the Georgia coast,

“stating the inconveniences under which he labours” [BT number G.12]

131. January 18, 1768 [41]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, enclosing the Naval Officers

List of vessels entered and cleared the port of Savannah from July 5 to October

10, 1767 plus proceedings of the Georgia Council from October 7, 1766 to

September 17, 1767 [these enclosures not microfilmed here] [BT number G.13]

132. [no date] [43]

Memorial to the Board of Trade from Isaac Levy, “praying leave to compare

some Copies of papers in this Office with the Originals, & to take Copies of

others relative to the proceedings in Georgia relating to the Islands of Osabaw &

. Catherine & the transactions with M

. Bosomworth thereupon” [BT number

G.14]

133. [no date] [45]

List of papers “which M

Levy craves to have compard with the Originals &

Letters of which he craves extracts” [BT number G.15]

134. June 8, 1768 [46]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing remarks on

several Acts lately passed in [Georgia] and the flourishing State thereof” [with

microfilmed enclosure, document 135] [BT number G.16] [similar letter to

Hillsborough, with same date, in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 138; copy of letter to Hillsborough in

document 138 below]

135. February 18, 1768 [53]

Extract from minutes of meeting of the Georgia Council at Savannah, concerning

payment to Charles Garth of his salary as Agent for Georgia, beginning June 1,

1767; the Governor seeking denial of payment because Garth was not appointed

to be Georgia’s Agent; denial unanimously upheld by the Council [enclosed with

Wright’s June 8, 1768 letter to Board of Trade, document 134] [BT number G.17]

[copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

124]

136. June 10, 1768 [55]

“An Abstract of all the Grants of Land registered in his Majesties province of

Georgia from the 25

September 1767 to the 25

March 1768”; a lengthy, ten-

page list [no BT number is identified for this document, but sequentially it would

be BT number G.18]

137. July 1, 1768 [60]

Copy of letter No. 9 from Wright at Savannah to the Earl of Hillsborough,

Secretary of State for the Colonies, “containing his Observations upon the return

& effect of the bounties given for the Silk Culture”, including an annual list, from

1755 to 1767, of the feet of cocoons made and the feet of silk produced, the low

year being 1758, when the cocoons were “burnt” but 258 feet of silk were still

produced, and the high year being 1766, when 20,350 feet of cocoons were

made, which produced 1,084 feet of silk [part of BT number G.19] [original letter

in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 139]

[Note: William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne, served as Secretary of State for

the Southern Department from July 30, 1766 to October 20, 1768. Wills Hill, 1

Earl of Hillsborough was appointed to the new position of Secretary of State for

the Colonies on February 27, 1768, a position he held until August 27, 1772.

This position superseded that of Secretary of State for the Southern Department,

which continued to exist but was in less direct contact with colonial governors.

In addition, the Secretary of State for the Colonies was considered by colonial

governors to have higher status than the Board of Trade, which was primarily an

economic-development promoter and lacked the foreign-policy clout of the

Secretaries of State. As the 13 American colonies evolved from being politically

loyal colonies with economic agenda toward being cauldrons of human-rights

agitation with rebellious political agendas, the politically oriented Secretaries of

State became more important for royal governors than the economically oriented

Board of Trade.]

[Note: The Earl of Hillsborough, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, made a

practice, apparently continued from Shelburne, of numbering his outgoing letters

and of having regular incoming correspondents such as colonial governors

number their letters to him.]

138. June 8, 1768 [63]

Copy of letter No. 8 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “containing his

Observat

upon some Laws of the Colony of Georgia lately passed” [BT number

G.20] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 138; similar letter to Board of Trade in document 134 above]

139. July 8, 1768 [68]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “informing the Board of his

having given Certificates for the Year’s expence of His Majesty’s Guard or Scout

Boat” [BT number G.21]

140. [received December 9, 1768] [70]

“M

Delamar’s proposals in order the more effectively to establish the Growth of

raw Silk in America” [Frame 70 microfilmed twice] [no BT number is identified

for this document, but sequentially it would be BT number G.22]

141. [no date] [73]

“Memorial in relation to the Silk Culture in Georgia, presented by the Agent” for

Georgia, at London [to the Board of Trade], including calculations of production

and bounties paid [Frame 73 microfilmed twice] [BT number G.23]

142. December 22, 1768 [77]

Order of Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs to Board of Trade, referring

to the Board a request from Hillsborough, based on a letter from Georgia

Governor Wright, to clarify the legal definition of a [Negro] slave—solely real

estate or some being real estate while others (“chattels personal” slaves) are not;

seeking instructions on whether it is legal to disallow any colonial slave law

unless it defines slaves as only real estate [part of BT number G.24]

143. October 5, 1768 [78]

Extract from letter from Wright to Hillsborough, stating his position that Georgia

should have a law “for the better Government of Negroes” only “provided such

Slaves, be not thereby declared to be Chattels personal”; but requesting

clarification that such a limitation will be considered legal under English law [part

of BT number G.24] [the full original of Wright’s letter No. 20 to Hillsborough,

dated October 5, 1768, is in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence,

Reel 6 document 156]

144. August 5, 1768 [81]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, containing copy of letter from

Wright to Hillsborough concerning regulation of the Indian trade [with

enclosures, documents 145 to 148] [BT number G.25] [Wright’s letter of the

same date to Hillsborough is in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 144]

145. November 18, 1765 [85]

Copy by Wright of minutes of the “Congress held with Govr Grant at Picolata

signed J[ohn] Stuart” [enclosed with Wright’s August 5, 1768 letter to Board of

Trade, document 144] [BT number G.26] [copy in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 145]

[Note: This Congress concluded with the signing of the November 18, 1765

Treaty of Picolata, by which Governor James Grant of East Florida and

Superintendent of Indian Affairs John Stuart negotiated successfully (for the

British) a wide-ranging treaty with the Creek Indian Nation. It institutionalized in

the American South the principals of division of lands between European and

Indian territory and of drawing fixed boundaries between the two (until a treaty

was violated by European settlers or until a new treaty renegotiated the

boundaries, invariably to European advantage).]

146. [no date] [86]

Handwritten map of a portion of Georgia, showing what appear to be water trade

routes and land boundaries in territories between the St. Marys River, Altamaha

River, and Apalachee River, apparently pertaining to the November 18, 1765

Treaty of Picolata; identified as “Copy of the Sketch of the Boundary line, sent to

the Indians” [enclosed with Wright’s August 5, 1768 letter to Board of Trade,

document 144] [BT number G.27] [copy in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 148] [see note on rivers after document 147]

147. July 27, 1768 [87]

Copy of “Talk” by Wright and Stuart to several chiefs and warriors of the Lower

Creek Nation, concerning verifying the land boundaries agreed to “according to

the several treaties and agreements Subsisting between us”, and enclosing “a

sketch on paper of the Line as we Propose it should be continued from

Conoochee to the Alatamaha and from thence to St Marys”; also including the

Oconee, Ogeechee, and Apalachee Rivers [enclosed with Wright’s August 5,

1768 letter to Board of Trade, document 144] [Frame 88 microfilmed twice] [BT

number G.28] [copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 147]

[Note: On the frontier, rivers served as highways as well as boundaries. The

five rivers mentioned here were especially important in facilitating the migration

of British settlers inland as they expanded their territory from the coast into the

interior. Trading posts were located on rivers and at river junctions. And the

rivers provided access for Indians to come to Savannah to meet and negotiate

with Georgia colonial officials. At any one point in time, the rivers also provided

convenient boundaries. However, because the frontier between Indians and

British settlers was constantly shifting in practice, despite agreements and

treaties, river boundaries were inherently unstable. Of the six rivers identified,

four (St. Marys, Oconee, Ogeechee, and Altamaha) flow directly into the Atlantic

Ocean along the Georgia coast, and two (Canoochee and Apalachee) are inland

rivers, tributaries of the Ogeechee and Altamaha respectively.]

148. January 10, 1766 [89]

Copy of declaration of agreement between Wright and Creek Indian headman

Captain Alleck, concerning settlement of the “Lower [boundary] Line” [enclosed

with Wright’s August 5, 1768 letter to Board of Trade, document 144] [BT

number G.29] [copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 146] [see note on rivers after document 147]

[Note: Captain Alleck was a Creek Indian chief with considerable personal

influence. He chose to live apart from the Lower Creek Villages farther to the

west. Making his home on an inland tributary of the Altamaha River, he

apparently intentionally located himself in the border area between European and

Indian territory. At the Picolata Treaty Assembly in November 1765, the Creek

Indians apparently granted to him authority to negotiate with Governor Wright the

details of a boundary in Georgia between European and Indian lands. Although

this may have made Captain Alleck appear a stooge of the Europeans, he

apparently played a much more devious, crafty game for what he judged to be

his own personal gain.]

149. August 6, 1768 [91]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, containing copy of letter from

Wright to Hillsborough, “relative to the temper and Sentiments of the Colonies in

North America with respect to the Authority of the Parl

of Great Britain” [BT

number G.30] [Wright’s letter #12 to Hillsborough, August 6, 1768, is in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 149]

[Note: In this letter, Wright leaves behind the economic issues he had initially

raised with Hillsborough [see document 137] and focuses on political issues.]

150. November 1, 1768 [93]

Duplicate of letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the

Expence of the Silk Culture” [BT number G.31]

[Note: Letters from colonial governors were often sent multiple times on

separate ships, in hopes that one of the letters would get through or get through

faster to England. Thus, an “original” letter would be sent plus perhaps several

“duplicate” letters. A “copy” was usually the copy of a letter sent possibly at a

later time and usually to another recipient. Use of these terminology conventions

was usually but not always observed. Thus, a document identified as a

“duplicate” might in fact be a “copy” or vice versa.]

151. January 14, 1769 [95]

Copy of letter from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, transmitting the just-

completed survey of the boundary from the Ogeechee River to the Canoochee

River and on to the St. Marys River [see note after document 147] [survey map

not microfilmed here] [BT number G.32] [original letter (No. 28) in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 173]

152. April 14, 1769 [97]

Letter from Grey Cooper, Secretary for the Treasury to Pownall, conveying a

report from the Customs Commission, concerning the proper procedures for

“giving Bounties upon the importation of raw Silk from America” [BT number

G.33]

[Note: Grey Cooper (c. 1726-1801) trained and practiced as an attorney. In

1765, he interrupted his legal career to serve as Secretary for the Treasury until

1782.]

153. November 24, 1768 [99]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting copies of

proceedings of the Georgia Council from April 5 to September 6, 1768 and

abstract of land grants from March 25 to September 25, 1768 [enclosures not

microfilmed here]; stating that Georgia is in a “

flourishing state” [BT number

G.34]

154. August 6, 1768 [101]

Duplicate of letter No. 13 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough,

acknowledging receipt of the Solicitor General’s report about a New Jersey law;

stating that he will act in Georgia consistent with this report [no document is

identified as BT number G.35] [BT number G.36] [original letter in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 150]

155. August 6, 1768 [103]

Duplicate of letter No. 14 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning

murder of a public official and Wright’s statement to improve his colony’s law

enforcement [BT number G.37] [original letter in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 151]

156. December 13, 1768 [105]

Copy of Letter No. 24 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning

making certain communications from the Secretaries of State public [BT number

G.38] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 163]

157. December 14, 1768 [107]

Copy of letter No. 25 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning the

silk culture and possibility the King will discontinue bounties; concerning

parliamentary politics [BT number G.39] [duplicate letter in Secretary of State

official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 164]

158. December 24, 1768 [109]

Duplicate of letter No. 26 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning

Georgia’s finances and related matters [with enclosures, documents 159, 160]

[BT number G.40] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 165]

159. December 24, 1768 [111]

Copy of address by Wright to Commons House, concerning the Assembly’s

failure to deal with the most important matter from the King, which relates to

loyalty and support for Parliament’s and the King’s policies; deploring the

direction the Assembly has taken to support disloyal activities going on in other

colonies; disagreeing that the inhabitants of the American colonies are

inadequately represented for purposes of taxation; as a result, dissolving the

Assembly [Frame 112 microfilmed twice] [enclosed with Wright’s December 24,

1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 158] [BT number G.41] [another copy in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 167]

160. December 24, 1768 [113]

Extract from minutes of the Georgia Commons House, supporting efforts in other

colonies demanding “redress of Grievances a Right allowed & Confirmed by the

Act of William and Mary”; including texts of supportive resolutions to be sent to

the representative bodies in Massachusetts and Virginia [enclosed with Wright’s

December 24, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 158] [BT number G.42]

[another copy of extract in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence,

Reel 6 document 166]

161. December 26, 1768 [115]

Copy of letter No. 27 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, describing with

details plans he has made to restructure the Assembly with fewer members; also

seeking to control election to minimize election of “Sons of Liberty”; also giving

himself more authority over spending decisions; also adjusting requirements for

property ownership; justifying his proposed actions in relation to numerous

specific instructions from the Crown [Frame 116 microfilmed twice] [BT number

G.43] [duplicate letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence,

Reel 6 document 172]

162. January 30, 1769 [119]

Copy of letter No. 29 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, declaring his

loyalty to the British system and his enthusiasm for the happy circumstances of

colonial live, as he sees it, under British rule [BT number G.44] [duplicate letter

in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 175]

163. March 8, 1769 [121]

Duplicate of letter No. 30 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, stating that

he has been doing his best to rule well; wishing to revise the present Negro Law,

which is “short and defective as it is”, but being unable to do so since the

Assembly is not meeting; stating that things are currently quiet, within the colony

and between the colony and Indians; concerning other issues in the rule of

Georgia [BT number G.45] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 178]

164. June 26, 1769 [123]

Copy of letter No. 32 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, reporting

expectation to re-establish the Assembly in fall 1769; acknowledging receipt of

the new estimate for the Georgia colony’s government; concerning keeping the

current silk culture healthy and producing; concerning Indian affairs; sharing

intelligence about Indian and Spanish activities with governors of both Floridas

[BT number G.46] [duplicate letter in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 181]

165. February 10, 1769 [125]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing his observations

on several Acts passed in that Colony in Dec

. Last” [with microfilmed enclosure,

document 166] [BT number G.47]

166. December 9, 1768 [129]

Extract from minutes of Georgia Council at Savannah, concerning arrival of 107

“protestant” settlers from Ireland who apparently came at the financial

encouragement of the Assembly, although the money had not been approved nor

the settlers granted entry; given the changed circumstances, suggesting that

money now be found to welcome these settlers [enclosed with Wright’s February

10, 1769 letter to Board of Trade, document 165] [BT number G.48]

167. July 5, 1769 [131]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to the contingent &

Indian Expenses from midsummer 1768 to midsummer 1769, & the certificates

he has given to M

. Nunes, as Indian Interpreter, & to others” [no microfilmed

document is identified as G.49] [BT number G.50]

168. January 20, 1770 [133]

Order of the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs, referring to the Board of

Trade a petition of Henry Yonge of Georgia, requesting a land grant of 5,000

acres [part of BT number G.51]

169. [no date] [134]

Petition of Henry Yonge , surveyor general of Georgia, requesting a land grant of

5,000 acres [part of BT number G.51]

170. September 28, 1769 [137]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “relative to Noble Jones Esq

having acted as Chief Justice of the Province from the 20

of Sept

. 1760 to the

pf Sep

. 1769” [BT number G.52]

[Note: William Grover was not actually removed from the position of Chief

Justice until July 1763 (Reel 1 documents 53, 71; see also note after document

53). However, Grover was suspended in 1762 (documents 54 to 60 above) and

was not getting along well with either Governor Ellis or Governor Wright, going

back to 1760 or 1761. So, at this later date, Wright appears to be making the

case that his attorney friend and political ally Noble Jones had actually been

doing the Chief Justice job well before Grover’s ouster. For more on Noble

Jones and his son Noble Wimberly Jones, see note after Reel 3 document 70.

See also the note after Reel 6 document 161 showing that Noble Jones had

served as Chief Justice more than once and not continuously during the period

1760 to 1769.]

Reel 3 (Volumes 651, 652, 653)

Volume 651—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), continued

August 15, 1769 to June 19, 1772 Documents 1 to 85 [Frames 1 to 215]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 651 continues from Volume 650 the Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, in the microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: Archivists (probably in the Board of Trade) wrote descriptive notes for many of

the manuscript documents, which are microfilmed with the documents. On these notes,

archivists provided their own numbers by manuscript Bundle or Volume. Where found,

this Finding Aid reports these numbers as “BT numbers.” Volume 651 begins with H.1

and ends with H.46. A fair number of documents in this Volume, for reasons not clear,

have been assigned no BT number. Occasional gaps exist in the numbering,

suggesting either that a few documents were lost or for other reasons were not

microfilmed or that the BT numbering process was sloppy in its assignment of numbers.

Note: The practice continued in Volume 651, under the Earl of Hillsborough, Secretary

of State for the Colonies, to number the Secretary of State’s outgoing letters and to

have colonial governors letter their incoming letters to the Secretary of State . Where

found, these numbers are included in this Finding Aid.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. August 15, 1769 [1]

Duplicate of letter No. 34 from Governor James Wright of Georgia at Savannah

to the Earl of Hillsborough, Secretary of State for the Colonies, in London,

“stating the general sentiments of the Americans & his own with regard to the

authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to impose Taxes on the Colonies” [BT

number H.1] [see Reel 1, note after document 9 for more on Wright; see Reel 2,

note after document 137 for more on the Earl of Hillsborough] [original letter in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 184]

[Note: Letters from colonial governors were often sent multiple times on

separate ships, in hopes that one of the letters would get through or get through

faster to England. Thus, an “original” letter would be sent plus perhaps several

“duplicate” letters. A “copy” was usually the copy of a letter sent possibly at a

later time and usually to another recipient. Use of these terminology conventions

was usually but not always observed. Thus, a document identified as a

“duplicate” might in fact be a “copy” or vice versa.]

2. August 15, 1769 [3]

Duplicate of letter No. 35 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “on the

beneficial consequences likely to arise from the encouragement given by

Parliament to the culture of raw Silk, and other productions of the American

Colonies” [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence,

Reel 6 document 185]

Note: Documents between 2 and 21 are not identified with a BT number.

3. November 8, 1769 [5]

Duplicate of letter No. 38 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to

the harmony subsisting between the three branches of the [Georgia] Legislature”

[with enclosures, documents 4 to 7] [original letter in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 191]

4. [no date] [7]

Copy of message from Wright [at the beginning of the legislative session] to the

Commons House of the Georgia Assembly, summarizing his plans for new

legislative efforts, including calling for them to adopt an act “to Prevent

Incroachment and trespasses being Committed on the Lands and Hunting

Grounds of the Indians”; another to address “the Present Confused and

Disorderly State of the trade carried on with the Indians”; expressing fear for a

violent crisis with the Indians, without having sufficient troop protection in Georgia

and the other southern colonies; intending to put before the Assembly a new

“Negro Law” acceptable to British law; expressing the need to improve the

functioning of “the Wright Patrol, or Town Guard Duty”’; anticipating sending

additional laws for consideration, several of which “must clearly shew and

Convince us beyond Doubt of the beneficent Disposition of the Crown and

Parliament towards the Colonies” [enclosed with Wright’s November 8, 1769

letter to Hillsborough, document 3] [copy in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 192]

5. [no date] [9]

Copy of address by the upper house of the Assembly to Wright, responding

positively to Wright’s legislative proposals and hoping for an increase of harmony

in Georgia’s public affairs [enclosed with Wright’s November 8, 1769 letter to

Hillsborough, document 3] [copy in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 193]

6. November 2, 1769 [11]

Extract from minutes of the Commons House of the Georgia Assembly,

concurring with Wright’s legislative proposals and the sentiment of positive

relations between Parliament and the colonies and on harmony throughout the

British Empire; along with Wright’s response thanking the Commons House for

the assurances given him [enclosed with Wright’s November 8, 1769 letter to

Hillsborough, document 3] [extract also in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 195]

7. [no date] [13]

Copy of Wright’s message of thanks to the Commons House for its address to

him [enclosed with Wright’s November 8, 1769 letter to Hillsborough, document

3] [included in copy of November 2, 1769 extract, in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 195]

8. September 20, 1769 [14]

Duplicate letter No. 37 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to

Laws against Lotteries; & the sentiments of the Inhabitants with regard to Duty

Acts” [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 188]

9. January 20, 1770 [16]

Duplicate letter No. 39 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to his

leave of absence, & the Character of Mr. Habersham” [original letter in Secretary

of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 198]

[Note: James Habersham (1712-1775) came to Georgia in 1738 as a poor,

Methodist schoolmaster. He tried establishing an orphanage but failed

financially, whereupon he began to reinvent himself as a wealthy and influential

Georgian. During the 1750s, he prospered as a planter, commissioned to start

Georgia’s silk culture and the first to grow cotton in the colony. In the 1760s, he

moved to Savannah, practiced law (he was involved in the long-drawn-out

Bosomworth lawsuits) and focused on expanding lucrative commercial trade

ventures he had begun in the 1740s. In 1754 [see documents 110, 111 below]

he was serving as Secretary for the Colony of Georgia, a position he held until at

least the early 1760s. By 1759, Governor Henry Ellis had drawn him into colonial

politics, appointing him to the Georgia Council, where he served for many years.

In 1771, when Governor James Wright was granted a leave of absence (leaving

for England on July 10, 1771), Habersham was appointed from the ranks of the

Council to serve as acting governor, although his official title was President of

the Georgia Council. In practice, he fulfilled these dual responsibilities until

Wright returned to Georgia, in February 1773.

When the Revolution came in 1775, James Habersham’s sons John and Joseph

both sided with America and became leaders in Georgia, while their father

remained a determined loyalist—but died that same year. Joseph Habersham

went on to serve as Postmaster General under Presidents Washington, Adams,

and Jefferson.]

10. February 1, 1770 [18]

Duplicate letter No. 40 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to the

resignation of Mr. Grame Attorney General & the appointment of Mr. James

Hume to that office” [copy of original letter in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 199]

[Note: William Grame served as Attorney General of Georgia in the late 1760s,

acting for Charles Pryce while Pryce was on extended leave in England due to

poor health. Other sources suggest that he did not resign but died in 1769 and

was replaced by attorney James Hume. In either case, Hume also was an

acting Attorney General until Pryce returned from England. Pryce remained the

official Attorney General until 1776. In 1772, he was also appointed to the

Georgia Council (document 84 below). In 1776, he fled revolutionary Georgia

and rebuilt his fortunes as a loyalist refugee and wealthy planter on the St. Johns

River in British East Florida, purchasing half of a plantation originally developed

by American botanist William Bartram. In East Florida, he served as Chief

Justice and as a member of the colony’s Council. In 1785, he evacuated East

Florida with Britain’s other ruling elite there, as Spain prepared to reoccupy

Florida.]

11. March 1, 1770 [20]

Duplicate letter No. 41 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to

combinations against importing British Commodities into the Colonies, & the

removal of M

. [Jonathan] Bryan from his Seat of the Council Board” [original

letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

201; for other documents pertaining to Bryan, see Reel 6 document 190 (copy in

Reel 9 document 3) and Reel 7 documents 117, 118, 120, 121, 125.]

[Note: Jonathan Bryan (1708-1788) had come to Georgia in 1733 with James

Oglethorpe but moved on to settle in South Carolina. In 1740, he returned to

settle as a rice planter near Savannah. Starting when Georgia became a royal

colony in 1754, he served on the Georgia Council. By 1770, he had become out

of favor in Governor Wright’s Council because of his leaning toward the patriot

movement, so, he was removed from the Council. Later, Bryan proved to be a

grand schemer/speculator. Between 1774 and 1776, he sought to obtain lands

from Indian tribes, convincing them to sign “indenture” documents giving him use

of Indian lands not yet legally open for white settlement. A big thinker, he

claimed access to between four and five million acres in the interior of Georgia

and East Florida. The governments of both Georgia and East Florida sought to

discredit this obvious scam artist, refusing to recognize any of the deeds resulting

from his land dealings. During the Revolutionary War, Bryan was captured and

imprisoned by the British. As a result, he was financially ruined.]

