THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 ce>u 
 ? 
 
 2. £ 
 
 ■I i 
 
 ILLINOIS HISTORICAL SURVEY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 http://archive.org/details/indianaffairsingOOcorr 
 
INDIAN AFFAIRS 
 IN GEORGIA 
 
 1732-1756 
 
 By 
 
 JOHN PITTS CORRY 
 
 Assistant Professor of History 
 Juniata College 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 1936 
 
Copyright, 1936, by 
 John Pitts Corry 
 
 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 BY GEORGE S. FERGUSON CO., PHILA., PA. 
 

 K 
 
 TO MY WIFE 
 ESTHER ALLEN WHITE CORRY 
 
 987507 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This essay tells in part the story of the clash of three rival inter- 
 national ambitions : the claims of Spain to the Georgia country, the 
 grand design of the French to link Louisiana and Canada by a chain 
 of forts and trading posts and thus encircle the English colonies 
 along the Atlantic seaboard, and the sturdy westward expansion of 
 the English in the south. 
 
 Into this region of international rivalry there was projected the 
 buffer colony of Georgia. It is the purpose of this book to trace 
 the part played by Georgia in this triangular rivalry of England, 
 France and Spain and to make clear the role of the Indians in this 
 conflict both as friends in trade and as allies or enemies in war. 
 
 In the past twenty years, colonial Georgia and the neighboring re- 
 gion have attracted merited attention from scholars. Nearly two 
 decades ago, McCain wrote his Georgia as a proprietary province, a 
 pioneer monograph which was soon followed by other works in the 
 same field. Swanton's studies of the Creeks and other southern 
 Indian tribes shed new light on the red men of the south. In 
 1925, Bolton and Ross published their stimulating book, The 
 Debatable Land, which sketched the history of Spain's title to 
 Georgia. The writings of Professor Bolton himself and of his 
 students, especially Mary Ross and J. G. Johnson, have cast new 
 light on the Spanish period of Georgia history. Coulter's articles 
 in the Georgia Historical Quarterly and his scholarly A Short 
 History of Georgia are of much value to the student of colonial 
 Georgia affairs. Most valuable of all in providing the background 
 for the present thesis is Verner W. Crane's The Southern Frontier 
 1670-1732. This excellent study stresses the importance of the 
 Anglo-French rivalry for the control of the southeast, and provides 
 a detailed analytical study of Indian affairs on the southern frontier 
 before 1732. 
 
 My debts of gratitude for aid received in the preparation of 
 this work are many, and it is a pleasure to acknowledge them. I have 
 
 5 
 
received much assistance from librarians and archivists at the Li- 
 brary of Congress, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the 
 University of Pennsylvania Library, the American Philosophical 
 Society, the Yale University Library, the New York Public Li- 
 brary, the Wymberley Jones DeRenne Georgia Library, the 
 Georgia Historical Society Library, the Emory University Library, 
 and elsewhere. Miss Ruth Blair, State Historian of Georgia, was 
 most kind in placing at my disposal the resources of the Department 
 of Archives of my native state. Mr. Alexander S. Salley, Jr., secre- 
 tary of the Historical Commission of South Carolina, aided me in 
 my research in the South Carolina archives. I am indebted to the 
 late Dr. Herman V. Ames, to the late Dr. A. E. McKinley, to Dr. 
 Roy F. Nichols, and to Dr. Leonidas Dodson, all of the University 
 of Pennsylvania, for their assistance in the preparation of this thesis. 
 I am especially grateful to Dr. St. George Leakin Sioussat, under 
 whose direction this thesis was written, for his aid in its progress. 
 His criticisms have been stimulating and constructive, and his 
 patience without limit. My greatest debt of gratitude is to my wife, 
 Esther Allen White Corry. 
 
 University of Pennsylvania 
 
 John Pitts Corry. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface 
 
 I. The International Contest for the Southeast 
 
 before 1732 9 
 
 The role of the Indian in the history of the region later to be- 
 come Georgia. — The three frontiers: Anglo-Spanish, Anglo- 
 French, Franco-Spanish. — The Carolina-Florida border war. — 
 Spain's occupancy of the country south of Carolina. — Carolina's 
 gradual conquest of Guale. — The Yamassee War. — The control 
 of the Creeks. — Mission of Sir Alexander Cuming. — The Mar- 
 gravate of Azilia. — The Carolina-Louisiana struggle for trade. 
 — The Louisiana-Florida wars. — The duel for Pensacola. — Im- 
 ' portance of the Indians. — Shifting allegiance of the Indians. 
 
 II. Georgia and the Indian Trade 22 
 
 The Trustees and their plans for Georgia. — Dr. Thomas Bray. 
 — Limits of the new colony. — Restrictions on land. — Labor sys- 
 tem. — Indian policy. — The deerskin trade. — Amount exported 
 from South Carolina large. — Regulation of South Carolina 
 deerskin trade. — Position of Charleston. — Of Augusta.— The 
 Indian traders. — The Indian tribes. — Creeks. — Cherokees. — Ya- 
 massees. — Chickasaws. — Choctaws. — Indian slave trade. — The 
 deerskin trade rivalry. — Georgia vs. South Carolina. — The 
 English vs. the French and Spaniards. — The Georgian Indian 
 Act. — Its provisions,. — Its officials. — The Indian commissioner. 
 — The secretary. — The treasurer. — The Indian agents. 
 
 III. The Georgia Indian Act Controversy 51 
 
 Charleston merchants' resentment of Georgia Indian act. — Ac- 
 tion taken by South Carolina. — John Wesley's opinion. — The 
 controversy carried to the Privy Council. — Referred to the 
 Board of Trade. — Questions at issue. — The four formal hear- 
 ings before the Board of Trade. — Report of Board. — Appeal to 
 Privy Council. — Report of Privy Council. — The Trustees and 
 Governor Glen. — Working agreement finally reached. 
 
 IV. Oglethorpe's Policy of Indian Control 67 
 
 The Cherokees as a barrier to the north. — The Creeks as the 
 key Indian nation in Georgia. — Creek policy of balance of 
 power. — The 1733 treaty with the Lower Creeks.— Tomochichi's 
 visit to England in 1734. — Oglethorpe's 1739 journey to Coweta. 
 Oglethorpe's use of personality. — His own. — Tomochichi. — The 
 1739 treaty with the Lower Creeks. — Mary Musgrove. — Her 
 importance to the English in Georgia. — Evaluation of Ogle- 
 thorpe's policy. 
 
 7 
 
V. Oglethorpe as Commander-in-Chief of the 
 
 Forces in South Carolina and Georgia 83 
 
 British statesmen of first half of eighteenth century interested 
 in commerce, not acquisition of land for its own sake. — The 
 mercantilists direct British policy. — Colonial defense a local 
 matter. — System of Indian alliances. — Oglethorpe's plan for 
 stationing regular troops in colonies. — Oglethorpe the defender 
 of the southern frontier. — His regiment. — His salary dispute 
 with Glen. — Opposition to Walpole. — Oglethorpe's unsuccessful 
 attack on Florida. — Vernon and Wentworth defeated at Cartha- 
 gena. — Oglethorpe beat off the Spanish counter-attack on 
 Georgia in 1742. — Oglethorpe's office of commander-in-chief 
 purely military. 
 
 VI. Anglo-French Rivalry 95 
 
 Inconstancy of Creeks. — Influence of English. — French efforts 
 to break this influence. — Creek aid for Chickasaws. — French- 
 Creek war narrowly averted. — Governor Clarke's peace plan. — 
 Creek policy of playing English against French. — Influence of 
 Mary Musgrove. — The Creek-Cherokee war of 1747. — Supre- 
 macy of English among Creeks but with difficulty. — Position of 
 Cherokees. — 'Anglo-French rivalry not as great as among 
 Creeks. — Cherokees allies of Chickasaws. — French agents : 
 Christian Gottlieb Priber, Chevalier de Lantagnac. — English- 
 Cherokee war 1757-1761. 
 
 VII. Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 113 
 
 Florida a more immediate threat to Georgia than Louisiana. 
 Spanish claims to Georgia. — Oglethorpe- Sanchez treaties. — 
 Spaniards encourage Carolina slaves to run away. — Scalp buy- 
 ing. — Oglethorpe supported by Creeks, 1740. — Spaniards har- 
 assed by Creeks. — Creeks seek Spanish friendship. — English 
 regain control of Creeks. 
 
 VIII. The End of an Era and the Beginning of a 
 
 New Regime 133 
 
 Trustees surrender charter 1752. — Their appointees continued 
 in office until royal governors arrive. — The period of transition 
 one of unrest. — Georgia attitude towards Indians changed from 
 aggressive to defensive. — Choctaws, Chickasaws, Yamassees 
 same as before. — French active with Creeks. — Georgia fearful 
 of an Indian attack. — John Reynolds, first royal governor, a 
 tactless man. — Georgia lacked presents for Indians. — Reynolds 
 bungles Indian conference at Augusta in 1755. — Creek attack 
 on Georgia narrowly averted in 1756. — Cherokees apparently 
 faithful but secretly leaning toward French. — Upper Creeks 
 won over to French. — New Indian policy of British govern- 
 ment. — Two administrative districts with a superintendent over 
 each. — New policy not local and mercantile but imperial and 
 military. 
 
 IX. Conclusions 147 
 
 Abbreviations 153 
 
 Bibliography 155 
 
 Index 171 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEST FOR THE 
 SOUTHEAST BEFORE 1732 
 
 The Indian played a role of tremendous importance in the his- 
 tory of colonial Georgia. Three powers, Britain, France and Spain 
 were encroaching on his territory, and while they were colonizing 
 his land they were at the same time using him to further their own 
 ends and to defeat those of their enemies. These ends were trade 
 and expansion. The fur trade, especially in deerskins, was very 
 valuable, and each power wished to gather to itself as much as 
 possible of the profits from this traffic. Keen rivalry existed among 
 the three great foreign powers, each using every possible means 
 to induce the Indian to trade with it and exclusively with it. The 
 white men used the Indians also in their plans for expansion. The 
 Indian was at one and the same time ally, mercenary soldier, in- 
 terpreter, spy and enemy for all three powers. We shall see in 
 this study how these powers used the Indian for their ends of 
 trade and expansion. We shall see which power used him the 
 most successfully, and what the various conflicts were during the 
 twenty-five years with which we are dealing. Naturally in this 
 period it will be the British relations with the Indian with which 
 we are to be chiefly concerned, but we shall see how France and 
 Spain also looked after their own interests and fought those of 
 their rivals. 
 
 At the beginning of the eighteenth century the English were 
 pushing down from the north, where they already had been en- 
 trenched for nearly a century. The Spanish were creeping in from 
 the southeast, from Florida, and the islands of the West Indies, 
 while the French were pushing up from the south and west. The 
 
10 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 region thus had three frontiers, the Anglo-Spanish, the Anglo- 
 French and the Franco-Spanish. On each of these frontiers there 
 was conflict between the two powers concerned, yet in each case 
 it was only one of a series of such struggles that these three coloniz- 
 ing powers were carrying on throughout eastern America. 
 
 Thus the border war between the Spanish in Florida and the 
 English to the north of the wilderness that was to become Georgia 
 was but one unit in the series of colonial contests between these 
 two traditional rivals. Wherever the northward moving empire 
 of Spain came into contact with the southward reaching frontier 
 of England there was conflict. The first encounter had been in 
 the Caribbean where the Spanish control, long undisturbed, was 
 at last challenged by the English. Other contests had been fought 
 out in Louisiana and in Texas. All of these were of the same 
 general character, differing only in detail and circumstance: the 
 clash of rival frontiers, representing different ideals and methods. 
 
 The border conflicts between Spain and England, on the main- 
 land and in the West Indies, were of unequal importance to 
 Spain. The West Indies were extremely valuable in themselves, 
 and also because they kept open the routes of the treasure ships 
 on their way from Mexico and Peru to Spain. It was of tre- 
 mendous importance that these sea paths be guarded, and Spain 
 was willing to go to any expense and trouble to keep them clear. 
 The colonies on the continent, on the other hand, were valuable 
 chiefly as a barrier against the English and the French. Besides 
 affording protection for Mexico's mines they also prevented the for- 
 eigners from expanding farther south. Because of this they were 
 worth their cost. These colonies were, for Spain, as Georgia was 
 later to be for England, merely buffer colonies. 
 
 The Spaniards were the first to reach the region which later 
 became Georgia and the first to colonize it. Hardly had St. Augus- 
 tine been founded in 1565 before the restless Spaniards were 
 extending their power northward along the Georgia coast to which 
 they gave the name of Guale. 1 Their first settlement was made 
 on St. Catherine's Island where they established a military outpost 
 in April 1566, and it was no time before Spanish missions were 
 
 1 See Bolton, H. E., and Ross, Mary, The Debatable Land, p. 1. 
 
Southeast Before 1732 11 
 
 dotting the coastline from St. Augustine to Port Royal, in what 
 was to become South Carolina. For over a century the Spanish 
 title to Guale was unchallenged, their peaceful penetration broken 
 only by the Yamassee revolt of 1597 when the Indians bore down 
 and destroyed the missions. 2 This however was only an episode, for 
 the very next year rebuilding of the missions began and eight years 
 later the chain had been reforged stronger than ever, 3 holding 
 Guale in a Spanish grip which was not disturbed again for fifty 
 years. 
 
 But at last the English, the inevitable and ubiquitous English, 
 appeared to challenge the Spanish rule. 4 Virginia had been too far 
 away from St. Augustine and the Guale missions to cause the 
 Spaniards much concern. But when Carolina began to be settled 
 the situation changed decidedly. The English were coming too 
 close and Spain protested loudly. There was justice in this protest 
 since the Carolina grant which the English king made took in terri- 
 tory which Spanish soldiers and missionaries had occupied for 
 more than a hundred years. Charleston however was settled in the 
 face of Spanish protest and eventually, in the treaty of 1670, 
 signed at Madrid, the two nations reached a compromise. By its 
 terms the Spaniards recognized Charleston and all territory to the 
 northward as legally English, while the English on their part ac- 
 knowledged the right of Spain to all lands south of Charleston. 
 Had this treaty been observed the international contest for Guale 
 would have ended in 1670. But it was not. The Carolinians came 
 in large part from Barbados and brought with them to their new 
 home on the mainland the memories of many cruelties and wrongs 
 
 2 Johnson, J. G., "The Yamassee Revolt of 1597 and the Destruction of the 
 Georgia Missions," in The Georgia Historical Quarterly (hereinafter cited as 
 Ga. Hist. Quar.), VII (1923), pp. 44-53. 
 
 3 Ross, Mary, "The Restoration of Spanish Missions in Georgia, 1598-1606," 
 in Ga. Hist. Quar., X (1926), pp. 171-199. 
 
 4 A number of illuminating articles and translations of official letters on the 
 Spanish era in Georgia have appeared in Ga. Hist. Quar. For these, see 
 bibliography under Anderson, J. R. ; Bolton, H. E. ; Johnson, J. G. ; Reding, 
 Katherine; Ross, Mary. See also Johnson, J. G., The Spanish Period of 
 Georgia and South Carolina History 1566-1702, Bulletin of the University of 
 Georgia, Special Series, Studies, No. 1, May, 1923 ; and The Colonial South- 
 east 1732-1763; an International Contest for Territorial and Economic Con- 
 trol, in University of Colorado Studies, XIX, pp. 163-225. 
 
12 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 suffered at the hands of the Spaniards. The bitterness of this old 
 conflict in the Caribbean was carried over into the Carolina-Florida 
 wars. 5 
 
 The English coming to Carolina in 1670 had found the Spaniards 
 in possession of the coast from St. Augustine northward to St. 
 Catherine's Island, a Guale outpost they had held since 1597. Al- 
 most immediately the newcomers began to press the Spaniards back 
 and succeeded so well that step by step the frontier retreated south- 
 ward. In 1680, aided by some Yamassee Indians whom they had 
 won to their support, the Carolinians made an attack against the 
 mission on St. Catherine's itself. Captain Fuentes, captain of the 
 guard, defended the place so vigorously that after besieging the 
 Spaniards for a day the Carolinians gave up and went home. The 
 Indians of the mission had been so badly frightened, however, that 
 they deserted the island and fled southward at once. They were 
 closely followed by the Spaniards. Captain Fuentes withdrew his 
 men to Sapelo Island which now became Spain's northern outpost 
 in Guale. 
 
 Pirate raids next threatened Guale. In 1683, the English free- 
 booter Agramont descended on the coast and destroyed a number of 
 the Spanish missions, and the following year Hinckley, another 
 British pirate, visited the hapless Spaniards with attendant destruc- 
 tion. 6 The damage wrought by these incursions was so great that 
 the abandonment of the missions was considered, but the Spaniards 
 taking heart decided against this move. 
 
 The next step in the English offensive was taken by the Scots, 
 who had founded a colony at Port Royal. 7 Lord Cardross, the 
 governor of the colony, outfitted an Indian raiding party which 
 swept down on the Spanish missions west of St. Augustine. This 
 step was unfortunate for the English, because in 1686 the Span- 
 iards retaliated and wiped out the colony at Port Royal altogether. 
 Nevertheless the presence of the English was becoming so annoying 
 that Governor Cabrera thought it prudent to withdraw the Spanish 
 
 5 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, p. 5. 
 
 6 Arredondo's Historical Proof of Spain's Title to Georgia, edited by 
 Bolton, H. E., p. 39. 
 
 7 For an excellent account of this colony, see Insh, George P., Scottish 
 Colonial Schemes, 1620-1686, Chap. VI. 
 
Southeast Before 1732 13 
 
 line to Amelia Island. 8 The Spanish retreat from Guale had been 
 slow but steady. 
 
 While English pressure was being exerted in the coast region 
 it was making itself felt no less surely in what was to be western 
 Georgia. Missions which the Spaniards had established on the 
 Chattahoochee were being threatened by the coming of Carolina 
 traders. The Spaniards tried to check this invasion in 1689 by 
 building a fort on the Chattahoochee, hoping also to gain prestige 
 with the Lower Creek Indians by this move. But the effect was 
 quite the reverse. The Indians had already begun to prefer the 
 English because of their superior trading goods and now gave them 
 protection. Most of the lower Creeks left their homes on the 
 Chattahoochee, and went to settle on the Ocmulgee with their 
 friends the Uchis and nearer their friends the English. The 
 Spanish fort on the Chattahoochee was of little further use. In 
 1691 the Spaniards themselves destroyed it and withdrew to St. 
 Augustine, but the English traders stayed on, and their traffic with 
 the Creeks, especially in Indian slaves from other inferior tribes, 
 grew in volume. 
 
 Continued English aggression drove the Spanish frontier still 
 farther south, from the St. Mary's river to the St. John's. In 
 1702 Governor Moore of South Carolina led a formidable ex- 
 pedition against St. Augustine itself and came perilously near to 
 success. He actually took the city but when he was unable to cap- 
 ture the fortress outside, retreated. Moore next struck at the 
 Spanish missions in the Creek country, and in the face of oppo- 
 sition all but annihilated them. Of the fourteen Spanish mis- 
 sions thirteen were destroyed by his soldiers and the fourteenth 
 was spared only because it paid a suitable ransom. 9 The Spanish 
 had been dealt a crushing blow and from this time to the end of 
 Queen Anne's war the English were supreme among the lower 
 Creeks. 
 
 Thus far the story had been one of almost unbroken triumph 
 for the English but now there came a startling and unexpected 
 
 8 Arredondo's Historical Proof of Spain's Title to Georgia, edited by 
 Bolton, H. E., p. 39. 
 
 9 Ibid., p. 61. 
 
14 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 reverse. The Yamassee Indians, gradually embittered by the treat- 
 ment accorded them by English authorities and traders, and par- 
 ticularly by the continued sale of rum to their young braves, struck 
 suddenly and hard at the Carolina settlements. 10 The first attack 
 took the English entirely by surprise and two hundred whites 
 fell victim to the Indians. With courage though with difficulty 
 the Carolinians rode out the storm. 11 Governor Craven, undis- 
 mayed by the widespread character of the revolt, in person led an 
 expedition against the Yamassees and brought the whooping sav- 
 ages to submission. By the end of 1716 peace had been once more 
 restored. 
 