12. April 12, 1770 [22]

Duplicate letter No. 42 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, acknowledging

receipt of the King’s speech to Parliament; stating that Georgians remain positive

toward the King, with “nothing further about any Resolutions” [original letter in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 202]

13. May 10, 1770 [24]

Duplicate letter No. 43 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to the

resolutions of several inhabitants against importing British Commodities”

[another duplicate letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence,

Reel 6 document 205]

14. May 11, 1770 [26]

Duplicate of letter No. 44 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “containing

an account of the proceedings of the Assembly in their last Session”, which he

perceived to be dysfunctional in relation its duties and its attitude toward the

colony’s government, with details [with enclosures, documents 15 to 18]

[another duplicate letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence,

Reel 6 document 206]

15. November 16, 1769 [30]

Extract from minutes of the Commons House of the Georgia Assembly,

concerning the need for an immediate election to elect representatives for four

parishes currently without representation, including Wright’s response, agreeing

with the principle that all inhabitants should be represented; stating that his

instructions limit him in increasing or decreasing the number of representatives

elected to the Assembly; but agreeing to seek a way to address the problem

[enclosed with Wrights letter dated May 11, 1770 to Hillsborough, document 14]

[copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

207]

[Note: The four parishes, all in southern, coastal Georgia, were then known as

St. David, St. Patrick, St. Thomas, and St. Mary Parishes. These were all in

the area between and near the Altamaha and St. Marys Rivers that, in 1763, was

claimed by both South Carolina and Georgia. Conflicting land claims in this area

were still being settled in 1767. By 1769, Georgia became confident enough to

begin the process of organizing the area by parishes for political representation.

By 1770-1771, the area became a political football, with the more “patriot”

oriented Commons House of the Assembly calling for elections to bring

representation to the area, the Governor and Council used a narrow

interpretation of royal instructions to prohibit increase the total number of

representatives, thus barring the four parishes from representation. When the

Commons House perpetrated a political crisis over popular v. royal control of

colonial government, Governor Wright finally found he had (or received from

London) the authority to call the needed elections. See Reel 1 document 63 and

following for more on this Georgia-South Carolina boundary dispute, which first

placed this area in political limbo, and from which it was still trying to emerge in

1771. See document 37 and following below concerning the political crisis that

blew up in 1770-1771.]

16. November 27, 1769 [32]

Extract from minutes of the Georgia Council at Savannah, including a

recommendation for Wright to seek a solution to the representation issue,

possibly through a change in his instructions [enclosed with Wrights letter dated

May 11, 1770 to Hillsborough, document 14] [copy in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 208]

17. February 20, 21, 1770 [34]

Extract from minutes of the Georgia Commons House, including an address from

the Commons House to Wright, suggesting that a better course to resolve the

representation issue would be to follow the clear policy of the King “that

American Governors shall cause the Settlers of the new acceded Parts of

America to be represented”; including Wright’s written response, reiterating his

position that he was not sure of his authority to make changes to the existing

representation structure and was seeking clarification; stating his opinion that

British governors did not have flexible power to change either laws or instructions

[enclosed with Wrights letter dated May 11, 1770 to Hillsborough, document 14]

[copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

209]

18. March 12, 1770 [36]

Address of the Georgia Council to Wright, considering the Commons House and

Wright’s communications following the Council meeting of February 27, 1770

[document 16]; hoping that their advice concerning the representation issue has

not hindered rather than helped the governor in resolving the issue; denying the

Commons House’s assertion of the governor’s overall authority to alter the

representation structure, with details from the royal proclamation in question

[enclosed with Wrights letter dated May 11, 1770 to Hillsborough, document 14]

[copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

210]

19. July 23, 1770 [38]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, concerning enclosure of and

observations about several bills and ordinances approved in Georgia between

February 27 and May 10, 1770 [possibly with enclosures, documents 23, 24; but

these were more likely enclosed with document 22]

20. July 20, 1770 [40]

Duplicate of letter No. 46 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “on the

temper of the Indians & of the Inhabitants of Georgia & South Carolina” [with

enclosure, document 21] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 214]

21. July 11-18, 1770 [43]

Printed issue of the South Carolina General and American Gazette”, including

articles [front page] about reducing troop strength in West Florida, [page 36]

about disruption of colonial trade because of differing policies among the

colonies on trade with Britain, [page 38] about the growing liberty movement; the

specific reason that this particular issue of the Gazette was sent to Hillsborough

is not clear [enclosed with Wright’s July 20, 1770 letter to Hillsborough,

document 20] [Frame 45 microfilmed twice]

22. July 23, 1770 [45]

Incomplete letter from Wright to the Board of Trade, missing first page;

transmitting Council minutes from July 4 to December [?] 1769; “containing

remarks on Acts passed in the last Session of Assembly, and a Bill which he

[Wright] rejected” [with probable microfilmed enclosures, documents 23, 24] [BT

number H.2; this is the first document having a BT number since document 1]

23. [no date] [47]

Address of both houses of the Georgia Assembly to Wright, concerning a bill

changing the process of elections, which Wright had declared a violation of his

instructions; notwithstanding this, requesting that Wright use all his powers as

governor to obtain altered instructions because of the desirability of the bill’s

being enacted; followed by Wright’s response that he will give the address “full

and due weight” and will send it to the Secretary of State [enclosed with Wright’s

July 23, 1770 letter to Board of Trade, probably document 22 rather than

document 19] [BT number H.3]

24. [no date] [49]

Copy of record of consideration by the two houses of the Georgia Assembly of a

bill entitled “An Act To Amend An Act, Intitled “An Act to ascertain the manner

and form of Electing Members to Represent the Inhabitants of this province in the

Commons House of Assembly”, which had passed both houses of the Assembly,

on February 16, 1770 for the Commons House and April 12 for the Upper House,

but was rejected by Wright; followed by

[no date]

Copy of text of the referenced act

[both enclosed with Wright’s July 23, 1770 letter to Board of Trade, probably

document 22 rather than document 19] [BT number H.4]

25. December 18, 1770 [54]

Letter from John Campbell, Crown Agent for Georgia, at Queen Square [London]

to [Board of Trade], reporting on “the Balance remaining in his hands of former

agents of Parliament” [BT number H.5]

26. [no date] [56]

Petition to Board of Trade from Charles William Mackinnen of Georgia, seeking

approval of a 5,000 acre grant of land in Georgia [BT number H.6]

27. February 21, 1771 [58]

Report to Board of Trade from Richard Jackson stating that, in his opinion, the

Georgia act “for ordering and governing Slaves &c” passed in May 1770 is legally

proper [BT number H.7]

[Note: Richard Jackson (c. 1721-1787) was an English attorney and politician.

As a King’s Counsel, he served as counsel for the Board of Trade, perhaps as an

independent attorney. In the 1780s, he served as one of the Lords of Treasury.

His predecessor as counsel to review acts was Matthew Lamb. For more on

Matthew Lamb, see note before Reel 1 document 18.]

28. January 8, 1771 [60]

Report to Board of Trade from Richard Jackson stating that, in his opinion,

several Georgia acts passed in 1768, including those pertaining to inspecting

tanned leather, the assize on bread, preventing the spread of small pox,

preventing frauds and deceits, preventing fraudulent mortgages and

conveyances; encouraging cultivation of hemp, flax, and wheat, are legally

proper [BT number H.8]

29. June 20, 1771 [62]

Report to Board of Trade from Richard Jackson stating that, in his opinion,

several Georgia acts passed in 1770, including those pertaining to preventing

malignant and contagious distemper, regulating wharfage rates, raising

watchmen for Savannah, reappointing Benjamin Franklin agent of Georgia in

England; appointing packers and inspectors for ports of Sunbury and Savannah;

appointing harbor masters for Savannah, are legally proper; stating his opinion

that an act identifying colonial funding to support Georgia government in 1770 is

flawed because one proposed Georgia tax on debts, which appears illegal under

British law; also questioning an act proposing another Georgia tax to pay for

providing a town watch in Savannah [BT number H.9]

30. October 8, 1770 [64]

Duplicate of letter No. 49 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to

writs of election for four southern parishes;—to the murther of two white men by

Indians;—to the burning of some Indian Huts on the Oconee River; & proposing

. Yonge to be of the Council” [BT number H.10] [original letter in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 224]

31. December 8, 1770 [66]

Duplicate of letter No. 50 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relating to

his proceedings with regard to the murder of two white men at the Oconee, & the

burning of the Indian Huts there” [with enclosures, documents 32, 33] [original

letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

227]

Note: Documents 31 to 39 are not identified with BT numbers.

32. October 2, 1770 [68]

Copy of Talk by Wright to the Lower Creek headmen concerning the murder of

white men and the burning of Indian huts [enclosed with Wright’s letter of

December 8, 1770 to Hillsborough, document 31] [copy in Secretary of State

official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 228]

33. [no date] [70]

Copy of Talk by Lower Creek headmen to Wright, responding to his Talk,

acknowledging its justice; signed by seven named headmen with their signs

[enclosed with Wright’s letter of December 8, 1770 to Hillsborough, document 31]

[copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

229]

34. December 13, 1770 [72]

Duplicate of letter No. 51 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “containing

an account of what he judges necessary for the security of the province of

Georgia, in case of a War” [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 230]

35. February 28, 1771 [76]

Duplicate of letter No. 54 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to

raising of Recruits in Georgia” [original letter in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 237]

36. February 28 and March 2, 1771 [78]

Duplicate of letter No. 55 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to

the claims of the Assembly and the temper of certain Indian Nations” [with

enclosures, documents 37 to 39] [original letter in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 238]

37. October 24, 26, 1770 [82]

Copy of address and extracts from minutes of Commons House of Georgia

Assembly to Wright, urging Wright to hold elections in four southern parishes;

followed by

October 25, 1770

Wright’s reply to Commons House, reiterating that the election laws are dictated

by the King, not the province; followed by

January 25 and February 2, 1771

Extracts from journal of Commons House authorizing another address to Wright

asking whether any new instructions have been received concerning elections, to

which Wright responded that he was still awaiting new instructions [enclosed

with Wright’s Letter of February 28 and March 2, 1771 to Hillsborough, document

36] [copy in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 239]

38. January 30, 1771 [84]

Extract from journal of Commons House of Georgia Assembly, concerning its

investigation into the state of the “several Courts of Justice” and also the “Publick

Offices”; followed by

February 18, 1771

Extract from journal of Commons House, concerning a complaint against the

deputy surveyor general “for exacting double Fees of several Persons for their

Precepts [receipts?] for Lands”, and refusal of Deputy Secretary of Georgia Mr.

Moodie to take the oath before testifying about this complaint, for which act he

was to be imprisoned; followed by

February 20, 1771

Extract from journal of Commons House, concerning the tax bill for the present

year, which was debated and not adopted because the four southern parishes

were not properly represented [enclosed with Wright’s Letter of February 28 and

March 2, 1771 to Hillsborough, document 36] [copy in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 240]

39. February 22, 1771 [86]

Extract from minutes of Georgia Council meeting, concerning the Commons

House’s recent actions, which Wright contends are “extraordinary” and extend

beyond the authority of the House; providing details of these actions, and

justifying his actions in relation to theirs, including announcing that the King has

permitted him to proceed himself with elections in the four southern parishes;

expressing his firm opinion that his duty requires him “to put a stop to such

extraordinary and intemperate proceedings”; stating that he had conveyed his

position to the Speaker of the House and that he intended to dissolve the

Assembly “at one o’clock unless they re-considered their proceedings of this

week and removed my objections thereto” [which they evidently had not done];

the Council, therefore, supporting Wright, unanimously calling for the Assembly

to be dissolved; including the text of Wright’s communication to the Upper House,

apologizing to them for dissolving the Assembly because of the actions of the

Commons House; including the Council’s address to Wright, dated February 22,

1771, stating its position supporting the Governor over the Commons House,

including congratulations for the Governor’s proceeding with elections in the four

southern parishes; including the text of Wright’s thanks for the Council’s address,

dated February 25, 1771 [enclosed with Wright’s Letter of February 28 and

March 2, 1771 to Hillsborough, document 36] [copy in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 241]

40. [no date] [90]

Memorial to Hillsborough from Wright, requesting, since treaties with the Indians

in and around Georgia have not brought peace and security to the Georgian

population, and since currently available security forces are insufficient in case of

an Indian-Georgia conflict, that additional steps be taken to circumscribe Indian

lands and to severely restrict Indian trade in all colonies; suggesting lands in the

interior area of the Broad River as a proposed more remote area to which Indians

could be moved for settlement, hoping to move both Creek and Cherokee

Indians farther northwest opening valuable new lands for English settlement;

proposing that new lands opened by the Crown for English settlement should be

allotted in grants of 50 acres or less, to white settlers with a maximum of one

black slave per white settler [in contrast to the coastal land grants in thousands of

acres to be developed into plantations with a few white settler/slave owners and

numerous slaves]; describing the benefits that would accrue from implementing

his proposals, painting a rosy future [with enclosures, documents 41 to 48] [BT

number H.11] [copy in Board of Trade Report on cession of lands in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix]

[Note: The Broad River begins in the Appalachian highlands south of today’s

Asheville, North Carolina and flows southward, emptying into the Congaree River

at Columbia, South Carolina, which flows on southward to the Atlantic Ocean.

The upper reaches of the Broad River valley were, and still are, Cherokee Indian

territory. The Creek Indians had once lived along the coast but had been moved

inland as English settlement took over the barrier islands and coastal lowlands.

Now, the English idea was to move both the Creeks and Cherokees into the

highlands, leaving the piedmont territory for the English.]

[Note: Wright’s plan to expand lands for white settlement through session of

land by Cherokee Indians in the interior area of Georgia in the area of the Broad

River was bold in itself. More bold was his financial plan to pay for the sweet

deal he proposed: For Indian agreement to cede their designated lands, they

would be rewarded by having their debts voided on trade goods with the white

Indian traders licensed by the British government. Then, once the Indian lands

became available for white settlement, the Colony of Georgia, as the new

sovereign owner of these lands, would sell them at low prices to settlers and use

the proceeds to pay off the trader debts. Documents listed below reveal pieces

of this plan as it gradually unfolded and then failed to achieve its goals (see

especially Reel 3, besides this document, documents 41 through 49, 57, 58, 61,

71, and 73 (1771 and 1772—beginning efforts to get the plan adopted); Reel 6

documents 273, 281, 285 to 287 (1772—further efforts to get the plan adopted);

Reel 7 documents 5, 7 to 10, 13 to 15, 20, 22, 23, 26, 34 (1772

-1773—

Cherokees agree to negotiated cession deal on June 16, 1773; beginning

difficulties to implement the deal in peaceful, orderly manner); Reel 7 document

102 (September 1774—violence by both Indians (to retain “their” lands) and

whites (to obtain the lands they want), prevents Georgia government from

controlling the settlement process on ceded lands in a peaceful and orderly

manner); Reel 8 document 139 (July 1780—because frontier white settlers in

ceded land areas have been frustrated in their wish for free land expansion

without government intervention, they have tended to side with the rebels against

the British in the revolutionary conflict).]

Note: Documents between 41 and 49 are not identified with BT numbers.

41. [no date] [106]

“List of Papers Relative to my Memorial about Indian Affairs with Some Notes

and Remarks thereon” by Wright [enclosed with Wright’s undated memorial,

document 40] [copy in Board of Trade report on cession of land in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix B]

42. February 22, 1771 [108]

Document signed by Cherokee Indians of the town of Chotee [a Cherokee town

somewhere in the Southeast interior], delivering certain lands near the Broad

River to their Indian traders in payment of debts; signed by eight headmen;

witnessed by three Englishmen [enclosed with Wright’s undated memorial,

document 40] [copy in Board of Trade Report on cession of land in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix B No. 1]

43. March 7, 1771 [109]

Copy of an Indian Talk at a convention of the Over Hills Cherokee chiefs at

Toogoolie [possibly Tugaloo, Georgia, now a rural state park on the upper

Savannah River], supporting the exchange of land to pay debts to the Indian

traders, which had been negotiated with John Stuart’s assistance [enclosed with

Wright’s undated memorial, document 40] [copy in Board of Trade Report in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286,

Appendix B No. 2]

44. May 3, 1771 [111]

Copy of an Indian Talk by Upper Cherokee Indians at Chotee to Wright,

requesting that he allow the exchange of land for debts being paid off [enclosed

with Wright’s undated memorial, document 40] [copy in Board of Trade Report in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286,

Appendix B No. 3]

45. May 23, 1771 [113]

Copy of Wright’s response to the Upper Cherokee Indians’ request to him

[document 44], stating that he will “represent this matter to the Great King and

intercede on your behalf”; asking that the Cherokees convince the Creeks to join

with the Cherokees in the “surrender” of land and move to new western lands “in

South Carolina or Elsewhere” [enclosed with Wright’s undated memorial,

document 40] [copy in Board of Trade Report in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix B No. 4]

46. June 8, 1771 [115]

Copy of letter from Philemon Kemp, clerk to Messrs Robert Mackay & Co.

[evidently Indian traders] at Augusta, to Wright, enclosing a Talk of Upper Creek

Indians [text copied into letter, dated May 1, 1771] relating their view of relations

with white people in South Carolina and Georgia, which had led to whites settling

more and more land, regardless of treaty boundaries; hoping to settle this

situation fairly; having heard about the deal between the Cherokee and Indian

traders, the Creeks are concerned [enclosed with Wright’s undated memorial,

document 40] [copy in Board of Trade Report in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix B No. 5]

47. June 25, 1771 [121]

Copy of Talk from Wright to a Creek chief named Emistesego, who was among

those conveying the Talk of Upper Creek Indians [document 46], seeking to

convince him to support the Cherokee-traders land deal [enclosed with Wright’s

undated memorial, document 40] [copy in Board of Trade Report in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix B No. 6]

48. June 8, 1771 [123]

Copy of record of several Talks during a meeting of Cherokee chiefs and

Cherokee traders at Fort Charlotte [probably the Fort Charlotte once located on

the South Carolina banks of the middle Savannah River, northwest of Augusta,

now under the waters of modern Lake Strom Thurmond], supporting the land-for-

paying-off-debts deal [enclosed with Wright’s undated memorial, document 40]

[copy in Board of Trade Report in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix B No. 7]

49. June 8, 1771 [127]

Memorial to Wright from the “principal Traders to the Creek & Cherokee Nations”,

after relating some history of Indian-English relations, favoring the land-for-debts

deal as in the best interest of the Indians [copy in Board of Trade Report in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286,

Appendix B No. 8]

50. November 15, 1771 [129]

Petition to Board of Trade from Lewis Dumesnil de St. Pierre, justice of the peace

for Granville County, South Carolina, living in a French settlement called New

Bordeaux [Granville County no longer exists. New Bordeaux was located

probably in today’s McCormick County, South Carolina, on the middle Savannah

River, northwest of Augusta], seeking to obtain a part of a 40,000 acre grant of

land he says he was promised by the Earl of Shelburne in Nova Scotia in 1767;

now seeking a 20,000 acre grant in Georgia [BT number H.12]

51. April 30, 1771 [131]

Duplicate of Letter No. 56 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to

the claims of the Assembly, and his having dissolved them” [BT number H.13]

[original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 243]

52. May 8, 1771 [133]

Duplicate of letter No. 57 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, thanking

Hillsborough for information on promotions in the King’s service and other news

[BT number H.14] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 247]

53. May 8, 1771 [135]

Duplicate of letter No. 58 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative to

the Creeks, and the state of Indian Trade” [BT number H.15] [original letter in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 248]

54. August 3, 1771 [137]

Duplicate of letter No. 1 from [Council] “President” [or acting governor] James

Habersham, at Savannah, to Hillsborough, notifying Hillsborough that Wright had

left for England on July 10, 1771; acknowledging receipt of various news by letter

from Hillsborough; stating that Wright had received Hillsborough’s letter No. 37

before leaving; stating his intention to follow Wright’s policies concerning “the

unwarrantable claims of the [Georgia] Assembly” [BT number H.16] [for more on

James Habersham, see the note after document 9 above] [see original letter in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 252]

[Note: While acting as governor, Habersham followed Hillsborough’s practice of

having colonial governors number their letters to him. He also followed Wright’s

practice of sending duplicates of these letters to the Board of Trade. A full

duplicate set of Habersham’s letters from No. 1 through No. 14, dated between

August 1771 and August 1772 is found in the Board of Trade incoming

correspondence.]

55. May 1, 1771 [139]

Order of the King concerning a petition from “several Inhabitants of the province

of Georgia” concerning the legitimacy of their landownership of several tracts of

land in Georgia; stating that because of their “poverty and Indigence, they are not

able to defend their Titles” to the tracts even though these are “Legal and

Equitable”; seeking relief; the King referring the petition to the Board of Trade

[petition is document 56] [part of BT number H.17]

56. May 1, 1771 [140]

Petition of several inhabitants of Georgia to the King, requesting relief in

defending their titles to certain tracts of land in Georgia, which because of

poverty, they have not been able to defend [part of BT number H.17]

57. September 26, 1771 [143]

Duplicate of letter No. 2 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to not calling an Assembly, and a proposal of the Cherokees to give up some of

their Lands” [with microfilmed enclosure, document 58] [BT number H.18]

[concerning the proposed swap of Cherokee lands for payoff of their debts to

Indian traders, see documents 42 and following above and several documents

below] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence,

Reel 6 document 254]

58. August 20, 1771 [146]

Copy of Talk at Cussiters by headmen of Lower Creek Indians, responding to a

proposal from the British and Cherokees to pay off Cherokee debts by giving

land to Britain; stating that the Lower Creeks intend to pay off their debts with

“skins” rather than land [enclosed with Habersham’s letter of September 26,

1771 to Hillsborough, document 57] [BT number H.19] [Another copy of this

Talk in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document

255]

[Note: Cussiters, a major Creek Indian village, was located on the site of modern

Cusseta, Georgia, a small town in Chattahoochee County, southeast of

Columbus, near the Alabama border. Other early spellings for the name of this

place were Cussetuh and Kashita.]

59. September 30, 1771 [148]

Duplicate of letter No. 3 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to the state of the Culture of raw Silk at Ebenezer [Georgia] [BT number H.20]

[original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 256]

[Note: Ebenezer, Georgia was a small settlement 25 miles up the Savannah

River from Savannah. Besides being a key defense location for Savannah, it

was initially settled by a group of Austrian Salzburgers. They successfully

developed a town and introduced silk production by the 1730s. Silk mills

prospered into the 1770s, but military action during the Revolutionary War left the

town in ruins. It never recovered and gradually dwindled into a ghost town, which

it remains today.]

60. January 15, 1772 [150]

Order of the King “disallowing an Act & four Ordinances passed in Georgia in

1770 for the appointment of persons to various executive Offices in that Colony;

& directing this Board [of Trade] to prepare and lay before His Majesty a draught

of an additional Instruction to the Gov

. Not to give his assent for the future to any

laws of the like nature” [BT number H.21]

61. [no date] [152]

Petition to Board of Trade from “the Merchants trading to and interested in the

Province of Georgia”, requesting that the King approve a plan Governor Wright

had placed before the Board of Trade concerning lands expected to be ceded by

the Indians to Britain [see related letter in document 73 below and in Secretary

of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 273] [BT number

H.22] [copy in Board of Trade Report on cession of lands, in Secretary of State

official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix C, along with

copies of Reel 3 documents 41 to 49; see also related documents 57, 58 above]

62. December 27, 1771 [153]

Letter from Wright at Berners Street [London] to Board of Trade, “relative to the

inexpediency of making Grants of Large Tracts of Land in America” [BT number

H.23]

63. October 23, 1771 [155]

Duplicate of letter No. 4 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to the produce of Georgia, & the temper of the Inhabitants; & of the death of M

Harris one of the Council” [BT number H.24] [original letter in Secretary of State

official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 257]

[Note: Besides being a long-time Georgia Council member, Francis Harris was

a merchant and business partner of James Habersham in what was the largest

merchant firm in Georgia.]

64. October 31, 1771 [157]

Duplicate of letter No. 5 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to the murder of a Creek Indian; & the state of the Colony with respect to Indian

Affairs, and the culture of Indigo” [with enclosure, document 65] [BT number

H.25] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 258]

65. October 29, 1771 [161]

Extract from minutes of the Georgia Council, concerning the violence of “eleven

white men” against Creek Indians who apparently had stolen some horses,

including one murder, as reported in a letter (contents summarized) from [Justice

of the Peace] Edward Barnard at Augusta; including text of affidavit, taken at

Parish St. Paul [in Wilkes County, northwest of Augusta], of Martin Weatherford,

who was Barnard’s source of information; the Council advising Habersham to

send a Talk to the Lower Creeks, expressing concern over the incident; and

advising Habersham to make some effort to identify and punish the perpetrators;

including text of Habersham’s Talk, dated the same day [enclosed in

Habersham’s letter of October 29, 1771 to Hillsborough, document 64] BT

number H.26] [copy of extracts also in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 documents 259, 260 (Habersham’s Talk)]

66. November 27, 1771 [165]

Duplicate of letter No. 6 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to proceedings in consequence of the Murder of a Creek Indian” [BT number

H.27] [original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel

6 document 262]

67. December 30, 1771 [167]

Duplicate of letter No. 7 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to the murder of an English Settler by a Creek Indian; and to Indian Affairs in

general” [with microfilmed enclosure, document 68] [BT number H.28] [original

letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence,

Reel 6 document

263]

68. December 9, 1771 [169]

Extract from minutes of Georgia Council, including texts of several

communications received from George Galphin about violence with Lower Creek

Indians; including text of a Talk to Galphin on November 2, 1771, by Lower

Creek headmen at “Chickasaw Square” concerning violence with white people;

letter from Galphin, dated December 2, 1771, to Lower Creek Indians; the

Council advising Habersham to seek immediate satisfaction for the murder of the

white settler; text of Talk by Habersham to the Creek Indian headmen and

warriors, dated December 9, 1771 concerning murder of the white settler

[enclosed with Habersham’s letter of December 30, 1771 to Hillsborough,

document 67] [BT number H.29] [another copy of extract in Secretary of State

official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 264]

[Note: George Galphin of Georgia and South Carolina was a frontier Indian

trader especially to the Lower Creek Indians and, thus also, a trader in

information useful to the British authorities. After the American Revolution

began, he sided with the “rebels” and served as the American Commissioner of

Indian Affairs for the South during most of the war. He died in 1782.]

[Note: Where Chickasaw Square is located is not clear. Most Chickasaw

villages had central squares, so this might have been any number of Chickasaw

villages. From this document, it is also not clear why Creek Indians were

engaging in Talks in a Chickasaw village, since the two tribes were generally not

friendly.]

69. January 16, 1772 [172]

Duplicate of letter No. 8 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to the importation of 250 passengers from Ireland into Georgia; & the flourishing

state of the province” [BT number H.30] [original letter in Secretary of State

official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 267]

70. March 30, 1772 [174]

Duplicate of letter No. 9 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to his purpose of negativing the Speaker of the Assembly; the temper of the

Creeks and Cherokees; and the state of the Silk Culture” [BT number H.31]

[original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 269]

[Note: The Speaker of the Assembly being “negatived

” was Noble Wimberly

Jones (c. 1723-1805). He was the son of Noble Jones (1702-1775), one of the

early settlers of Georgia with James Oglethorpe in 1733. The elder Jones served

in many positions, as constable, physician, surveyor, Indian agent, soldier,

treasurer, senior justice, and member of the Council for many years. By contrast,

the younger Jones found his political base in the Assembly, after practicing

medicine as a young man. By the late 1760s, the Council and Assembly were at

political odds over taxation and governmental control issues that were also

leading 12 other colonies to the north toward revolution. Two established

Georgia families split generationally over this conflict. James Habersham and

Noble Jones remained staunch loyalists. Their offspring, Noble W. Jones, and

John Habersham, Joseph, and James Habersham Jr sided with the Revolution.

In 1771, Governor Wright had sought to deny Noble W. Jones the speakership of

the Commons House because of his “radical” views. Habersham continued

Wright’s policy after Wright’s departure.]

71. April 24, 1772 [176]

Duplicate of letter No. 10 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to an Indian put to death for murther; the proposed cession of Land from the

Indians; and the advantage of prosecuting the Silk Culture in the back Country”

[with enclosures, documents 72, 73] [BT number H.32] [original letter in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 271]

72. April 20, 1772 [180]

Extract from minutes of a Georgia Council meeting, with text of a Lower Creek

Talk held at Chickasaw Square on March 17, 1772, concerning the murder of a

white settler and other matters, in response to Habersham’s Talk [in document

68]; followed by text of Habersham’s response dated April 20, 1772 [enclosed

with Habersham’s letter of April 24, 1772 to Hillsborough, document 71] [BT

number H.33] [another copy of extract in Secretary of State official incoming

correspondence, Reel 6 document 272] [see also copies of related extracts from

minutes of the Upper House and Commons House of the Georgia Assembly in

Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6, documents 275,

276]

73. April 16, 1772 [182]

Copy of letter from “some of the principal Merchants concerned in the Indian

Trade from Augusta” to Habersham, “relative to a proposed cession of Lands

from the Indians”’ [enclosed with Habersham’s letter of April 24, 1772 to

Hillsborough, document 71] [BT number H.34] [original letter in Secretary of

State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 273; see copies of

related petition from traders with the Indians in Georgia in document 61 above

and in Board of Trade Report on cession of lands, in Secretary of State official

incoming correspondence, Reel 6 document 286, Appendix B No. 8]

74. April 30, 1772 [185]

Duplicate of letter No. 11 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to negativing a Speaker of the Assembly; his reasons for dissolving the

Assembly; the ruinous state of the Goal, & workhouse; and the Character of M

Jones” [Noble W. Jones; see note after document 70] [BT number H.35]

[original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 274]

75. June 16, 1772 [192]

Letter from Habersham at Savannah to Board of Trade, in answer to a letter from

the Board, “respecting two Acts passed in Georgia in 1770, one for granting a

Sum for the support of Government, & the other for assessing the Inhabitants of

the Town of Savannah” [see document 29 for 1771 legal opinion on these two

acts] [BT number H.36]

76. June 15, 1772 [195]

Duplicate of letter No. 12 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to detaining publick letters;—taking care to avoid giving offence to the Indians;—

and the mourning for the Princess Dowager of Wales” [BT number H.37]

[original letter in Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 277]

77. June 15, 1772 [197]

Duplicate of letter No. 13 from Habersham at Savannah to Hillsborough, “relative

to the tranquillity & improving state of the Colony of Georgia” [BT number H.38]

[Note: This is the last of Habersham’s letters to Hillsborough to be recorded in

the microfilmed Board of Trade incoming correspondence in Reels 2 and 3 of the

Georgia Colonial Office Papers. One additional Letter No. 14, dated August 12,

1772, is found in the Secretary of State official incoming correspondence, Reel 6

document 282. This is also the last copy or duplicate of Secretary of State

official correspondence that is included in the Board of Trade papers. The

proximate reason for the change appears to be the replacement, on August 27,

1772, of Hillsborough as Secretary of State for the Colonies by the Earl of

Dartmouth. In a more general sense, as James Wright returned to Savannah in

February 1773, seeking to resume his full duties as British Governor of Colonial

Georgia, and as British-American relations deteriorated into 1775 from protest

into rebellion and then into revolution, the Board of Trade was becoming less

relevant. Its goals of making the colonies prosperous for British settlers and for

the mother country seemed less important in a changed context saturated with

political and military conflict. See also the note after document 98 below.]

78. March 6, 1769 [199]

Order of the King, concerning Governor Wright’s proposal for a law declaring all

slaves to be chattel; stating that the Governor of Georgia may assent to such a

law, but it cannot go into effect “until His Majesty’s Royal pleasure shall be known

thereupon” [BT number H.39]

79. March 1, 1771 [201]

Order of the King, approving the appointment of Henry Yonge and Anthony

Stokes as members of the Georgia Council [BT number H.40]

80. June 7, 1771 [203]

Order of the King, approving Georgia’s act concerning the governing of slaves

[defining slaves as chattel] [BT number H.41]

81. June 7, 1771 [205]

Order of the King, disapproving Georgia’s act concerning a duty on “Raw Meat

Hides Exported from this province and for preventing the Exportation of

unmerchantable Tanned Leather” [BT number H.42]

82. February 3, 1772 [207]

Copy of order of the King, approving additional instructions for Georgia and

appointment of certain Georgia officials [BT number H.43]

83. January 15, 1772 [209]

Copy of order of the King, disallowing one act and four ordinances passed in

February and May 1770, including: ordinance appointing inspectors of hemp,

flax, and wheat flour for the ports of Savannah and Sunbury; ordinance

appointing James Kitchen collector and comptroller at Sunbury; act regulating

wharfage and storage rates at Savannah; ordinance appointing packers and

inspectors at Savannah and Sunbury; and ordinance appointing Andrew Elton

Wells harbormaster at Savannah [BT number H.44]

[Note: Andrew Elton Wells Sr. (1755 [or maybe 1744]-1834) was the son of

Francis Elton Wells, an English merchant who settled in Boston. Although

Andrew’s own merchant career took him south to Georgia, his sister Elizabeth

(1735-1808) remained in Boston, marrying the revolutionary leader Samuel

Adams in 1764.]

84. March 16, 1772 [211]

Copy of order of the King, approving appointment of James Hume to replace the

deceased Francis Harris as a member of the Georgia Council [BT number H.45]

85. June 19, 1772 [213]

Copy of order of the King, concerning the petition to the Board of Trade by

“several Inhabitants” of Georgia relating to a conflict over ownership of several

tracts of land, dismissing the petition, concurring with the Board of Trade’s

recommendation [BT number H.46]

Volume 652—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Board of Trade Correspondence (incoming), end

October 31, 1772 to December 7, 1782 Documents 86 to 105 [Frames 1 to 49]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 652 concludes the Board of Trade’s incoming correspondence in the

microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia. The correspondence dwindles significantly after

1772, is nonexistent from December 1775 to April 1781, and concludes with scattered

documents dated in 1781 and 1782. See the note after document 97 for possible

reasons to explain what appears to be a large quantity of missing documents.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: Archivists (probably in the Board of Trade) wrote descriptive notes for many of

the manuscript documents, which are microfilmed with the documents. On these notes,

archivists provided their own numbers by manuscript Bundle or Volume. Where found,

this Finding Aid reports these numbers as “BT numbers.” Volume 652 begins with I.1

and ends with I.21. Every microfilmed document in this narrow Volume was assigned a

BT number, although a numbering gap exists with no microfilmed document having

been assigned the number I.10.

Note: No numbered letters appear in Volume 652 with numbers assigned by either the

secretary of state or the colonial governor.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

86. December 5, 1772 [1]

Letter from James Habersham, President of the Georgia Council [and acting

governor of the colony of Georgia], at Savannah, Georgia, to the Board of Trade

and Plantations at London, “respecting a Clause proposed to be inserted in all

future draughts of Commissions to Governors with regard to the custody of Idiots

& Lunaticks” [with enclosure, document 88] [BT number I.1] [for more on

James Habersham, see note after document 9 above]

87. October 31, 1772 [3]

Letter from Anthony Stokes [Chief Justice] and James Hume [Attorney General]

at Savannah to Habersham, stating that nothing in Georgia laws will conflict with

the proposed clause to regarding the custody of idiots and lunatics [enclosed

with Habersham’s December 5, 1772 letter to Board of Trade, document 86] [BT

number I.2] [for more on James Hume, see note after document 10 above]

88. December 30, 1773 [5]

Letter from Georgia Governor James Wright [back from leave in England] at

Savannah, to Board of Trade, “containing remarks on the Acts passed in

[Georgia] in September [1772]” [BT number I.3]

89. August 13, 1774 [9]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting copy of legal

opinion on an act passed in June 1773 and copies of minutes of both houses of

the Georgia Assembly [with enclosure(s), document 90 and probably also

documents 91 to 93, although these are not identified as such] [BT number I.4]

90. June 11, 1774 [11]

Legal opinions of Richard Jackson, concerning 15 acts and 1 ordinance of

Georgia, passed in September 1773, including an act “to enforce the payment of

the Arrears of Taxes due to this Province from Persons under Grants Signed by

the Governor of South Carolina in 1768”, which he finds improperly drawn; an act

“requiring taxes on the import of “Negros and other Slaves, Goods, Wares and

Merchandize”, which he also finds improper; and, 13 acts relating to prevention

of damages from dams and banks, prevention of stealing horses and cattle,

setting certain fees, a duty on raw hides exported, issue of stamped and signed

paper bills of credit, prevention of counterfeiting of paper money, continuing

certain acts, and establishing several ferries, plus one ordinance appointing Grey

Elliott the colony’s agent in England, all of which he finds to be proper in law [BT

number I.5] [for more on Richard Jackson, see note after document 27 above]

91. March 23, 1775 [14]

Legal opinion of Richard Jackson concerning an act of Georgia “declaring that to

murder any free Indian in Amity with this Province is equally penal as the

murdering of any White Person, and that to rescue a Prisoner committed for such

offence is Felony”, finding this act to be proper in law [BT number I.6]

92. May 25, 1775 [16]

Legal opinion of Richard Jackson concerning five Georgia acts passed in March

1774, including those pertaining to issuing signed and stamped certificates; taxes

on “the wharfs and shipping in the several Ports of this Province”; regulation of

“the Hire of Porters & Labours of Slaves in the Town of Savannah”; ascertaining

the boundary between two “courts of conscience in the Parish of St. George”;

obliging indigo planters to bury or destroy the weeds once steeped within a

limited time; finding all of them to be proper in law [BT number I.7]

93. January 20, 1775 [18]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “transmitting five Acts passed

in [Georgia] in March 1774, and containing observations upon them” [these are

the acts on which Richard Jackson offered legal opinions on May 25, 1775,

document 92] [BT number I.8]

94. April 20, 1775 [20]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “containing an account of the

state of His Majesty’s Council for [Georgia]” [BT number I.9]

95. December 22, 1775 [22]

Letter from John Robinson, Secretary to the Lords of the Treasury to John

Pownall, Secretary to the Board of Trade, “transmitting several papers respecting

the payment of a Bill of Exchange drawn by the Gov

of Georgia on the Agent of

the said Province; and desiring him to take the opinion of the Board of Trade

thereupon, and communicate the same to the Lords of the Treasury” [no

microfilmed document is identified as BT number I.10] [BT number I.11] [for

more on John Pownall, see note after Reel 1 document 7]

96. November 3, 1775 [26]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, “signifying the death of M

James Habersham, M

. Clement Martin and M

. Noble Jones, three of His

Majesty’s Council for [Georgia]” [BT number I.12]

97. November 3, 1775 [26]

Memorial to Lord George Germain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, from

John Graham, Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, at Savannah, describing his

considerable personal losses to the “rebels,” including his estate and slaves;

seeing royal approval for a salary as Lieutenant Governor, since his appointment,

to help him to support himself and his family [BT number I.13]

[Note: Lord George Germain, 1

Viscount Sackville (1716-1785) served as

Secretary of State for the Colonies during the wartime Lord North administration,

from November 1775 to February 1782. Between the Earl of Hillsborough’s

tenure as Secretary of State for the Colonies (from February 1768 to August

1772 (see note after Reel 2 document 137), and Germain’s time of service,

William Legge, 2

Earl of Dartmouth (1731-1801), served in this position,

from, August 1772 to November 1775.]

[Note: A gap exists here in the dates of microfilmed documents between

December 22, 1775 (document 95) and April 9, 1781 (document 99). The gap

does not appear to be the result of lost documents, so it may have to do with the

Revolutionary War context of the period. Generally, this gap represents a period

during which political and military matters dominated British governmental

concerns and resources. The Board of Trade’s concerns with encouraging

economic growth and prosperity in the North American colonies were not only

reduced in relative importance but became virtually impossible to implement.

Specifically in Georgia, the British colony lacked a functioning civil government

(the public authority structure on which successful private enterprise relies)

between March 1776 and July 1779. Although a civil government existed in

Savannah from July 1779 to July 1782, most of the territory of Georgia,

especially the interior frontier areas, were beyond the practical control of the

Georgia colonial government. Most of Georgia was in the hands of Georgian

“rebels.” Although the State of Georgia’s first constitution was ratified in

February 1777, resumed British control in Savannah, starting in 1779, impeded

development of state governmental authority until after 1782. See also the note

after document 77 above.]

98. June 8, 1781 [28]

Letter from William Knox at Whitehall to Grey Elliott, conveying, at Germain’s

request, an act of Georgia concerning royal duties on exported products, along

with the Governor’s letter to Germain; requesting that these documents be

referred to the Board of Trade [both Knox and Elliott had previously served as

Crown Agent for Georgia; by 1781, each was apparently working for the Board of

Trade in London] [with enclosure, document 99] [BT number I.14]

99. April 9, 1781 [30]

Extract from letter from Wright at Savannah to Germain, conveying the Georgia

act concerning royal duties on exported products [BT number I.15] [see

transcription of Wright’s full Letter No. 40 of this date, to Germain, microfilmed in

the summary letterbook of incoming Secretary of State official correspondence

found in Reel 10, document 250; no original, copy, or duplicate of this full letter is

found in these microfilmed papers]

100. June 11, 1781 [32]

Legal opinion of Richard Jackson concerning an act for royal duties on exported

products, which he finds to be problematic in its wording but with changes might

be made proper in law [BT number I.16]

101. [no date] [34]

Petition of “Merchants of London Trading to the Provinces of South Carolina and

Georgia” , concerning the preservation of old property and contract rights as

affected by changes of control during the Revolutionary War; signed by 6

individuals [Frame 34 microfilmed twice] [BT number I.17]

102. May 1, 1781 [38]

Duplicate of letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, reporting having

received the Board’s December 13, 1780 letter “which will be duly attended to”

[BT number I.18]

[Note: Letters from colonial governors were often sent multiple times on

separate ships, in hopes that one of the letters would get through or get through

faster to England. Thus, an “original” letter would be sent plus perhaps several

“duplicate” letters. A “copy” was usually the copy of a letter sent possibly at a

later time and usually to another recipient. Use of these terminology conventions

was usually but not always observed. Thus, a document identified as a

“duplicate” might in fact be a “copy” or vice versa.]

103. “Thursday Morn”; “Rec/d Feb

15, 1782” [40]

Note from Mr. West to Mr. Cumberland, Secretary to Board of Trade, concerning

public money remaining in the hands of Mrs. Campbell, executrix for the estate of

the late Dr. Campbell, Agent for Georgia; requesting that the Board of Trade be

notified that the balance remains unknown despite attempts to obtain that

information from Mrs. Campbell [BT number I.19]

104. January 23, 1782 [42]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Board of Trade, transmitting copies of 93 laws

passed between July 1780 and August 1781, along with copies of journals of the

Commons House of the Assembly From May 5, 1780 to December 19, 1781;

stating that “I wish it were in my Power to give your Lordships any agreeable

Account of our Situation here, but that from a Variety of Unfortunate Events, I

cannot so. We are now Confined almost to our Lines round the Town and are

expecting a Powerfull Attack every day” [BT number I.20]

105. December 7, 1782 [44]

Legal opinion by William Selwyn at Lincoln’s Inn, on 31 Georgia acts passed in

1780 and 1781, including acts disqualifying certain people from holding office in

Georgia; providing relief to loyal inhabitants of Georgia or having property there;

consolidating laws pertaining to regulating the town and common of Savannah;

limiting legal actions; continuing several previous laws; providing relief to loyal

subjects with real or personal property; licensing and taxing auctions;

consolidating laws on jurors and jury balloting and summoning; regulating

piloting; regulating “Taverns, punch-houses and Retailers of Spiritous Liquors”

(two acts); consolidating laws concerning keeping and repairing fortifications and

other defense works; concerning loss of bonds and mortgages executed “by the

Debtors of the Public”; providing relief for “the people called Quakers”; securing

the royal colony against “the wicked attempts and Designs of rebels and other

disaffected persons”; appointing commissioners to manage “all deserted property

Idle and runaway Slaves”; regulating internal trade; identifying certain persons as

traitors if they do not surrender to justice within a certain time; plus amendment

of this act; improving the justice of the peace process; requirements for returning

inventories and accounts of estates; conveying certain tracts of land for

designated [public] uses; prevention of “fraud and Deceit in selling” various

goods; subdividing the parish of St. Paul following the ceding by Indians of lands

to Britain in this area; authorizing a shipping embargo in Georgia’s ports;

consolidating laws pertaining to the militia; revising laws for parish boundaries

and establishment of Church of England religious practice; collecting debts due

to the public treasury; and a duty on auctions; pointing out many clerical errors in

many of the acts, that some were implemented before being approved by the

British government, and that others can no longer be implemented because of

the situation in Georgia; nevertheless, stating that all of the

se are proper in law;

concerning two additional laws, one protecting creditors from “Judgments

confessed by Fraud”, and the other concerning the attachment of estates of

absent debtors, both of which have legal problems [BT number I.21]

[Note: This is probably William Selwyn (1732-1817), a prominent and well

connected London attorney. His son William Selwyn (born in 1775) was, if

anything, even more prominent and well connected. Sometime between June

1781 and December 1782, the elder Selwyn apparently replaced Richard

Jackson as the attorney assigned by the Board of Trade to review the legal

propriety of Georgia laws. For more on Richard Jackson, see document 27

above.]

Volume 653—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Board of Trade Correspondence (outgoing), Drafts

June 21, 1754 to June 29, 1758 Documents 106 to 134 [Frames 1 to 115]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: The Board of Trade correspondence having concluded in Volume 652, this

Volume 653 is identified as “Drafts.” These consist of marked up drafts of documents

outgoing from the Board of Trade, mostly to the King, a Secretary of State, or the

Governor or Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, dated between 1754 and 1758.

Chronologically, these documents come before those in Volume 648. Also, they also

are the only outgoing correspondence of the Board of Trade in the microfilmed papers

of colonial Georgia owned by DLAR. Other Board of Trade outgoing correspondence,

dated between 1752 and 1781, is found in Volumes 672 to 674, which are not included

in the microfilmed papers owned by DLAR.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: Archivists (probably in the Board of Trade) wrote descriptive notes for many of

the manuscript documents, which are microfilmed with the documents. For some

Volumes, archivists provided their own numbers by manuscript Bundle or Volume. No

such numbers are assigned to documents in Volume 653, perhaps because the

documents are “drafts.”

Note: No numbered letters appear in Volume 653 with numbers assigned by either the

secretary of state or the colonial governor.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

106. June 21, 1754 [1]

Draft of response from the Board of Trade and Plantations at Whitehall to the

King’s order to devise a public seal for the royal colony of Georgia; signed by

“Dunk Halifax,” J. Pitt, James Oswald, and R. Edgcumbe [Dunk Halifax is

George Montagu-Dunk, 2

Earl of Halifax, the First Lord of the Board of Trade

between 1748 and 1761; the others were Lords of the Board of Trade in 1754]

[for more on the transition of Georgia from a trustee colony to a royal colony, see

note after Reel 1 document 1]

107. [?] 1754 [2]

Draft of King’s order to devise a public seal for the royal colony of Georgia

108. August 6, 1754 [4]

Draft of approval by the Board of Trade at Whitehall of the warrant for Georgia’s

seal

109. August 6, 1754 [5]

Draft of King’s warrant appointing William Clifton to be attorney general of

Georgia, directed to John Reynolds, Governor of Georgia

[Note: Georgia was first established as a British colony in 1732 by a private

group of English trustees, only one of whom, James Oglethorpe, went to

Georgia to settle and to lead development of the colony. Control of a colony by a

group of trustees mostly in England was not efficient and Georgia did not thrive.

In 1752, the King intervened, re-establishing Georgia as a royal colony.]

[Note: John Reynolds was the first governor of the Royal Colony of Georgia.

He held the position from sometime in 1752 until 1758. In July 1756, the Board

of Trade documented to the King large numbers of instances and allegations in

which Reynolds’ conduct suggested a singular lack of administrative competency

(document 121 below). In July 1757 Reynolds was ordered to England to

answer for his conduct (document 125), and in April 1758, the King replaced

Reynolds with Georgia’s 2

royal governor, Henry Ellis (document 128). Ellis

was much more competent, but poor health led him to request that he be relieved

to return to England. In December 1760 James Wright replaced Ellis as

Georgia’s 3

and last Royal Governor. See the note after Reel 1 document 1 for

more on Governors Reynolds and Ellis. See the note after Reel 1 document 9

for more on Governor Wright.]