 The Yamassee war however had given the Spaniards an oppor- 
 tunity to rebuild their shattered alliances with the Creeks. These 
 Indians had naturally lost much of their liking for the English and 
 turned once more to listen to Spanish overtures. A delegation of 
 forty chiefs from the Lower Creeks appeared at Pensacola and 
 were warmly welcomed by the Spaniards there. 12 A smaller dele- 
 gation of seven chiefs of the Upper Creeks journeyed to Mexico 
 where they were likewise well received. Both of these embassies 
 left pledging their respective tribes to friendship with the Span- 
 iards. 
 
 The English hold on the red men had been much shaken by the 
 frightful Yamassee war but it had not been completely broken, 
 and the Carolinians after 1716 set resolutely to work to win back 
 the friendship of the Creeks. For ten years an even contest for 
 the favor of these Indians went on, with advantage falling first one 
 way and then the other. Old Brims, the "Emperor" of the Creeks, 
 was inclined to support the English cause, but his son, known to 
 the English as SeepeycofTee, was loyal to Spanish interests and 
 the tribe followed in his train. At the start the Spaniards held the 
 upper hand, but eventually in spite of discord the better trading 
 goods of the English began to tell once more. In 1726, President 
 
 10 For an excellent account of the Yamassee War, see Crane, V. W., The 
 Southern Frontier, Chap. VII, "The Yamassee War, 1715-1716." 
 
 11 Carroll, B. R., Historical Collections of South Carolina, I, Chap. V con- 
 tains a sketch of the Yamassee War of 1715-1716. 
 
 12 Arredondo's Historical Proof of Spain's Title to Georgia, edited by 
 Bolton, H. E., p. 64. 
 
Southeast Before 1732 15 
 
 Middleton 13 sent Tobias Fitch to the red men as the official repre- 
 sentative of South Carolina. 14 He made several journeys between 
 Charleston and the Creek towns and exerted every effort to win 
 the natives to an alliance with the English, holding conference after 
 conference with the Creek chiefs. His task was made difficult by 
 the appearance of a Spanish delegation at the same time to present 
 a counter plea for their countrymen, but in the end Fitch was 
 successful. Aided by the old emperor he induced Seepeycoffee 
 to change his allegiance and declare friendship for the Carolinians. 
 The scales had definitely tipped toward the English. The Creeks 
 were their allies and the Spaniards henceforth had to rely solely 
 on the aid of the Yamassees. 
 
 All the while this bit of forest diplomacy was going on the 
 British were considering another move of prime importance, the 
 setting up of a buffer colony for Carolina in the Guale country. 
 In 1717 Sir Robert Montgomery, a Scottish baronet, presented 
 to the Carolina proprietors his fantastic scheme for setting up the 
 Margravate of Azilia. This was intended to occupy the land be- 
 tween the Savannah and the Altamaha rivers, that is, the exact 
 region which later became Georgia. Montgomery's plan was to 
 establish fortified township settlements in Azilia, with servants to 
 do the heavy work and gentlemen to direct their labors. At the 
 head of all was to be the Margrave. The purpose of the colony was 
 to defend the southern frontier while at the same time it served as 
 a source of supply for raw products. This plan was never seriously 
 considered, since it was too impractical for use. 15 Then in 1721 
 Colonel John Barnwell was dispatched to the Altamaha, by Gov- 
 ernor Francis Nicholson of South Carolina, to build there Fort 
 King George. 16 This he did, but the Spaniards could not view 
 such aggression calmly. Governor Benavides of Floria protested 
 
 13 For a list of the governors of South Carolina under royal government, 
 see McCrady, E., The History of South Carolina under the Royal Govern- 
 ment, 1719-1776, Appendix, pp. 799-800. 
 
 14 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, pp. 268-270 ; Mereness, N. D., 
 Travels in the American Colonies, p. 175. 
 
 15 See Crane, V. W., "Projects for Colonization in the South, 1684-1732," 
 in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review (hereinafter cited as Miss. 
 Valley Hist. Rev.), XII (June, 1925), pp. 23-35. 
 
 16 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, pp. 235-237. 
 
16 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 to Governor Nicholson, the dispute was referred to the home 
 governments and a diplomatic controversy ensued in Europe with 
 much correspondence between the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary 
 of State for the southern department, and Don Jacinto Pozobueno, 
 Spanish Minister at London. Neither side would give in and the 
 controversy was finally dropped in 1725. However in 1727 the 
 Carolinians abandoned their fort because of lack of supplies, thus 
 admitting the failure of their plan for a buffer on the Altamaha. 
 
 One of the most striking events in the Indian history of South 
 Carolina was the mission of Sir Alexander Cuming to the Chero- 
 kees in 1730. This Scottish baronet was on an unofficial mission 
 to South Carolina in 1729-1730. He resolved to pay a visit to the 
 Cherokees which should be both a scientific search for minerals 
 and a political move to attach the Cherokees more firmly to England. 
 At the Cherokee village of Keowee Sir Alexander suddenly ap- 
 peared before the Indians assembled in the townhouse, and per- 
 suaded the Cherokees to kneel and drink the health of the British 
 king. This ceremony Cuming considered as a formal acknowledg- 
 ment of submission to the English. He made a flying trip through 
 several other Cherokee towns and at Nequasse Town he held a 
 conference with the Cherokee leaders. There Moy Toy, head- 
 warrior of Great Tellico, was crowned emperor. At Cumings' 
 request, six Indians, two of them chiefs, were named to accompany 
 the baronet back to England, and a seventh was later added. The 
 best known of this group was the Little Carpenter. At Charleston 
 Cuming and the Indian delegation took ship for London, where 
 their visit was a nine-days wonder. The effect of Cuming's mission 
 on the Cherokees was most salutary for the English. It restored 
 these Indians to friendship with South Carolina at a time when 
 they were ready to go to war against the colony. 
 
 The need for a buffer to protect the southern frontier of South 
 Carolina, together with other considerations, led to the founding 
 of Georgia. Oglethorpe 17 planted his colony on the banks of 
 the Savannah in 1733. A permanent English settlement was thus 
 
 17 A well written account of Oglethorpe by Ettinger, A. A., is in Dictionary 
 of America Biography XIV, pp. 1-3. See also Wright, Robert, A Memoir of 
 General James Oglethorpe (1867) ; Bruce, Henry, Life of General Oglethorpe 
 (1890) ; Church, L. F. Oglethorpe (1932). 
 
Southeast Before 1732 17 
 
 made at last in the region between the Savannah and the Alta- 
 maha. 
 
 While the English were carrying on their border war with the 
 Spaniards, they were at the same time engaging in a similar contest 
 with the French. Wherever the advance of the French settlements 
 met that of the English colonies a frontier struggle was inevitable. 
 Such contests occurred in the Caribbean, in Canada, in Western 
 Pennsylvania and western Virginia as well as in western Carolina 
 and western Georgia with which we are concerned. These Anglo- 
 French clashes were units in a series just as were the Anglo- 
 Spanish encounters. 
 
 For years before Louisiana was established as a colony the 
 Gulf coast had had an interest for Frenchmen. The explorations 
 of Father Marquette and Joliet in 1673 had stirred the French to 
 thoughts of settlement, and though conditions were not then pro- 
 pitious, twelve years later La Salle had planted his short-lived 
 colony on Garcitas Creek near Matagorda Bay in Texas. La Salle 
 however had been assassinated by one of his own men, and the ill 
 starred colony destroyed by the hostile coast Indians. Nothing 
 more was done until a decade and a half later, when Iberville made 
 his settlement at Biloxi in 1699. The history of Louisiana as a 
 colony dates from that event, which marked the start of Anglo- 
 French rivalry in the Gulf region. 18 
 
 France soon became involved in the War of the Spanish Suc- 
 cession, and had need for all her resources in Europe. It is not 
 surprising that the new colony grew slowly, and that its population 
 was small. Mobile was founded in 1702 and made the capital of 
 the province. It served from the start as the French base for 
 negotiations with the Indians, a role it continued to play as long as 
 Louisiana was under French control. 
 
 In 1712 Louis XIV granted Louisiana to Antoine Crozat for 
 fifteen years. The need of money which the War of the Spanish 
 Succession had brought about was the reason for the grant. The 
 new proprietor took his responsibility seriously and made an honest 
 
 18 Dunn, W. E., Spanish and French Rivalry in the Gulf Region of the 
 United States, 1678-1702, pp. 8-47 ; see Hamilton, P. J., Colonial Mobile, for 
 a study of the Alabama-Tombigbee basin. 
 
18 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 effort to develop his new possession. Lamothe Cadillac, the new 
 governor, arrived in 1713, but his services did not meet the approval 
 of Crozat and he was removed in 1716. The following year 
 Crozat surrendered his charter to the Regent of France, realizing 
 that the development of so extensive a territory was a task not 
 suitable for a private individual. 
 
 Though Crozat had had heavy expenses and small returns during 
 the five years of his proprietorship, other speculators were willing 
 to take over Louisiana. In 1717 the Scottish adventurer, John 
 Law, formed with royal sanction an association called at first 
 the Mississippi Company, but soon known as the Company of 
 the Indies. 19 This company promised to send to Louisiana six 
 hundred white settlers and three hundred negroes. Law's specula- 
 tive scheme stirred up a fever of excitement, and the stock of the 
 Company rose to forty times its former value. The Mississippi 
 Bubble reached the bursting point in 1720 and Law was forced to 
 flee. The Company continued to hold Louisiana until 1731, when 
 the crown took it over, and Louisiana became a royal colony. Dur- 
 ing the time of the Company the Illinois district which had been 
 a part of Canada was attached to Louisiana. New Orleans had 
 been founded in 1718 and four years later had been made the seat 
 of government for the whole colony, which it continued to be, under 
 the rule of the crown, until 1767 when Louisiana was transferred 
 to Spain. 
 
 The clash between Louisiana and Carolina before the founding 
 of Georgia, and later between Louisiana and Georgia, was the 
 meeting of two trading frontiers, the first phase of which had its 
 origin in trade rivalry between Mobile and Charleston. 20 This 
 rivalry centered around four great Indian nations : the Chickasaws, 
 the Choctaws, the Creeks and the Cherokees. The Chickasaws 
 
 19 Heinrich, Pierre, La Louisiane sous la Companie des Indes, 1717-1731, 
 recognizes the importance of the rivalry between the French in Louisiana and 
 the Carolina traders. 
 
 20 On the early activities of the French in Georgia, see Ross, Mary, 
 "French Intrusions and Indian Uprisings in Georgia and South Carolina 
 (1577-1580)," in Ga. Hist. Quar., VII, (1923), pp. 251-281 ; Ross, Mary, "The 
 French on the Savannah, 1605," ibid., VIII, (1924), pp. 167-194; Crane, V. 
 W.j "The Southern Frontier in Queen Anne's War," in The American His- 
 torical Review (hereinafter cited as Amer. Hist. Rev.), XXIV, (1919), pp. 
 379-395. 
 
Southeast Before 1/32 19 
 
 were loyal allies of the English throughout our entire period. The 
 Choctaws on the other hand had allied themselves with the French 
 in 1702 and from that time onward they were, in general, enemies 
 of Carolina and Georgia. The Creeks were a variable quantity and 
 their friendship was strenuously sought after by both English and 
 French. In 1717, the French planted Fort Toulouse at the forks 
 of the Alabama to strengthen their influence with the Creeks. This 
 fort was to prove a troublesome thorn in the side of English traders 
 for years to come. In spite of its influence, however, the Creeks 
 usually leaned towards the English. The Cherokees were less fickle 
 than the Creeks. In 1730 the seven Cherokees who visited London 
 signed a treaty of alliance with the English, and from that date until 
 the end of our period the majority of the Cherokees sided with 
 the English. 
 
 However, in 1729 the French suffered a serious blow. There 
 began the long and disastrous Natchez war, which was later to 
 involve the Chickasaws and was to drag on and on until the French 
 surrender of Louisiana in 1763. It was a fortunate war from the 
 English viewpoint, for it so absorbed the French that they were in 
 no position to contest the settlement of Georgia. 
 
 Like the Anglo-Spanish and the Anglo-French struggles, the 
 Franco- Spanish conflict was but one in a long series. 21 Such 
 border wars took place in the Caribbean, in Texas, and in Florida. 
 The contest in Florida had been preceded by the activities there of 
 Jean Ribaut and Rene de Laudonniere, which resulted in the plant- 
 ing of a French Huguenot colony on the St. Johns river in Florida. 
 In 1 565 this colony was destroyed by the Spaniards under Pedro 
 Menendez de Aviles. This had been a religious quarrel and did 
 not mark the start of conflict between the two states as such. More 
 significant was the French settlement of Santo Domingo. The 
 Spaniards had long claimed the island, but French adventurers 
 visited it, French buccaneers resorted to it and gradually French 
 settlers began to go there to live. When the Company of the West 
 Indies was organized in 1664, Louis XIV gave the duty of govern- 
 ing these recent colonists to the French governor of Tortuga. 
 Additional settlers were sent out from France and, despite the old 
 
 21 See Dunn, W. E., Spanish and French Rivalry in the Gulf Region of the 
 United States, 1678-1702, p. 5. 
 
20 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Spanish claims, the northern half of the island became a French 
 possession. The Spanish, fearing that a similar course would be 
 followed in the mainland with Santa Domingo used as a half way 
 stop between France and America, began to turn a watchful eye 
 on the wilderness of the Mississippi region. The annexation of 
 Santo Domingo was not to repeat itself if the Spanish could 
 help it. 
 
 Occupation of the Mississippi region was a move that the Span- 
 ish, also, had long considered. Florida stood as an outpost in the 
 east, while New Mexico had been occupied as a buffer in the west. 
 The planting of a post between was a natural step for Spain to take, 
 and had the cost not been so great it is likely that this would have 
 been done much earlier. But establishing and maintaining a colony 
 was expensive, and Spain let the matter wait until a rival threatened, 
 as we know the French did in the LaSalle expedition. 22 
 
 In spite of the failure of LaSalle's project, fear of French 
 colonization remained in Spanish minds. They determined to pro- 
 tect their interests in the Mississippi region, and their first defen- 
 sive move was the founding of missions among the Texas Indians. 23 
 This project was begun in 1689, but after five years of hopeless 
 struggle had to be abandoned. The Indians had been intractable 
 and unconvertable. The second defensive move, and a more suc- 
 cessful one, was the founding of Pensacola. The Spanish king had 
 issued a royal order in 1694 directing the occupation of Pensacola 
 Bay, and in 1698 Arriola, a prominent Spanish naval officer, sailed 
 from Vera Cruz to make the settlement. 24 In the following month, 
 November, the Spaniards occupied Pensacola Bay. But this was 
 not sufficient to stop the French, for as soon as the signing of the 
 treaty of Ryswick left Louis XIV free to devote himself once more 
 to colonial expansion he ordered the Iberville expedition. Louisiana 
 began as a French colony, and Mobile was founded where it could 
 watch with hostile eyes across Mobile bay in the direction of 
 Pensacola. 
 
 22 For a "Translation of Marquette and Joliet's account of a Voyage to 
 Discover the Mississippi River, in 1673," see French, B. F., Historical Collec- 
 tions of Louisiana, II, pp. 279-297. 
 
 23 Dunn, W. E., Spanish and French Rivalry in the Gulf Region of the 
 United States, 1678-1702, Chap. VI. 
 
 2 * Ibid., pp. 171-184. 
 
Southeast Before 1732 21 
 
 It is hardly necessary to point out that while Pensacola and 
 Mobile lay outside the limits of Georgia their spheres of in- 
 fluence extended well up into the Georgia territory. Pensacola, as 
 the base for Spanish trading and missionary operations into western 
 Georgia, was the place which the Indians looked on as Spanish 
 headquarters. In a similar way, the French using Mobile as a base 
 controlled the Alabama-Tombigbee basin. Thus, rivalry between 
 France and Spain in the southeast continued, not only in Florida 
 and Louisiana but also in Georgia, and part of the Franco- Spanish 
 frontier lay well within the limits of the territory with which we 
 are concerned. 
 
 So we have Georgia, a region of triple frontiers, occupied chiefly 
 by Indian nations, but looked on with covetous eyes by three 
 European powers which were gradually creeping in on it. It was 
 natural that the relations of these powers with the Indians should 
 assume prime importance. The Indians, though but ignorant sav- 
 ages, were in possession and thus in a position to make or break 
 European plans of colonization. Their friendship and goodwill 
 were vital, and this friendship and this goodwill, as we have al- 
 ready noted and shall see later in detail, had a way of shifting like 
 the sands of the seashore with any diplomatic wind that stirred. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 GEORGIA AND THE INDIAN TRADE 
 
 The colony of Georgia founded under Oglethorpe was a peculiar 
 one with a unique system of government, and since the relations of 
 Georgia with the Indians frequently hinged on this government 
 it is well to understand clearly how and why this colony was 
 organized. The prime reason, as has already been mentioned, was 
 to form a buffer for South Carolina against the French and the 
 Spaniards, 1 but there were other motives that prompted the crown 
 to grant the Georgia charter, notably a desire to relieve unemploy- 
 ment in London, a hope of creating in Georgia a market for English 
 manufactures and a possible source of supply for raw materials. 2 
 These were the underlying purposes of the crown. The motives 
 of the Trustees who laid the plans for the Georgia colony were 
 somewhat different. They dreamed of establishing in the New 
 World a haven of refuge for debtors from the Fleet and the 
 Marshalsea prisons, a cradle of liberty for oppressed Continental 
 Protestants, and a land o'f opportunity for the poor and needy of all 
 classes. It was from the combination of these motives that the 
 charter of Georgia was drawn up. 3 
 
 One of the leaders in the movement to found Georgia was Dr. 
 Thomas Bray, well known as the founder of the Society for the 
 
 1 Colonial Records of Georgia, MS (hereinafter cited as Ga. C. R. (MS)), 
 XXXI, p. 331. 
 
 2 The Georgia charter sets forth the reasons for the establishment of the 
 colony. For the charter see Candler, A. D. (ed.), The Colonial Records of 
 the State of Georgia (hereinafter cited as Ga. C. R.), I, pp. 11-26. An ex- 
 cellent account of the genesis of Georgia may be found in Crane, V. W., The 
 Southern Frontier, Chap. XIII, "The Philanthropists and the Genesis of 
 Georgia." See also Dr. Crane's earlier article, "The Philanthropists and the 
 Genesis of Georgia," in Amer. Hist. Rev., XXVII (1921-1922), pp. 63-69. 
 The Trustees continued for years to meet with Dr. Bray's Associates. S.P.G. 
 —Dr. Bray's Associates MSS— Minute Books, I, (1735-1768), p. 14. L. C. 
 Transcripts. 
 
 8 McCain, J. R., Georgia as a proprietary province, the execution of a trust, 
 is an excellent monograph on its subject. 
 
 22 
 
The Indian Trade 23 
 
 Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts and of the Society for 
 Promoting Christian Knowledge. Bray also founded a third re- 
 ligious society under the authority of the Anglican Church, the 
 Associates of Dr. Bray. After Bray's death in 1730, this or- 
 ganization, now called the Associates of the late Dr. Bray, became 
 the parent organization of the Georgia Trustees. 4 Oglethorpe 
 and Egmont were both members of the original society. The 
 Associates and the Trustees maintained a separate existence, but 
 they continued for years to be closely related. The two bodies met 
 together each year down to 1750, usually in March, to hear the 
 anniversary sermons which were preached in honor of Dr. Bray. 
 
 The charter which George II granted in 1732 to the Georgia 
 Trustees, like the charters of many of the other mainland colonies, 
 gave to the new province more territory than was needed by the 
 colonists. Georgia was to include the territory between the Savan- 
 nah and the Altamaha rivers, and was to extend westward from 
 the heads of these rivers in direct lines to the Pacific. The colonial 
 Georgians settled on the seacoast and along the rivers of the colony, 
 and there was a wide discrepancy between the area actually occu- 
 pied and that granted in the Georgia charter. Nearly all of the 
 settlements in Georgia during our period were made in the tide- 
 water section of the province. 
 
 As a buffer colony, faced by the Spaniards in the south and the 
 French in the west, the first necessity of this new colony was mili- 
 tary strength. The potential defense value of each colonist had 
 to be considered. Moreover, though many of the colonists were 
 sturdy and self reliant, many others, because of the philanthropic 
 nature of the venture, needed guidance and protection. 5 It was 
 necessary therefore to take steps which, while curtailing the liberty 
 
 4 Crane, V. W., "The Philanthropists and the Genesis of Georgia," in 
 Amer. Hist. Rev., XXVII, (1921-1922), pp. 63-69. See also Jones, C. C, Jr., 
 "The English Colonization of Georgia, 1733-1752," in Winsor, J., Narrative 
 and Critical History of America, V, Chap. VI, pp. 357-406. 
 
 5 [Martyn, Benjamin], An Impartial Enquiry into the State and Utility of 
 the Province of Georgia, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, I, pp. 153-201, presents 
 a strong argument in defense of Georgia and combats adverse reports on the 
 colony in 1741. 
 
24 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 of the individual, would increase the military strength of the 
 colony. 
 
 This the Trustees planned to accomplish in a number of ways. 
 The settlers were to be grouped into villages, instead of being 
 scattered over the province on isolated farms. 6 The amount of land 
 which any one colonist might own was limited to fifty acres, 7 to be 
 divided into three holdings : a town lot of a quarter acre, a garden 
 lot of four and three quarters acres on the edge of the village, and 
 a farm lot of forty-five acres just outside. 8 Any gentleman coming 
 to Georgia at his own expense and bringing ten or more servants 
 was allowed five hundred acres (thus still maintaining the fifty 
 acre ratio) but no land was to be granted outright. 9 Instead it 
 was limited to a life tenure, could not be mortgaged or sold, and 
 was to be regranted only to male heirs. A quit rent of four shillings 
 for every hundred acres was to be paid, but as a concession to the 
 philanthropic nature of the colony, and also to encourage settlers, 
 this rent was suspended for the first ten years. 10 
 
 The reasons for all these restrictions are obvious. The Trustees 
 felt that fifty acres was all any one man could cultivate. Larger 
 grants would lead to an undesirable scattering. If land could be 
 mortgaged the owners would be less industrious about keeping up 
 their property. If land could be sold, needy colonists might desert 
 the colony. Moreover speculation might result which would lead 
 to the concentration of the land in the hands of a few wealthy 
 planters. The white population of the colony would be lessened, 
 and correspondingly the military strength. Similarly women were 
 not allowed to own land, since of what use were women in time 
 of peril? 
 
 The same motives influenced the regulation of the supply of 
 labor. By an act which the Trustees drew up and which the king 
 in council sanctioned in 1735, the importation of negro slaves into 
 
 6 A good statement of the peculiar character of proprietary Georgia may 
 be found in Coulter, E. M., A Short History of Georgia, Chap. VI, "A 
 Peculiar Colony." 
 
 7Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, p. 55. 
 
 8 Tailfer, P., et al., A True and Historical Narrative, pp. 29-30. 
 
 9Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, p. 55. 
 
 io Ga. C. R., I, pp. 18-19. 
 
The Indian Trade 25 
 
 Georgia was forbidden. 11 The Trustees knew that slaves made 
 poor fighters. They wanted, moreover, to encourage industry 
 among the colonists and feared that if slave labor was 
 permitted the white men soon would not work. The number of 
 colonists from the debtors' prisons gave support to this action, the 
 Trustees feeling that all heavy labor could be done by the f reedmen 
 and by indentured servants. 1 " Many of these were sent over to the 
 colony with their passage paid by the Trustees who believed that 
 their presence there was highly beneficial to the safety and pros- 
 perity of Georgia. 13 
 
 With this land and labor system the Trustees hoped to bring 
 about a virtual Utopia, a colony of small compact settlements com- 
 posed not of large plantations owned by the wealthy few but of 
 small tracts held by the hardworking many ; a population of small 
 land owners, ready to cultivate their farms industriously in peace 
 and defend them valiantly in war. It was an ideal that did them 
 credit; the only trouble was that it was impractical. Conditions 
 being the same in Georgia as in South Carolina the Georgians with 
 their small tracts of land cultivated individually could not hope 
 to compete with the rich plantation owners in South Carolina. The 
 Trustees' ideal for a Utopia resulted during their government in a 
 slow-growing, poor colony, full of dissatisfied men and backward 
 conditions 14 that did not improve until little by little the Utopian 
 restrictions were lifted and Georgia was allowed to become a small 
 counterpart of South Carolina. 
 
 11 For the Trustees' Act of 1735 prohibiting the importation of negro 
 slaves into Georgia, see Ga. C. R., I, pp. 50-52. Oglethorpe opposed the 
 introduction of slaves into Georgia. Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, III, p. 117. 
 An anniversary sermon was preached in March each year before the Georgia 
 Trustees and the Associates of the late Dr. Bray sitting together; in the 
 anniversary sermon, March 20, 1740, the Rev. William Crowe, Chaplain in 
 Ordinary to the King, stated his opposition to negro slavery in Georgia, 
 Crowe, William. "A Sermon Preached before the Hon. Trustees, Mar. 20. 
 1739-40," pp. 22-23. 
 
 i2Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, pp. 122-124; ibid., XXIX, pp. 346-348; Ga. C. 
 R., V, p. 667. 
 
 13 On this subject, see Fant, H. B., "The Labor Policy of the Trustees for 
 Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America," in Ga. Hist. Guar., XVI. 
 (1932), pp. 1-16. 
 
 14 See Corry, J. P., "The Houses of Colonial Georgia," in Ga. Hist. Ouar., 
 XIV, (1930), pp. 181-201. 
 
26 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 The Indian policy of the Trustees was of the same paternalistic 
 nature as their land and labor policies; its object, the maintenance 
 of peace with the neighboring Creeks and Cherokees and the rigid 
 control of their lucrative deerskin trade. 15 To the first of these 
 ends the second act of the Trustees was passed and approved by 
 the king in council in 1735. This act forbade the importation of 
 rum, brandy, and other strong liquors into Georgia, and their sale 
 therein. 16 Though its object was in part to protect the morals of the 
 infant colony and curb the vice of drunkenness, its prime motive 
 was to conciliate the Indians. 17 The Indian chiefs had long objected 
 to the sale of rum to their young men upon whom it had incredibly 
 degrading effects. 18 This sale had been, as we have noted, one of 
 the chief causes of the disastrous Yamassee war in South Carolina, 
 and the Trustees wished no such developments in their colony. 19 
 The act therefore provided that if any rum or brandy were im- 
 ported into Georgia it was to be staved. No strong liquors what- 
 soever were to be sold to any person in Georgia whether English 
 or Indian. Furthermore any English trader who wished to sell 
 even beer or ale to the Indians was required to take out a license 
 for this purpose. 
 
 The second end, the regulation of trade with the Indians, was as 
 quickly accomplished, at least on paper. On January 9, 1735 An 
 Act for Maintaining Peace with the Indians in the Province of 
 Georgia was passed by the common council of the Trustees. 20 It 
 was sent to the Privy Council, and referred to the committee of 
 that body who called on the Board of Trade for advice. 21 A favor- 
 
 15 Ga. C. R., I, pp. 31-42; ibid., I, pp. 44-48. Dickerson, O. M., American 
 Colonial Government, 1696-1765, pp. 336-357 discusses the Indian policy of 
 the Board of Trade. 
 
 16 For the Trustees' rum act of 1735, see Ga. C. R., I, pp. 44-48. 
 
 17 Martyn, Benjamin, An Account showing the Progress of . . . Georgia, 
 in Ga. C. R., Ill, p. 384. 
 
 18 In this connection, see Fant, H. B., "The Prohibition Policy of the 
 Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America," in Ga. Hist. 
 Quar., XVII, (1933), pp. 286-292. 
 
 19 For an excellent account of the Yamassee War, see Crane, V. W., The 
 Southern Frontier, Chap. VII, "The Yamassee War." 
 
 20 For the text of this act, see Ga. C. R., I, pp. 31-42. 
 
 21 Martyn, Benjamin, An Account Showing the Progress of . . . Georgia, 
 in Ga. C. R., Ill, p. 385. 
 
The Indian Trade 27 
 
 able report was rendered and on April 3, 1735 the royal sanction 
 was given. This act, outlining the method by which the Trustees 
 expected to regulate the Indian trade and manage Indian affairs, 
 is a remarkably interesting document which we shall shortly take 
 up in detail, interesting both in itself and as the cause of a long 
 controversy to which a later chapter is devoted. But first we must 
 consider the nature of this Indian trade which the Georgia Trustees 
 were anxious to regulate. 
 
 The deerskin trade was valuable to Great Britain for the same 
 reason as the fur trade of the northern colonies. The hides were 
 a raw product which the mother country needed. They were a 
 help to her in maintaining a favorable balance of trade with other 
 countries. At the same time the goods exchanged for these hides 
 were chiefly English goods, particularly irons and woolens, thus 
 affording an outlet for English manufactures. 22 
 
 The Indian trade of South Carolina in the early part of the 
 eighteenth century had reached a considerable volume. This trade, 
 like the Indian trade of Georgia later, consisted of two parts, the 
 trade in Indian slaves and the traffic in deerskins. In South Carolina 
 alone of the continental colonies the trade in Indian slaves was 
 of commercial proportions. In 1708, for example, when the total 
 population of South Carolina was less than ten thousand, there 
 were fourteen hundren Indian slaves in the colony. 23 This number 
 of Indian slaves probably did not increase greatly in later years, 
 but it was large enough to show the importance of the commerce. 
 
 The deerskin trade was even more important. Trustworthy sta- 
 tistics are available for the period 1699 to 1765, 24 and these show 
 the fluctuations in the amount of deerskins exported from South 
 Carolina to England. From 1699 to 1715, the average yearly total 
 was nearly 54,000 deerskins. 25 Exports for the individual years 
 varied greatly in amount, since conditions were always changing. 
 The peak for this period was reached in the year from Christmas, 
 1706, to Christmas, 1707, when English merchants imported 121,- 
 
 22 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, p. 108. 
 
 Mlbid., p. 113, citing CO. 5:1264, p. 82. 
 
 24 Ibid., pp. 328-331. Appendix A. Exports of Peltry, 1698-1765. 
 
 28 Ibid., p. 111. 
 
28 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 355 skins. The Yamassee War in 1715-1716 stopped the trade 
 almost completely: in 1716, only 4,702 skins were exported to 
 England. The five years after the close of the Yamassee War saw 
 the trade slowly recover, until by 1721 about a third of the old traffic 
 was again restored. From 1721 to 1724 the reopening of trade with 
 the Lower Creeks and the active support given the traders by 
 Francis Nicholson, the first royal governor of South Carolina, 
 raised the deerskin trade to its pre-war height. The intrigues of 
 the Spaniards with the Lower Creeks during the next six years, 
 however, led to a falling off in volume of the commerce so that 
 the period 1724-1730 was one of decline. The settlement of Georgia 
 increased the amount of deerskins exported from Charleston, as 
 we shall see, so that following 1730 the trade experienced a boom 
 period. 
 
 The regulation of the Indian trade was a problem of major im- 
 portance to South Carolina. When the eighteenth century opened, 
 it was recognized by all that reform in the trade was badly needed. 
 Two leaders in the demand for reform were Joseph Blake, deputy- 
 governor, 1696-1700, and James Moore, governor, 1700-1702. In 
 1701 a bill was introduced into the commons house providing 
 for an open trade under strict public regulation. 26 Though this 
 bill was defeated, the method it proposed was the one ultimately 
 adopted. In 1702 the commons house considered a proposal for 
 a public trade but refused to sanction it. Colonel Thomas Brough- 
 ton, a member of the assembly and Moore's son-in-law, tried to 
 secure a monopoly northward to the Saxapahaw and as far south- 
 ward as could be granted with safety. 27 In return for this, he 
 offered to pay £800 into the public treasury and to maintain twenty 
 mounted rangers for the defense of the frontier. The assembly 
 rejected his proposal. A law was passed in 1702 forbidding Indian 
 traders to sell goods on credit, but no adequate regulation of the 
 Indian trade was made. 
 
 For five years the assembly took no action to establish a satis- 
 factory Indian code, but in 1707, led by Thomas Nairne, the as- 
 
 26 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, p. 142, citing Journal of the 
 Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina Feb. 6, 1701. 
 
 27 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, p. 143, citing Journal of the 
 Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina Jan. 22, 27, 29, 1702. 
 
The Indian Trade 29 
 
 semblymen passed an act to regulate the Indian trade. 28 This act 
 provided for a system of licensing and regulation of all the Indian 
 trade outside of the settlements. The system was to be controlled 
 not by the governor and the council, nor by these acting with the 
 commons, but by the commons house alone. The act set up a board 
 of Indian commissioners, a secretary, and an agent, all appointed 
 for indefinite terms by the act, and removable by vote of the com- 
 mons house. 
 
 The Indian commissioners, nine in number, were as a rule mem- 
 bers of the assembly. They were men experienced in Indian 
 affairs, though the act forbade them to engage in the Indian trade. 
 Their membership included Ralph Izard, the first president ; Sam- 
 uel Eveleigh, leading Charleston merchant; and Captain John 
 Musgrove, a prominent Indian trader. These nine commissioners 
 granted, or refused to grant, the licenses, valid for a year, which 
 were required of the Indian traders. The commissioners issued 
 instructions to the agent and to the traders. They also sat as a 
 judicial body to hear appeals from the agent's rulings. The corner- 
 stone in the new machinery, however, was not the commissioners 
 but the Indian agent. He was required to reside among the Indians 
 for ten months each year, to visit the important Indian villages, 
 to settle quarrels, and to oversee the trade. The authorities at 
 Charleston depended on the Indian agent for advice in all matters 
 relating to the red men. 
 
 The Yamassee War led to a change in this system of Indian 
 regulation. In 1716 the legislature passed an act which set up a 
 public monopoly. 29 The commons house still kept its control of 
 Indian affairs. The monopoly was conducted by a public corporation 
 of five commissioners, the first members of which were named in 
 the act. The commissioners were all experienced in Indian affairs, 
 and were usually men of considerable means. Among them were 
 Colonel George Logan, Ralph Izard and Major John Fenwick, all 
 of whom had served on the former board of commissioners, Colonel 
 
 28 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, pp. 148-151, citing Journal of the 
 Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina, July 5, 1707. 
 
 29 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, p. 193, citing Cooper, T. and 
 McCord, D. J. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, II, 677 ff. 
 
30 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 John ("Tuscarora") Barnwell, hero of the Tuscarora War of 1711- 
 1712, and George Chicken, able frontiersman and Indian fighter. 
 The board met frequently, and devoted much time to its official 
 duties. 
 
 This public monopoly was kept up until 1719, and the public 
 trade did not entirely cease until 1721. It promoted better feeling 
 among the tribes, and helped to maintain the peace. The Charles- 
 ton merchants opposed the monopoly, however, and in 1719 they 
 succeeded in having passed an act to replace the 1716 statute. 30 
 The 1719 act set up a mixed system of public and private trade, 
 but it was only a transitional measure. By 1721, private trade had 
 been completely restored. 
 
 The board system of regulation was continued until 1724, though 
 in 1723 its control was taken from the commons house and handed 
 over to the governor and council. In the act of 1724, the board 
 was abolished, and authority was vested in a single commissioner. 31 
 At the same time the commons house recovered part of its former 
 control. The legislature, by the consent of both branches, form- 
 ulated policies, appointed the commissioner and the agents, and 
 advised the governor in his dealings with the red men. The first 
 sole commissioner was James Moore, speaker of the commons 
 house. He soon died and was succeeded by George Chicken. In 
 1727 Chicken gave way to Colonel John Herbert, and in 1733 
 Tobias Fitch was appointed to the post. Except for a short inter- 
 ruption, this single commissioner system was maintained in force 
 until 1756. 
 
 The colonial deerskin trade was encouraged in every way by the 
 British Board of Trade because it helped to create the self-sufficient 
 empire which the statesmen of that time so desired. Each new 
 colony as it developed was urged to cultivate the Indians for this 
 purpose, and Georgia was no exception. 
 
 Before Georgia was settled Charleston had been the English 
 center for Indian trade in the southeast, and, long after the develop- 
 ment of its little neighbor to the south, Charleston continued to 
 
 30 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, pp. 197-199, citing Cooper, T. and 
 McCord, D. J. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, III, 141. 
 
 31 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, p. 200, citing Cooper, T. and 
 McCord, D. J. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, III, 229. 
 
The Indian Trade 31 
 
 hold this position. 32 The Virginians had been interested in trade 
 with the Indians of South Carolina and of the region which later 
 became Georgia, but after 1711 they became a negligible factor in 
 this traffic. 33 It was to Charleston that most of the Indian traders 
 looked for supplies and to Charleston that they eventually brought 
 their deerskins. 34 Charleston was in fact the port of export for 
 Georgia as well as South Carolina, during the whole time of the 
 Trustees' control. The Georgia leaders naturally resented this 
 dependence. They wanted to make Savannah a rival of Charles- 
 ton 35 and a number of points favored such a plan. Savannah was 
 the only port of Georgia — Sunbury was not founded until 1757 36 — 
 and thus could have no rival at home. Savannah was in an ideal 
 position for development into an Indian trade center, being situated 
 on the Savannah river near its mouth and thus connected by water 
 with Augusta, where the Indian traders, both Georgian and Caro- 
 linian, made their headquarters. The periagoes and other trading 
 boats heavily laden with hides were floated down the river directly 
 past Savannah on their way to Charleston. To complete their 
 journey they then had either to follow the inland passage or be 
 transferred to larger boats for the voyage outside, a voyage both 
 long and dangerous since the boats were always so heavily laden 
 that the gunwales were almost level with the water. 37 These diffi- 
 culties would have been obviated, the Georgia leaders argued, if 
 
 32 For an excellent discussion of the Charleston Indian trade, see Crane, 
 V. W., The Southern Frontier, Chap. V, "The Charles Town Indian Trade." 
 See also Rothrock, Mary V., "Carolina Traders among the Overhill Cher- 
 okees, 1690 to 1760," in East Tennessee Historical Society Publications, I 
 (1929), pp. 3-18. The trade policy of the Trustees is discussed in Fant, H. B., 
 "The Indian Trade Policy of the Trustees for Establishing- the Colony of 
 Georgia in America," in Ga. Hist. Quar., XV, (1931), pp. 207-222. The 
 deerskin trade is discussed briefly in Sellers, Leila, Charleston Business on 
 the Eve of the American Revolution, Chap. VIII, "Rice, Indigo and Deer- 
 skins," though this thesis deals chiefly with a later period than that covered 
 in the present study. 
 
 33 In 1747, e.g., Virginia exported only 20,000 deer and beaver skins. C. O. 
 5:1326, V, 99, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 34 Ga. C. R., XXVI, p. 337. 
 
 35 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXI, p. 203. 
 
 36 Jones, C. C, Jr., The Dead Towns of Georgia, p. 143. For a history of 
 Sunbury, see ibid., p. 141-223. 
 
 37 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXIII, p. 565 ; Ga. C. R., IV, p. 186. 
 
32 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Savannah had been developed into a port of export, but there were 
 weightier factors on the other side of the balance. 38 
 
 Savannah being new had problems of existence to face which 
 distracted its attention from internal development, and further, 
 Georgia was a poor colony with no capital to spare for this pur- 
 pose. 39 A suitable wharf in fact was lacking at Savannah until 
 1751. 40 The unfortunate restrictions of the Trustees in their 
 dreams of a Utopia were a handicap to the rapid growth of the 
 colony and postponed its prosperity until the time of the royal 
 governors. 41 The Spaniards in Florida were a constant menace, 
 especially during the War of Jenkins' Ear, and the threat of in- 
 vasion hung over the colony, inhibiting its progress. Moreover, 
 Charleston was well established and discouraged all efforts to build 
 up its potential rival, as did also the Board of Trade in London, 
 which though desirous of as many deerskins as possible felt the 
 port of Charleston to be sufficient. And at that time Charleston 
 was, in fact, sufficient. It stood as the most important center for 
 the Indian trade in the southeast, overshadowing the French Mobile 
 and the Spanish St. Augustine ; superior in strength and im- 
 portance to Montreal and comparable only to Albany, the great 
 fur mart of the northern colonies. 
 