[Note: William Clifton was a strong-willed attorney and judge. For 10 years,

from 1754 to 1764, he served as the first Attorney General of the Royal Colony of

Georgia. Both he and the first Chief Justice, William Grover, were frequently

controversial and in conflict with the Governor. After East and West Florida

became new British colonies in 1763, Clifton left Georgia, having been appointed

the first Chief Justice of West Florida in 1764. Like Governors Ellis and then

Wright in Georgia, West Florida’s first Governor, George Johnstone had a stormy

relationship with Clifton. However, in West Florida it was Clifton who survived in

the long run, as Johnstone was recalled and replaced as governor in 1767, and

Clifton remained as Chief Justice until 1781, when the Spanish conquered West

Florida, ending the existence of this short-lived British colony.]

110. August 6, 1754 [8]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade sending to the King a warrant prepared at his

request for appointment of James Habersham to be “Secretary and Register of

the Records for Georgia”, for the King’s signature; signed by Halifax, J. Grenville,

Oswald, and Andrew Stone [Frame 8 microfilmed twice]

111. August 6, 1754 [9]

Draft of King’s warrant appointing James Habersham to be Secretary of the

colony of Georgia

112. August 6, 1754 [11]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Secretary of State Thomas

Robinson, sending requested warrant appointing Alexander Kellet Provost

Marshal of Georgia, for the King’s signature; signed by Halifax, Grenville, and

Oswald

[Note: 1

Baron Grantham, Thomas Robinson (1695-1770) served as

Secretary of State for the Southern Department from March to October 1754.]

113. [no date] [12]

Draft of King’s warrant appointing Alexander Kellet Provost Marshal of Georgia

114. August 6, 1754 [15]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Robinson, sending requested

warrant appointing William Russell Naval Officer for Georgia for the King’s

signature; signed by Halifax, Grenville, and Oswald

115. August 6, 1754 [16]

Draft of King’s warrant appointing Russell Naval Officer for Georgia; sent to

Reynolds

116. August 6, 1754 [19]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall, sending requested warrant

authorizing and directing Governor Reynolds to use the seal of Georgia; signed

by Halifax, Grenville, and Oswald

117. August 6, 1754 [20]

Draft of King’s warrant authorizing and directing Governor Reynolds to use the

seal of Georgia

118. December 17, 1754 [23]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall, sending requested warrant

directing Reynolds to appoint Clement Martin to the Georgia Council, for the

King’s signature; signed by Halifax, Grenville, Francis Fane, and Edgcumbe

119. December 17, 1754 [24]

Draft of King’s warrant directing Reynolds to appoint Clement Martin to the

Georgia Council; sent to Reynolds

120. May 5, 1756 [26]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Reynolds, responding to

several requests and complaints from Reynolds; requesting that he establish

more regular communication with London, via Charleston; concerning

instructions previously sent about establishment of an Assembly and of fees for

the colony, empowering the governor to assent to bills from the Assembly and

Council as long as they are first transmitted to the King for approval and

“suspending their Execution until His Majesty’s Pleasure could be known”;

granting Parliamentary financial support for the colony from midsummer 1755 to

midsummer 1756 totaling £3,557.10.0, to be spent according to the enclosed

estimate; concerning salaries for public officials; requesting information

concerning what funding is needed for defense purposes; concerning making

specie available for use by the colony; deferring judgment on complaints about

Council members, especially Clement Martin; encouraging Reynolds to resolve

these issues himself; expressing surprise that Reynolds might have been

confused about correspondence from Secretary Habersham; concerning land

grants, their proper titles, and payment of quit rents; generally approving certain

actions of Reynolds but criticizing others and suggesting better alternative

actions; signed by Halifax, Oswald, J. Talbot, Richard Rigby, and W. G. Hamilton

121. July 29, 1756 [36]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to the King, concerning numerous

problematic aspects of Reynolds’ conduct as governor; including his reported

dissolution of the Georgia Assembly with attendant “great disorder” and

“discontent and uneasiness”; concluding based on all the information available

“that the Colony is in a declining State, that no people of Substance have Lately

come into it…and that little or no Trade is carried on”; that little preparation has

been made for defense; that the governor has been unwilling to accept advice

from the Council; that private allegations suggest additional problems with

Reynold’s rule as governor, including the governor’s use of his private secretary,

Mr. Little, for public business, including of dealing with Mr. and Mrs. Bosomworth

[see note after Reel 1 document 10] on Indian affairs, for which he had no

experience, with detailed description; that the governor has failed to assist

properly or accept into the colony a group of newly arrived French settlers from

Nova Scotia, with details; that the governor’s working relationship with the

Assembly has been negative, with details; that the governor’s o

wn accounts of

many of these matters are quite different from information available from others;

because of all these deficiencies in Reynolds’ conduct as governor,

recommending “that M

. Reynolds be forthwith directed to return home” so that

the entire matter can be accounted for to the King, leaving a lieutenant governor,

with instructions, in charge in Georgia, and recommending that Henry Ellis, a

man of high qualifications, be appointed Lieutenant Governor; signed by Halifax,

Oswald, Stone, and Hamilton [delivered copy of this report in Secretary of State

document papers, Reel 5 document 223]

122. August 4, 1756 [63]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade to Henry Fox, Secretary of State for the

Southern Department, sending a requested “Commission, constituting &

appointing Henry Ellis” to be Georgia’s Lieutenant Governor during Reynolds’

absence, for the King’s signature

123. August 4, 1756 [64]

Draft of the King’s order appointing Henry Ellis Lieutenant Governor of Georgia

124. December 24, 1756 [67]

Draft of report from Board of Trade at Whitehall to the King [perhaps via

Secretary of State William Pitt the Elder], reporting receipt of two letters from

Reynolds with news about death of an important Creek “emperor”, and potentially

negative implications for relations with the French; noting that Georgia’s “infant

colony” “is in a very defenceless state”; differing with different information about

the reaction in Georgia from Reynolds’ account; with details of both Indian

relations and the lack of military preparedness and strength in Georgia; with

speculation about potential French offensive action against Georgia; signed by

Halifax, Oswald, Stone, and Hamilton

[Note: The French and Indian War, fought between the North American

colonies of England and France, began in western Pennsylvania in 1754, lasting

until 1763. Each side sought to befriend the neighboring Indian tribes and to

enlist their warriors into the conflict on their colonies’ side. This colonial war was

part of the larger European conflict called the Seven Years War (1756-1763).]

125. July 13, 1757 [75]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to William Pitt, informing him that,

as requested, Governor Reynolds has been informed to come to England to

answer for his conduct as governor; signed by Stone, Rigby, and Hamilton

126. February 23, 1758 [77]

Draft of estimate of the civil establishment of Georgia and other incidental

expenses from June 24, 1757 to June 24, 1758, totaling £3,557.10.0

127. April 11, 1758 [79]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, concerning

correspondence received from Ellis about relations with the Creek Indians and

Spanish and about Georgia’s military readiness; signed by Halifax, Thomas

Pelham, Hamilton, and William Sloper [a former Georgia Trustee]

128. April 21, 1758

[81]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to the King, concerning the inquiry

into the conduct of Governor Reynolds, drawing the conclusion that “it is not

expedient for your Majesty’s Service that he should be continued in the

Governm

.” of Georgia; therefore, recommending Lieutenant Governor Henry

Ellis to become Governor of Georgia; signed by Halifax, Hamilton, Sloper,

Oswald, and Soame Jenyns

129. April 21, 1758 [83]

Draft of letter from John Pownall, Secretary to the Board of Trade, at Whitehall,

to Lieutenant Governor Ellis, sending him copies of “an address &

Representations of the late Assembly of Georgia” [for more on John Pownall,

see note after Reel 1 document 7]

130. April 21, 1758 [85]

Draft of letter from [?] at Whitehall to Lieutenant Governor Ellis, concerning

difficulties and uncertainties of delivery of correspondence from Georgia to

London; offering a lengthy statement about the status of the Georgia colony and

goals for its development, possibly to guide Ellis as Lieutenant Governor or as he

moved from Lieutenant Governor to Governor

131. [no date—probably in 1758] [104]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade, to [? possibly a Secretary of State],

concerning “The Settlement of Gray and his adherents to the Southward of the

Alatamaha and their forming themselves into a civil community without…authority

of the Crown”; related issues of Spanish influence and potential expansion in this

area; signed by Halifax, Hamilton, Sloper, Oswald

[Note: William Gray was a land developer and settler of coastal lands between

the Altamaha River and the St. Marys River. Besides being near the boundary

between British Georgia and Spanish Florida, this territory was considered Indian

land until the early 1760s. In 1763, the Spanish lost Florida at the end of the

Seven Years War/French and Indian War, and the British established separate

colonies of East Florida and West Florida. At about the same time, the Creek

Indians ceded the coastal territory south of the Altamaha River. Between 1763

and 1767 both South Carolina and Georgia claimed this territory and sought to

develop white settlement in the area. See Reel 2, especially documents 36, 64,

86, and 109, and others between these, for more on this inter-colony dispute and

its resolution in London, through which Georgia finally prevailed. See also Reel 1

document 51 for a different conflict Gray had over ownership of land also claimed

by former Governor Reynolds.]

132. May 3, 1758 [107]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade to Pitt, concerning English settlements south

of the Altamaha River and the lingering uncertainties of conflicting South

Carolina-Georgia land grant claims, which need to be clarified; signed by Jenyns,

Hamilton, Sloper, Halifax, Oswald, Pelham

133. May 12, 1758 [111]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade to the King, sending the requested

commission for Ellis to assume authority as Governor of Georgia, for his

signature

134. June 29, 1758 [113]

Draft of letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to the King, sending the

requested General Instructions for Ellis as he becomes Governor of Georgia, for

his signature; signed by Halifax, Oswald, Jenyns

Reel 4 (Volumes 654, 655)

Volume 654—Itemized, Annotated Contents [not itemized in this finding aid]

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), begin

August 13, 1735 to December 12, 1741 Documents 1 to 217 [Frames 1 to 410]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 654 begins the incoming Secretary of State official correspondence,

during the period of the proprietary trustee colony of Georgia, in the Colonial Office

papers of Georgia. The microfilmed documents are copies written into a letterbook.

Note: Unlike the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State office did not assign archival

numbers to documents, in Volume 254 probably because the documents are copies in a

letterbook.

Note: No numbered letters appear in Volume 654 with numbers assigned by either the

secretary of state or the colonial governor.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. Cover page and table of contents for letterbook [1]

“Georgia: Letters from Gov

. Oglethorpe and the Trustees for the Colony From

13 Aug

1735 To 12 Dec

1741, No. 20”; apparently letterbook #20 of a set

probably going back probably to the founding of the trustee-controlled Georgia

Colony in 1732; this letterbook contains 216 documents, which are itemized in

the table of contents (Frames 1 to 15); the documents themselves follow (Frames

16 to 410). These documents (which would be documents 2 to 217 here) are not

itemized in this Finding Aid, since DLAR’s interest focuses on the Royal Colony,

which was established in 1752.

Volume 655—Itemized, Annotated Contents [not itemized in this finding aid]

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

January 13, 1742 to May 18, 1747 Documents 218 to 399 [Frames 1 to 343]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 655 continues from Volume 654 the incoming Secretary of State official

correspondence, during the period of the proprietary trustee colony of Georgia, in the

microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia. The microfilmed documents are copies written

into a letterbook.

Note: Unlike the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State office did not assign archival

numbers to documents, in Volume 655 probably because the documents are copies in a

letterbook.

Note: No numbered letters appear in Volume 655 with numbers assigned by either the

secretary of state or the colonial governor.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

218. Cover page and contents for letterbook [1]

“Georgia: Letters from Gov

. Oglethorpe, the Trustees for the Colony [and] Mr.

Verelst &c

. From 13 Jan

1742 To 18 May 1747, No. 21”; apparently letterbook

#21 of a set probably going back probably to the founding of the trustee-

controlled Georgia Colony in 1732; this letterbook contains 181 documents,

which are itemized in the table of contents (Frames 1 to 13); the documents

themselves follow (Frames 14 to 343). These documents (which would be

documents 219 to 399 here) are not itemized in this Finding Aid, since DLAR’s

interest focuses on the Royal Colony, which was established in 1752.

[Note: This Herman Verelst appears to come from the family which, for two

generations before him, produced several noted English painters. This Verelst

was not a painter. Rather, he served as accountant to the Georgia trustees and

a private agent for James Oglethorpe.]

Reel 5 (Volumes 656, 657)

Volume 656—Itemized, Annotated Contents [not itemized in this finding aid]

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

August 18, 1747 to August 28, 1751 Documents 1 to 178 [Frames 1 to 242]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 656 continues from Volume 655 the incoming Secretary of State official

correspondence in the microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia, concluding the period of

the proprietary trustee colony of Georgia. The microfilmed documents are copies

written into a letterbook.

Note: Unlike the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State office did not assign archival

numbers to documents, in Volume 655 probably because the documents are copies in a

letterbook.

Note: No numbered letters appear in Volume 655 with numbers assigned by either the

secretary of state or the colonial governor.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. Cover page and contents for letterbook [1]

“Georgia: Letters, Memorials &c from The Trustees for the Colony From 18 Aug

1747 To 28 Aug

1751, No. 22”; apparently letterbook #22 of a set probably

going back probably to the founding of the trustee-controlled Georgia Colony in

1732; this letterbook contains 177 documents, which are itemized in the table of

contents (Frames 1 to 7); the documents themselves follow (Frames 10 to 242).

These documents (which would be documents 2 to 178 here) are not itemized in

this Finding Aid, since DLAR’s interest focuses on the Royal Colony, which was

established in 1752.

Volume 657—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Other Correspondence, (Board of Trade

correspondence to Secretary of State and other, not official

documents), continued

November 21, 1733 to February 2, 1785 Documents 179 to 279 [Frames 1 to 289]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 657 continues the Secretary of State’s microfilmed papers in the Colonial

Office papers of Georgia. However, this Volume is not a continuation of official

incoming correspondence from Volume 656. Instead, it includes various kinds of “other”

documents that are not official Secretary of State correspondence. These include

memorials and petitions, and correspondence from the Board of Trade to the Secretary

of State, with scattered dates from 1733 to 1785. These are not arranged consistently

in chronological order, and documents are concentrated in certain years, especially:

1741-1742 (concerning defense preparedness against Spain and Indians);

1752-1761 (concerning establishment and development of the royal colony and defense

against Indians during the French and Indian War);

1779-1780 (concerning the siege of Savannah, its occupation by Britain, and re-

establishment of a Georgia colony limited to the Savannah area); and

1782-1783 (concerning the end of the Revolutionary War and of the British Colony of

Georgia).

Note: Because Volume 657 does not consist of “official” correspondence, no letters are

found here identified with a letter number assigned by either the secretary of state or the

colonial governor.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

179. 1764 [1]

Printed “Journal of the Congress of the four Southern Governors, and the

Superintendent of that district with the Five Nations of Indians, at [Fort] Augusta,

1763”, printed by Peter Timothy at Charleston, South Carolina in 1764; with

dated entries from October 1 through November 21, 1763; the four governors

were James Wright of Georgia, Thomas Boone of South Carolina, Arthur Dobbs

of North Carolina, Lieutenant Governor Francis Fauquier of Virg

inia; the

superintendent was John Stuart, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the

Southern District; the five Indian Nations were the Upper and Lower Chickasaws,

the Choctaws, the Upper and Lower Creeks, the Cherokees, and the Catawbas;

concluding with a treaty of peace and friendship dated November 10, 1763;

followed by subsequent correspondence with British officials in London, dated

between November 10 and November 21, 1763 [handwritten copy of this treaty

in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 79]

180. [no date but received on March 26, 1742] [26]

Memorial to the King from the “Trustees for establishing the colony of Georgia in

America”, after explaining their reasons, “humbly Pray[ing] your Majesty to take

the Premises [of Georgia] into your wise consideration, that by your Majesty‘s

Royal Directions they may be able to proceed in the Execution of their Trust; lest

thro their inability to discharge their Duty; so great a Detriment should befall your

Majesty’s Service and dominions, as the loss of this important Province” [this

memorial appears to presage action taken by the King a decade later, in 1752, to

establish a Royal Colony in Georgia, replacing rule by the trustees]

181. August 10, 1737 [28]

Memorial to the King from the Trustees of Georgia concerning defense against

the Spanish

182. October 20, 1736 [30]

Representation to the King from the trustees of Georgia, concerning complaints

by the Spanish against actions by inhabitants of British Georgia

183. June 4, 1745 [32]

Report from [Herman Verelst] to the Lords Justices of Britain concerning German

“Foreign Protestants” at Gosport [at the mouth of Portsmouth harbor, England]

[for more on Herman Verelst, see note after Reel 4 document 218]; followed by

[no date]

“An Estimate of the Expences of Clothing, Bedding, Arms, Ammunition, working

Tools, Passage, brickalling [?] and Necessarys” on board a vessel with German

Protestants “brought into Plymouth Harbour, by the Drake cartel Ship from

Spain”, with details of costs and a total cost of £2,998.7.6

[Note: The British governmental system has used the institution of a council of

Lords Justices to exercise occasionally and temporarily a high level substitute

for royal rule when a monarch is out of the country or indisposed. In the Georgia

Colonial Papers, this institution is mentioned in only two years, 1745 and 1752,

both during the reign of King George II. See also document 278 below]

184. June 4, 1745 [35]

Report from Verelst to the Lords Justices concerning the German Protestants at

Gosport and the possibility of sending them on to Georgia “to join their

Countrymen”

185. June 26, 1745 [37]

Letter from Verelst at Queen Square, Westminster, to the Lords Justices,

concerning the German Protestants

186. June 26, 1745 [39]

Memorial to the King from [?] concerning the King’s “title to Georgia”

187. July 22, 1748 [41]

Letter from Verelst to the Duke of Bedford, concerning purchase of presents for

Indians and Verelst’s role in the Indian trade in Georgia

188. October 13, 1741 [43]

Petition to Oglethorpe as commander of British troops in South Carolina and

Georgia from seven named “masters” and 47 additional prisoners at St.

Augustine, seeking exchange

189. November 21, 1733 [45]

Statement that the Trustees will give 50 acres of land to any settler over 20 years

of age who pays his way to Georgia and can subsist there on his own

190. October 27, 1741 [47]

Statement from the Office of Ordnance to the Duke of Montagu, Master-General

of the Ordnance, responding to Oglethorpe’s request for “a Train of artillery,

arms, and ammunition” for Georgia’s defense against Spain; stating that an

adequate response was not possible without knowing what Georgia already had

and raising questions about an account to pay for the request [with enclosures,

documents 191 to 197]

[Note: John Montagu, 2

Duke of Montagu (1690-1749) served as Master-

General of the Ordnance from 1740 to 1742. He held various other military

positions before and after.]

191. December 10, 1741 [49]

“Proportions of Ordnance and Stores proposed for the Forts also a Battering

Train at Georgia” [enclosed with the Office of Ordnance’s October 27, 1741

statement to the Duke of Montagu, document 190]

192. [no date] [55]

“An Abstract of Iron Ordnance Mortars Round Shott &c sent to South Carolina

and Georgia from the year 1730 to 1739 Inclusive Also of what is proposed to

be sent to Georgia (1741) if Approved of” [enclosed with the Office of

Ordnance’s October 27, 1741 statement to the Duke of Montagu, document 190]

193. October 22, 1741 [56]

“An Account of ordnance & stores to the province of south Carolina in the year

1731 by the ship Loyal Judith” [enclosed with the Office of Ordnance’s October

27, 1741 statement to the Duke of Montagu, document 190]

194. October 22, 1741 [58]

“An Account of Musquets &c for Arming the Company of Grenadiers now

Ordered to be added to the Regiment of Foot at Georgia”, as ordered on May 23,

1741 [enclosed with the Office of Ordnance’s October 27, 1741 statement to the

Duke of Montagu, document 190]

195. October 22, 1741 [60]

Account of arms, ammunition, Bedding, Tents, tools, and other ordnance stores

delivered to Georgia in 1738 [enclosed with the Office of Ordnance’s October

27, 1741 statement to the Duke of Montagu, document 190]

196. October 22, 1741 [66]

Account of ordnance and stores, sent to Oglethorpe on the ship Charming Philley

for the defense and security of South Carolina and Georgia, on September 28,

1739 [enclosed with the Office of Ordnance’s October 27, 1741 statement to the

Duke of Montagu, document 190]

197. October 22, 1741 [68]

Account of ordnance and stores sent to South Carolina in 1739 on the ship

Prince Galley as ordered by the King on July 31, 1738 [enclosed with the Office

of Ordnance’s October 27, 1741 statement to the Duke of Montagu, document

190]

198. December 10, 1741 [70]

Report from Montagu to “My Lord” [probably Secretary of State the Duke of

Newcastle] on Oglethorpe’s request for ordnance stores

199. July 6, 1743 [72]

Petition from Verelst, “Private Agent” for Oglethorpe to Secretary of State the

Duke of Newcastle, concerning Oglethorpe’s having made payments from

personal funds to cover Georgia expenses; seeking payment to Oglethorpe of

certain bills [identified as being enclosed with Mr. Stone’s & Mr. Martin’s letter of

August 12,

1743, which is not microfilmed here; documents 200-203 may have

been enclosed with this petition as well]

[Note: Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1

Duke of Newcastle (1693-1768) was a

prominent, high-level Whig politician in England for many years. From 1727 until

1748, he served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department. After

switching to be Secretary of State for the Northern Department from 1748 to

1754, he was chosen to be prime minister from 1754 to 1756 and again from

1757 to 1762.]

[Note: This Mr. Stone may be Andrew Stone, later a member of the Board of

Trade. This Mr. Martin may be Benjamin Martyn (1698-1763), secretary for the

Trustees for the Establishment of the Colony of Georgia in North America from

1732 to 1752.]

200. June 5, 1742 [73]

Copy of letter from Oglethorpe at [Fort] Frederica, Georgia [on St. Simons Island,

the first sea island south of the Altamaha River] to Verelst, concerning his

personal payment of Georgia expenses

201. June 7, 1742 [74]

Copy of certification by Charles Mackay that he received from Oglethorpe “full

Subsistence & arrears for the Highland Independent Company”, which he now

commanded

202. August 13, 1742 [75]

Copy of letter from Oglethorpe at Frederica to Verelst, concerning another

payment he has made for Georgia expenses

203. August 16, 1742 [75]

Copy of letter from Oglethorpe at Frederica to Verelst, concerning another

payment he has made for Georgia expenses

204. August 17, 1742 [76]

Copy of letter from Oglethorpe at Frederica to Verelst, concerning another

payment he has made for Georgia expenses

205. [no date] [78]

Copy of memorial of Oglethorpe to Secretary of State Newcastle requesting

ordnance stores for Georgia’s defense [this may be Oglethorpe’s request

referenced in Montagu’s report, document 198]

206. January 28, 1748/7 [80]

“Letter from M

. Benjamin Martyn to John Potter Esq

relative to the Trustees in

Georgia petitioning the House of Commons for a supply of provisions for the

Soldiers quartered there with his answer thereto”

207. February 2, 1748/9 [83]

“Letter from M

Martyn [at the Georgia Office] to ___________desiring means

may be taken to contradict reports that have been printed in the Hague French

Gazette asserting that an Order has been issued for disbanding the regiment of

Foot in Georgia”

208. May 29, 1749 [83]

Letter from Martyn at the “Georgia Office” to Richard Neville Aldworth, “stating

that several German Protestants have applied to the Trustees of Georgia

respecting leaving their present habitations and settling in South Carolina”

[Note: Richard Neville Aldworth Neville (1717-1793) was a Whig politician

who served as Undersecretary of State for the Southern Department from 1748

to 1751.]

209. July 14, 1749 [89]

Copy of letter from Aldworth at Whitehall to Martyn, “referring to the Trustees of

Georgia, certain inclosed Letters & Papers relating to Indian accounts”

210. July 31, 1749 [92]

Letter from Veralst to Aldworth, concerning the independent military companies

stationed in South Carolina

211. June 24, 1752 [95]

“Report of the Lords Commissioners for Trade upon the Memorial of the Trustees

of Georgia praying that the encouragement they have given for the produce and

culture of raw silk in that Colony may be continued”; signed by Dunk Halifax, J.

Grenville, Viscount Dupplin (Thomas Hay, 9

Earl of Kinnoull), and Charles

Townshend [later First Lord of the Admiralty and later yet author of the

Townshend Acts just before he died in 1767]; note stating that this report was

“sent to the [then Secretary of State for the Northern Department, the] D[uke] of

Newcastle 3

. July 1752”

[Note: Britain’s Georgia Colony had been founded in 1732 as a proprietorship of

Trustees for the Establishment of the Colony of Georgia in North America.