 But in recognizing the position of Charleston in the Indian trade 
 we must not forget that Augusta and Savannah still played a very 
 important part. As early as 1716 Fort Moore had been built by 
 the Carolinians as a fur trading post on their side of the Savannah 
 river, and in 1735 the present Augusta was founded six miles up 
 the river on the opposite bank. 42 A fort was erected there with 
 a garrison of some ten or twelve men under a lieutenant, and the 
 
 38 For James Habersham's views on this point, see Ga. C. R., XXVI, pp. 
 342-343. Habersham believed that Georgia would prosper more by producing 
 rice, indigo, silk, and lumber than by engaging in trade with the Indians. 
 
 39 Description of Georgia by a Gentleman who has resided there upwards 
 of Seven Years and was one of the First Settlers, p. 6. 
 
 40 Ga. C. R., XXV, pp. 361, 391, 449. 
 
 41 Description of Georgia by a Gentleman . . . , p. 6, states that the lack 
 of enough warehouses kept the deerskin trade of Savannah small. 
 
 42 For a satisfactory history of Augusta, see Jones, C. C, Jr., and Dutcher, 
 Salem, Memorial History of Augusta, Georgia. 
 
The Indian Trade 33 
 
 trading was henceforth carried on from there. 43 Traders were 
 drawn to Augusta by its proximity to the Indian country and the 
 protection of its fort. 44 Soon all trading paths ran through 
 Augusta connecting it on the one hand with Savannah, Charleston, 
 and South Carolina, and on the other hand with the Cherokees, the 
 Creeks, and even the distant Chickasaws and Choctaws. 45 The 
 English traders, both from Georgia and Carolina, used Augusta 
 as their trading base. The store keepers here supplied most of the 
 goods needed by these men for their traffic with the Indians and 
 they did a thriving business at the busy seasons of the year. 40 
 
 The Indian traders themselves were a curious lot : dissolute, 
 given to heavy drinking, 47 quarrelsome, lawless and quick to take 
 advantage of the ignorance of the Indians in matters of weights 
 and measures and of skin values. 48 On the other hand they were 
 resourceful and brave, and understood the Indians from years of 
 living among them. They were thus valuable as forest diplomats 
 and promoted the interests of their country in every way possible 
 in their dealings with the red men. They kept the officials in- 
 formed of what was going on among the Indians, taught the In- 
 dians the European art of war, and when wars came placed them- 
 selves at the head of the tribes and led them into battle for Eng- 
 land. 49 They had a considerable influence on Indian sentiment and 
 whenever possible instilled in the native mind a hatred for the 
 French and the Spaniards. Their influence, as we shall later see, 
 was largely responsible for the success of the Chickasaws against 
 the French. There is little doubt that the Indian trader was one 
 of the most important factors in the successful English control 
 of the red men. 
 
 43 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXX, p. 199; Ga. C. R., IV, p. 667. In 1741 Oglethorpe 
 increased the garrison from twelve to twenty men. Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, 
 p. 126. 
 
 44 Ga. C. R., IV, p. 585. 
 
 45 Ibid., IV, p. 667. For a thoughtful article in this connection, see 
 Crane, V. W., "The Tennessee River as the Road to Carolina : The Begin- 
 nings of Exploration and Trade," in Miss. Valley Hist. Rev., Ill, (June, 
 1916), pp. 3-18. 
 
 **Ibid. 
 
 47 Ga. C. R., IV, p. 598. 
 
 ±8 Ibid., XXIV, p. 434; ibid., supp. to IV, pp. 11, 183; ibid., XXII, pt. 
 2, p. 434; ibid., XXIII, p. 206; ibid., IV, pp. 591, 598, 641 ; ibid., V, p. 630; 
 ibid., XXV, pp. 44, 48. 
 
 ^Ibid., XXII, pt. 2, p. 219; ibid., IV, p. 563. 
 
34 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 There were three Indian tribes with which proprietary Georgia 
 was primarily concerned : the Creeks and the Cherokees, in friend- 
 ship and in trade; the Yamassees in enmity and in war. 50 Of all 
 these the most important were the Creeks, a confederacy of tribes, 
 absorbing new minor tribes from time to time and occupying the 
 region from the middle expanse of the Chattahoochee west by 
 north across the present state of Alabama. 51 They consisted of 
 two main divisions: the Upper Creeks who lived near the Coosa 
 and Tallapoosa rivers and were made up of three smaller tribes, 
 the Alabamas, the Abikhas, and the Tallapoosas; and the Lower 
 Creeks whose villages stood along the Chattahoochee. In 1740 the 
 Lower Creeks numbered about seven hundred warriors and the 
 Upper Creeks a thousand. 52 The chief town of the Lower Creeks 
 was Coweta, near the site of the modern Columbus, 53 two hundred 
 miles from Augusta and one hundred and twenty miles from Fort 
 Toulouse. 54 They thus held the key position in the international 
 contest between Georgia, Florida and Louisiana, being a buffer for 
 the English against both the Spaniards and the French. During 
 the thirties and forties their population unlike that of the other 
 southern Indians was on the increase and their importance in- 
 creased with it. The English, French and Spanish were constant 
 rivals for their favor during this time, with the English usually 
 holding the upper hand. As to the nature of these Indians, the 
 
 50 For a classification of the linguistic groups in the southeastern tribes, 
 see Swanton, J. R., Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors, 
 p. 11. For a two-page contemporary description of the Georgia Indians, see 
 Bohius' Journal, March 15, 1734, in Force, Peter, Tracts, IV, no. 5, pp. 21-22 ; 
 another contemporary description is given in A New and Accurate Account 
 of the Province of South Carolina and Georgia, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, 
 I, pp. 53-55. 
 
 51 For an explanation of why the Creeks were so called, see Crane, V. W., 
 "The Origin of the Name of the Creek Indians," in Miss. Valley Hist. Rev., 
 V, (1918), pp. 339-342. A good description of the Creeks is given in Bartram, 
 William, Travels Through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West 
 Florida, pt. II, p. 210. 
 
 52 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, p. 308. On the subject of Indian population in 
 the southeast, see Swanton, J. R., Early History of the Creek Indians and 
 their Neighbors, pp. 421-456. 
 
 53 Bushnell, D. I., Native Villages and Village Sites East of the Missis- 
 sippi, p. 77. 
 
 54 A State of the Province of Georgia, Nov. 10, 1740, in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXXV, p. 308. For the names and location of the Lower Creek towns, see 
 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, p. 134. 
 
The Indian Trade 35 
 
 opinion of Montiano, the governor of Florida, is as accurate as 
 any, though probably biased because of Creek hostility to the 
 Spanish. Montiano stated, after dealing with the Creeks for ten 
 years, that they were lazy and poor, naturally evil, talkative, vari- 
 able and ^independable. 55 He distrusted their offers of friendship, 
 he added, because it was Creek policy to be friends with every- 
 body. 56 Certainly the facts bore out Montiano's statement as the 
 Creeks during the history of this period constantly shifted allegi- 
 ance, playing one country off against another in an effort to con- 
 trol the balance of power. 
 
 The Cherokees were grouped in three sections. 57 One lived in 
 what is now western South Carolina and northwestern Georgia, the 
 second in western North Carolina and northeastern Georgia, while 
 the third, the Overhill towns, lay in eastern Tennessee and northern 
 Alabama. There were about five thousand Cherokee warriors at 
 the time of Oglethorpe's coming, 58 but nearly a thousand were lost 
 by smallpox in 1739. 59 The position of the Cherokees naturally 
 brought these powerful people in constant contact with the Georgia 
 settlers, and relations were amicable, though the French made 
 constant efforts to break up this relationship. The Cherokees aided 
 the colonists in time of danger, and brought them their skins for 
 trade in time of peace. Their importance was great, though not 
 of course as great as that of the Creeks who held the key posi- 
 tion. 60 
 
 The Yamassees must be mentioned briefly, not because of trade 
 relations with the English, but because they continued to be their 
 
 55 Montiano to the king, Aug. 3, 1747. A. G. I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-32, 
 pp. 311-312, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 56 Montiano to the king, March 15, 1748. A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1- 
 32, p. 325, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 57 For an account of Cherokee myths, see Mooney, James, "Myths of the 
 Cherokees," in the Nineteenth Report, Bureau of American Ethnology (1897- 
 1898). 
 
 58 Ga. C. R., IV, pp. 666-667. 
 
 59 Ibid., IV, pp. 666-667. This smallpox was carried by the South Carolina 
 traders, ibid., XXII, pt. 2, p. 247. 
 
 60 The Cherokee in 1752 asked Lt. Govr. Robert Dinwiddie of Virginia to 
 send Virginia traders to them. The Indians complained that the South 
 Carolina traders did not supply them with enough goods. C. O. 5 : 1327, W. 
 92, L. C. Transcripts. C. O. 5 : 1327, W, 63, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
36 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 bitter enemies. They had moved south of the Altamaha after their 
 defeat in the South Carolina-Yamassee war of 1715-1716 and were 
 the one Indian tribe entirely loyal to Spanish interests. The Eng- 
 lish made no attempt to win their friendship and the French were 
 too far away to pay any attention to them, so throughout this period 
 they continued to be loyal to the Spanish, trading with them and 
 fighting for them. They took some part in the Georgia-Florida 
 war, as we shall see, but were never strong enough to be a decisive 
 factor. 
 
 There were two other groups, the Chickasaws and the Choctaws, 
 with which the Georgians had occasional dealings. The Chicka- 
 saws lived west of the Cherokees in the region surrounded by the 
 Mississippi, the Tennessee and the Tombigbee rivers. 61 They were 
 not numerous, having only about four hundred men in 1740, 62 but 
 they were known to be the bravest and the best warriors in the 
 south and gave many proofs of their skill and daring. 63 They 
 were consistently loyal to their English friends — the friendly old 
 Chickasaws they were called by the South Carolina Indian trader, 
 James Adair — and were bitter enemies of the French as we have 
 noted. With the Spaniards they had no connection, being too far 
 away for the Spaniards to know much of them, even as late as 
 1748. 
 
 South of the Chickasaws dwelt the Choctaws, a great nation that 
 numbered about ten thousand fighting men in 1738. 64 They were 
 excellent talkers, ready of tongue and wit, but were arrant cowards 
 in time of war. They were known to be more fickle than the other 
 Indian tribes, 65 even than the Creeks, and were both greedy and 
 
 61 With the Chickasaws were allied the Natchez. Thwaites, R. G., The 
 Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, LXVIII, 121-163 contains an account 
 of Natchez customs in 1730. On the Illinois Indians, see Alvord, C. W., The 
 Illinois Country, 1673-1818. 
 
 62 Ga. C. R., XXI, pp. 152-153. 
 
 63 Le Petit to d'Avaugour, July 12, 1730, in add MSS 32,702, f. 347, L. C. 
 Transcripts. Oglethorpe stated in 1744 that the Chickasaws were "the bravest 
 and best Warriors on the Main of America." Idem. 
 
 64 Ga. C. R., XXII, pt. 1, p. 193. The Choctaws had 46 towns William 
 Bull wrote the Board of Trade in 1738. Ga. C. R., XXII, pt. 1, p. 212. 
 
 65 Archives Nationales, Colonies, Series B, 68, f . 407, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
The Indian Trade 37 
 
 selfish. 66 Up to the year 1702 they had been friends of the English, 
 but at that time, angered by the Carolinians who had sold some 
 Choctaws into slavery, they joined the French, sold them their 
 deerskins, and remained their allies until 1763. The English tried 
 repeatedly to win them back, notably after 1735 when the afore- 
 mentioned Indian trader, James Adair, was sent by the governor 
 of South Carolina to try to secure the Choctaw friendship for Eng- 
 lish traders. But his success was small. The Choctaws like 
 the Chickasaws had little or nothing to do with the Spaniards. 
 
 The Indian trade in Georgia was made up of two very unequal 
 parts : the trade in Indian slaves and the trade in skins. The Indian 
 slave trade in Georgia, unlike that in South Carolina, 67 did not 
 thrive. 68 Though the Trustees' prohibition of negro slaves did 
 not include prohibition of Indian slavery and though there was a 
 great need of labor in Georgia as in every frontier colony, there 
 was never more than a scattering of enslaved Indians throughout 
 the towns and plantations. There were a number of reason? for 
 this. The Indian made an unsatisfactory worker and was inclined 
 to pine away in captivity. And though the Indians themselves 
 enslaved other Indians and even an occasional captive white man, 69 
 and used them for performing the menial tasks of the village, they 
 fiercely resented the enslavement of their countrymen by the 
 whites. It was a question which might easily have interrupted 
 friendly relations between the whites and the Indians. So the 
 Trustees, while not prohibiting Indian slavery, did not encourage it. 
 In fact the few historic examples we find of Indian slavery are 
 more interesting than significant. 70 Mary Musgrove, the half 
 breed Creek princess with whom we shall deal later in detail, is 
 known to have had an Indian slave named Whonny, whom she used 
 
 66 John Wesley stated that the Choctaws were the least polished, that is, 
 the least corrupted, of all the Indians. Curnock, N., (ed.), The Journal of 
 the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., I, p. 238 (June 30, 1736). 
 
 67 On the subject of Indian slavery in South Carolina, see Crane, V. W., 
 The Southern Frontier, Chap. V, "The Charles Town Indian Trade." A 
 briefer treatment is given in McCrady, Edward, "Slavery in the Province of 
 South Carolina" in Amer. Hist. Association Report for 1895, pp. 631-674. 
 
 68 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXIII, p. 495. 
 
 69 See e.g., "Journal of Antoine Bonnefoy," in Williams, S. C, Early 
 Travels in the Tennessee Country, p. 150. 
 
 ™ Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXIII, p. 475. 
 
38 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 as a house servant and messenger while living among the whites. 71 
 There is also record of Oglethorpe's presenting this same Mary 
 Musgrove with an Indian slave. Jacob Matthews was known to 
 have had an Indian slave at one time, named Nottaway. 72 There 
 were some other instances of Indian slavery. 
 
 Trade in skins, on the other hand, was large. Practically all of 
 the Georgia deerskins, as well as those of South Carolina, were 
 exported through Charleston, where the Georgia skins made up a 
 substantial part of the total exports. The statistics for Charleston 
 will thus be an approximate measure of the Georgia deerskins 
 exported. In 1735, 81,017 deerskins weighing about 120,000 
 pounds were exported from Charleston. 73 In 1740 the total was 
 153,180 pounds. In 1745, the amount exported was 277,728 pounds, 
 while in 1750 the total dropped to 186,916 pounds. In 1755 the ex- 
 ports totalled 210,434 pounds. In 1758 an all-time high was 
 reached in the export of 355,207 pounds. It is clear that the 
 Charleston trade was increasing during the thirties and forties. 
 Much of the increase was due to the increased volume of the 
 Georgia trade. This traffic was not, strictly speaking, a fur trade 
 as in the north, since the great bulk of it was in deerskins, and the 
 valuable furs found in the north were met with in only small quan- 
 tities in the Georgia regions. Deerskins alone however were a con- 
 siderable source of profit, especially to the Charleston merchants 
 through whose hands most of these skins eventually passed. For 
 the first few years of the life of the Georgia colony there was no 
 licensing of traders. Even during the decade after the passage of 
 the Indian Act in 1735 the number of licenses did not exceed 
 sixteen or eighteen a year. 74 Naturally there were many more 
 men than this engaged in the Georgia Indian trade. The number 
 of traders, packhorsemen, servants, townsmen and others who de- 
 pended on the deerskin trade has been estimated at six hundred 
 
 7i Go. C. R., VI, p. 259. 
 ™Ibid., XXIII, p. 329. 
 
 73 For statistics showing the amount of deerskins exported from Charles- 
 ton, 1724-1765, see Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, Appendices, Tables 
 III, IV, pp. 330-331. 
 
 74 Ga. C.R ., XXIV, p. 23 ; ibid., XXIII, p. 266. 
 
The Indian Trade 39 
 
 whites, 75 though this is probably too high. 76 Some of this number 
 were Georgians who traded illegally without a license but the bulk 
 of the traffic was still in the hands of the Carolinians in the years 
 1735 to 1743. In the last decade under the Trustees, however, as 
 the colony grew in population and the deerskin trade increased, 
 the number of Georgia traders increased with it, and Georgia 
 became a more serious rival of South Carolina, but that is a matter 
 to be taken up in greater detail in the next chapter. 
 
 There was, of course, not only rivalry between Georgia and 
 South Carolina for the Indian trade, but an even stronger and 
 more bitter competition between the English traders and the French 
 and the Spanish. English-Spanish rivalry centered in the Creek 
 towns and in Coweta in particular, but the trading path from St. 
 Augustine to Coweta was less beaten than that from Augusta to the 
 same Creek town and the English were definitely superior to their 
 Spanish competitors in both initiative and trading ability. The 
 Spaniards made only two or three trips a year to carry goods to 
 the Creeks, while English traders passed back and forth through 
 the entire twelve months. 77 Moreover the English kept stores of 
 cloths, shirts, liquor, powder, and candles in the principal Creek 
 villages and thus had more reason for their travels back and forth. 
 
 The English and French were rivals for the trade of the Creeks, 
 as well as for that of the Cherokees and Choctaws. The French, 
 however, offered the English a great deal sterner opposition 
 than the Spaniards in the deerskin trade, for their understand- 
 ing of the Indian character was keen and their methods of 
 dealing with the red man extremely skillful. One of the com- 
 monest French practices among the Indians, particularly under 
 Bienville, was that of giving the Indians a taste of European goods 
 and then curtailing the supply so that the Indians were always in 
 want and therefore eager for the presence of the traders and more 
 
 75 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, p. 307; see also A State of the Province of 
 Georgia, Nov. 10, 1740, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 666. 
 
 76 Patrick Tailfer stated that this estimate was much too high in his A True 
 and Historical Narrative, pp. 114-115. He placed the number of store- 
 keepers and traders at Augusta in 1740 at thirty or more, ibid., p. 114. 
 
 77 Fray Joseph Ramos Escudero to ... , Oct. 20, 1734. Brooks Transcripts, 
 L. C, Div. MSS. 
 
40 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 amenable to bargaining. 78 But the English soon learned this trick 
 and though in general their policy was generous with the Indians, 
 far too generous to suit the French and Spanish, they kept it in 
 reserve, and many a trader in those years was able to keep peace 
 and friendship by the mere threat of withdrawing his trade from 
 an Indian village. 
 
 There were many reasons why the English enjoyed a general 
 advantage in the Indian trade. Their goods were better and more 
 abundant, so much so in fact that as the threat of English trade 
 supremacy grew, the French and Spanish grew so desperate that 
 they even bought goods from the English with which to carry on 
 their own Indian trade. 78a Moreover the English had a different 
 system of buying deerskins and one which was more profitable both 
 to themselves and to the Indians. They divided the deerskins 
 bought into three classes, large, medium and small. 79 The large 
 skins had to weigh at least two pounds, the medium, one and a 
 quarter pounds, and the small ones less than that. Two medium 
 skins or three small ones were considered equal to one large skin 
 and were paid for accordingly. Since the French traders made no 
 such distinctions but bought the skins as they were offered the 
 English were able to pay a much higher price to the Indians 
 especially as deerskins in general commanded a higher price in 
 England than in France and Spain. The effect of this on the 
 Indians was what might be expected. They took their large 
 deerskins to the English and sold them at the high price, sav- 
 ing their small skins for the French who accepted them without 
 question. It is an interesting coincidence that the French method 
 was peculiarly adapted to their only loyal Indian allies, the Choc- 
 taws, for the Choctaws lived in a district where the deer were 
 small. 80 
 
 Another way in which the English showed their superior trad- 
 ing skill was in their free use of credit. They frequently sold their 
 goods to the Indians on time, not pressing for payment but waiting 
 
 78 Diron d'Artaguette to Maurepas, May 8, 1737, in Rowland, Dunbar and 
 Sanders, A. G., (ed.), Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1729-1740, French 
 Dominion, I, (hereinafter cited as Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D.), p. 338. 
 
 78a Ga. C. R. t XXI, 8. 
 
 ™ Bienville to Maurepas, April 23, 1735, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 262. 
 
 80 Bienville to Maurepas, Feb. 10, 1736, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., pp. 
 290-291. 
 
The Indian Trade 41 
 
 for the Indians to settle their debts when they were ready. The 
 Creeks were slow to pay, and the English officials frowned on this 
 system, but pay the Creeks usually did in the end, in their ubi- 
 quitous coin, deerskins. The Creeks, as a matter of fact, had 
 some understanding of the methods of trade themselves, for they 
 frequently bought deerskins from tribes further west and then re- 
 sold them to the English traders at a comfortable advantage. 
 
 But even making allowances for the difference in methods and 
 the difference jn home market prices, the English were always more 
 generous with the Indians than their rivals, offering them both 
 better goods and more advantageous prices, 81 and there is no doubt 
 that this was a tremendous factor in the influence and development 
 of the English in the southeast. 
 
 Having considered the general nature of the Indian trade, let us 
 now go on to a detailed consideration of the act under which this 
 trade was governed ; an act, as before stated, which was formulated 
 by the Trustees and finally sanctioned by the king in council, April, 
 1735. 82 But when we say formulated it must not be thought that 
 this act was worked out, article by article, by the Trustees in their 
 distant London chairs. On the contrary it was actually lifted, 
 with scarcely a change, from the statute books of South Carolina, 
 on the pages of which its own Indian Act had been recorded some 
 two years earlier. That statute in turn had been copied from the 
 South Carolina law of August 20, 1731. Since the Carolinians had 
 for decades been interested in the Indian trade of the Georgia 
 country, the Georgia act could have no better source than the 
 statute book of South Carolina. We shall see later, however, when 
 we consider the controversy which this act raised between Georgia 
 and South Carolina, the slightly ironic aspect to this circumstance. 
 
 The purpose of this act, An Act for Maintaining the Peace with 
 the Indians in the Province of Georgia, was virtuously set forth in 
 the preamble. The safety and welfare of the colony, the act de- 
 clared, demanded that friendly relations with the Indians be main- 
 tained, and trade with them regulated. No mention was made of 
 
 81 The French however explained the higher prices paid by the English to 
 the Indians by pointing out that the French goods were of a better quality. 
 "Journal of Antoine Bonnefoy" in Williams, S. C, Early Travels in the Ten- 
 nessee Country, p. 157. 
 
 82 This act may be found in Ga. C. R., I, pp. 31-42. 
 
42 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 probable profits accruing to the Georgians from control of this 
 lucrative trade within the limits of their boundaries, or of any 
 desire to obtain their share of the spoils hitherto entirely reaped by 
 the South Carolinians. 
 
 The particulars of the act followed. No person should lawfully 
 engage in trade with the Indians without first obtaining a license 
 from the Georgia authorities. 83 Anyone so attempting was liable 
 to a fine of one hundred pounds sterling and his goods might be 
 seized by warrant from the Indian commissioner. 84 The common 
 council of the Trustees was to appoint the officials to regulate this 
 trade: a commissioner, a secretary, and a treasurer, the common 
 council having the power to determine the amount of salary and 
 perquisites of these officers, and to remove them from office should 
 occasion warrant. The secretary was to keep a book of the pro- 
 ceedings of the commissioner, to keep all books and papers relating 
 to the Indian trade, and to keep the bonds of all those licensed to 
 trade. His fee was to be ten shillings sterling from each trader 
 taking out a license. The treasurer was empowered to receive all 
 sums of money paid in for licenses by traders from other colonies 
 (notably South Carolina), such money to be used for paying the 
 salaries and expenses of the commissioner and the Indian agents. 
 If there should be an overplus, the act optimistically added, it was 
 to be used for the benefit of Georgia as the common council of 
 the Trustees thought fit. 
 
 The duties of the commissioner were large and comprehensive. 
 He was generally empowered and instructed to supervise trade 
 with the Indians and to manage all Indian affairs in general. He 
 was to keep the natives peaceful and to prevent any injustice being 
 practiced upon them by the traders. He was also to represent the 
 colony to the Indians, to receive their delegations and to treat with 
 them, to distribute the Indian presents, either in person or by 
 deputy, and to visit the Indian villages whenever occasion should 
 demand. 85 
 
 83 For the form of the Georgia license, see Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, pp. 
 108-109. 
 
 84 For an example of the arrest of an Indian trader for trading without a 
 license, see Ga. C. R., IV, p. 166. 
 
 ss See also C. O. 5 : 1338, No. 93, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
The Indian Trade 43 
 
 The commissioner was to have complete power to hear and 
 determine all complaints from the Indians and to take the evidence 
 of any Indian against any trader. It was also his duty to de- 
 termine whether the Indian was telling the truth. If the sum 
 involved were less than three pounds the commissioner was to 
 judge the case and award damages to those Indians who deserved 
 them. If the offense were of sufficient gravity as to justify it, the 
 commissioner was empowered to withdraw the license of the of- 
 fending trader. The stated method of enforcing such judgments 
 took keen cognizance of the actual conditions of the trade at that 
 time. A warrant was to be issued by the commissioner directing 
 any trader or traders living in the same Indian nation as the of- 
 fender to compel him to pay his fine. This assisting trader was to 
 sign the warrant certifying that the fine had been paid, and in case 
 this trader should fail to put the warrant into execution, or should 
 certify falsely to the commissioner, he was to be subject to a penalty 
 of six pounds sterling. Any trader executing such a warrant was 
 to be allowed mileage from his trading house to that of the offend- 
 ing trader, the mileage to cover his expenses during the journey. 
 Any person in the Indian country disobeying an order of the com- 
 missioner should be taken into custody by the commander of the 
 nearest garrison. This was to be done by sending out a constable 
 with a detail of four men or less, and this constable was empowered 
 to call on any trader necessary for assistance. Any trader refusing 
 so to assist was to have his license revoked and his bond forfeited. 
 The commissioner was empowered to employ interpreters to aid 
 him in managing the Indian trade and in hearing complaints and 
 redressing grievances, as he saw fit. 
 
 To guard against corruption the commissioner was forbidden to 
 trade directly or indirectly with the Indians or to sell any Indian 
 trading goods to any person, or to accept any gift or fee from any 
 Indian trader while holding office as commissioner or even for 
 four years after leaving office, under penalty of one thousand 
 pounds sterling. Exception was made in the case of presents made 
 to the commissioner by the Indians in token of their alliance with 
 Georgia, or in the case of such presents of food as the commissioner 
 needed for his subsistence while among the Indians. 
 
44 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 All traders were required to publish their names in the office of 
 the secretary for Indian affairs for at least ten days before license 
 could be granted, and were to produce certificates that they had 
 so done, and also, if they were Carolinians, that they had paid to 
 the Treasurer such sum (not to exceed five pounds sterling) as 
 the common council of the Trustees should direct. If no objection 
 was made, either by the commissioner or by any other person, the 
 commissioner was then empowered to grant the license. Any 
 trader obtaining a license must first give bond in the sum of one 
 hundred pounds sterling that he would behave well toward the 
 Indians and would abide by the orders of the commissioner. 
 
 Any licensed trader who should trust any one Indian for more 
 than the value of one pound of powder and four pounds of bullets 
 was to forfeit his debt due from the Indian and also forfeit his 
 license and bond. This of course was a precaution to keep the 
 Indian credit, before mentioned, within bounds. All licensed 
 traders were forbidden to trade with any Indians at enmity with 
 the English, or to trade in any manner with any French or Spanish 
 traders, under penalty of loss of bond. All traders, except those 
 to the Chickasaw country, should come to Savannah in person, in 
 March, April, May or June of each year to renew their licenses. 
 Traders to the Chickasaws were permitted, because of the greater 
 distance, to renew their licenses once in every eighteen months 
 but might not trade with any other Indians on their way from 
 Savannah to the Chickasaw villages. 
 
 Every principal trader was allowed to include two assistants in 
 his license, but no more than three names were permitted to appear 
 on any one license. None but the principal on the license was to 
 engage in actual trade, and it was he who must give bond for his 
 own and his men's good behavior. Principal traders returning to 
 Savannah to renew their licenses were permitted to leave one of 
 their men in charge of their stores, but on any complaint against 
 these helpers the principal trader was to deliver the offender to the 
 commissioner under penalty of forfeiting license and bond. No 
 principal trader was to discharge any helper while in the Indian 
 country, and if any man should wilfully leave his principal's employ 
 while in the Indian territory, no other trader was permitted to 
 hire him under penalty of eight pounds sterling and damages. 
 
The Indian Trade 45 
 
 The Indian tribes and also the particular town to be traded with 
 was to be set down on every license and any trader found to be 
 carrying on his traffic outside the limits assigned to him was to 
 forfeit his license. No trader was to trade in any town where 
 resided another trader, except in such large towns where the com- 
 missioner thought two or more traders necessary. In the case of 
 towns too small to support one trader, two or more small towns 
 might be grouped together within one trader's province. If any 
 trader brought with him to Savannah any Indian or white helpers 
 he must maintain them at his own expense and pay any damage 
 done by them. Any person, on the other hand, employing negro 
 or other slaves in the Indian country was to forfeit fifteen pounds 
 sterling. Instructions sent out from time to time by the common 
 council of the Trustees were to be added to all licenses, the statute 
 finished, and any fines or penalties might be mitigated by advice 
 of the common council. Such were the major provisions of the 
 Georgia Indian act of 1735. 
 
 Under this act the only official of any authority was the Indian 
 commissioner and it was logical to appoint the governor of the 
 colony to this post. 86 Oglethorpe therefore was the first Indian 
 commissioner of Georgia, his commission dated September 24, 
 1735. 87 Throughout his term Oglethorpe served ably and well, 
 showing himself always a good friend of all the Indians and exer- 
 cising a powerful influence particularly over the Creeks and Chero- 
 kees. It was, in fact, due in no small part to the efforts of Ogle- 
 thorpe that these two nations remained faithful to the British in 
 spite of the efforts of the French and Spanish to lure them away. 
 However, Oglethorpe's duties as commander of the English forces 
 against the Spanish called him to Frederica before he had filled 
 the office for many years, and since he was unable thus to give 
 the necessary attention to the Indian affairs at Savannah and 
 Augusta the Trustees on September 14, 1741 appointed William 
 Stephens, the venerable secretary of Georgia and its later president, 
 to be co-commissioner and lighten the burden which Oglethorpe 
 
 86 It will be remembered that Oglethorpe did not hold the title of governor. 
 
 87 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXII, pp. 406-407. See also Go. C. R., II, pp. 120, 
 123. 
 
46 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 carried. 88 Stephens, in accepting this appointment, recognized 
 frankly the superior authority of the general, for he stated that 
 in all matters of grave importance he would look to Oglethorpe for 
 advice. 89 Oglethorpe returned to England in 1743 but his com- 
 mission was not revoked until July 13, 1750, when the commission 
 of the co-commissioner was also revoked and Henry Parker, then 
 vice-president of Georgia, appointed sole Indian commissioner for 
 the colony. 90 Parker died two years later in July 1752, and the 
 Georgia assistants then appointed William Spencer to act as Indian 
 commissioner provisionally until the Trustees should make an ap- 
 pointment. 91 The Trustees were chiefly concerned at this point, 
 however, with surrendering their charter and never made the ap- 
 pointment necessary to fill the vacancy. Spencer remained in pro- 
 visional office. All three of these men serving as commissioner 
 under the Trustees were men of ability and honor, but there is no 
 question that the power and influence exerted by Oglethorpe over 
 both the traders and the Indians was the one real force behind the 
 detailed and elaborate Georgia Indian act. 
 
 Since practically the sole duties of the secretary for Indian affairs 
 were to grant and renew the licenses and to keep the books, the 
 office was one of minor importance and the qualifications neces- 
 sary to fit one for the place were not particularly high. In spite 
 of this fact, or very possibly because of it, there seemed to be 
 great difficulty in keeping the post filled, and the secretaryship 
 changed hands frequently. The only man of really high calibre to 
 hold this office was the first secretary, the famous Charles Wesley 
 who is best remembered as the creator of beautiful hymns. Wesley 
 had come to Georgia as private secretary to Oglethorpe and was 
 appointed to the office of secretary of Indian affairs on September 
 24, 1735, the same day that Oglethorpe was appointed commis- 
 sioner. 92 He served less than three years however before poor 
 
 88 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXIII, pp. 181-183; Ga. C. R., II, p. 371 ; Ga. C. R. 
 (MS), XXX, p. 390. See [Stephens, Thomas], The Castle Builders, for an 
 account of William Stephens by his son. 
 
 89 Ga. C. R., XXIII, p. 209. 
 
 so Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXIII, pp. 424-426; Ga. C. R., I, p. 548; ibid., II, p. 
 509; ibid., VI, p. 353. 
 9i Ga. C. R., XXVI, p. 408. 
 92 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXII, pp. 408-409. 
 
The Indian Trade 47 
 
 health took him permanently back to England 93 and his place was 
 then filled by John Clark, a tailor, 94 who was appointed to office on 
 May 3, 1738. 95 Clark served as secretary for four years, but he 
 was an old man 96 and died in 1743. After Clark's death William 
 Stephens, who had been appointed co-commissioner the year be- 
 fore, recommended his clerk Thomas Bosomworth to fill the 
 office. 97 This appointment was recommended by the trustees on 
 July 26, 1742, 98 but Bosomworth held office for less than a year 
 before resigning voluntarily. The Trustees then were forced to 
 make another appointment and on May 2, 1743, John Dobell, a 
 Savannah schoolmaster 99 and register of the colony, 100 was ap- 
 pointed. 101 It is interesting to note here that though the school- 
 master John Dobell was eventually dismissed as register because he 
 was thought to have too little ability to discharge the duties of the 
 office, 102 he yet was retained as secretary. In 1746 Dobell left 
 Georgia, turning over to William Stephens and the assistants the 
 keys to the school, a list of the pupils, his papers as secretary and a 
 statement that he was leaving the Trustees' service. 103 Two men 
 then applied for the post, a John Brown who was rejected on the 
 grounds that he drank too heavily and had too ungovernable a 
 temper, 104 and John Pye, a storekeeper. 105 Pye was favorably 
 considered but never appointed, 106 for Dobell unexpectedly re- 
 turned to Savannah and quietly resumed his duties for three more 
 years. 107 The Trustees then, on May 29, 1749, appointed Nicholas 
 Rigby, for many years clerk to William Stephens, 108 to succeed 
 
 9 3 Verelst to Causton, May 19, 1738. Ga. C R. (MS), XXIX, p. 530. 
 
 94 Ga. C. R., VI, p. 293. His widow married a Savannah bricklayer named 
 Thomas Cross. Ibid., VI, p. 293. 
 
 95 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXII, pp. 577-579. 
 
 96 Ga>. C. R., VI, p. 14. 
 
 97 Ibid., V, p. 653. 
 
 98 Ibid., I, p. 403. 
 
 99 Ibid., supp. to IV, p. 24. 
 
 100 ibid., II, p. 427. 
 
 101 Ibid., I, p. 420. 
 
 ™>Ibid., XXV, p. 172; ibid., XXIV, p. 23; ibid., V, p. 659. 
 
 103 ibid., VI, p. 159. 
 
 104 Ibid., VI, p, 162. 
 
 105 Ibid., XXV, p. 97. 
 
 loo Ibid., XXV, pp. 145-146. 
 
 107 ibid., XXV, p. 172. 
 
 108 Verelst to William Stephens, July 10, 1749, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXI, 
 p. 327. 
 
48 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Dobell. 109 But Rigby upon taking office immediately began to 
 follow too extravagant a mode of living and to neglect his duties, 
 and in March, 1750 had to be dismissed from his position of clerk 
 to the commissioner. 110 William Spencer was given the clerkship 
 and also applied to the Trustees for Rigby's position as secretary. 111 
 This request was never granted, 112 however, and Rigby continued 
 in office until the Trustees surrendered their charter. Spencer 
 however did better through this oversight for as we have seen it 
 was he who filled the position of Indian commissioner for a time 
 after Henry Parker's death in 1752. 
 
 It is clear that it required no man of high calibre to fill the post 
 of secretary. Clark was old and feeble when he applied for the 
 position and while in office, was refused a town lot for which he 
 had applied, on the grounds that he might become a public 
 charge. 113 John Dobell was discharged as register for incom- 
 petence, and Nicholas Rigby discharged as clerk to the president 
 because of neglect of duty. Yet all these men stayed on as secre- 
 tary of Indian affairs. The position of course consumed little time 
 except in the spring when the new licenses were issued to the 
 traders and even then the work was light. So light in fact was 
 the work that in 1742 William Stephens suggested that the office 
 be joined to that of register in order to create a job worthy of one 
 good man's time, 114 and this was done in 1743. 115 The pay of the 
 secretary for Indian affairs was slight, since he received only the 
 fees allowed for granting and renewing licenses, namely ten shill- 
 ings each. The total amount received each year from 1735 to 
 1743 varied between six and nine pounds, 116 scarcely a comfortable 
 yearly salary even in those pioneer times. Since the stipend of 
 the register was twenty pounds yearly, 117 its addition to the fees of 
 the secretary created a salary large enough to interest a capable 
 man in the two offices. 
 
 109 Ga. C. R., II, p. 494; ibid., I, p. 534. 
 no Ibid., XXVI, pp. 8-9. 
 in Ibid., XXVI, pp. 8-9. 
 U2 Ibid., XXVI, p. 276. 
 n3/fr/J., VI, p. 14. 
 
 n 4 Willam Stephens to Verelst, March 20, 1742, in Ga. C. R., XXIII, 
 p. 266. 
 us Ga. C. R. y II, p. 427. 
 no Ibid., XXIV, p. 23; XXIII, p. 266. 
 I" Ibid., XXIII, p. 266. 
 
The Indian Trade 49 
 
 The third office created under the Trustees' Indian act, that of 
 treasurer for Indian affairs, was first rilled on September 24, 1735, 
 by Austen Weddell 118 who later became constable at Augusta. 119 
 Weddell was sent over from England and maintained for a year 
 at the Trustees' expense. 120 He was granted a town lot in Savannah 
 by the Trustees, 121 and in 1737 also leased a garden there from one 
 James Dormer. 122 He died in this same year, however, and no 
 successor was ever appointed. 123 The duties of the treasurer were 
 to receive the five pound fee which the act allowed the Trustees to 
 levy on every Carolina trader. By an order in council however, 
 the Trustees were soon forbidden to make this charge to the Caro- 
 lina traders, and hence there was nothing for the treasurer to do. 
 The only money collected was the ten shilling fee which each 
 Indian trader paid, and this was paid to the secretary. The office 
 of treasurer, therefore, though created in high hopes, was thus 
 practically of no consequence. 
 
 In addition to these three offices created by the Indian act, there 
 is another group which deserves mention. These were the Indian 
 agents, appointed by Oglethorpe and maintained by him among the 
 Indians. In this Oglethorpe was once more following the custom 
 of South Carolina. In 1735 he appointed Captain Patrick Mackey, 
 a fiery Scot, 124 as Georgia agent to the Creeks, 125 and a year later, 
 Robert Lacy who built the fort at Augusta 126 was in a similar 
 position among the Cherokees. 127 By 1739 Thomas Eyre had 
 replaced Lacy 128 but detailed information about these agents was 
 slight. In 1739, Oglethorpe wrote informing the Trustees that 
 he had appointed an agent among the Creeks and another among 
 the Cherokees, at a salary of thirty pounds a year for themselves 
 and twenty-four pounds a year for a servant. 129 Though the 
 
 118 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXII, pp. 410-412; Ga. C. R., II, pp. 120, 123. 
 
 us Ga. C. R., XXIII, p. 269. 
 
 120 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, p. 113. 
 
 i 2 i Ga. C. R., II, p. 99. 
 
 122 ibid., XXI, p. 484. 
 
 i 23 Ibid., XXIII, p. 269. 
 