Twenty years later, the King decided to take over control of the colony, re-

establishing it as a Royal Colony in 1752. See note after Reel 3 document 109.

Documents 212 to 215 reflect actions taken as part of the transition to a royal

colony.]

212. July 24, 1754 [100]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Secretary of State for the Southern

Department Thomas Robinson, “recommending Mr. [William] Russell to be Naval

Officer in the Province of Georgia” signed by Halifax, Grenville, and Oswald

213. August 6, 1754 [103]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Robinson, “informing him they had

prepared a Warrant appointing M

. [Alexander] Kellett Provost Marshall of

Georgia”

214. July 9, 1752 [106]

“Report of the Board of Trade upon the nature and extent of the encouragement

given by the Trustees of Georgia for the Growth & Culture of Raw silk in that

Province”; signed at Whitehall by Halifax, Dupplin, Townshend, and Oswald

[Frame 107 microfilmed twice]

215. July 24, 1754 [115]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Robinson, “enclosing the warrant

appointing Mr. Russell Naval Officer in Georgia”; signed by Halifax, Oswald, and

R. Edgcumbe

216. March 20, 1755 [118]

Letter from Board of Trade to Robinson, “inclosing the Extract of a Letter from M

Reynolds Governor of Georgia in which he gives a circumstantial detail of the

present temper and disposition of the neighbouring Indians and of the Practice

used by the French to draw them from the British Interest” [Reynolds’ letter is

document 216] [John Reynolds was Georgia’s first royal governor, from 1752 to

1758; see note after Reel 3 document 109]

217. December 5, 1754 [121]

Extract from letter from Reynolds to Board of Trade, concerning French attempts

to convince the Indians to side with the French against the English [enclosed

with Board of Trade’s letter of March 20, 1755 to Robinson, document 215] [the

French and Indian War had begun in May 1754; see note after Reel 3 document

124]

218. May 9, 1755 [124]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Robinson, concerning a letter from

Reynolds to Board of Trade relative to the conflict with France [with enclosures,

documents 219 to 221]

219. March 9, 1755 [126]

Copy of letter from Reynolds to Board of Trade “transmitting the Copies of three

Letters relative to the apprehension of Antoine Waspy a French Officer,

suspected to be a Spy whom he [Reynolds] had sent to England for examination”

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s letter of May 9, 1755 to Robinson, document

218]

220. March 9, 1755 [128]

Copy of letter from Reynolds at Georgia to “The Captain of any of His Majesty’s

Ships”, concerning Antoine Waspy, apparently requesting that they “receive and

secure” Waspy, who had been sent to England on a merchant vessel [enclosed

with Board of Trade’s letter of May 9, 1755 to Robinson, document 218] [writing

is microfilmed very light, making it difficult to read; see document 221 for a

clearer description of this letter’s contents]

221. May 5, 1755 [130]

Copy of letter from J. Cleveland at the Admiralty Office to John Pownall,

Secretary to the Board of Trade, concerning Reynolds’ letter to all British warship

captains [document 220]; describing its contents; reporting that Waspy has been

secured on the tender Hunter in the Thames River and can be sent to the Board

of Trade, if they desire, for the examination for which purpose Reynolds had sent

Waspy to England [enclosed with Board of Trade’s letter of May 9, 1755 to

Robinson, document 218]

222. July 29, 1756 [132]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Secretary of State Henry Fox, asking

that the enclosed [document 223] be represented to the King; signed by Halifax,

Oswald, Andrew Stone, and Hamilton

[Note: 1

Baron Holland Henry Fox (1705-1774) served as Secretary of State

for the Southern Department in 1755 and 1756 as part of a long career in high-

level political positions.]

223. July 29, 1756 [134]

Lengthy report from Board of Trade to the King concerning inappropriate actions

of Reynolds as Governor of Georgia, including his dissolution of the Georgia

Assembly and much more, described with details; concluding by proposing that

“Mr. Reynolds be forthwith directed to return home, in order that a full and distinct

Account may be laid before Your Majesty” to reveal to him the current situation in

Georgia and the results of Reynolds’ conduct; suggesting that Henry Ellis be

appointed Lieutenant Governor of Georgia to help resolve the colony’s problems;

signed by Halifax, Oswald, Stone, and Hamilton [enclosed with the Board of

Trade’s letter of July 29, 1756 to Secretary of State Fox, document 222] [draft

copy of this report in Board of Trade draft documents, Reel 3 document 121]

224. April 11, 1758 [155]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Secretary of State William Pitt,

concerning a “misunderstanding between the Spaniards and the Creek Indians”

as revealed in letters between Georgia Lieutenant Governor Henry Ellis and

officials at St. Augustine, Spanish Florida; conveying copies of these letters to

the Secretary of State; signed by Halifax, J. Pelham, Soame Jeryns, Hamilton,

and Sloper [with enclosures, documents 225 to 229]

[Note: 1

Earl of Chatham William Pitt (the Elder) (1708-1778) replaced his

political rival Henry Fox as Secretary of State for the Southern Department in

December 1756, serving until April 1757. After being briefly replaced, he

returned to the office from June 1757 to October 1761.]

225. January 1, 1758 [157]

Extract from letter from Ellis to Board of Trade, describing the misunderstanding

and communications about it between Ellis and Spanish officials [with

enclosures, documents 226 to 228] [enclosed with Board of Trade’s Letter of

April 11, 1758 to Pitt, document 224]

226. August 27, 1757 [159]

Copy of letter from Ellis at Savannah to the Governor of [Florida] at St.

Augustine, seeking to establish friendly relations with the Spanish governor,

especially promoting common cause by the British and Spanish against problems

with the Indians [enclosed with Ellis’ letter of January 1, 1758 to Board of Trade,

document 225] [also enclosed with Board of Trade’s Letter of April 11, 1758 to

Pitt, document 224]

227. September 19, 1757 [161]

Copy of letter, written in Spanish, from the Governor of Florida “D

. Monso Ferrez

de Heredia” at St. Augustine to Ellis [not translated here] [enclosed with Ellis’

letter of January 1, 1758 to Board of Trade, document 225] [also enclosed with

Board of Trade’s Letter of April 11, 1758 to Pitt, document 224]

[Note: The scrivener of this copy clearly guessed at the name of the Governor of

Spanish Florida. His actual name was Alonso Fernandez de Heredia, and he

served as governor between 1755 and 1758.]

228. November 28, 1757 [163]

Copy of letter from Ellis to the Spanish Florida Governor, expressing surprise that

the Governor would be suspicious that British subjects might be encouraging the

Indians to oppose the Spaniards and side with the British, offering alternative

explanations for Britain’s relations with the Indians; also justifying British subjects

being in Spanish territory, as a part of friendly relations with the Indians

[enclosed with Ellis’ letter of January 1, 1758 to Board of Trade, document 225]

[also enclosed with Board of Trade’s Letter of April 11, 1758 to Pitt, document

224]

229. January 1, 1758 [166]

Extract from letter from Ellis to Board of Trade, concerning difficulties paying for

the small military force now necessary in Georgia; expressing also the need for a

larger military, with details [enclosed with Board of Trade’s Letter of April 11,

1758 to Pitt, document 224]

230. June 8, 1758 [169]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to the Earl of Holderness, a Secretary of

State, informing him that the Board of Trade had learned in a letter from

Governor Reynolds of Georgia that he had sought to return to England on the

Charming Martha, but the ship was captured by a French privateer and taken into

Bayonne with Reynolds a prisoner; signed by Halifax, Hamilton, and Oswald

[Reynolds’ letter is document 231]

[Note: 4

Earl of Holderness Robert Darcy (1718-1778) had served as

Secretary of State for the Southern Department from 1751 to 1754. Transferring

in 1754, he served as Secretary of State for the Northern Department from 1754

to 1761. During a brief period from April to June 1757, he served as the sole

Secretary of State for both Departments. By 1758, he was again Secretary of

State for the Northern Department. Why the Board of Trade sent this letter to

Holderness rather than to the current Secretary of State for the Southern

Department, William Pitt the Elder, is not clear.]

231. May 19, 1757 [171]

Copy of letter from Reynolds at Bayonne, France, to Board of Trade, informing

them of his capture and status as a prisoner [enclosed with Board of Trade’s

June 8, 1758 letter to Holderness, document 230]

232. August 4, 1756 [173]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Secretary of State Fox, notifying him

that Governor Reynolds of Georgia was being recalled to England; signed by

Halifax, Oswald, and Stone

233. October 25, 1758 [175]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, notifying him that Alexander Kellet

had left Georgia and wished to resign as provost marshal; requesting that William

Knox be appointed to replace Kellet; signed by Halifax, Oswald, Hamilton, and

Sloper

234. November 22, 1758 [178]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, concerning the need for better

military protection in Georgia, as represented by Governor Ellis [who earlier in

1758 had been promoted from Lieutenant Governor, officially replacing Governor

Reynolds]; signed by Sloper, Oswald, Richard Rigby, and Hamilton; with

microfilmed enclosure, document 235]

235. May 20, 1758 [180]

Extract from letter from Ellis to Board of Trade, concerning the need for stronger

military protection for Georgia and how he is paying for the existing military on his

own credit [enclosed with Board of Trade’s November 22, 1758 letter to Pitt,

document 234]

236. May 10, 1759 [187]

Letter from Board of Trade to Pitt, concerning memorial from settlers at New

Hanover [south of the Altamaha River] about their required removal, enclosing

Extract from Ellis’ letter on the subject [document 237] and the instructions Ellis

had to use for this purpose [document 238]; signed by Halifax, Soame Jenyns,

Hamilton, and Sloper

237. January 28, 1759 [189]

Extract from letter from Ellis to Board of Trade, concerning the requirement to

remove settlers from lands south of the Altamaha River; enclosing instructions

being used for this purpose; seeking to ensure that he is following the right

procedures, with details [enclosed with Board of Trade’s May 10, 1759 letter to

Pitt, document 236]

238. January 22, 1759 [195]

“Instructions for James Edward Newell Esq

.”, who was responsible for removing

the New Hanover settlers [enclosed with Board of Trade’s May 10, 1759 letter to

Pitt, document 236]

239. February 8, 1759 [197]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, concerning the need for more

military strength in Georgia and funding to pay for it; delivering to Pitt the Extract

from Ellis’ October 25, 1758 letter making his case to Board of Trade [document

240]; signed by Halifax, Oswald, Jenyns, Hamilton

240. October 25, 1758 [199]

Extract from letter from Ellis to Board of Trade, describing the need for more

military strength in Georgia, especially in relation to threats from Indian tribes;

enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 8, 1759 letter to Pitt, document 239]

241. April 25, 1760 [202]

Letter from Board of Trade to Whitehall to Pitt, concerning new hostilities with the

Cherokee Indians; signed by Halifax, Jenyns, Sloper, and E. Bacon [with

enclosures, documents 242 to 244]

[Note: During the French and Indian War, Indian tribes fought in unstable

alliances with either French or British troops. At the same time, different and

older American patterns of alliance and hostility influenced relations between

Indian nations and the British colonies. These relations were often most tense

along frontier lines, where white settlement (and British military pressure) pushed

outward and Indian resistance sought to fight back and to minimize losses. The

so-called Anglo-Cherokee War of 1760-1763 in frontier South Carolina appears

to have been a part of the older, American pattern, unrelated to the concurrent

strategies of war between British and French military. Still, subduing Indian

hostility and maintaining Indian affinity toward Britain were important motivators

for the British to rely, to the extent possible, on treaties. See note after document

242.]

242. February 15, 1760 [204]

Copy of letter from Ellis at Georgia to Board of Trade, reporting on hopes for re-

establishing peaceful relations with the Cherokee Nation through a treaty

negotiated with them by South Carolina Governor Lyttelton, but reporting that the

Cherokees had broken the new treaty by raiding frontier areas with South

Carolina settlers [enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 15, 1760 letter to Pitt,

document 241]

[Note: William Henry Lyttelton, 1

Baron Lyttelton (1724-1808) was

Governor of South Carolina from 1755 to 1760. During this time, he sought to

negotiate treaties with the Indians and, subsequently, to respect and abide by

their provisions. The breaking of Lyttelton’s treaty with the Cherokees

questioned the viability of the entire system, undermining British policies based

on friendship, trade, and gifts to keep the Indians loyal and peaceful.]

243. March 8, 1760 [208]

Extract from letter from Lyttelton at South Carolina to Ellis, reporting renewed

incursions by the Cherokee into frontier areas with South Carolina settlers

[enclosed with Board of Trade’s February 15, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 241]

244. February 24, 1760 [210]

Extract from letter from Ensign Alexander Miln at Fort Prince George to Lyttelton,

describing an Indian surprise attack with details [enclosed with Board of Trade’s

February 15, 1760 letter to Pitt, document 241]

[Note: Fort Prince George (named when the fort was built in 1753 for the prince

who in 1760 became King George III) was located in Cherokee territory

alongside a major trading post in what is now northwest South Carolina. While

the fort endured occasional Indian attacks, the British saw it after 1760 as a

staging place for attacks on the Cherokee Indians. Completion of Keowee Dam

in 1971 submerged the entire area under a reservoir lake.]

245. March 11, 1761 [215]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, requesting that a warrant be

issued affirming appointment of William Knox as Provost Marshal of Georgia;

signed by Halifax, Jenyn, Hamilton, Sloper, and Bacon

[Note: William Knox soon became Georgia’s Crown Agent, who handled the

colony’s business and financial matters in London. He also served for some time

as Crown Agent for East Florida.]

246. March 11, 1761 [218]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, requesting that a warrant be

issued affirming appointment of William Russell as Naval Officer of Georgia;

signed by Halifax, Hamilton, Sloper, and Edward Eliot

247. April 28, 1761 [221]

Letter from Board of Trade at Whitehall to Pitt, concerning information by letter

from Georgia “Lieutenant” Governor James Wright reporting the murder

conviction in the Georgia court of a Richard Swan and his sentence of death;

reporting Wright’s having reprieved Swan until the King’s wish is known about

imposing the death penalty; enclosing extract from Wright’s letter [document

248]; signed by Lord Sandys, Stone, Jenyns, Bacon, and John Yorke [for more

on James Wright, see note after Reel 1 document 9; he was actually Governor of

Georgia at this time; he had been Lieutenant Governor from April to November

1760]

248. February 28, 1761 [224]

Extract from letter from Wright to Board of Trade, concerning Richard Swan’s

conviction of murder and sentence to death, which has not yet been carried out,

pending learning the King’s wishes [enclosed with Board of Trade’s April 28,

1761 letter to Pitt, document 247]

249. April 25, 1783 [226]

Letter from Haddon Smith at Bolsover Street No. 2, Cavendish Square, London,

to the Earl of Hillsborough, concerning a previous memorial seeking ongoing

payment of his salary, as rector of Christ Church, Savannah, of “£70, and for

some additional Allowance to it”; explaining his suffering during the Revolution,

as he remained a loyalist and was forced to flee to Tybee Island and then to

Liverpool, England, where only public charity kept him alive [see also documents

267 and following]

[Note: For more on Wills Hill, 1

Earl of Hillsborough, see note after Reel 2

document 137. He had a long career in British politics and government: First

Lord of the Board of Trade from 1763-1765; Secretary of State for the Colonies

and First Lord of the Board of Trade from 1768-1772; Secretary of State for the

Southern Department from 1779-1782. By the date on this letter, he was no

longer a Secretary of State, having been replaced by the Earl of Shelburne in the

new position of Secretary of State for the Home Department. At the time of this

letter, Lord North was actually the Secretary of State for the Home department,

briefly, from April to December 1783. See note after document 267]

250. [no date] [229]

Detailed handwritten “Sketch of the Blocade of Savanna, and the attack of the 9

October 1779” [Frame 229 microfilmed twice] [see also Wright’s daily notes

from September 9 to October 22 on the Siege of Savannah, Reel 8 document 78;

and see document 254 below and note after it]

251. [no date; evidently in 1767] [230]

Petition to the King of Samuel Bowen, a merchant from Georgia, seeking to

patent his invention of “a Method of preparing & making Sago, Vermicelli, & Soy,

from the Plants growing in America”; with note written at bottom of the petition,

dated at Whitehall on June 6, 1767, signed by Shelburne, referring the petition to

the Attorney General or Solicitor General, requesting a report and opinion on

what may properly be done [Frame 230 microfilmed twice]

[Note: William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne, served as Secretary of State for

the Southern Department from July 1766 to October 1768. Scattered along his

lengthy career in British politics and government, he had previously served as

First Lord of the Board of Trade in 1763 and served later as Secretary of State

for the Home Department in 1782 and then Prime Minister in 1782-1783.]

252. June 6, 1767 [231]

Sworn statement by Samuel Bowen of Georgia, stating that he had “found out

and Invented a Method of preparing and making Sago Vermicelli, & Soy from the

Plants growing in America”

[Note: Samuel Bowen ( ? -1777) is described as a farmer and entrepreneur.

Born in England of uncertain date, he sailed in 1758 to southern China, where he

studied agriculture and collected seeds. In 1764, he settled in Savannah, where

he experimented with planting his Chinese seeds in Georgia soil. Perhaps they

did not do well, because his patented “Method” uses “Plants growing in

America.”]

253. June 9, 1767 [234]

Opinion of Attorney General William de Grey, concerning the petition of Samuel

Bowen [document 251]; recommending that the patent be issued in a timely

manner [which it apparently was]

[Note: William de Grey, 1

Baron Walsingham (1719-1781) was a prominent

lawyer, judge, and politician, who served as British Attorney General from 1766

to 1771.]

254. September 9, 1779 [236]

Copy of letter from Major General A[ugustine] Prevost at Savannah to Sir Henry

Clinton, reporting that “The Count D’Estaing is here in Person, with twenty-five

Sail of the Line, and seven or eight Frigates, and some Transports or Merchant

Vessels. What Land force he has it is impossible to say, but believe it not very

considerable. And as I think the Rebels Are not quite in readiness to cooperate

very powerfully with him, I fain would hope that we are not in much danger” [see

also Wright’s written notes on the Siege of Savannah, document 250 above and

Reel 8 document 78]

[Note: Augustine Prevost (1723-1786) was a Swiss-born soldier and officer in

the British Army, assigned to the 60

Royal American Regiment of Foot. He and

his younger brother, Jacques Marcus (Marc) Prevost (1736-1781) had joined

the British Army on the same date in 1756. By 1776, Augustine was a Colonel

and Marc a Lieutenant Colonial both stationed with the Royal American

Regiment at St. Augustine, capital of the new British colony of East Florida.

Between 1776 and 1778, Georgia had been in “rebel” control, the State of

Georgia had been founded, Governor James Wright’s British colonial

government had fled to England, and East Florida became the last southeastern

American, Atlantic-coast bastion of British colonial power. In 1778, the 60

Royal Americans were ordered to join other British troops to invade Georgia

under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Archibald Campbell (see note below).

After Campbell had subdued and occupied Savannah in December 1778, part of

the British army under Jacques Marc Prevost temporarily captured Augusta in

January 1779, only to lose it again. In September-October 1779, the British

army, now commanded by Augustine Prevost, had to defend Savannah from a

joint Continental and French “Siege of Savannah,” which it accomplished

successfully. This letter registers Augustine Prevost’s surprise when a French

fleet and army, commanded by Charles Hector, Comte d’Estaing, arrived

below Savannah. A major battle was fought on October 9, during which Polish

Count Casimir Pulaski, commander of the combined American/French cavalry

troops, was killed. British victory in this battle led to lifting of the siege and British

control of Savannah until mid-1782. During a brief transition period, Archibald

Campbell (December 29, 1778 to July 1779) and then, Jacques Marc Prevost

(July 1779 to September 1779), served as (military) provisional governors of

British Georgia during the time when no British civil government was in place.

Their efforts allowed Wright’s “regular” colonial government to re-establish itself

in Savannah, ruling over a geographically reduced colony that included little more

than Savannah itself, until almost the end of the war.]

[Note: Major General Archibald Campbell (1739-1791) was an accomplished

military leader in the British Army, especially during the Revolutionary War. He

was sent to America in 1776 as a lieutenant colonel. His American military

career began inauspiciously when he was captured on board a surrendering

British ship in Boston Harbor. After spending three years as an American

prisoner of war, he was exchanged in 1778 for Ethan Allen. Immediately

resuming active-duty command, his army was sent to Georgia to capture

Savannah, which it accomplished in December 1778, after soundly defeating an

American army commanded by Major General Robert Howe (no relation to the

British Howe brothers). Lieutenant Colonel Campbell served briefly as

Provisional Governor of Georgia, from December 29, 1778 to July 1779, in the

absence of a functioning colonial government. Meanwhile, Colonel Jacques

Marc Prevost briefly captured and occupied Augusta in early 1779 but was

unable to hold it, reducing the British Colony of Georgia to Savannah and its

immediate surroundings.

In July 1779, Campbell returned to England, as James Wright returned from

England to resume his governorship of the British Colony of Georgia (except that

Jacques Marc Prevost served as (military) Provisional Governor after Campbell

left, until Wright’s civil government was fully re-established in September 1779).

By this time Georgia was the only remaining colony, among the 13 that had

rebelled in 1775-1776, which retained a British colonial government on its

territory. Unique among British colonial governors, Wright maintained a colonial-

governmental presence in Savannah from July 1779 until July 11, 1782, when

the city was evacuated and the British Colony of Georgia, like the other 12,

ceased to exist.

Having proven himself an effective colonial governor in Georgia, Archibald

Campbell, after remaining in England for two years, was appointed Governor of

Jamaica from 1781 to 1784. After another two-year respite in England, he was

appointed Governor of Madras, in India, from 1786 to 1790. In both of these

assignments, he received high marks for effective governing.]

255. September 16, 1779 [238]

Copy of letter “N

1”, written in French, from D’Estaing, camped in front of

Savannah, to Prevost, warning him not to take up arms against the French

256. May 4, 1782 [240]

Printed copy of “An Act For inflicting Penalties on and confiscating the Estates of

such Persons as are therein declared guilty of Treason” and for other purposes,

enacted by “Representatives of the Freemen of the State of Georgia, in General

Assembly met”; including a long list of names of individuals in Georgia declared

to be guilty of Treason, who are banished forever; applying provisions of the act

to others not named who are also found to have engaged in treason; confiscating

the estates of traitors

257. October 19-22, 1782 [245]

“Public Sales at Savannah 19

October 1782 for Glynn & Camden Countys”;

plus Liberty, Chatham, and Effingham Counties on October 21; plus additional

places on October 22 [what was being sold is not identified; perhaps it was the

estates and property of loyalist “traitors” identified in the State of Georgia act of

May 4, 1782, document 256; the date of this sale is after the British Colony of

Georgia had officially ceased to exist on July 11, 1782]

[Note: In 1777, when the emerging State of Georgia wrote its first constitution,

the parishes into which colonial Georgia had been geographically divided were

replaced by counties with new names.]

258. June 13, 1783 [249]

Letter from [?] Elliot at Whitehall [probably the Secretary of State office] to John

Balcher, agent for Georgia, conveying Lord North’s desire that “a clear and

distinct Account of the application of the Sums Granted by Parliament for the

Civil Establishment of the Province of Georgia to June 1782” be submitted

259. August 6, 1780 [250]

Copy of sworn statement of [Augustine] Prevost verifying that, to the best of his

knowledge, the content of a memorial from [James] Graham [document 260] is

accurate

260. [no date; date copy was made in London is August 8, 1780] [251]

Copy of memorial to the Commissioners of the Treasury of James Graham,

seeking recompense from property losses sustained during the 1779 French

blockade of Savannah [with supporting sworn statements, documents 259 and

261 to 163] [see Reel 8 document 70 for more on James Graham memorials;

James might be related to John Graham, Georgia Lieutenant Governor]

261. February 9, 1780 [252]

Copy of sworn statement of Commander and Engineer James Moncrief, verifying

the loss of indigo owned by Graham, as described in Graham’s memorial

[document 260]

[Note: In 1778, Captain James Moncrief had commanded engineering troops

who used gangs of African slaves for the emergency construction of fortifications

around Savannah, in anticipation of the siege that began in September. See also

Reel 8 document 78.]