 124 ibid., XXII, pt. 1, p. 367. 
 
 125 Ibid,, XXI, pp. 3-5. 
 
 126 Ibid., XXII, pt. 2, p. 277; V, p. 533. 
 "I ibid., I, p. 427. 
 
 128 Ibid., II, pp. 333, 429; V, p. 699; I, p. 438. 
 
 129 Ibid., V, p. 242. 
 
50 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Trustees objected at first to this expenditure of money 130 they 
 eventually agreed, and wisely. 131 The agent performed the im- 
 portant function of observing what went on in the tribes and of 
 keeping the Savannah authorities informed of what the Indian was 
 doing and planning. He also helped greatly to maintain friendly 
 relations between the red man and the whites and co-operated with 
 the traders in all their dealings. 132 
 
 iso Ga. C. R., V, p. 240. 
 
 181 Ibid., II, p. 429. 
 
 1 32 The policy of maintaining Indian agents among the Cherokees and 
 Creeks was continued throughout the colonial period. Ga. C. R., XIX, pt. 2, 
 p. 532. They were paid by the Trustees up to 1752, and afterwards by Parlia- 
 ment. Ga. C. R., V, p. 242; XIX, pt. 2, pp. 532-533; A.P.C.C, IV, No. 188, 
 pp. 178-180. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE GEORGIA INDIAN ACT CONTROVERSY 
 
 It was in the natural order of things that the South Carolina 
 traders and merchants should resent the passage of the Georgia 
 Indian act in 1735. They were used to reaping the profits of that 
 trade and their assembly had been used to regulating it. Laws 
 for control of the Indian trade south of the Savannah river 
 had been in effect for years before Georgia was founded, the 
 last one passed in August 1731. 1 And even when the Georgia 
 charter cut this region off from South Carolina authority, the 
 South Carolinians decided to ignore the fact and on September 22, 
 1733, extended their act for three years more. 2 This act, as has 
 been mentioned before, was the one from which the Georgia Indian 
 Act was lifted almost verbatim. Thus we have two colonies with 
 parallel acts in force discriminating against each other and asserting 
 authority against each other. Conflict was inevitable, with South 
 Carolina feeling Georgia to be not only an interloper, but an im- 
 pudent plagiarist. When, in February, 1736, Oglethorpe as Indian 
 commissioner called in all the old Carolina traders and required 
 them to take out licenses to trade with the very Indians with whom 
 they had been trading for years, the struggle was on. 
 
 Closely connected with the Indian Act controversy was the 
 South Carolina-Georgia dispute over the Georgia rum act of 1735. 
 The Carolinians soon found that this act, passed by the Trustees 
 primarily to prevent disorders among the Indians, had its effect on 
 them as well. The South Carolina traders using the water route 
 to Augusta had to pass Savannah on their way up the river, and 
 most of them carried rum as a regular part of their trading equip- 
 ment. With the passage of the Georgia Rum act the Savannah 
 
 1 Ga. C. R., Ill, p. 384. For this act, see Cooper, T., and McCord, D. J., 
 (ed.), The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, III, pp. 327-334. The exact 
 date was August 20, 1731. 
 
 2 This act may be found ibid., Ill, pp. 371-372. 
 
 51 
 
52 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 authorities immediately started a practice of boarding the South 
 Carolina trading boats and staving whatever rum they found. 
 Again South Carolina resented the Georgian action and again 
 conflict was inevitable. The inter-colonial quarrel became two- 
 pronged. 
 
 The people of South Carolina however were by no means unani- 
 mous in their opposition to these two Georgia acts. As is usually 
 the case, the only ones incensed were the ones affected : the traders 
 and the merchants whose profits were at stake. 3 Opposed to them 
 was the whole group of wealthy planters who had long objected 
 to the existing arrangement regarding the Indian trade. They 
 felt it was unjust that the great expense of defending the colony 
 against Indians should be met from the public treasury while the 
 excessively rich profits from the deerskin trade were divided among 
 a comparatively small group — and a group to which they did not 
 belong. 4 The planters objected to being taxed for the support of a 
 traffic in which they had no share. Consequently when the Georgia 
 acts were passed and the Charleston merchants began their agita- 
 tion the opposition of the planters manifested itself. The mer- 
 chants, they felt, were merely trying to stir up trouble with Georgia 
 and they made no move to support them. The merchant group 
 however was both influential and eloquent, and was used to dictat- 
 ing to the legislators, in a considerable degree, about Indian affairs. 
 When the Georgia Indian act was known to be a fact this group 
 took immediate action. 5 
 
 The South Carolina assembly was not in session but Lieutenant 
 Governor William Bull was persuaded to call a special session on 
 four days' notice. It was impossible for the distant members to 
 attend — a fact which was more than agreeable to the Charleston 
 merchants — but on June 26 those members who lived in and near 
 Charleston met and passed, though by only a single vote, an 
 ordinance to protect the South Carolina traders against the Georgia 
 act. 6 This ordinance asserted that it was the right of all English- 
 
 3 Ga. C. R., XXI, pp. 195-196, 161. 
 
 4 Crane, V. W., The Southern Frontier, p. 123. 
 
 5 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, p. 313. 
 
 6 This ordinance may be found in Cooper, T., and McCord, D. J. (ed.), 
 The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, III, pp. 448-449. See also Osgood, 
 H. L., The American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century, III, p. 398. 
 
Georgia Indian Act Controversy 53 
 
 men to engage in free and open trade with the Indians and that if 
 any trader holding a license from South Carolina were molested 
 by Georgia authorities and his goods seized such loss would be 
 made up to him by South Carolina. It was implicit, though not 
 stated, that Georgia would then be called upon to answer for that 
 loss. 
 
 The attitude of Georgia is succinctly stated in a letter from 
 John Wesley, the illustrious religious leader, who was in Savannah 
 at that time and who strenuously supported the position of the 
 Trustees. On July 23, less than a month after the South Caro- 
 lina special session, he wrote to Archibald Hutchison as follows : 7 
 "I have taken some pains to inquire into the great controversy now 
 subsisting between South Carolina and Georgia, and in examining 
 and weighing the letters wrote and the arguments urged on both 
 sides of the question. And I cannot but think that the whole 
 affair might be clearly stated in a few words. A charter was passed 
 a few years since establishing the bounds of this province and 
 empowering the Trustees therein named to prepare laws which, 
 when ratified by the King in Council, would be of force within 
 those bounds. The Trustees have prepared a law which has been 
 so ratified, for the regulation of the Indian trade, requiring that 
 none should trade with the Indians who are within this province 
 till he is licensed as therein specified. Notwithstanding this law, 
 the governing part of Carolina have asserted, both in conversation, 
 in writing, and in the public newspapers, that it is lawful for 
 anyone not so licensed to trade with the Creek, Cherokee, or Chicka- 
 saw Indians. They have passed an ordinance, not only asserting 
 the same but enacting that men and money shall be raised to sup- 
 port such traders; and in fact they have themselves licensed and 
 sent up such traders, both to the Creek and to the Chickasaw 
 Indians. 
 
 "This is the plain matter of fact. Now as to matter of right, 
 when twenty more reams of paper have been spent upon it, I can- 
 not but think it must come to this short issue at last : ( 1 ) Are the 
 Creeks, Cherokees, and Chickasaws within the bounds of Georgia 
 or no? (2) Is an Act of the King in Council, in pursuance of an 
 
 7 Telford, J., The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., I, pp. 201-202. 
 
54 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Act of Parliament, of any force within these bounds or not? That 
 all other inquiries are absolutely foreign to the question a very 
 little consideration will show. As to the former of these, the 
 Georgia Charter, compared with any map of these parts which I 
 have ever seen, determines it. The latter I have never heard made 
 a question of but in the neighborhood of Carolina." The case 
 however was to prove more complicated than Wesley supposed 
 and was to drag on for over six years. 
 
 The first step taken by the Charleston merchants was the send- 
 ing of a committee from Charleston to Savannah to resolve the 
 differences between the two colonies. 8 Amicable discussion ensued 
 and the South Carolinians returned to their homes on August 8, 
 believing all differences settled to mutual satisfaction. Agreement 
 had been reached that the case should be referred to England and 
 that all dispute over the Indian trade should lie dormant until the 
 authorities in England should have acted on it. Oglethorpe ac- 
 cordingly notified his agent to the Cherokees, Roger Lacy, and his 
 agent to the Creeks, Tanner, not to interfere with any traders 
 having Carolina licenses. He also ordered that all periagoes going 
 to Purrysburg and Savannah Town with rum aboard should take 
 in a waiter at Savannah, at the Trustees' expense, who should see 
 that no rum was landed in Georgia. 
 
 South Carolina then made formal complaint that the Georgia 
 officials were interfering with Carolina trade, which complaint 
 reached the Privy Council in London, and was referred to the 
 Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs on November 24, 
 1736. 9 On December 8, the committee referred the petition to the 
 Board of Trade and there the case was considered. 10 Fer- 
 dinando John Paris was appointed by the Trustees as solicitor for 
 Georgia, and Charles Clark of Lincoln's Inn, Taylor White and 
 one Murray were retained as counsel. 11 South Carolina was repre- 
 sented by the solicitor general John Strange and his colleague, one 
 Brown. 12 
 
 8 Go. C. R., XXI, p. 206. But see ibid., XXI, p. 224. 
 
 9 A.P.C.C., III, p. 386. 
 ™Ibid., Ill, p. 386. 
 
 n Ga. C. R., II, p. 179. 
 
 i 2 Journal of the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations (hereinafter 
 referred to as Journal of the Board of Trade), January, 1734-5, to December, 
 1741, VII, p. 181. 
 
Georgia Indian Act Controversy 55 
 
 Conditions in the Georgia Indian territory had had to become 
 acute before the case could reach such a point. The dispute had 
 not lain dormant as the conference of August had hoped. There 
 had been constant quarrelling among the rival traders, cut-throat 
 competition and a complete disregard by each faction of the au- 
 thority of the opposing agents. The effect on the Indians, more- 
 over, had been dangerously unsettling, for seeing no single 
 authority either over the traders or over themselves they had begun 
 to feel the white men were perhaps not strong and powerful 
 enough to rule them after all. Conditions had in fact become so 
 bad that a short time before the case reached the authorities in 
 England Oglethorpe had written to the Trustees that if the Georgia 
 Indian act were not upheld not only Georgia but South Carolina 
 as well would fall victims of a serious Indian war. 13 Specific 
 incidents however were necessary to point each specific case and the 
 incidents chosen were as follows : 14 Captain Patrick Mackey, then 
 Georgia agent to the Creeks, had seized and sentenced to be whipped 
 a Carolina trader, charging that he was trading without a Georgia 
 license. 15 This brought to test the Georgia Indian act. 16 The 
 Georgia rum act was also brought into the case. There lies op- 
 posite Savannah an island called Hutchinson's Island which divides 
 the river into two streams, a northern and a southern branch. The 
 port of Savannah lies in the southern branch but the northern 
 branch offers a shorter route to all points upstream from Savannah 
 and is the natural course for all boats except those wishing to 
 touch at Savannah Town. A Carolina trader named Shepard left 
 Charleston with a cargo including rum, intending to go up the 
 Savannah river to the Carolina town of New Windsor. He hap- 
 pened, however, on this voyage, to enter the southern branch of 
 the stream and while passing through his boat was seized by the 
 
 13 Ga. C. R., XXI, p. 197; Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, p. 313. 
 
 14 Some of the witnesses were in England ; others had to be brought over 
 from America. The Trustees, for example, paid John Brailsford £25 for 
 coming over to be a witness in this case. Ga. C. R., V, p. 7. 
 
 15 Journal of the Board of Trade, January 1734-5 to December 1741, VII, 
 p. 197. 
 
 16 South Carolina complained to the Trustees of the conduct of Mackay 
 in shutting South Carolina traders out of the Georgia Indian trade. Percival, 
 John, Lord Viscount, First Earl of Egmont, Diary (hereinafter cited as 
 Egmont's Diary), II, p. 210. 
 
56 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Savannah authorities, and his rum confiscated and staved. 17 Shep- 
 ard made speedy protest to Lieutenant Governor Bull and this case 
 was incorporated in the protest that eventually reached the Board 
 of Trade. 
 
 After the usual postponements the first of four formal hearings 
 before the Board of Trade took place on May 19, 1737. 18 The 
 South Carolina petition was in the form of a complaint that the 
 Georgia authorities had interfered seriously with the South Caro- 
 lina Indian trade. The Georgia Trustees' petition was a counter 
 complaint that the governor, council and assembly of South Caro- 
 lina had interfered with the carrying out of the Georgia Indian 
 act, and had passed an ordinance for asserting the rights of the 
 South Carolinians to a free and open trade with the Indians, which 
 ordinance was in contempt of the Georgia Indian act. 
 
 The questions at issue before the Board of Trade were clearly 
 three. 19 First, did the Georgia Indian act exclude the South 
 Carolinians from trade with the Georgia Indians? — a question 
 which involved the larger question of the right of the Trustees to 
 interfere with a free and open trade with the Indians. Second, 
 did the port of Savannah include the southern branch of the 
 Savannah river 20 and if not was the navigation of the Savannah 
 river to be free to all ? Third, did the ordinance of South Carolina 
 of June 26, 1736, destroy the effectiveness of the Trustees' Indian 
 act? 
 
 The most important question was of course the matter of free 
 and open trade with the Indians. Strange, the solicitor-general, 
 argued for South Carolina that no act of the Trustees could take 
 away the right of South Carolina to such trade, and that the 
 
 17 Journal of the Board of Trade, January 1734-5 to December 1741, VII, 
 pp. 196-197. 
 
 18 The four hearings before the Board of Trade were held on May 19, 
 June 6, June 9, and June 18, 1737. The arguments on both sides were given 
 in detail. For the May 19 hearing, see Journal of the Board of Trade, 
 January 1734-5 to December 1741, VII, pp. 181-183; for the June 6 hearing, 
 see ibid., VII, pp. 189-193; for the one of June 9, see ibid., VII, pp. 196-199; 
 for the hearing on June 18, see ibid., VII, pp. 201-202. 
 
 19 Journal of the Board of Trade, January 1734-5 to December 1741, VII, 
 p. 190. 
 
 20 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVIII, pt. 1, pp. 109-113, contains a good descrip- 
 tion of the rivers in Georgia. 
 
Georgia Indian Act Controversy 57 
 
 Georgia act, doing this, was therefore invalid. 21 He admitted that 
 royal sanction had been given to the Trustees' Indian act, but 
 denied the power of the crown to interfere with the rights of a 
 citizen to trade wherever he pleased. 22 He cited the case of the 
 African Company whose charter had been taken away because it 
 had tried to interfere with this right. Control over trade, Strange 
 argued, belonged to Parliament, not to the crown, and could be 
 exercised by it alone. He cited the case of the East India Com- 
 pany which, while it enjoyed a monopoly of trade, had been granted 
 that monopoly by Parliament. 23 
 
 The Solicitor General then went on to consider the earlier at- 
 tempts of Carolina to exclude the Virginia traders from the 
 Carolina trade. In 1707 Carolina had passed an act which put a tax 
 on all goods imported into the colony and intended for the Indian 
 trade. This had been aimed directly at Virginia and was passed 
 in order to shut the Virginia traders out. On the objection of 
 Virginia, the act had been repealed. In 1711 Carolina had 
 passed another act which excluded the Virginians from trading 
 with the South Carolina Indians unless they took out a license in 
 South Carolina, a case exactly parallel to the case in point. This 
 act also had been disallowed because it violated the right of the 
 Virginians to a free and open trade, 24 and thereafter Carolina had 
 made no further attempts to secure the exclusive rights to its Indian 
 trade. 
 
 It is perhaps apropos here to mention that, unlike Carolina, Vir- 
 ginia had made no attempt to oppose the Trustees' Indian act. 
 Lieutenant Governor William Gooch of Virginia in August, 1737, 
 wrote that while the Virginians had for decades carried on a trade 
 with the Cherokees and were somewhat surprised to learn that this 
 trade had been closed to them in Georgia, he would abide by the 
 Georgia Indian act. He added that Egmont, the president of the 
 Georgia Trustees, had sent him a copy of the act. 25 Virginia, 
 
 21 For Strange's argument, see Journal of the Board of Trade, January 
 1734-5 to December 1741, VII, pp. 181-183. 
 M/Wrf., VII, p. 181. 
 
 23 Ibid., VII, p. 182. 
 
 24 Ibid., VII, p. 182. 
 
 25 Ga. C. R., IV, p. 118. Egmont in his Journal stated that he had never 
 sent the Virginia governor a copy of the act. Ga. C. R., V, p. 49. 
 
58 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 however, was further removed from Georgia and the Georgia Indian 
 trade than the Carolinians, and had very much less to lose by this act. 
 
 As counsel for Georgia, Clarke attempted to meet the arguments 
 of the solicitor general by asserting that free and open trade would 
 cause disorder and that regulation was necessary. 26 He was too 
 wise to attempt to defend the right of the Trustees to interfere with 
 free and open trade, but insisted instead that the Georgia Indian 
 act made no attempt to establish a monopoly but was simply a 
 justifiable and necessary regulation of the traffic. 27 There was no 
 monopoly, he continued, because anyone taking out a Georgia license 
 was perfectly free to engage in Georgia trade. He asserted further, 
 but did not prove, that the Carolina acts of 1707 and 1711 differed 
 materially from the Georgia act of 1735. 28 
 
 Other arguments were advanced on both sides. The Carolinians 
 contended that the Indians were allies, not subjects of Great Britain 
 and hence could not be bound in matters of trade. 29 The Georgians 
 rebutted that the Indians were indeed subjects and cited Lord 
 Baltimore's patent to prove it. 30 They stated further that the 
 founding of Georgia had greatly benefited the fur trade and cited 
 statistics to show the increase in the volume of trade since Georgia 
 had been founded. 31 Carolina's answer to this was obvious, that 
 the increase in the fur trade was the result of a boom which had 
 started before Georgia was founded and had nothing to do with 
 its establishment. 32 Georgia then abandoned that point and argued 
 instead that their regulations had worked no hardship on Carolina 
 since no Carolina trader applying for a license had been denied one 
 and since many parts of Carolina were as near to Savannah as to 
 Charleston. 33 Carolina counsel replied to this that if the Trustees 
 held a monopoly in the Georgia trade they would always be in a 
 position to injure the Carolina traders and might at any time do 
 
 26 For Clarke's argument, see Journal of the Board of Trade, January 
 1734-5 to December 1741, VII, pp. 192-193. 
 
 27 Ibid., VII, p. 193. 
 ™Ibid., VII, p. 192. 
 ™Ibid., VII, p. 182. 
 ™Ibid., VII, p. 198. 
 3i Ibid., VII, p. 193. 
 Mlbid., VII, p. 202. 
 
 33 ibid., VII, pp. 192-193. 
 
Georgia Indian Act Controversy 59 
 
 so. 34 These arguments and others still less pertinent were advanced 
 on both sides and much talk and discussion ensued, but when twenty 
 reams of paper had been spent on it, as John Wesley said in his 
 letter, it all came down to this issue : If the Trustees' act interfered 
 with the right of free and open trade it would have to be modified. 35 
 
 The second question, that pertaining to the southern branch of 
 the Savannah river, was then taken up. Though much less im- 
 portant, it was closely connected with the first question. Strange 
 argued for South Carolina that navigation of the Savannah river 
 was free, that all Carolina inhabitants had a right to travel freely 
 on the Savannah river in going to and from Carolina towns on its 
 banks or to and from other parts of the Carolina colony, and that 
 while the Trustees might lawfully prohibit rum to their own citi- 
 zens they had no right to forbid its use or possession to citizens of 
 Carolina. 36 All this the Georgian counsel was forced to agree to. 37 
 But when Strange then stated that Shepard's rum having been con- 
 fiscated in the Savannah river had been actually confiscated outside 
 the limits of Georgia, 38 Clarke, as counsel for Georgia, took sharp 
 exception. He asserted, in refutation, that the port of Savannah 
 included the southern branch of the Savannah river and hence Shep- 
 ard had been in Georgia territory when his rum was confiscated. 39 
 This point was important because if Carolina boats were to be 
 allowed to traverse the southern branch of the river past the town 
 of Savannah unmolested, it was going to be impossible to prevent 
 the Carolinians from smuggling rum into Georgia. 
 
 The third question, that pertaining to the South Carolina ordi- 
 nance, then was brought up, the Georgians objecting on the grounds 
 that it encouraged violations of the Georgia Indian act, which indeed 
 it did. 40 But the Carolinians replied to this that it was a temporary 
 measure intended only to protect the rights of Carolina traders until 
 the controversy over the Georgia Indian act should be settled. 41 
 
 34 Journal of The Board of Trade, January 1734-5 to December 1741, VII, 
 p. 202. 
 
 35 Ibid., VII, p. 197. 
 
 36 Ibid., VII, p. 182. 
 "Ibid., VII, p. 197. 
 
 38 Ibid., VII, p. 202. 
 
 39 Ibid., VII, p. 193. 
 wibid., VII, pp. 193, 199. 
 4i Ibid., VII, p. 182. 
 
60 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 The Board of Trade having listened to all the arguments on both 
 sides, realized that the point of issue was that of free trade, and 
 on June 21, they sent two questions to the attorney general. 42 The 
 first asked whether the Georgia Trustees had the right to establish 
 a monopoly over trade with the Georgia Indians. The second asked 
 whether the terms of the Georgian Indian act excluded from trade 
 with the Georgia Indians all persons who failed to take out a 
 Georgia license. 
 
 The attorney general replied to these questions: first, that any 
 exclusive trade with the Indians would destroy the general right of 
 trading which all Englishmen enjoyed and hence was repugnant to 
 the spirit of the laws of Great Britain; second, that all persons 
 except those taking out a Georgia license were indeed excluded 
 from the Georgia Indian trade, but that the requiring of such a 
 license was no more than a justifiable regulation of the trade. 43 
 This was highly favorable to the Georgia Trustees, but the Board 
 of Trade chose to disregard this decision, in which they were well 
 within their rights, and when their report to the committee of the 
 Privy Council was drawn up and signed on September 14 it was 
 clearly pro-Carolina. 44 It stated that Carolinians as well as Georg- 
 ians should be allowed to engaged in trade with the Georgia Indians, 
 the Carolina traders to take out their licenses in Charleston in 
 accordance with the South Carolina Indian act, the Georgia traders 
 to secure their licenses at Savannah in accordance with the Georgia 
 Indian act. The question of the navigation of the Savannah river 
 the Board of Trade settled by stating that the northern branch of 
 the river should be considered free and that furthermore no vessel 
 should be stopped while navigating either the northern or the 
 southern branch of the river unless it was found to be actually 
 trying to land rum in Georgia territory. As for South Carolina's 
 ordinance, the Board of Trade refused to recommend its disallow- 
 ance. 
 
 This was a great blow to the Georgia Trustees, but they were 
 unwilling to let matters be settled thus against them. Accordingly 
 
 42 Journal of the Board of Trade, January 1734-5 to December 1741, 
 VII, p. 203. 
 
 43 The Case of the Trustees and the Province of Georgia, p. 5. 
 
 44 Journal of the Board of Trade, January 1734-5 to December 1741, VII, 
 p. 213. 
 
Georgia Indian Act Controversy 61 
 
 they appealed to the Privy Council against this report of the Board 
 of Trade, admitting that trade with the Indians should be free 
 and open to all, but declaring again that regulation was essential 
 and the Georgia Indian act merely a necessary form of regulation. 45 
 
 The committee of the Privy Council heard this dispute on Jan- 
 uary 25, February 4, and February 11, 1738, and on March 18, 
 it drew up its report to the Privy Council. 46 This report, after 
 stating that it was to the benefit of both Georgia and South Caro- 
 lina to settle this controversy amicably, proposed to the Privy Coun- 
 cil that it recommend to the Trustees, and instruct the governor 
 of South Carolina to recommend to his council and assembly that 
 acts be prepared respectively for settling the Indian trade to the 
 mutual benefit of the two colonies. In the meantime, the report 
 continued, the Trustees should be instructed to direct their Indian 
 commissioner to grant licenses to all who applied for them present- 
 ing certificates from the governor and council of South Carolina 
 as to their fitness to engage in the Indian Trade. Such traders, 
 upon being granted licenses, were to give bond for their good 
 behavior. 
 
 The report was not submitted for several months, but on July 17 
 the Trustees, having learned that the committee of the Privy Council 
 intended to make its report to the Privy Council on July 20, and 
 also having learned the nature of this report, became greatly 
 alarmed. It was certain that the report would be confirmed and an 
 order issued directing the Trustees to comply with it. They there- 
 fore in a panic directed two of their members, Thomas Towers and 
 Robert Ayers, to draw up a petition to the king urging him to take 
 no action on the report until the boundaries of Georgia and South 
 Carolina should be settled. 47 This they started to do. Then re- 
 alizing that valid reasons would have to be brought forth to show 
 how acceptance of this report would damage Georgia in general 
 and the Indian trade in particular, they changed their minds and 
 suggested that the petition to the king be dropped and some pro- 
 posed instructions sent instead to the Privy Council which it might 
 
 45 The Case of the Trustees and the Province of Georgia, pp. 5-6. 
 
 46 A.P.C.C, III, §386. 
 
 4 7 Ga. C. R. f V, pp. 50-51. 
 
62 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 give to the governor of South Carolina and to the Trustees. 48 The 
 Trustees eagerly seized this suggestion and a paper was drawn up. 49 
 
 Whether these proposals ever reached the Privy Council is a 
 matter of doubt but if they did they had no effect, 50 for on July 
 21, 1738, the king signed the long awaited instructions 51 which 
 embodied all the points brought forth by the committee of the Privy 
 Council and added further that in the granting of Georgia licenses 
 to Carolina traders during the period of settlement the £5 charge 
 hitherto authorized was not to be levied. 52 
 
 The Trustees were exceedingly indignant over these instructions 53 
 but realized that it was useless to fight further against it, at least 
 directly. Instead they turned their attention to Samuel Horsey, 
 who was sworn in as governor of South Carolina on August 7. 
 They congratulated him warmly and cordially when he appeared 
 at the meeting of the Trustees two days later at their invitation and 
 then tried to put their case privately before him. 54 Egmont ex- 
 plained to him that it was impossible for the Trustees to comply 
 with the royal instructions since to license all traders recommended 
 by Horsey and the South Carolina council would mean the virtual 
 handing over of the Georgia Indian trade to South Carolina. Fur- 
 thermore since politicians would constantly recommend their friends 
 for licenses, it would lead to so many recommendations that the 
 Carolina trade would soon be destroyed also. Egmont suggested 
 that before any further steps could be taken, it was vital to know 
 how many traders were necessary to each Indian town, and also 
 to settle the boundaries of Georgia and South Carolina. Horsey, 
 though non-committal, was cordial in his reply, promising to work 
 in harmony with the Trustees as far as was consistent with his 
 official position. 55 He realized the force of Egmont's statements 
 and felt it necessary to secure an explanation of the king's instruc- 
 
 48 Go. C. R., V, pp. 54-55. 
 
 4 » Idem. 
 
 60 Go. C. R., V, p. 55. 
 
 51 Ibid., V, pp. 55-56. The Trustees sent Oglethorpe, who was in England 
 at this time, a copy of this for him to carry to Georgia. Ga. C. R., I, p. 320. 
 See also ibid., I, pp. 39-40. 
 
 52 Ibid., V, pp. 39-40. 
 
 53 Ibid., V, pp. 20, 46. Egmont stated in 1740 that the Board of Trade 
 were the enemies of the Trustees. Ibid., V, p. 390. 
 
 54 Ibid., V, pp. 63-64. 
 
 55 Ibid., V, p. 64. 
 
Georgia Indian Act Controversy 63 
 
 tions. The outlook finally seemed bright for a settlement of the 
 controversy satisfactory to the Trustees. 
 
 Unfortunately just at this critical time Horsey suffered a stroke 
 of apoplexy and died during the week preceding August 23. 56 He 
 was succeeded as governor by James Glen, a man hostile to the 
 Trustees. 57 This hostility was due to the salary dispute Glen had 
 with Oglethorpe, a matter which is discussed in a later chapter. 
 The practical effect of the quarrel was to keep Glen in England 
 until 1743, since he was too poor to assume the South Carolina 
 governorship without a salary. 
 
 In the interim, however, all this had been having its effect in 
 Georgia. The Trustees, in accordance with the royal instructions, 
 had directed Oglethorpe to co-operate with Lieutenant Governor 
 Bull of South Carolina in appointing surveyors to determine the 
 boundaries of Georgia and of South Carolina, and to discover how 
 many Indian traders were necessary to the Georgia trade. 58 Ogle- 
 thorpe was further to draw up suitable acts for regulating the 
 Indian trade in accordance with the king's instructions and to 
 work in harmony with the South Carolina Indian commissioner 
 until formal acts could be passed to settle the controversy. 59 
 
 All this Oglethorpe attempted to do, but with ill success. During 
 the winter of 1738-39 he made a special visit to Charleston for the 
 express purpose of settling the dispute. 60 But he found the Caro- 
 linians in no mood for compromise. They, too, had become stirred 
 up over Oglethorpe's enjoyment of the £1000 intended for the 
 South Carolina governor, not because they objected to Oglethorpe's 
 receiving the money but because they feared it would mean that 
 another salary for their governor would have to come out of their 
 pockets. This they declared they would not agree to and were hos- 
 tile to Oglethorpe in person as well as to Governor Glen across 
 the ocean. In addition there was much trouble afoot among the 
 Indian traders. Uncertainty about the trade had had its inevitable 
 disquieting effect and the whole body of traders was becoming 
 
 56 Ga. C. R., V, p. 66. 
 
 57 Yet Egmont had recommended Glen for the governorship of South 
 Carolina. Add. MSS. 32691, Fo. 362, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 58 Ga. C. R., I, pp. 331-332; ibid., V, pp. 64-65. 
 &»Ibid., Ill, p. 393. 
 
 eo Ibid., V, p. 160. 
 
64 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 lawless and insubordinate. 61 Particularly troublesome were the 
 Carolina traders among the Creeks in Georgia. 62 They were doing 
 a great deal of mischief and clearly deserved punishment. The 
 Georgia authorities longed to take necessary action against them 
 but in the existing state of affairs did not dare. 63 
 
 Things were in such a state by January 1741 that Oglethorpe 
 wrote to the Trustees in despair telling them that the Carolinians 
 clearly wanted to see Georgia destroyed and would listen to no 
 reasonable proposal for settling the Indian trade controversy. 64 
 The Trustees replied to this in April of the same year by asking 
 him to let them know what had been done to carry out their instruc- 
 tions. 65 They were beginning to realize, as were all involved, that 
 some settlement must be reached if the trade was to be kept in 
 English hands. Moreover a settlement seemed more probable since 
 Glen's former attitude of hostility toward the Trustees had given 
 way to one of cordiality and he was eager to see a reconciliation 
 brought about. This was of course entirely politic on Glen's part. 
 He realized that if he was to have a quarrel with the South Caro- 
 lina assembly he would do well to have the friendship of so in- 
 fluential a body of men as the Trustees. 66 The result, however, was 
 salutary. On September 10, 1741, Glen met the Trustees at dinner 
 to settle, at the king's instructions, their six-year-old controversy. 67 
 
 At this dinner a working agreement was made, which was at 
 least fairly satisfactory to both factions. 68 It was decided that 
 since the boundaries of Georgia and Carolina were still uncertain 
 and it could not be definitely determined which Indian tribes be- 
 longed to Georgia, Carolina should have the licensing of half the 
 Indian traders in Georgia, in return for which all Georgia traders 
 should also be allowed to carry on trade with the Indians in Caro- 
 lina. Governor Glen was anxious for Carolina to have the licens- 
 
 ei Ga. C. R. (MS), XXX, p. 106. 
 
 62 Ga. C. R., XXII, pt. 1, p. 231 ; ibid., V, p. 66; ibid., I, p. 360. But see 
 also ibid., V, p. 345. 
 Mlbid., XXII, pt. 1, p. 231. 
 <*Ibid., V, p. 438. See also ibid., V, p. 510. 
 <*Ibid., II, p. 367; ibid., V, p. 494. 
 
 66 Ibid., V, p. 546. 
 
 67 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXX, pp. 389-390. 
 
 68 Ga. C. R., V, pp. 546-548. 
 
Georgia Indian Act Controversy 65 
 
 ing of more than half the traders, pointing out that because of the 
 War of Jenkins' Ear and the consequent exodus from Savannah to 
 Charleston, Georgia would be unable to produce enough traders 
 to make up its half. He declared that the Indian trade would 
 suffer in consequence and the Indians might be persuaded to turn 
 to the French or Spanish traders. But Egmont replied that if 
 this should prove to be the case the Georgia Indian commissioner 
 should be authorized to license enough Carolina traders to make up 
 the difference. He insisted upon half the traders being reserved to 
 Georgia pointing out that when the intended act was once passed 
 it would be difficult to amend it, and Georgia would surely grow 
 and prosper enough to be soon able to supply its full quota of 
 traders. At length Glen reluctantly agreed. The agreement like- 
 wise provided that security be given by the traders each in his own 
 province, each to be punishable in his own colony for misconduct. 
 
 Glen then proposed that the South Carolina assembly be author- 
 ized to pass an act for both colonies regulating the trade and 
 embodying these features. He promised to make the act conform 
 to the wishes of the Trustees as nearly as possible. But Egmont 
 was dubious of this arrangement, feeling that Glen might find 
 himself unable to control the Assembly and a stand be taken from 
 which the Assembly would be unwilling to withdraw. 69 He pro- 
 posed instead, therefore, that William Stephens, then secretary of 
 Georgia, be sent to Charleston to confer with the Assembly, and 
 when an agreement had been reached it be sent to London for the 
 Trustees' approval. After this South Carolina and the Trustees 
 could pass parallel acts, which when confirmed by the king, should 
 settle the Indian act controversy once and for all. Egmont was 
 supported in this contention by the other Trustees, and Glen at 
 length agreed. 
 
 This agreement brought the Georgia Indian act controversy vir- 
 tually to an end. The Trustees never did pass their proposed act, 
 nor did the South Carolina assembly, but the agreement represented 
 a harmonious settling of the dispute and trading went on under its 
 conditions. The licensing power continued to be divided between 
 South Carolina and Georgia until the end of our period in 1756. 
 
 Go. C. R., V, p. 547. 
 
66 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 The practical working of this plan was no better than could be 
 expected of such a compromise. The South Carolina traders paid 
 no attention to the Georgia commissioner and the Georgia traders 
 paid none to the South Carolina commissioner. Violations were 
 common on both sides and there was continued dissatisfaction. 
 Nearly ten years later, in 1751, Henry Parker, then vice-president 
 of Georgia, wrote to the Trustees that the Indian trade had needed 
 regulating for years but that this was almost impossible to accom- 
 plish since the government of South Carolina granted licenses to 
 whomsoever they wanted. 70 And on June 26, 1752 James Haber- 
 sham, the leading merchant of Savannah at that time, pointed out in 
 a letter that the divided authority in the licensing of Georgia traders 
 was the cause of many difficulties with the Indians. 71 But though 
 the arrangement during that time was not an ideal one, it was 
 fairly workable in practice, and the Georgia Indian trade continued 
 to carry on. 
 
 70 Ga. C. R., XXVI, pp. 121, 170. 
 7i Ibid., XXVI, pp. 401-402. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 OGLETHORPE'S POLICY OF INDIAN CONTROL 
 
 There was a great difference in outlook between the Trustees of 
 Georgia sitting around their council table in London and the actual 
 settlers of Georgia, living in a new world, facing new and difficult 
 problems every day. Conscientious attempts were made to carry 
 out the various acts of the Trustees and to abide by the decisions 
 of the London courts in questions of conflict. But while these acts 
 were being passed and these conflicts settled, throughout long years 
 of dispute, daily life in Georgia continued ; food was raised, settle- 
 ments were defended, trade carried on and immediate problems 
 settled as they arose. 1 
 
 Perhaps the greatest of these immediate problems was the Indian. 
 It was vital to keep his friendship and good-will, and even more 
 vital to make him feel that the white man, though benevolent, was 
 his natural master. Though we have mentioned five Indian nations 
 with which proprietary Georgia was concerned, there were only two 
 with which her concern was immediate and vital. These were the 
 Creeks and the Cherokees, both nations of some size and power 
 and both so situated geographically that it had to be a question of 
 either war or peace with them. There was no room for a laissez 
 faire principle, particularly as English indifference in the case of the 
 Creeks would have meant French or Spanish supremacy, and in 
 the case of the Cherokees possible raids from more hostile Indian 
 tribes to the north. 
 
 The Cherokees living to the north and northeast and extending 
 up into North and South Carolina were the less important of these 
 two nations, but their influence, though indirect, was nevertheless 
 considerable and left its mark on the pages of Georgia history. The 
 Cherokees acted as a two fold barrier. 2 They had long been allied 
 
 1 Gentleman's Magazine, III (April 1733), p. 168, contains a description 
 of Georgia by Oglethorpe. 
 
 2 AT. C. Col Rec., VII, pp. 213-214. 
 
 67 
 
68 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 with their neighbors the Catawba Indians in a common enmity for 
 the Six Nations to the north, and though the opposing Indians lived 
 quite far apart each side had the habit of sending raiding parties 
 across Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania against the 
 other. These war parties were of course a menace to the safety of 
 the colonies across which they travelled. 3 Moreover since both 
 sides were allies of the British, by killing each other they only 
 weakened the potential British military strength in time of conflict 
 with the French or the Spanish. Every attempt therefore was 
 made to keep peace among these Indian nations and Governor Gooch 
 of Virginia and Governor George Clarke of New York in the years 
 1737-40 were especially notable in their attempts to accomplish 
 this. 4 These troubles took place outside the boundaries of Georgia, 
 but there is little doubt that the Six Nations would have swept down 
 through Georgia in raids on the Creeks and possibly on the Georgia 
 colonists themselves, had the Cherokees not formed the barrier they 
 did. 5 Their influence on the one hand, therefore, was salutary. 
 
 On the other hand, however, the Cherokees acted as a barrier 
 against desirable and natural immigration from the north. 6 The 
 Germans and Scotch Irish from Pennsylvania and New Jersey were 
 migrating south, particularly into Virginia and North Carolina dur- 
 ing the period of the Trustees' control of Georgia, 7 but they never 
 reached the more southern colonies until after 1761. There is little 
 doubt that the wars between the Cherokees and the Six Nations, 
 and after 1757 the war between the Cherokees and English, were 
 the cause of this. This immigration would have had a desirable 
 strengthening effect on the character of the Georgia colony, instilling 
 in it independence and self reliance, but also inculcating a spirit of 
 rebellion. This would have made of Georgia one of the first patriots 
 in the Revolution, instead of one of the last loyalists as she was. 8 
 
 a William Gooch to the Board of Trade. C. O. 5 : 1324, T, 49, pp. 307-309, 
 L. C. Transcripts. C. O. 5 : 1327, W, 64, L. C. Transcripts. N. C. Col. Rec, 
 IV, p. 1313. 
 
 4 C. O. 5 : 1324, T, 49, pp. 307-309, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 5 C O. 5: 1324, T. 61, p. 375, L. C. Transcripts. C. O. 5 : 1327, W, 113, 
 L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 6 In 1746 the Cherokees ceded to Governor Glen of South Carolina the 
 land south and west of Long Canes Creek. C. O. 5 : 373, K, 37, L. C. Photostat. 
 
 7 N. C. Col. Rec, V, p. liv. 
 
 8 C. O. 5: 1327, W, 70, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
Oglethorpe's Policy of Indian Control 69 
 
 Though all this is a matter of conjecture, the importance of the 
 Cherokees to Georgia remains a fact, as a trading nation, and as a 
 buffer to the north. And during our period the friendship of these 
 Indians was guarded in the usual way, by the constant bestowal 
 of presents, by the sending of Indian agents to the various centers, 
 and by the influence and diplomacy of the Georgia traders with 
 the Cherokees. 
 