262. April 20, 1780 [252]

Copy of sworn statement of Surveyor General Philip Yonge, verifying the loss of

indigo owned by Graham, as described in Graham’s memorial [document 260]

263. May 27, 1780 [252]

Copy of account of the value of property lost by Graham, as described in his

memorial [document 260]; signed by James Mossman and John Tebea

264. June 4, 1782 [253]

Draft [outgoing] letter from [the Earl of Shelburne] at Whitehall to Governor

Wright of Georgia, acknowledging receipt of several letters from Wright to Lord

Germain; encouraging Wright to communicate all information of importance

about Georgia to Guy Carleton, now Commander of British forces in North

America; stating that he [Shelburne] is attending to the actions called for in these

letters

[Note: See note after Reel 3 document 97 for more on George Germain, 1

Viscount Sackville. Germain’s long term as Secretary of State for the Colonies,

from 1775 to February 1782, had recently ended when this draft letter was

written. Germain was the last Secretary “for the Colonies.” After a

reorganization, his successor, William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne, (see notes

after Reel 1 document 70 and Reel 2 document 95) held the new position of

Secretary of State for the Home Department. Shelburne held this position only

briefly, from March to July 1782, when he became Prime Minister. He was

replaced by Thomas Townshend, who served as Secretary of State for the

Home Department, except for a brief hiatus in 1783, from July 1782 until 1789.]

[Note: Guy Carleton, 1

Baron Dorchester (1724-1808) served many years in

the British Army. In 1775-1776 he defended Quebec from invasion by the

rebellious colonies to the south. After Sir Henry Clinton was recalled to London

as Commander of British Forces in North America, following the British defeat at

Yorktown, Carleton was appointed to replace Clinton. He held this position from

early in 1782 until the end of the war in 1783.]

265. September 3, 1782 [255]

Letter from Wright, now at [?] Street No 8 in London [having evacuated

Savannah, thus terminating the government of the British Colony of Georgia as

the war ended; see note after Reel 10 document 260], to Thomas Townshend,

now Secretary of State for the Home Department; expressing hope for an early

opportunity to meet with the Secretary

266. September 3, 1782 [257]

Statement by Wright to [Townshend] “containing Representation of the sufferings

of the Loyalists on the Evacuation of Georgia”; including description of his return

to Georgia from leave in March 1779, arriving at Savannah on July 13, 1779;

description of his continuing actions as British Governor of Georgia, and of the

cruelty of the rebels, followed by evacuation of Savannah, as ordered by

Carleton on July 5, 1782

267. April 15, 1783 [261]

Memorial to Lord North, [Secretary of State for the Home Department], of

Haddon Smith at London, formerly Rector of Christ Church at Savannah,

Georgia; seeking his continuing salary of £70 plus an additional allowance [see

also document 249 and documents following]

[Note: Frederick (Lord) North, 2

Earl of Guilford (1732-1792) had been

Prime Minister during most of the Revolutionary War, from January 1770 to

March 1782, when he was forced from power in the aftermath of the Cornwallis

surrender at Yorktown in October 1781. In April 1783 he made a brief

comeback, replacing Townshend in the position of Secretary of State for the

Home Department, as part of the short-lived coalition government of Prime

Minister William Cavendish-Bentwick, 3

Duke of Portland. The Portland

government lasted from April 2 to December 19, 1783.]

268. [no date; delivered May 8, 1783] [263]

Petition to Lord North of Haddon Smith, previous rector of Christ Church,

Savannah, Georgia [similar to but different from memorial in document 267; see

also document 249 and documents following]

269. April [or May] 3, 1783 [264]

Statement by Wright, at London, supporting Haddon Smith’s petition, clearly still

not resolved

270. June [?] 12, 1783 [265]

Memorial to Lord North, Secretary of State for the Home Department [see note

after document 267], of John Simpson, attorney for George McKenzie, at

London, stating that McKenzie had been appointed him to be Surveyor General

after Philip Yonge died and was later involved in defense of the Bahamas;

seeking payment of the salary not paid him from January 23, 1782 to June 23,

1783; followed by

July 3, 1782

Sworn verification by Wright of the truth of McKenzie’s memorial

271. March 26, 1784 [267]

Memorial to Lord Sidney [Thomas Townshend, now 1

Viscount Sydney],

Secretary of State for the Home Department, of Anthony Stokes, Chief Justice of

Georgia from 1769 to 1776 and again [after British rule was temporarily re-

established in Georgia] from 1779 to 1782, and a practicing attorney in Georgia

and St. Christopher in the West Indies, seeking relief from having suffered as a

loyalist during the Revolution, seeking as recompense an ongoing salary of £500;

followed by copies of letters pertaining to this memorial:

January 19, 1779

Copy of letter from [Secretary of State for the Colonies] Lord Germain at

Whitehall to Stokes, recalling him to return to his duties as Chief Justice in

Georgia; followed by:

January 19, 1779

Copy of letter from Germain to Lieutenant Colonel Archibald Campbell

commander at Savannah, verifying Stokes’ integrity when he had to “quit”

Georgia and “now returns in the hope of finding the Province reduced to the

Kings Obedience” and ready to return to his duties; Germain therefore

recommending “him to you as worthy of your confidence and protection”;

followed by:

March 26, 1784

Copy of letter from James Wright, former Governor of Georgia, providing a

character reference for Stokes; with original signature

272. February 8, 1785 [269]

Letter from [former Lieutenant Colonel] Archibald Campbell at London [in

England for two years between assignments as Governor of Jamaica (1781-

1784) and of Madras (1786-1790)] to [the Secretary of State ?], providing a

character reference for Dr. Lewis Johnston, a persecuted Georgia loyalist, whom

Campbell had appointed “Chief Justice and Superintendant of the Police” [for

more on Archibald Campbell, see note after document 254; for more on Dr.

Lewis Johnston and his Board of Police, see Reel 8 documents 114 to 116]

273. [no date] [271]

Petition to [Secretary of State?] of Lewis Johnston, late of Georgia, stating that

he had always been loyal to Britain; that the “rebels” had imprisoned him for

three years [1776-1778]; that in 1782 he lost his property in Georgia under

provisions of Georgia’s treason act; that after the evacuation of Savannah, he

had gone to St. Augustine, where Governor Patrick Tonyn of British East Florida

appointed him a Council member and an assistant judge; but that the return of

East Florida to Spain required him to return to England with his family; seeking

relief from his losses and suffering with a £180 per year payment for support of

his family, and seeking public employment for himself

274. August 1, 1782 [273]

Petition to Secretary of State Townshend from Jermyn Wright of South Carolina

and Georgia; recounting his loyalist activities during the war and his resulting

suffering at the hands of the “rebels”; requesting royal protection [probably

including enclosed documents 275 to 277]

[Note: Jermyn Wright, brother of Georgia Governor James Wright, was a

wealthy loyalist planter with extensive properties in both South Carolina and

Georgia.]

Note: A Public Record Office printed note microfilmed after document 274 states that

“Folios 274-275 [of Volume 657] are blank and have not been copied”.

275. January 26, 1782 [276]

Copy of letter from Governor Wright of Georgia at Savannah to Secretary of

State Germain, concerning his brother, Jermyn “who has been Buffeted about by

the Rebels for these five or six years Past”; including details; hoping that the

Germain “will be pleased to order him Something to subsist on, as a Truly Loyal

& Suffering Refugee” [probably enclosed with Jermyn Wright’s August 1, 1782

petition to Townshend, document 274]

276. [no date] [277]

“Inventory of the Landed Estates of M

. Jermyn Wright” in Georgia; listing 19

numbered parcels of land and plantations, by location, number of acres, and date

acquired [all in 1767 or 1771], totaling 11,900 acres [probably enclosed with

Jermyn Wright’s August 1, 1782 petition to Townshend, document 274]

277. [no date] [278]

“Inventory of the Landed Estates of M

. Jermyn Wright” in South Carolina, listing

17 numbered parcels of land and plantations, by location, number of acres, and

date acquired [between 1726 and 1759 with some acquisitions undated], totaling

16,570 acres [probably enclosed with to Jermyn Wright’s August 1, 1782 petition

to Townshend, document 274]

Note: A Public Record Office printed note microfilmed after document 277 states that

“Folio 280 [of Volume 657] is blank and has not been copied”.

278. July 24, 1752 [281]

Letter from Thomas Hill, at the Board of Trade at Whitehall, to Claudius Amyand

and Richard Potinger, [secretaries for the Lords Justices] transmitting to them a

copy of a memorial [document 279] of Edmund Gray, agent for Georgia;

requesting that it be placed before the Lords Justices [for more on Lords

Justices, see note after document 183 above]

[Note: Thomas Hill was Secretary to the Board of Trade from some time in the

1740s until John Pownall assumed the post in 1758, serving in this position until

1776.]

279. [no date] [283]

Petition to the Board of Trade from Edmund Gray, agent for Georgia, concerning

Georgia’s exposed position on the British southern frontier north of Spanish

Florida, the potential for Spanish as well as French attack and the need to “stop

the French Passage from New Orleans to Quebeck”, and uncertainties in Indian

relations with Georgia and the other southern colonies of Britain; recommending

that trade and alliances with the Indians be strengthened and that colonial

settlers be deterred from settling in the interior [enclosed with Thomas Hill’s July

24, 1752 letter to the Lords Justices, document 278]

Reel 6 (Volumes 658, 659, 660, 661)

Volume 658—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Official Correspondence (incoming), continued

October 17, 1761 to November 14, 1767 Documents 1 to 117 [Frames 1 to 282]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 658 resumes from Volume 656 the Secretary of State’s papers of

(mostly) incoming official correspondence in the microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia.

However, a gap exists from when Volume 656 ends (August 28, 1751) and when

Volume 658 begins (October 17, 1761). This gap leaves out of the microfilmed papers

official incoming Secretary of State correspondence during the first decade of the Royal

Colony of Georgia (other, not official correspondence is found during this decade in

Reel 5 Volume 657 documents 211 to 248). Volumes 678 to 680 (Reel 10) contain

letterbook summaries of incoming official Secretary of State correspondence. The

documents summarized are dated from November 18, 1766 to December 31, 1781, with

the exception of one prior document (an enclosure included in Governor Wright’s

responses to a query from the Board of Trade) dated February 15, 1762.

Note: Beginning in about January 1767, Secretary of State for the Southern

Department Shelburne began a practice of numbering his outgoing letters and had

colonial governors number their letters to him. A year later, incoming Secretary of State

for the Colonies Hillsborough continued Shelburne’s letter numbering practice. Volume

658 contains numbered letters to and from Shelburne. Where found, these letter

numbers are included in this Finding Aid.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

1. October 17, 1761 [1]

Letter from Governor James Wright of Georgia, at Savannah, to Robert Wood

[possibly an undersecretary of state], concerning the boundaries of settlements

south of the Altamaha River [for more on James Wright, see the note after Reel

1 document 9]

2. January 21, 1762 [2]

Letter from the Board of Trade and Plantations at Whitehall to the Secretary of

State the Earl of Egremont, concerning threats of French settlements at Mobile

[on the Gulf Coast in present day Alabama, nominally Spanish territory] and their

relations with the Creek Indians, as documented in a letter from Wright [extract

enclosed, document 3]; signed by Lords of Board of Trade Soame Jenyns, C.

Bacon, and Edmond Thomas

[Note: Charles Wyndham, 2

Earl of Egremont (1710-1763), served as

Secretary of State for the Southern Department from October 9, 1761 to August

21, 1763.]

3. September 13, 1761 [5]

Extract from letter from Wright to Board of Trade, concerning the dangers of the

French settlements at Mobile; “representing that a military force will be necessary

for the Defence” of Georgia [enclosed with Board of Trade’s January 21, 1762

letter to Egremont

4. February 20, 1762 [7]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, concerning status of the Georgia

colony and threats to it from the French and Indians

5. May 4, 1762 [9]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, concerning boundary relations with

South Carolina; concerning Georgia’s preparedness for defense

6. June 10, 1762 [13]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, concerning preparations for

defense

7. August 18, 1762 [15]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, concerning dangers of attack from

French, Indians, and now Spanish also to the south

8. November 15, 1762 [17]

Copy of letter from Wright at Savannah to Robert Wood, concerning several

issues in the colony of Georgia

9. January 3, 1763 [19]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, concerning the “Extraordinary

Conduct” of the Chief Justice Grover since former Governor Henry Ellis left

Georgia on November 2, 1760, with details [with enclosures, documents 10 to

13] [for more on Chief Justice William Grover, see note after Reel 1 document

53]

10. March 1, 1762 [25]

Extract, written by Wright, of letter from Captain Simone [?], at [Fort] Frederica

[on St. Simon’s Island on the southern Georgia coast], [to Wright?], reporting

having received from a certain Samuel Piles [or Pylos] a letter, written to Piles in

Spanish by the new Spanish Governor in St. Augustine, Alonzo de Cardones,

who explained that he had replaced Governor Don Lucas de Palacio, who had

died, and requested that Pylos deliver to St. Augustine, with care, the 200 “head

of Cow’s Stores that you have Negotiated” [enclosed with Wright’s January 3,

1763 letter to Egremont, document 9]

[Note: Lucas Fernando de Palacio y Valenzuela was Governor of Spanish

Florida from 1758 to 1761. Alonso de Cardenas was Acting Governor in 1761-

1762.]

11. [no date] [26]

Summary, written by Wright, of the 1759 Georgia court case of “Wood & Shoftal

[Sheftall] against Ephraim Alexander, Samuel Piles & Jos. Rumiere” [enclosed

with Wright’s January 3, 1763 letter to Egremont, document 9] [copy in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 55]

12. November 22, 1762 [30]

Copy, written by Wright, of an affidavit of Captain Thomas Goldsmith before the

Justice of the Peace in Old Town, South Carolina, [probably in either Berkeley or

Charleston County] stating that he “was Connected to the Soldiers being sent to

Goal on Account of the Action brought against Lieut. Lewtonham[?] by Roth[?]

Lorthen[?]” [enclosed with Wright’s January 3, 1763 letter to Egremont,

document 9] [copy in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1

document 57]

13. September 21, 1762 [31]

Copy of Minute of a meeting of the Georgia Council at Savannah, concerning

“the Conduct and Behaviour of Mr. Grover the Chief Justice”; concluding with the

opinion that “Mr. Grover is unworthy of, and not fit to be continued in, the Office

of chief Justice” and that Grover should be suspended from his position [copy in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 60, along with other

documents pertaining to Grover, documents 54 to 59]; followed by:

June 12, 1762

“Copy of the Warrant of Detainer referred to in the aforegoing Minute”, written by

Chief Justice William Grover to the Provost Marshal and Keeper of the Savannah

Jail ordering them to detain Samuel Piles; followed by

August 9, 1762

Copy of petition and affidavit referred to in the forgoing minute, a petition to

Wright from John Luke, merchant from South Carolina, concerning purchase of

the brig Metta, owned by Captain Joseph Rivers, which, when adjudicated, Chief

Justice Grover improperly sided with Captain Rivers; seeking redress for the

resulting injustices; followed by

September 6, 1762

Statement by John Luke’s attorney, Alexander Wylly, concerning Luke’s petition

and how his legal matter was handled; followed by

Account of John Luke pertaining to the purchase of the brig Metta; followed by

October 5, 1762

Extract from minute of a Georgia Council meeting at Savannah, concerning Chief

Justice Grover, reconfirming the Council members’ unanimous opinion that

Grover should be suspended from office [copy in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 1 document 60, along with other documents pertaining to

Grover, documents 54 to 59]

[all enclosed with Wright’s January 3, 1763 letter to Egremont, document 9]

14. November 5, 1762 [39]

Declaration by Wright suspending Grover from his position as Chief Justice

15. March 15, 1763 [41]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, sending congratulations on the

provisional articles of peace marking the victorious conclusion of the Seven

Years War/French and Indian War

[Note: The French and Indian War, fought between the North American

colonies of England and France, began in western Pennsylvania in 1754, lasting

until 1763. This colonial war was part of a larger European conflict called the

Seven Years War (1756-1763). Overall, the main victor was Britain, and the

main losers were France and Spain.]

16. April 20, 1763 [43]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, concerning “a most Extraordinary

Procedure of the Governor & Council of S. Carolina….Thomas Boone with the

Advice of His Majesty’s Council for S. Carolina has come to a Resolution to give

Grants for all the Lands to the Southward of the River Alatamaha Towards St

Augustine without Limits”, with details; expressing concern to the Secretary of

State for Georgia’s claim to the same territory about what he calls the South

Carolina Governor’s “Extraordinary Stretch of Power”; stating that he has written

to the Board of Trade “to the Same Effect” [with enclosures, documents 17, 18]

[for more on Governor Thomas Boone and his scheme to settle, as a part of

South Carolina, a portion of the Atlantic Coast south of the Altamaha River, that

is, south of the settled portion of the Georgia colony and north of Spanish (about

to become British) Florida, see note after Reel 1 document 63] [copy in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 64]

17. March 30, 1763 [49]

Copy of “Protestation and Caveat” of Wright to Thomas Moore, Governor of

South Carolina, concerning Moore’s plan to give land grants to South Carolina

settlers along the coastal area south of the Altamaha River [enclosed with

Wright’s April 20, 1763 letter to Egremont, document 16] [copy in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 65]

18. April 20, 1763 [51]

Copy of sworn statement by Grey Elliot, member of the Georgia Council,

concerning his having gone to Charleston at Wright’s request and returned with a

copy of Moore’s resolution for land grants south of the Altamaha River [enclosed

in Wright’s April 20, 1763 letter to Egremont, document 16] [copy in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 65]

19. May 6, 1763 [52]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, conveying more information about

plans for South Carolinian settlement south of the Altamaha River [similar letter

written on same date to Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 1 document 66]

20. June 10, 1763 [54]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, concerning the peace treaty and

establishment of British colonies of East and West Florida; concerning the

“natural” boundaries of these colonies, including the Mississippi River on the

west; expressing concern about the boundaries of Florida and with South

Carolina in relation to Georgia; concerning future relations with the Indians along

these boundary areas as well as relations with both the French and Spanish

21. June 24, 1763 [56]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, expressing further concerns about

boundary issues with South Carolina, French, Spanish, and Indians [with

enclosures, documents 22, 23]

22. May 27, 1763 [58]

Copy of letter from Lieutenant Governor Fauquier of Virginia, at Williamsburg, to

Wright, concerning a “Critical Situation” of relations with Indians on the frontiers

of the southern colonies and an upcoming “Congress” with the Indians [enclosed

with Wright’s June 24, 1763 letter to Egremont] [for more on Lieutenant

Governor Fauquier, see note after Reel 1 document 79]

23. June 22, 1763 [60]

Copy of letter from Wright at Savannah to Fauquier, concerning a congress with

the Indians and the issues needing attention at it, especially delineating colonial

and Indian lands; reporting having corresponded with Egremont and with the

Board of Trade about these issues [enclosed with Wright’s June 24, 1763 letter

to Egremont, document 21]

24. September 7, 1763 [62]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Egremont, concerning Georgia’s response to

the official declaration of peace

25. November 10, 1763 [64]

Duplicate of letter from Governors Wright, Boone, Arthur Dobbs of North

Carolina, Lieutenant Governor Fauquier of Virginia, and John Stuart,

Superintendent of Indians for the Southern District, all at Augusta, Georgia, to

Egremont, reporting on results of the congress and treaty they had just

concluded with the Indians [difficult to read due to light microfilming] [see notes

on Fauquier and Stuart after reel 1 document 79] [handwritten copy of treaty in

Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 79; printed copy of

treaty in Secretary of State official correspondence, Reel 5 document 179]

[Note: Letters from colonial governors were often sent multiple times on

separate ships, in hopes that one of the letters would get through or get through

faster to England. Thus, an “original” letter would be sent plus perhaps several

“duplicate” letters. A “copy” was usually the copy of a letter sent possibly at a

later time and usually to another recipient. Use of these terminology conventions

was usually but not always observed. Thus, a document identified as a

“duplicate” might in fact be a “copy” or vice versa.]

26. December 8, 1763 [66]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to the Earl of Halifax, concerning instructions

received from Egremont; reporting on related matters; scrivener’s note “Copy

sent to Mr. Grenville” [one of Halifax’ previous colleagues among the Lords of

the Board of Trade]

[Note: Dunk Halifax, or formally, George Montagu-Dunk, 2

Earl of Halifax

(1716-1771), had served as First Lord of the Board of Trade between 1748 and

1761. On September 9, 1763, he replaced the Earl of Egremont as Secretary of

State for the Southern Department, serving until July 10, 1765.

27. December 23, 1763 [68]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, concerning Georgia’s southern

boundary in relation to South Carolina and the Indians [with microfilmed

enclosure, document 28]

[Note: For some time, the southern border of Georgia had been uncertain.

Before 1763, when Florida was a Spanish colony, the British were reticent to

settle too close to the Spanish border. Georgia’s colonial population

concentrated around Savannah, up the Savannah River, and among the coastal

sea island territory north of the Altamaha River. A few more adventuresome and

speculative South Carolinians settled on the sea islands south of the Altamaha

River, which by treaty were still supposed to be Indian territory. Through this

period, the boundary between British and Spanish territory appears in practical

terms to have been fluid. When Spanish Florida became the new British colonies

of East and West Florida in 1763, the boundary issue became a British (and

Indian) decision, to be decided depending on the competing interests of British

colonial governors of South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida (plus the Creek

Indians). The Indians were the first loser, resulting from the congress and treaty

signed at Augusta in November 1763. South Carolina was the next loser, as

British authorities in London recognized Georgia’s boundary to extend all the way

to the Florida border. That left Georgia and Florida to skirmish politically over

where that boundary would be drawn. In this December 1763 letter, Governor

Wright of Georgia is still trying to secure his southern boundary in relation to

South Carolina and the Indians. About three months earlier, newly minted

Governor of East Florida James Grant, still in London, was negotiating with

Secretary of State Halifax to set the northern East Florida boundary at the St.

Marys River rather than the farther south St. Johns River. Grant’s efforts

succeeded, and the Florida-Georgia boundary he won remains the interstate line

today. See the Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 1 document 3

(also Secretary of State papers, Reel 3 document 25) in DLAR’s Finding Aid for

the British Colonial Papers for East Florida.]

28. [no date] [70]

“Names of Persons Applying to Settle altogether on Part of the Lands Lately

Ceded by [?] Indians”; listing 18 grants totaling 22,800 acres [enclosed with

Wright’s December 23, 1763 letter to Halifax, document 27]

29. May 12, 1764 [72]

Draft [outgoing] letter from Edward Sedgwick, a secretary at the Secretary of

State office, at St. James’s, to Wright, informing him that Halifax has transmitted

to the Treasury Wright’s request to establish customs house officers at the port of

Sunbury

30. June 20, 1764 [74]

Letter from William Clifton at Savannah to Halifax, expressing his gratefulness for

the King’s having appointed him Chief Justice for the new colony of West Florida

[for more on William Clifton, see note after Reel 3 document 109]

31. August 30, 1764 [76]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Sedgwick, acknowledging receipt of

Sedgwick’s letter concerning Wright’s request for customs officers at Sunbury;

further explaining the need for these officers

32. October 25, 1764 [78]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, concerning settling, protecting, and

collecting duties in new areas

33. October 25, 1764 [80]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, concerning the complaint of Prince

Masserano [Spanish Ambassador to Britain] of “violences or Piracies being

committed by English Cruisers against the Subjects of Spain”

34. October 25, 1764 [82]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, concerning matters of illegal trade;

scrivener’s note “Copy sent to the Treasury

”

35. November 7, 1764 [84]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, concerning stamp duties; scrivener’s

note “Copy sent to the Treasury” [with enclosures, documents 36, 37]

36. November[?] 3, 1764 [87]

List, with categories and numbers, of “Declarations and other Proceedings to

have been assessed [fees]” at Savannah between the “Return Day of October

Court 1762 to the Return Day of October Court 1764” [enclosed with Wright’s

November 7, 1764 letter to Halifax, document 35]

37. November 7, 1764 [88]

“Account of Instruments Made use of in Public Transactions Law Proceedings”

“viz

From the Loan Office &c” in Georgia; [enclosed with Wright’s November 7,

1764 letter to Halifax, document 35]

38. December 21, 1764 [90]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, enclosing an address to Wright from

both houses of the Georgia Assembly, welcoming Rev. George Whitefield’s

application to start a “college” in Georgia [with enclosures, documents 39, 40]

[Note: Rev. George Whitefield was a well-know and apparently powerful “field

preacher” in England before moving to Georgia in 1738. Besides preaching in

Georgia, he established an orphanage near Savannah in 1740. Apparently his

plan and the colony’s dream to establish a “college” or “seminary of learning”

never materialized. He died in 1770.]

39. December 20, 1764 [92]

Copy of address from both houses of the Georgia Assembly, welcoming the

application by Rev. George Whitefield “for Lands in order to the Endowment of a

College in this Province” [enclosed with Wright’s December 21 letter to Halifax,

document 38]

40. December 20, 1764 [93]

Copy of note from Wright to members of the Assembly, responding

enthusiastically to the Assembly’s support for “Establishment of a Seminary for

Learning here” as proposed by the Rev. Whitefield [enclosed with Wright’s

December 21, 1764 letter to Halifax, document 38]

41. December 24, 1764 [94]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, concerning plans to extend Georgia’s

high roads toward East Florida

42. December 26, 1764 [96]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, concerning Ambassador Masserano’s

complaint; scrivener’s note “Copy of this Letter & of its Enclosure sent to Gov

Shirley”; with microfilmed enclosure, document 43]

[Note: William Shirley (1674-1771) had served for long periods in the 1740s

and 1750s as Governor of Massachusetts. From 1760-1768 he served, late in is

long life, as Governor of the Bahamas. In the 1770s, his son, Thomas Shirley

also served as Governor of the Bahamas.]

43. December 24, 1764 [98]

“Examination of John Bishop late of New Providence [capital of the Bahamas

colony] mariner, concerning certain Acts of Piracy said to have been committee

by him upon divers” Spanish subjects; signed by Bishop [enclosed with Wright’s

December 26, 1764 letter to Halifax, document 42]

44. March 9, 1765 [100]

Draft of [outgoing] letter from Halifax at St. James to Wright, acknowledging

having received from Wright several letters concerning John Bishop “whom you

caused to be apprehended and detained as believing him to be the Person

complained of in the Spanish ambassador’s Letter”; noting that Bishop asserted

having been tried previously on the same charges and acquitted; stating that he

has asked Governor [William] Shirley [of the Bahamas] to send Wright

information on Bishop and the complaint against him.

45. June 18, 1765 [102]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, verifying receipt of an extract from a

letter from the Secretary of War to Halifax concerning royal policy for the

command and disposition of troops in the colonies

46. June 24, 1766 [104]

Duplicate of letter from Wright at Savannah to Henry Seymour Conway,

apparently responding to letter from Conway; expressing Wright’s opinion about

rebellious subjects [in relation to the Stamp Act controversy especially]

[Note: Henry Seymour Conway, a gentleman commoner member of

Parliament rather than a lord, served as Secretary of State for the Southern

Department from July 12, 1765 until May 23, 1766. There is confusion about the

date of this letter. If it is filed in chronological order, the year would be 1765, but

Conway was not quite yet Secretary of State. If the clearly handwritten written

date on the document of 1766 is accurate, Conway had just ceased being

Secretary of State. The content of the letter suggests 1766. The Stamp Act

was enacted by Parliament on March 22, 1765. Not until fall 1765 was

enforcement begun and active opposition emerged. The opposition remained

strong through 1766 and into 1767, although Parliament had repealed the law on

March 18, 1766. For more on the Stamp Act see note after Reel 2 document

58.]

47. August 24, 1765 [106]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, stating that he had some time ago

seen Bishop’s documentation of previous acquittal but that Bishop was still being

detained because other charges were unresolved

[Note: Although Conway had replaced Halifax as Secretary of State for the

Southern Department on July 12, 1765, Wright did not learn this until sometime

between September 20 (document 48) and October 2 (document 49).]

48. September 20, 1765 [108]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Halifax, containing more information about the

investigation of John Bishop

49. October 2, 1765 [110]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Conway, concerning correspondence during

the transition from Halifax to Conway

50. January 31, 1766 [112]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Conway, describing his policies toward dealing

with the discontents and rebelliousness of the times; drawing a contrast between

Georgia and the northern colonies, but describing the anti-government actions of

people in Georgia as well; pointing out the weakness of the military in Georgia,

should matters get worse

51. February 7, 1766 [116]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Conway, sharing more information and opinion

about the unrest in the colonies

52. February 12, 1766 [118]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Conway, sharing yet more about the unrest,

including references to publications against the Stamp Act [with enclosures,

documents 53 to 55]

53. November 29, 1763 [120]

Printed proceedings of the Commons House of the Assembly of South Carolina,

declaring in 18 statements South Carolinians’ [expanded] rights within the British

system [enclosed with Wright’s February 12, 1766 letter to Conway, document

52]

54. February 11 and 4, 1766 [121]

Two printed issues of South Carolina Gazette and Country Journal, expressing

more views on expanded American “liberties” [enclosed with Wright’s February

12, 1766 letter to Conway, document 52]

55. January 28, 1766 [125]

Printed Proceedings of Commons House of the Assembly of South Carolina,

consisting of a series of House orders and Lieutenant (actually Acting] Governor

William Bull’s messages in response, dated between January 22 and 28, 1776,

concerning whether or not South Carolina had properly received an “authentic”

Stamp Act and whether the Governor was obliged to enforce it, on which the

House and the Lieutenant Governor and Council strongly disagreed [probably

enclosed with Wright’s February 12, 1766 letter to Conway, document 52]

[Note: At this time of Georgia’s colonial history, the colony was without a

governor. Thomas Boone had left office in May 1764 (for more on him see the

note after Reel 1 document 63), and he was not replaced as governor until

Charles Greville Montagu (for more on him see the note after Reel 2 document

117) assumed the position on June 12, 1766. During the interim, William Bull,

who served as Lieutenant Governor from 1759 until 1775, stood in as Acting

Governor but without the official title. For more on him, see notes after Reel 1

document 36 and document 64.]

56. March 10, 1766 [127]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Conway, reporting on the South Carolina

government’s conflict concerning enforcement of the Stamp Act; stating his

intention to do his duty to the King regarding the Stamp Act, avoiding such

conflicts [with enclosures, documents 57, 58] [Frame 128 microfilmed twice]

57. February 25, 1766 [130]

Printed issue of South Carolina Gazette and Country Journal, including pieces

pertaining to enforcement of the Stamp Act in South Carolina [enclosed with

Wright’s March 10, 1766 letter to Conway, document 56]

58. March 1, 1766 [133]

Copy of document “At a meeting of the Fire Company in Charleston”, at which,

those present subscribed to a resolution swearing allegiance to the King,

followed by listing rights of free trade, along with actions to be taken to enforce

these rights [clearly meaning actions to oppose enforcement of the Stamp Act];

copy made by Wright; [enclosed with Wright’s March 10, 1766 letter to Conway,

document 56] [for more on Sons of Liberty and Fire Companies, see note after

Reel 1 document 69]

59. March 15, 1766 [135]

Copy of letter from Wright at Savannah to Conway, reporting further information

on the South Carolina situation [with enclosure, document 60]

60. February 6, 1766 [137]

Printed issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette, containing extensive reports about

protest responses to the Stamp Act in Massachusetts and Connecticut [Frame

138 microfilmed twice]; followed by

March 13, 1766

Printed issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette, containing additional reports about

protest responses to the Stamp Act in other colonies, including New York and

Rhode Island [both enclosed with Wright’s March 15, 1766 letter to Conway,

document 59]

61. May 1, 1766 [141]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Conway, stating that new instructions

concerning the importation of “Bullion in Foreign Bottoms” will be implemented

62. September 22, 1766 [143]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 2 from the Earl of Shelburne at Whitehall to Wright,

approving of Wright’s “Conduct during the late Disturbances”; warning of the

importance of enforcing the supremacy of royal authority; ensuring Wright that

his and his lieutenant-governor’s jobs are safe [copy of this letter in Secretary of

State official outgoing correspondence, Reel 9 document 1] [Shelburne did not

write to Wright letters with numbers 1, 3, 4, or 7; as indicated in the Reel 9

document 1 letterbook with numbered documents, documents with these

numbers were references to circular letters]

[Note: Politics in London was unsettled in May through July 1766, as is the

chronological order of the documents during the same period. Until May 23,

Henry Seymour Conway was Secretary of State for the Southern Department.

Between May 23 and July 29, Charles Lennox, 3

Duke of Richmond and

Lennox, held this Secretary of State position. And on July 30, William Petty, 2

Earl of Shelburne assumed this Secretary of State position. Because of delays

in the delivery by sea of correspondence between the colonies and Britain, letters

during this period from the colonial governor were frequently directed to a

Secretary of State who had already left office. In the case of this outgoing letter,

Shelburne is, of course, identified accurately as the Secretary of State in

September 1766. He continued in the position until October 20, 1768.]

63. June 28, 1766 [145]

Copy of letter from Wright at Savannah to the Board of Trade, warning that “I

think I pretty clearly see disturbances and mischief gathering and breaking out

amongst the Indians”; blaming the King’s regulation of the Indian trade dated

October 7, 1763, with explanation of his views and an urgent request that

changes be considered, since “I look upon the Hands of the governor to be tyed

up by His Majesty’s Royal Proclamation” [original letter in Board of Trade official

correspondence, Reel 2 document 77]; scrivener’s note stating that this copy of

this letter, identified as “No. 18” was enclosed “In their Lordships Letter, of 3

Sept

. 1766” [this letter is not found among the microfilmed documents]

64. July 23, 1766 [149]

Duplicate of letter from Wright at Savannah to Conway [on this date, Richmond

was actually Secretary of State for the Southern Department], concerning

disturbances of the sons of liberty and Georgia’s loyal response [with

enclosures, documents 65 to 70]

65. July 22, 1766 [151]

Address of both houses of the Georgia Assembly, at Savannah, to the King,

expressing their loyalty to the King and their support for royal policies and rule

[enclosed with Wright’s July 23, 1766 letter to Conway, document 64]

66. July 17, 1766 [153]

Copy of address of the Commons House to Wright, expressing their loyalty to the

King and support for Wright’s royal governing of Georgia [enclosed with Wright’s

July 23, 1766 letter to Conway, document 64]

67. July 17, 1766 [155]

Copy of address of the Upper House to Wright, expressing their loyalty to the

King and support for Wright’s royal governing of Georgia [enclosed with Wright’s

July 23, 1766 letter to Conway, document 64]

68. July 17, 1766 [156]

Copy of Wright’s response to one or both houses of the Georgia Assembly,

thanking them for their statements of loyalty [enclosed with Wright’s July 23,

1766 letter to Conway, document 64]

69. July 16, 1766 [157]

Copy of address of Wright at Savannah to both houses of the Georgia Assembly,

commending them and their actions and calling on them to declare their loyalty

and obedience to Britain [enclosed with Wright’s July 23, 1766 letter to Conway,

document 64]

70. July 16, 1766 [159]

Copy of address of Wright at Savannah to both houses of the Georgia Assembly,

commending them on their addresses of loyalty and obedience [enclosed with

Wright’s July 23, 1766 letter to Conway, document 64]

71. August 23, 1766 [160]

Copy of letter No. 51 from Wright at Savannah to John Pownall, Secretary to the

Board of Trade and Plantations, acknowledging receipt of the estimate for the

civil establishment of Georgia from June 24, 1765 to June 24, 1766; hoping for

early responses concerning several letters he had sent to the Board of Trade

concerning the silk culture and Indian affairs, with details

72. October 28, 1766 [162]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Secretary of State the Duke of Richmond,

concerning his succession to Secretary of State position; professing his and his

colony’s loyalty to the Crown

[Note: Wright’s knowledge of who was currently Secretary of State for the

Southern Department was behind the times. Richmond had been replaced on

July 30, 1766 by Shelburne, as Wright became aware by November 18

(document 73). See the note after document 62 above.]

73. November 18, 1766 [164]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Secretary of State the Earl o

f Shelburne,

concerning his succession to the Secretary of State position [beginning on

January 5, 1767, document 80, Wright’s letters to Shelburne were numbered]

74. November 18, 1766 [166]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, briefly summarizing for

Shelburne’s benefit Wright’s experience governing and developing Georgia since

his arrival and Governor Ellis’ departure in November 1760 to the present time

and the Stamp Act controversy, with details [with enclosure, document 75]

75. November 10, 1766 [168]

Printed issue of The Carolina Gazette, with reports on the Stamp Act protests in

Massachusetts [enclosed with Wright’s November 18, 1766 letter to Shelburne,

document 74]

76. November 29, 1766 [170]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, providing additional documentation

of prior developments and needs in Georgia, including especially matters of

defense preparedness and Indian affairs [with enclosure, document 77]

77. February 15, 1762 [172]

Copy of answers by Wright to Board of Trade’s questions of October 1761 about

the status of the Georgia colony, its development, its finances, and its

government; copied by Wright on November 29, 1766 [enclosed with Wright’s

November 29, 1766 letter to Shelburne, document 76]

78. [no date] [188]

“A General State of the Trade from October 1765 to Oct

. 1766”, including total

values for imports from Britain, from the West Indies, from the Northern Colonies,

and “by Negro’s from africa” and exports from Savannah and from Sunbury to

Europe, the West Indies, and the Northern Colonies

79. February 19, 1767 [189]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 5 from Shelburne at Whitehall to Wright, approving of

Wright’s reports of past actions and approaches, especially to Indian affairs;

commenting that he wished the Governor George Johnstone of West Florida had

paid the same attention to maintaining peace with the Indians; stating that the

King had recalled Johnstone; concerning what steps were being taken to resolve

the hostile Indian situation in West Florida; hoping that other colonial governors

would learn lessons from Johnstone’s errors [Copy of this letter in Secretary of

State official outgoing correspondence, Reel 9 document 1]

80. January 5, 1767 [191]

Copy of letter No. 1 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, concerning the

practice of Indian affairs in Georgia [with enclosures, documents 81 to 84]

[Note: Wright wrote 14 numbered letters to Shelburne, dated between January 5

and December 8, 1767. Of these, all except No. 5 and No. 7 are microfilmed

here. For a summary of Letter No. 5, dated May 15, 1767, plus three enclosures,

see Reel 10, document 13. For a summary of Letter No. 7, dated July 20, 1767,

see Reel 10 document 17. Shelburne’s term as Secretary of State for the

Southern Department lasted from July 30, 1766 until February 27, 1768.]

81. April 29, 1766 [193]

Quote from a Talk by an Indian leader; followed by

June 8, 1766

Quote from another Talk by an Indian leader;

copied on January 3, 1767 by Wright [enclosed with Wright’s January 5, 1767

letter to Shelburne, document 80]

82. December 17, 1766 [195]

Copy of letter from John Stuart, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southern

District [for more on John Stuart, see note after Reel 1 document 79], at

Charleston, to Wright, concerning Indian Affairs and traders; followed by

January 5, 1767

Copy of letter from Wright at Savannah to [Stuart?], concerning Indian affairs and

traders

copied on January 3, 1767 by Wright [enclosed with Wright’s January 5, 1767

letter to Shelburne, document 80]

83. June 8, 1766 [199]

Copy of Wright’s reply to a Talk by an Indian leader

Copied on January 3, 1767 by Wright [enclosed with Wright’s January 5, 1767

letter to Shelburne, document 80]

84. [no date] [201]

Printed copy of Wright’s general instructions to Georgia traders on how to treat

Indians, beginning with the general admonition “to set good Examples before

them: And your Behaviour must be such that no offence be given to the

Christian Religion” [enclosed with Wright’s January 5, 1767 letter to Shelburne,

document 80]

85. October 7, 1763 [date form was adopted] [202]

Printed form to license a trader with the Indians; with handwritten notes by Wright

explaining and expanding on it, including note that the form was published in the

Georgia Gazette on December 8, 1763 [enclosed with Wright’s January 5, 1767

letter to Shelburne, document 80]

86. January 5, 1767 [203]

Letter No. 2 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, concerning the current status

of affairs in Georgia, offering a positive view of matters, at least temporarily,

justifying his past actions and stating that he will continue his policies

87. February 16, 1767 [205]

Letter No. 3 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, concerning receipt of certain

instructions from London and seeking to learn the status of other correspondence

88. April 6, 1767 [207]

Letter No. 4 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, concerning difficulties with

Georgia Assembly, specifically Commons House, with Sons of Liberty, and with

enforcement of Mutiny Act; concerning military preparedness of Georgia and

Indian relations; concerning government in South Carolina; concerning other

matters of Georgia colonial government and maintaining sovereignty of Britain in

America [with enclosures, documents 89 to 101] [Frame 211 microfilmed twice]

[copy of letter to Board of Trade, with similar enclosures, in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 95] [Wright’s Letter No. 5 is not

microfilmed in the Georgia Colonial Papers; for a summary of Letter No. 5, dated

May 15, 1767, plus three enclosures, see Reel 10, document 13]

89. January 20, 1767 [215]

Extract from Journal of Georgia Assembly’s Upper House, quoting several

documents, including message from Wright to the Assembly, dated January 20,

1767, concerning request from Captain Lieutenant Ralph Phillips, commander of

troops in Georgia, that a list of “necessaries allowed by the Mutiny Act to Soldiers

in America” be provided to his troops; seeking Upper House advice on complying

with the law; followed by

January 6, 1767

Extract from letter from Phillips, at Charleston, to Wright, requesting that the list

he enclosed of necessaries be provided; followed by

Resolution supporting Wright’s understanding of a lawful response to Phillips’

request [which would require funding for the necessaries]; followed by

Copy of address by the Upper House to Wright, conveying its resolution that

Wright should take all lawful action [including funding] concerning both the

Phillips request and also regarding the need for repairs at Fort Halifax [a fort

located within the city of Savannah; by 1759-1660, funds were found to rebuild it]

[all enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88]

[similar enclosure in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

96]

90. January 20, 1767 [217]

Extract from Journal of Georgia Assembly Commons House, quoting several

documents, including Wright’s message to Assembly and Phillips’ request to

Wright [same as in document 89], including the list of necessaries and including

the full name of the Mutiny Act, “an Act for punishing Mutiny and Desertion and

for the better Payment of the Army and their Quarters”; followed by

January 28, 1767

Extract from Journal, including decision to adopt and send a re

solution to Wright

concerning Phillips’ request with an address from the Commons House; followed

February 18, 1767

Extract from Journal, including approval of address to Wright from Commons

House, conveying that house’s position that “complying with the Requisition

contained in your Excellency’s Message would be a Violation of the trust reposed

in them by their Constituents and founding a Precedent they by no Means think

themselves justifiable in introducing”

[all enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88]

91. February 5, 1767 [219]

Extract from Journal of Commons House of Georgia Assembly, quoting a petition

from “Merchants residing in the Province” of Georgia to both houses of the

Georgia Assembly, concerning their opposition to enforcement of taxes and

duties imposed on Georgia and the other colonies; seeking their repeal and

requesting recompense for financial losses; followed by

February 10, 1767

Extract from Commons Journal, including committee recommendation that

Commons House respond positively to the merchants’ petition, petitioning Wright

or the King to get the laws repealed and to pay recompense; followed by

February 13

Extract from Commons Journal, considering additions needed to the proposed

petition to Wright or the King, including the issue of the state of Georgia militia;

concerning need to obtain Upper House consideration of the proposed petition;

followed by

February 16, 1767

Extract from Commons Journal, reporting that Upper House had received the

Commons House’s proposed petition and would consider it

[all enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88] [copy

to Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

98]

[Note: This merchants’ petition may be a late reaction against enforcement of

the Stamp Act in Georgia—although that act had been repealed by Parliament in

March 1766. Or it might be an early reaction to a new revenue act and several

other duty acts being enacted in 1767—although the Revenue Act was not

assented to by the King until June—that became known collectively as the

Townshend Acts, after Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer (see

note after document 149 below). In any event, merchants even in less “radical”

Georgia remained upset about taxes and duties in this lull between British efforts

to raise revenue by taxing trade.]

92. [no date] [222]

Copy of proposed “Estimate [from the Commons House] of the necessary

Charges of Government in the Province of Georgia for one Year commencing the

September 1766 and ending the 29

September 1767”, including expenses

of the courts, Assembly, and contingencies, with notes [enclosed with Wright’s

April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88] [copy to Board of Trade in Board

of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 100]

93. March 20, 1767 [223]

Extract from Journal of Upper House, disagreeing with Commons House’s

proposed Estimate provisions; specifically objecting to a salary of £100 for

Charles Garth as “Agent for this Province”, which Upper House finds “irregular”

since he is now agent for South Carolina; similarly, objecting to proposed

reimbursement to Treasurer of funds he had lent to Garth; including reasons for

objections [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document

88] [copy to Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2

document 101]

94. March 20, 1767 [225]

Extract from Journal of Commons House, including text of Wright’s response to

Commons House, disagreeing on approving the proposed Estimate items

suggested by that house [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to

Shelburne, document 88] [Frame 225 microfilmed twice] [copy to Board of

Trade in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 102]

95. March 26, 1767 [227]

Extract from Journal of Upper House, resolving that they oppose the Commons

House move to hire its own agent for Georgia, and that Commons House has

exceeded its authority in naming an agent; stating that the recognized Agent for

Georgia is William Knox; resolving to address Wright concerning this matter

[enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88] [copy to

Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document

103]

96. [no date] [228]

Copy of address by Upper House to Wright, concerning its opposition to

Commons House’s action to appoint its own agent for Georgia [enclosed with

Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88]

97. March 26, 1767 [229]

Extract from Journal of Commons House, including decision to send petition to

the King and Parliament “respecting the Scarcity of Paper Currency in this

Province”; resolving to convey the petition via Charles Garth; also requesting that

Garth “use his utmost Endeavor” to obtain Royal approval of a 1765 provincial

law [previously disallowed] confirming land grants by South Carolina in the area

south of the Altamaha River; reiterating its support for a salary for Garth;

expressing concern about a decision by British Commander in Chief in North

America Thomas Gage to reduce the number of troops in Georgia and

requesting that Wright seek to replace these troops; including text of address

from Commons House to Wright requesting that troop levels in Georgia be

maintained; summary of Wright’s response that he did not have authority to

replace the troops, but that he would try to get Gage to send particular officers

and troops to particular places, such as Fort George, and that the Commons

House’s proposals concerning Charles Garth would be a “Revolution” but in any

case that to come to him for his consideration, they would need Upper House

approval; authorizing expenditures of £193.12.6 to be paid to certain military

officers and soldiers for garrison duty [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter

to Shelburne, document 88] [copy to Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 99]

98. [no date] [232]

Copy of petition from Commons House to the King, concerning the need for relief

from the shortage of paper currency [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter

to Shelburne, document 88] [copy to Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 104]

99. [no date] [234]

Copy of petition from Commons House to Parliament’s House of Lords,

concerning the need for relief from the shortage of paper currency [enclosed

with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88] [Frame 235 (blank)

included twice] [copy to Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 105]

100. [no date] [236]

Copy of petition from Commons House to Parliament’s House of Commons,

concerning the need for relief from the shortage of paper money [enclosed with

Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88] [copy to Board of Trade

in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 106]

101. November 10, 1767 [238]

Extract from Journal of Commons House, ordering that £105 be sent to Garth in

London and that the Commons House will reimburse the Treasurer for this

amount [enclosed with Wright’s April 6, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 88]

102. July 18, 1767 [239]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 8 from Shelburne at Whitehall to Wright, responding to

Wright’s letter of April 10, 1767 [document 88 with its many enclosures,

[documents 89 to 101], agreeing with Wright that the Georgia Commons House

has seriously refused to obey the law; reporting the King’s order that Commons

House “will render an exact and complete Obedience in all Respects whatever,

to the Terms of the Mutiny Act; ordering Wright immediately to order Commons

House to “make those Provisions for the Supply of the king’s Troops, which by

that Act they are directed to do” [copy of this letter in Secretary of State official

outgoing correspondence, Reel 9 document 1]

103. June 15, 1767 [242]

Letter No. 6 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, acknowledging receipt of

several new laws from the Board of Trade, especially one temporarily prohibiting

the exportation of “grain corn”; seeking further clarification about his authority

under the Mutiny Act in relation to the Commons House; reporting on laws

passed in Georgia and raising new issues about public expenditure of funds

received from the sale of excess public gunpowder; about controlling rebellious

slaves; and about other, additional acts and issues [with enclosure, document

104] [similar letter to Board of Trade in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 112; extract from this letter in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 125] [letter No. 7 from Wright to

Shelburne, dated July 20, 1767, is not found in the microfilmed Georgia Colonial

Papers; for a summary of it, see Reel 10 document 17]

104. February 2, 1767 [248]

Extract from Journal of Commons House of Georgia Assembly, including address

from Commons House to Wright, concerning a possible location for Wright’s

recommended lazarette “for the Reception of infected Persons coming into this

Province” and requesting that funds received from the sale of gunpowder be

released to support the lazarette; including Wright’s response to Commons

House’s request concerning gunpowder money, with which he concurs, releasing

£300 [for more on a lazarette, see note after Reel 2 document 113] [enclosed

with Wright’s June 15, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 103] [copy to Board

of Trade in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 113]

105. August 14, 1767 [250]

Letter No. 8 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, concerning relations with the

Indians [with enclosures, documents 106, 107]

106. April 5 and July 30, 1767 [252]

Extracts from two letters dated April 5, 1767 and July 30, 1767 respectively from

Wright to Superintendent of Indian Affairs John Stuart concerning difficulties

between Indians and traders in the Little River area [enclosed with Wright’s

August 14, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 105]

[Note: The aptly named Little River’s lower reaches, where it flowed into the

Savannah River not far upstream from Augusta, Georgia, are now submerged

under a long dam lake. The river begins about 60 miles to the west and

meanders eastward through rural countryside before being drowned. In the

1760s it was on the frontier of friction between Georgian settlers and Creek

Indians.]

107. July 29, 1767 [254]

Extract from Journal of Georgia Council, concerning petition dated July 20, 1767

from inhabitants in the Little River area complaining about “plunder and

depredations committed on their Stock of Horses and Cattle by a Party of Creek

Indians”; including copy of petition text with details, signed by 31 individuals;

including letter dated July 20, 1767 from four magistrates in the Little River area

with similar complaints; which led Wright to set up a Talk with the Indians;

followed by

August 4, 1767

Extract from Georgia Council Journal, including texts of several documents:

Wright’s draft Talk to the Indians, dated July 30, 1767, which was reviewed at the

meeting, in which he takes the complaints he had received to the Indians and

seeks to re-establish the mutual friendship and peace promised by the treaty of

1763 [handwritten and printed copies of the treaty at Reel 1 document 79 and

Reel 5 document 179 respectively; cover letter explaining treaty at document 25

above]; Wright’s July 24, 1767 response to letter from the four magistrates

promising action by the Georgia government; July 30, 1767 letter from the four

magistrates to Wright with more details about the Indian raids; draft response

from Wright to the magistrates, dated August 4, 1767, calling on the magistrates

to use their legal authority to use warrants to attempt to apprehend the

perpetrators of the crimes complained about; draft by Wright dated August 5,

1767 of another Talk to the Creek Indians, this time promising to punish the

Indians who perpetrated the crimes

[both enclosed with Wright’s August 14, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 105]

108. August 15, 1767 [260]

Letter No. 9 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, concerning the need for

greater military protection in Georgia and funding to pay for it; stating that he is

paying for existing troops out of his pocket [with enclosure, document 109]

109. April 2, 1767 [262]

“Extract of Substance of my [Wright’s] Letter to Gen

Gage”, concerning the

dangers to Georgia from insufficient troops and funding for them; stating that he

is paying for existing troops out of his pocket; with details of the dangers,

including summarized correspondence with Stuart and Gage [enclosed with

Wright’s August 15, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 108] [similar or copy of

extract in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 117]

110. November 14, 1767 [266]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 10 from Shelburne at Whitehall to Wright; conveying

the King’s approval of Wright’s efforts to “pacify the Creek Indians for the

Outrages committed upon them in their Village on Oconee River by the

Inhabitants of Augusta”; recognizing that “the worst consequences may ensue

from the Lawless and brutal Behaviour of the Back Settlers, unless duly

restrained, & which therefore cannot be too severely punished”; reporting the

King’s approval of using the £300 from the “Powder Duty” to building a lazarette

[copy of this letter in Secretary of State official outgoing correspondence, Reel 9

document 1]

111. September 17, 1767 [268]

Letter No. 10 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, hoping to be able to

stabilize the situation with the Creek Indians

112. September 21, 1767 [270]

Letter No. 11 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, providing a brief update on

the situation with the “attacks of the Assembly”

113. October 24, 1767 [272]

Letter No. 12 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, reporting on the murder

and injury of East Florida inhabitants by Creek Indians at St. Marys, Georgia

[with enclosure, document 114] [similar letter to Board of Trade in Board of

Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 121]

114. October 21, 1767 [274]

Sworn testimony of William Clark of St. Mary Parish [located where the town of

St. Marys, Georgia now exists, on the St. Marys River, which was and remains

the boundary between Georgia and Florida], before Justice of the Peace George

McIntosh, concerning the murders by Creek Indians; followed by

October 15, 1767

Sworn testimony of James Lemon, ferryman at Satilla [location uncertain but

perhaps site of a ferry on the St. Marys River], before Justice of the Peace

George McIntosh, concerning the murders by Creek Indians [George McIntosh

was brother of Lachlan McIntosh, later a general in the Continental Army, who in

1777 killed his war-related political rival Button Gwinnet in a duel]

[both enclosed with Wright’s October 24, 1767 letter to Shelburne] [copy of each

in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 122]

115. October 31, 1767 [276]

Letter No. 13 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, concerning having called a

session of the Commons House of the Georgia Assembly to explain to them the

content of the Mutiny Act and seek their compliance [with enclosures,

documents 116, 117]

116. October 27, 1767 [278]

Extract from Journal of Commons House of Georgia Assembly, quoting text of

Wright’s message to the Assembly concerning requirements of the Mutiny Act;

followed by

October 29, 1767

Extract from Journal of Commons House, quoting text from the Commons

House’s address in response to Wright, having resolved to provide up to £200 to

provide provisions for the troops as required by the Mutiny Act, and itemizing the

articles to be provided; followed by

October 30, 1767

Extract from Journal of Commons House, quoting text from Wright’s response to

the Assembly, acknowledging the Commons House’s having complied with the

Mutiny Act

[all enclosed with Wright’s October 31, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document 115]

[copies of these extracts plus additional ones dated in 1768 in document 125

below]

117. October 27, 1767 [280]

Text of Wright’s message to Upper House of the Georgia Assembly, concerning

his having informed the Commons House of its responsibility to comply with

requirements of the Mutiny Act, as conveyed by royal orders received through

Shelburne; [apparently copy of enclosure sent to Hillsborough (document 126

below), dated October 28 rather than October 27] followed by

October 27, 1767

Text of Upper House’s address in response to Wright’s message, pledging

support for all British laws, including this one; followed by

Wright’s response of “great satisfaction” concerning the Upper House’s address

[both enclosed with Wright’s October 31, 1767 letter to Shelburne, document

115] [copy in document 126 below, sent later to Hillsborough]

Volume 659—Itemized, Annotated Contents

Secretary of State Official Correspondence, (incoming), continued

November 18, 1765 to December 10, 1768 Documents 118 to 161 [Frames 1 to 108]

Note: See notes in the Summary Contents at the beginning of this Finding Aid about

the differing filing systems of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State office,

especially on the distinction between “official” and “other” correspondence.

Note: Volume 659 continues from Volume 658 the Secretary of State’s papers of

(mostly) incoming official correspondence in the microfilmed papers of colonial Georgia.

Note: Under the direction of Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Earl of

Hillsborough, archivists in the Secretary of State’s Office began numbering each

incoming document (except for documents enclosed with an incoming letter) with a

letter and number (e.g. A.1) within a Bundle or Volume. Hillsborough may have brought

this practice with him from the Board of Trade. Where found, this Finding Aid reports

these numbers as “SS numbers.” Volume 659 begins with A.1 and ends with A.25.

Only Volume 659 contains SS numbers. This archival practice was not continued in

Volume 660.

Note: Secretary of State for the Colonies Hillsborough continued Shelburne’s practice

of numbering his outgoing letters and having colonial governors number their letters to

Hillsborough. Where found, these letter numbers are included in this Finding Aid.

Note: The British Public Records Office archivists who microfilmed the original

manuscript documents placed stamped numbers in the upper right corner of the

manuscript(s) included on each microfilmed frame. A frame may include one or more

manuscript sides.

Note: DLAR Document Numbers appear at the left margin. Frame numbers appear in

brackets at the right margin. Document numbers run from Volume to Volume through a

complete Reel. Frame Numbers start over with each Volume.

118. February 20, 1768 [1]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 3 from the Earl of Hillsborough at Whitehall, to James

Wright, Governor of Georgia, stating that the issues in Wright’s letters about

difficulties with the Commons House of the Georgia Assembly have been

forwarded to the King; enclosing a report by the Board of Trade concerning

similar difficulties in Massachusetts Bay Colony; supporting Wright’s efforts to

enforce obedience to the Crown; stating that word from the Governor of East

Florida [James Grant] indicates that no further consequences will accrue from the

murders by Creek Indians at St. Marys; enclosing the approved estimate for

services in Georgia, in the same amount as the previous year; seeking Wright’s

opinion about whether the Board of Trade’s recent decision to curtail support for

the silk industry in Georgia is wise policy or might “destroy all Hope of Success in

this important Article of Produce”, so that the King may be advised on what policy

to suggest to the Board of Trade [with enclosures, documents 119, 120] [copy in

Secretary of State official outgoing correspondence, Reel 9 document 3]

[Hillsborough did not write letters to Wright numbered 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23, 25, or 33. Items with these document numbers in the Reel

9 document 3 letterbook of Secretary of State official outgoing correspondence

are all references to circulars sent by the Secretary of State office.]

[Note: For more on Wills Hill, 1

Earl of Hillsborough, see note after Reel 2

document 137. He had a long career in British politics and government with

overlapping important responsibilities: First Lord of the Board of Trade from

1763-1765; Secretary of State for the Colonies and First Lord of the Board of

Trade from 1768-1772; Secretary of State for the Southern Department from

1779-1782. On February 27, 1768, Hillsborough assumed the new position of

Secretary of State for the Colonies (this letter was thus written several days

before he was officially appointed), a position he held until August 27, 1772.

Although the position of Secretary of State for the Southern Department was not

abolished, in 1768 it became a secondary position from the point of view of

colonial governors, who clearly communicated now with the new Secretary of

State for the Colonies.]

[Note: For more on Georgia Governor James Wright, see note after Reel 1

document 9. For Wright, this was just another of several changes of Secretary of

State to whom he had to report and from whom he sought approbation and

support.]

[Note: For much more on East Florida Governor James Grant, see the David

Library’s Finding Aid on the British Colonial Office papers for the British colony of

East Florida.]

119. [no date] [6]

Copy of Estimate for civil establishment of Georgia and other incidental expenses

from June 24, 1767 to June 24, 1768, totaling £3,086 [enclosed with

Hillsborough’s February 20, 1768 letter to Wright., document 118] [copy in

Secretary of State official outgoing correspondence, Reel 9 document 3] [SS

number A.1]

120. February 5, 1768 [8]

Extract from a Letter from [John] Pownall [Secretary to the Board of Trade] to

Richard Phelps [probably at the Treasury], stating that, since the bounty granted

for silk culture in Georgia “has not had the desired Effect”, the Board of Trade

wishes to discontinue the bounty, after already committed expenses in the 1767-

1768 Estimate for Georgia have been paid [enclosed with Hillsborough’s

February 20, 1768 letter to Wright., document 118] [SS number A.2] [copy in

Secretary of State official outgoing correspondence, Reel 9 document 3] [for

more on John Pownall, see note after Reel 1 document 7]

121. December 8, 1767 [10]

Letter No. 14 from Wright at Savannah to Shelburne, acknowledging receipt of

an act concerning duties in the colonies [SS number A.3]

[Note: Shelburne continued as Secretary of State for the Southern Department

until October 20, 1768, while Hillsborough began as Secretary of State for the

Colonies on February 27, 1768. Regardless, when Wright dated this letter to

Shelburne, he was still the “Principal” Secretary of State in relation to the colonial

governors, until Hillsborough assumed his newly created position in February.]

122. February 23, 1768 [12]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 5 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Wright,

acknowledging receipt of Wright’s December 8, 1767 letter to Shelburne

[document 121] [copy in Secretary of State official outgoing correspondence,

Reel 9 document 3]

[Note: Hillsborough evidently got a running start on his new position. This letter

is dated four days before he was officially appointed as Secretary of State for the

Colonies.]

123. May 23, 1768 [14]

Letter from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning bills passed by the

Georgia government; concerning issues with some of these bills, including those

concerning the Commons House’s having appointed Charles Garth as its agent

to the King; concerning the efforts of some people, such as the Sons of Liberty,

and some in the Commons Assembly, who are “Considering Mistaken Notions of

American Liberty and Power”; concerning his own beliefs and opinions

supporting the notion of liberties under a benevolent British government;

concerning prosperity in Georgia and encouragement by England of trade;

concerning other issues, in detail [with enclosures, documents 124 to 130] [SS

number A.4]

124. February 18, 1768 [22]

Extract from Journal of Georgia Council, concerning a bill from Charles Garth,

dated February 15, 1768, for £100 for his salary, which was contested since he

had not been appointed to the position of Georgia’s agent; the Council supported

Wright’s position that Garth could legally not be paid [enclosed in Wright’s May

23, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 123] [copy in Board of Trade incoming

correspondence, Reel 2 document 135]

125. October 27, 1767 [24]

Extract from Journal of Commons House of Georgia Assembly, quoting Wright’s

message to the Commons House concerning its duty to comply with provisions of

the Mutiny Act; followed by

October 29, 1767

Extract from Journal of Commons House, including text of its address responding

to Wright, authorizing £200 to pay for the required soldiers’ provisions, which are

itemized; followed by

October 30, 1767

Extract from Journal of Commons House, including text of Wright’s response to

Commons House, supporting its adherence to the law; followed by

January 27, 1768

Extract from Journal of Commons House, approving continuation of Garth as

their agent to the British government; followed by

March 9, 1768

Extract from Journal of Commons House, including text of Wright’s message,

dated March 9, 1768, to the Commons House notifying them that the King had

disallowed and repealed a Georgia law on the control of Negroes “and other

slaves” passed on March 25, 1765, as well as another law passed on March 6,

1766 encouraging new settlement in Georgia, construction of a new “Great

House”, and other matters; also including text of another Wright message dated

September 11, 1767, concerning resolving the status of land grants made by

South Carolina in the coastal area south of the Altamaha River; followed by

March 24, 1768

Extract from Journal of Commons House, including text of Commons House

address responding to Wright’s message about the disallowance and repeal of

certain laws, recognizing the need for a legal way to control slaves and that some

Georgia settlers who may suffer from resolving the South Carolina land grants

may need assistance

[all enclosed with Wright’s May 23, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 123]

[copies of October 1767 extracts in document 116 above, enclosed in a letter to

Secretary of State Shelburne; these and additional extracts dated in 1768 were

sent to new Secretary of State Hillsborough]

126. October 28, 1767 [28]

Copy of address of Upper House of Georgia Assembly to Wright, responding to

his message [document 127] expressing their support for following the law and

specifically the provisions of the Mutiny Act [enclosed with Wright’s May 23,

1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 123] [apparently copy of enclosure sent to

Shelburne (document 117 above), dated October 27 rather than October 28]

127. October 27, 1767 [29]

Copy of Wright’s message to Upper House of Georgia Assembly, informing them

of his communication with the Commons House about their duty to enforce the

Mutiny Act [enclosed with Wright’s May 23, 1768 letter to Hillsborough,

document 123] [copy sent earlier to Shelburne in document 117 above]

128. March 15, 1768 [30]

Copy of Upper House of Georgia Assembly address responding to Wright’s

message about disallowance and repeal of the Negro control act and the act

concerning South Carolina land grants, assuring Wright that they will support an

alternative slave law and wish to consider the potential distress of settlers in

relation to the settler act; followed by

April 11, 1768

Copy of address by both Houses of Georgia Assembly concerning recent

disallowance and repeal of the two Georgia laws, reiterating the positions each

House took separately

[both enclosed with Wright’s May 23, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 123]

129. March 9, 1768 [32]

Copy of message from Wright to Council of Georgia, concerning recent

disallowance and repeal of two Georgia laws, one on governing Negroes and

other slaves and the other on land settlement and paying for a new courthouse;

stating that these were important provincial laws, and that action must be taken

to reenact similar laws that will be legal; followed by

March 9, 1768

Copy of message from Wright to [Council of Georgia], concerning recent

disallowance and repeal of a Georgia law, about settling South Carolina land

claims in the area south of the Altamaha River, stating that action must be taken

to enact a legal law to settle the legality of these land claims

[both enclosed with Wright’s May 23, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 123]

130. April 11, 1768 [34]

Copy of message by Wright to Commons House, assenting to a rewritten act for

Negro control; stating he will send it to the King for his approval [enclosed with

Wright’s May 23, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 123]

131. May 30, 1768 [36]

Letter No. 1 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, congratulating him on his

appointment as Secretary of State; informing him of Wright’s loyal governing of

Georgia and of the progress made in Georgia [SS number A.5]

[Note: Hillsborough began having his outgoing letters numbered when he first

began acting as Secretary of State for the Colonies in February

1768, a practice

he apparently continued from Shelburne. Like Shelburne, Hillsborough also had

the colonial governors number their letters to him. Wright didn’t number his No. 1

letter until May 30, while the first outgoing Hillsborough letter (No. 3) in these

microfilmed papers (document 118), is dated February 20, a few days before he

was officially appointed. Wright wrote to Hillsborough numbered letter No. 1

dated May 30, 1768 to at least letter No. 58 dated May 8, 1771, of which all

except No. 6 are microfilmed here.]

132. May 30, 1768 [38]

Letter No. 2 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning Wright’s

responding to Hillsborough’s request for copies of all Georgia laws in force [SS

number A.6]

133. May 30, 1768 [40]

Letter No. 3 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning Georgia’s

response to the Stamp Act as distinct from other colonies to the north;

concerning other colonial matters such as silk production [SS number A.7]

134. May 31, 1768 [42]

Letter No. 4 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning various

matters of colonial development in Georgia carried over from Shelburne’s time to

Hillsborough’s [SS number A.8]

135. May 31, 1768 [44]

Letter No. 5 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning implementing

recent laws of Parliament [SS number A.9] [no letter No. 6 is microfilmed here]

136. May 31, 1768 [46]

Letter No. 7 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning how he has

used his power in relation to the Indians and in relation to the Sons of Liberty

[SS number A.10]

137. July 20, 1768 [48]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 15 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Wright, concerning

Wright’s handling of difficulties and lack of flexibility “in the Mode of issuing and

disposing of Money granted for the Support of Government by the Laws of the

Colony”, especially when colonial legislation specifically obligated royal money

for particular purposes; offering the opinion that payment of the legislated salary

of £100 to Charles Garth cannot be withheld by the Governor and Council, and

that they should not have approved legislation with such an obligation of money;

stating an understanding that repeal of colonial laws without conveying the

reasons creates difficulties, which he will try to minimize by sending the Board of

Trade orders, which contain the reasons for repeals; enclosing papers with the

rationale for repealing Georgia’s Negro control act; stating that despite this

repeal, the King continues to be pleased with Wright’s overall conduct as

governor; explaining that the legal solution to the Negro control situation lies in

not identifying slaves as “Chattels Personal” slaves; explaining that the King tried

to find a “short and easy Mode of Proceeding” regarding the lands south of the

Altamaha and “is sorry to find that the Assembly has been so far misled by the

Enemies of all Peace and Order as to reject the Measure”; conveying the King’s

order that Georgia lands “shall have the same Exemption from Quit Rents for 10

Years as has been allowed in the like Cases in the Colony of South Carolina”;

stating that “the Law for encouraging the Importation of Settlers was not repealed

for any of the Reasons you suppose”; enclosing a paper explaining the actual

reasons [copy in Secretary of State official outgoing correspondence, Reel 9

document 3]

138. June 8, 1768 [52]

Letter No. 8 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, listing laws passed by

Georgia government; explaining that these are necessary for the wellbeing of the

colony; seeking clarification for the proper procedures to convey them to the

Secretary of State and/or the Board of Trade; postscript dated June 11, 1768

expressing hope that the relationship between the Governor and Assembly is

improving [SS number A.11] [Frame 52 microfilmed twice] [similar letter to

Board of Trade, with same date, in Board of Trade incoming correspondence,

Reel 2 document 134; copy of letter #8 to Hillsborough in Board of Trade

incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 138]

139. July 1, 1768 [55]

Letter No. 9 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning operation and

prices in the silk culture industry [with enclosure, document 140] [SS number

A.12] [copy in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 137]

140. [no date] [57]

List of silkworm cocoons made and of silk produced each year, from 1755 to

1768 [enclosed with Wright’s July 1, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 139]

141. July 4, 1768 [58]

Letter No. 10 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, reporting that the

boundary between “us and the Indians” has been surveyed, but not before many

disputes about the boundaries of many private properties along the border;

expressing concern about the possibility of the Indians allying with the Negro

slaves against the British settlers [with enclosure, document 142] [SS number

A.13]

142. April 18, 1768 [60]

Extract from letter from [John] McIntosh, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs

for the Southern District to Wright, concerning a “Talk” with the Upper and Lower

Creek Indians about the British “Fugitive Laws” and Indian practices in relation to

“delivering up of fugitive Negroes” [enclosed with Wright’s July 4, 1768 letter to

Hillsborough, document 141]

[Note: This John McIntosh was another of the numerous, interrelated

McIntoshes of Georgia, South Carolina, and East Florida. He became a Deputy

Superintendent under John Stuart in 1766 and later, apparently was assigned to

the Chickasaw Indians.]

143. September 15, 1768 [61]

Draft [outgoing] letter No. 17 from Hillsborough at Whitehall to Wright, expressing

approval of Wright’s report on silk production, on setting boundaries with Indian

lands, and on fugitive Negroes; concerning a man named Alexander Willy

[Wylly], who claims to be former Speaker of the Georgia Lower House and has

been improperly presuming to speak on behalf of Georgia inhabitants to the

government of Massachusetts Bay; the King wanting to ensure that Mr. Wylly

does not actually become Speaker of the Lower House [copy in Secretary of

State official outgoing correspondence, Reel 9 document 3]

[Note: Alexander Wylly (1731-1781) was a prominent attorney in Savannah

who had moved here from his native Ireland in about 1756. As revealed in other

documents in these microfilmed papers, in 1762 he was representing petitioners

before Georgia’s Chief Justice. The Alexander Willy in this letter may be the

same person. However, members of the Wylly family in Savannah were

numerous, and this person seems to lean toward what was to become the Rebel

cause against the British. By contrast, wealthy attorney Alexander Wylly

remained a steadfast loyalist, evacuating to East Florida only when his property

and livelihood were endangered in 1776.]

144. August 5, 1768 [63]

Letter No. 11 from Wright at Savannah to Hillsborough, concerning trade with the

Indians and provisions about this trade in the King’s Proclamation of 1763;

concerning fugitive slaves and the Indians; concerning other Indian affairs issues

[with enclosures, documents 145 to 148] [SS number A.14] [Frame 63

microfilmed twice] [similar letter with same date and same enclosures is in Board

of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2, document 144]

145. November 18, 1765 [67]

Extract from minutes of the Indian Congress at Picolata in East Florida, which

culminated in the Treaty of Picolata, negotiated by East Florida Governor James

Grant and Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southern District John Stuart,

with the Creek Indians, with references to the setting of boundaries in Georgia

[enclosed with Wright’s August 5, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 144]

[copy in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 145] [for

more on the Treaty of Picolata, see note after Reel 2 document 145]

146. January 10, 1766 [68]

Copy of agreement between Governor of Wright of Georgia and Captain Alleck

“one of the Kings and head men of the Creek Indians” as a part of the Treaty of

Picolata of November 18, 1765, establishing boundaries between Creek and

British lands in Georgia, mostly identified by rivers, including especially the St.

Marys, Altamaha, Oconee, Ogeechee, Canoochee, and Apalachee Rivers

[enclosed with Wright’s August 5, 1768 letter to Hillsborough, document 144]

[copy in Board of Trade incoming correspondence, Reel 2 document 148]