 The Creeks, however, presented a much more complex problem, 
 and there was a variety of reasons for this. First possibly was the 
 strength and nature of the tribe itself. The Creeks, as we have 
 earlier mentioned, were a confederacy, absorbing new smaller tribes 
 or the remnants of old tribes at every opportunity, and growing 
 constantly at a time when the other Indian nations were losing in 
 population. Moreover they held the most important location in the 
 southeast, being a buffer for the English against both the French 
 and the Spanish, and, more important still, they were clever enough 
 to realize this. Best of the Indian tribes in North America the 
 Creeks had some understanding of what was meant by the balance 
 of power, and of the game of international politics in which Ogle- 
 thorpe, Bienville and Montiano were engaged. And just as their 
 white neighbors attempted to do, they were continually play- 
 ing one nation off against another, never allowing the English, 
 French or Spanish to feel certain of their allegiance too long. It 
 was they, for example, who were to some extent responsible for 
 the failure of the English to make friends with the Choctaw In- 
 dians, the Creeks fearing this would unduly strengthen the English 
 and therefore lessen their strategic importance. 
 
 It was therefore vital to the Georgians to keep the friendship of 
 so strong and influential an Indian nation as the Creeks, and this 
 Oglethorpe upon arriving with his little band of settlers in 1733 
 straightway took steps to accomplish. But there was another very 
 cogent reason for the need of this friendship. The Creeks were 
 in possession of the land covered by the grant of the Georgia 
 charter. Moreover they were in possession by treaty with the 
 English, since in 1715 South Carolina had made a treaty with the 
 Yamassee promising in return for peaceful settlement of their 
 
70 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 own lands that no Englishmen would settle south of the Savannah. 9 
 Oglethorpe therefore was holding a charter in violation of this 
 treaty and the Yamacraw Indians, the branch of the Lower Creeks 
 living just south of the Savannah, regarded his appearance with 
 hostility, a hostility which, had it continued, could have meant the 
 end of the settlement. However so great was Oglethorpe's tact 
 and charm that with the help of a half-breed Indian interpreter, one 
 Mary Musgrove of whom we shall hear much later, he mollified 
 the Yamacraws and made a fresh treaty with them which was finally 
 ratified by the Trustees on October 18, 1733. 10 In this treaty the 
 Trustees agreed to let traders carry goods to the Creek towns and 
 trade with them at the rates and prices agreed to and annexed to 
 the treaty. They declared that if any trader should injure a Creek 
 he was to be tried and punished by English law. On the other hand 
 any Creek injuring an Englishman was also to be punished, and 
 should the Creeks become hostile to the Georgians the trade was 
 to be withdrawn altogether from the offending town. The Indians 
 agreed to return any runaway slaves, for which they were to receive 
 a reward. 11 Lastly it was agreed that any unoccupied land of the 
 Creeks was to be opened to British settlement. 12 Annexed to the 
 treaty was the schedule of prices for use in the Indian trade. This 
 treaty Oglethorpe signed with the Lower Creeks through their chief 
 Tomochichi, and it served as the basis of Creek-English friendship 
 for six years, until Oglethorpe made his famous visit to Coweta 
 and replaced it with a new treaty. 
 
 But the treaty was only the beginning. The Creeks must of 
 
 9 Ga. C. R., I, p. 238. Dr. S wanton has pointed out that the Yamassee and 
 the Yamacraw were regarded as former members of the Creek confederacy, 
 and that it was as guardians of these tribes that the Creeks ceded to Ogle- 
 thorpe the lands mentioned in the 1733 treaty. S wanton, J. R., Early History 
 of the Creek Indians, p. 16. 
 
 10 Gentleman's Magazine, III (July 1733), p. 384, contains an account of 
 the signing of this treaty. For the text of this treaty, see Ga. Hist. Quar., IV, 
 (1920), pp. 12-16. See also Ga. C. R. (MS),, XXXIII, pp. 522-523, and 
 Force Transcripts — Georgia Records — Indians, no. 5, L. C. — Div. MSS. A 
 summary of the terms of this treaty is given in Oldmixon, John, The British 
 Empire in America, I, p. 531. 
 
 11 This treaty was signed before the Trustees prohibited the importation 
 of negro slaves into Georgia. 
 
 12 In February, 1736, the Creeks ceded St. Simon's Island, with others 
 contiguous to it, to the English. Ga. C. R., Ill, 387. Eighteenth Annual Re- 
 port of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1896-1897, pt. 2, p. 635. 
 
Oglethorpe's Policy of Indian Control 71 
 
 course be won over to a personal allegiance and this Oglethorpe 
 straightway set out to do. He realized that the most valuable 
 asset the English could have was a firm friend among the Indians 
 who would be influential enough to serve as their representative 
 and make easier the task of controlling the natives. Accordingly, 
 after winning the old Yamacraw chief Tomochichi to himself in 
 friendship, 13 he set about building up the prestige of this old man 
 in every way possible and increasing his influence with his own 
 people. 14 The very next year after the settlement of the colony, 
 he cannily arranged for the well-known visit of Tomochichi to 
 London. 15 In 1734 the old leader made the voyage across the 
 Atlantic with a party of nine : Senauki his wife, Tooanahowi his 
 nephew, Umpychi a chief of Palachacola, Hillispylli a leading 
 warrior, three attendants, and an interpreter. 16 On June 28, 1734 
 the party reached the Trustees' office in Westminster and on August 
 1 was given an audience with George II. 17 The purpose of this 
 visit was of course in part to get an official land grant from the 
 Indians, but more especially to impress the Indians with the power 
 of England and also to increase the prestige of Tomochichi with 
 his own people as a representative of the English. 18 
 
 13 The old Indian town where Tomochichi had lived before the founding 
 of Savannah lay about a half mile out of town. "A New Voyage to Georgia 
 by a Young Gentleman," in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, II, p. 41. 
 
 14 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, pp. 141-142, 349. 
 
 15 For a detailed account of Tomochichi's 1734 visit to England, see Jones, 
 C. C., Jr., Historical Sketch of Tomochichi Mico of the Yamacraws, Chap. 
 Ill, pp. 54-72. In Wilson, A., Historic and Picturesque Savannah, p. 18, 
 there is reproduced the portrait of Tomochichi engraved by Kleinschmidt of 
 Augsburg, Germany, from the original painting by Verelst in 1734. Hodge 
 F. W., Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, pt. 2, p. 776. 
 
 is Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXII, p. 299. 
 
 1 7 For Tomochichi's speech to Trustees, see Ga. C. R., I, pp. 177-178; for 
 the answer of the Trustees, see Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXII, p. 317; for the 
 answer of the King to Tomochichi at the audience of August 1, 1734, see 
 ibid., XXXII, p. 318. 
 
 18 The presents to Tomochichi on his London visit included two swans, 
 three tubs of vines and ten dozen bottles of Burgundy wine. Ga. C. R., I, pp. 
 201, 234. After the visit, the Trustees gave their accountant, Harmon Verelst, 
 fifty guineas for his extra services in attending the Indians. Ga. C. R., II, 
 p. 78. Verelst made the painting of Tomochichi and Tooanahowi mentioned 
 above. Swanton, J. R., Early History of the Creek Indians, p. 109. For 
 Tomochichi's opinion on Georgia and South Carolina, which was favorable 
 to the former but unfavorable to the latter, see Force Transcripts — 'Georgia 
 Records— Miscellaneous— 1732-1796, L. C, Div. MSS. 
 
72 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Oglethorpe continued this policy after the party's return to 
 Georgia. 19 He instructed his agent to the Creeks, Captain Patrick 
 Mackay, to support Tomochichi in all things. 20 He made a practice 
 of handing over part of the presents which the English wished to 
 make to the Creeks, to Tomochichi for distribution. 21 And when 
 the old man finally died in October 1739, Oglethorpe saw that he 
 was given an elaborate English funeral. 22 He ordered the corpse 
 brought down to Savannah and buried in the center of one of 
 the principal squares of the town, 23 Oglethorpe himself, with Wil- 
 liam Stephens and four military officers acting as pall bearers. And 
 when the body was placed in the grave, seven minute guns were fired 
 and the little company of forty men fired three volleys over the 
 grave. This was of course a fine tribute to an old and trusted 
 friend of Georgia and of the whites, but it also served deeply to 
 impress the Creeks with the importance and position of their de- 
 ceased English representative. It was a sort of appeal to the love 
 of display which the Indians always had to a very marked degree 
 and its effect was excellent and sustained. 
 
 In 1739 Oglethorpe made his hazardous journey to Coweta to 
 insure the friendship of the Creeks. He left Savannah on July 17 
 with Lieutenant George Dunbar, Ensign Leman and a cadet named 
 Thomas Eyre and went up the Savannah river to Uchee Town 
 where he had arranged with some Indian traders to meet him with 
 horses. 24 From there, under the guidance of the traders he finished 
 the journey to Coweta where he was received by the Creeks with 
 the warmest of welcomes. 25 They had even gone out forty miles 
 to meet him and travel that distance with him back to the town 
 
 19 Until 1738 the Trustees gave Tomochichi an annual fixed allowance for 
 Indian presents. Egmont's Diary, II, p. 473. 
 
 20 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, p. 139. 
 
 21 Oglethorpe was absent from Georgia on a visit to England from Novem- 
 ber, 1736, to September, 1738 (Jones, C. C., Jr., The History of Georgia, I, 
 pp. 258-260) but during his absence his policies were continued in the colony. 
 
 22 For an excellent description of Tomochichi's funeral, see Ga. C. R., IV, 
 p. 428. 
 
 23 Tomochichi was buried in Percival Square. Jones, C. C, Jr., Historical 
 Sketch of Tomochichi Mico of the Yamacraws, p. 121. After 1764, Percival 
 Square was called Wright Square. 
 
 2 * Stephens' Journal, July 17, 1739, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 372. 
 2 » Lt. George Dunbar to Harmon Verelst, Oct. 14, 1739, in Ga. C. R., IV, 
 p. 216. 
 
Oglethorpe's Policy of Indian Control 73 
 
 itself. 26 While at Coweta, the General was stricken with a fever 
 which prostrated him for days but from which he finally recovered 
 without mishap. 27 His visit in spite of the difficulties involved was 
 a complete success. The chief motive for this visit and one which 
 we shall take up in detail much later had been the impending war 
 with Spain and the consequent need for the English colonies of 
 Creek support. But Oglethorpe not only succeeded triumphantly 
 in the prime motive of his visit, but also while there negotiated 
 another treaty with the Creeks which was to act as the basis for 
 Creek-English friendship for the remainder of the period we have 
 under consideration. 28 
 
 This treaty reaffirmed all previous grants to the Trustees of land 
 upon the Savannah river as far as Ogeechee and all lands along the 
 sea coast as far as the St. John's river and as far inland as the tide 
 flowed, and all islands as far as the St. John's, particularly the 
 islands of Frederica, Cumberland and Amelia. The Creeks reserved 
 for themselves all the lands from Pipemaker's Bluff to Savannah 
 and the sea islands of St. Catherine's, Ossabaw and Sapelo. 
 
 Oglethorpe was a very far sighted man, 29 and in the years in 
 which he was keeping the old man Tomochichi supreme as English 
 friend and English representative he was already building up the 
 prestige of another Indian ally who was to serve him and his suc- 
 cessors for many years to come. This was the woman, earlier 
 mentioned as Oglethorpe's interpreter to the Yamacraws, Mary 
 Musgrove. 30 Mary Musgrove was the daughter of an English 
 trader and an Indian Princess, the sister of the Creek Emperor, 
 Old Brims. She had been born at Coweta town about 1700 and 
 brought up there for ten years when she was taken to Ponpon, 
 South Carolina and there baptized. She stayed among the English 
 
 26 Oglethorpe to Trustees, Sept. 5, 1739, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 208. 
 
 27 Idem. 
 
 28 For the terms of this treaty, see Ga. Hist. Quar., IV (1920), pp. 5-8. 
 For an itemized account of Oglethorpe's expenses, which totalled £529-0-9^, 
 see Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXIII, pp. 91-93. See also Ga. C. R., V, p. 238 and 
 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXX, p. 212. On the land grants, see Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXXIII, pp. 522-523. 
 
 29 Stephens, W. B., A History of Georgia, I, p. 96. 
 
 30 For a sketch of Mary Musgrove, see Coulter, E. M., "Mary Musgrove, 
 'Queen of the Creeks' : A chapter of early Georgia Troubles," in Ga. Hist. 
 Quar., XI, (1927), pp. 1-30, 
 
74 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 in South Carolina from that time until the end of the Yamassee 
 war in 1716, when she went back among her people in the region 
 south of the Savannah river. There she met and married John 
 Musgrove, a prominent Indian trader and a member of the South 
 Carolina assembly, who had been sent by Governor Craven of 
 South Carolina to make peace with the Creeks. Up to this time 
 Mary had been known by the Indian name of Coosaponakeesa, 
 but now she changed her name to Mary Musgrove and in 1723 the 
 couple went back to South Carolina to live. Nine years later they 
 returned to Mary's people and built a trading house at Yamacraw 
 Bluff. It was here that Oglethorpe first met the woman who was 
 to play such an important part in the Indian affairs of Georgia. 
 Her life had ideally suited her for the part she was to play, since 
 she was equally familiar with the Indian and the English mode of 
 life and personality, and had many friends on both sides. 
 
 Oglethorpe was quick to see the value of such an ally as Mary 
 Musgrove. Their very first meeting was friendly and they con- 
 tinued so throughout the whole of the commissioner's stay in 
 Georgia. Upon meeting Mary he immediately made use of her as 
 interpreter in forming the treaty with the Yamacraws in 1733 and 
 there is no doubt that Mary's personality was quite as important 
 as Oglethorpe's in changing the spirit of the Indians from enmity 
 to friendship at that time. From this time on, Mary and her hus- 
 band, John Musgrove, were regular interpreters to Oglethorpe and 
 the Georgians in their dealings with the Indians. 31 When John 
 Wesley paid his visit to Tomochichi with the hope of educating the 
 Indians it was John Musgrove who acted as interpreter between 
 the two, and Wesley is known to have been welcomed more than 
 once as a visitor at the Musgrove plantation, six miles up the river 
 from Savannah. 32 The Musgroves became firm friends of the new 
 little colony and valuable friends, since at this time the Musgroves 
 
 31 Ga. C. R. t II, p. 327. 
 
 32 On John Wesley's efforts to educate the Indians, and especially in con- 
 nection with the school "Irene," see Ga. C. R., V, p. 530; Curnock, N. (ed.), 
 The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., I, p. 405. The Trustees appro- 
 priated money for schools for the Indians. Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXII, pp. 
 509-510, 566-567. On the subject of Indian education in colonial Georgia, see 
 Corrv, J. P., "Education in Colonial Georgia," in Ga. Hist. Quar., XVI, 
 (1932), pp. 136-145. 
 
Oglethorpe's Policy of Indian Control 75 
 
 were people of some wealth and importance, and the colony of 
 Georgia weak and helpless. 
 
 Oglethorpe's next use of Mary Musgrove was to dispatch her to 
 set up an outpost against the Spanish. At his request she set up a 
 trading house called Mount Venture on the south side of the 
 Altamaha and a hundred and fifty miles above its mouth from which 
 vantage point she could inform herself on the activities of the 
 Spaniards at St. Augustine and transmit any alarming news to 
 Savannah or Frederica. 33 While she was there Mary suffered the 
 loss of her husband, John Musgrove, 34 a loss which was even 
 greater than anyone at the time realized, for Mary's subsequent 
 marital ventures were to prove less fortunate and to have a definite 
 bearing both on her life and on the life of the Georgia colony. 
 Shortly after Musgrove's death Mary married Jacob Matthews, a 
 captain of the twenty rangers stationed at Mount Venture. 35 He 
 had formerly been an indentured servant and had even worked for 
 Mary in that capacity. He was strong and attractive, a "lusty fel- 
 low" William Stephens called him — but his new prosperity gave 
 him false ideas of his own importance and his influence on Mary 
 was none too good. 
 
 In the meantime, however, Mary and Oglethorpe were becoming 
 firmer and firmer friends and Oglethorpe was doing everything 
 possible to build up her prestige and to make use of that prestige 
 to English advantage. On all important occasions henceforth Mary 
 served as interpreter for Oglethorpe. 36 He frequently called on 
 her for advice, and whenever trouble with the French or Spanish 
 arose it was through Mary that Oglethorpe was able to influence 
 the Creeks to stand by the British. Particularly during the War 
 of Jenkin's Ear did Mary Musgrove's friendship for Oglethorpe 
 show itself. She rallied the Creeks to the support of the British 
 general in his expedition against St. Augustine and even when her 
 own brother was killed before the walls of that city her allegiance 
 did not falter. But these are just a few of the long series of services 
 
 33 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, p. 242; Ga. C. R., IV, pp. 319, 511. 
 
 34 All Mary's children by John Musgrove had died previously. Ga. C. R., 
 V, p. 17. 
 
 Mlbid., supp. to IV, 128-129; 213. 
 36 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, p. 99. 
 
76 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 which this Indian woman rendered her English friends, and which 
 were to continue until circumstances and influences brought about 
 a change in her sentiment toward Georgia. 37 
 
 As early as 1735 the Trustees in recognition of her services as 
 interpreter sent Mary £20 sterling, an adequate proof of their 
 good opinion of her. 38 In 1738 while Oglethorpe was in the south 
 fighting the Spaniards, William Stephens as co-commissioner 
 learned that there were fifty warriors of the Upper Creek nation on 
 their way to Savannah. Realizing that such a visit might prove 
 dangerous, particularly if the Indians got drunk as they were apt to 
 do, his first thought was of Mary Musgrove. He accordingly sent 
 the entire delegation to the plantation of Mary, "whom," as 
 Stephens himself remarked in his journal, "they all have resort to 
 on these occasions." 39 He promised to pay the expenses of the en- 
 tertainment, but looked to Mary to keep these warriors contented, 
 since their friendship at this juncture was invaluable. 
 
 In the next year, April 1739, while Mary was at Mount Venture 
 and shortly after her marriage to Jacob Matthews, the Georgian 
 again appealed to Mary. At the request of Oglethorpe, Lieutenant 
 Horton with a few friends went to visit her to ask her help with 
 the Yamacraw Indians of Tomochichi. 40 These Creeks were plan- 
 ning an attack on the Yamassee Indians in Florida. Oglethorpe 
 knew that this would lead to a definite break with Spain, a circum- 
 stance which at the time he was very anxious to avoid. He was 
 therefore eager for Mary and her husband to join him in Frederica 
 and exert her influence with the Creeks. This she agreed to do 
 and accomplished successfully. 41 Stephens in his journal of the 
 next year remarks that Mary was always remarkably well thought 
 of by Oglethorpe because of her influence with the Creeks, and 
 
 37 When Oglethorpe was making his preparations to attack St. Augustine 
 in 1740, he called into service the overseer from Mary's plantation and 
 cowpen at Savannah. Ga. C. R., IV, p. 319. The overseer was killed during 
 the siege of the city and the plantation left without a keeper. The cattle 
 were stolen from the cowpen and the plantation went to ruin. 
 
 38 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXIX, p. 99. 
 
 39 Stephens' Journal, Sept. 20, 21, 1738. Ga. C. R., IV, pp. 203-204. 
 
 40 Stephens' Journal, May 1, 1739. Ga. C. R., IV, p. 328. 
 
 41 Stephens' Journal, May 2, 1739. Ga. C. R., IV, p. 328. 
 
Oglethorpe's Policy of Indian Control 77 
 
 that Oglethorpe frequently asked her advice on Indian matters and 
 showed respect for her opinion. 42 
 
 In 1741 during the Creek-Cherokee war two Cherokees who had 
 been with Oglethorpe at St. Augustine found themselves in the 
 neighborhood of Savannah. Being afraid they would be killed by 
 the Creeks but trusting in Mary's friendship for all English allies, 
 they went for protection to her plantation. 43 Stephens, learning of 
 this, requested Mary to send the Cherokees to Savannah and 
 promised to put them on a boat bound for Augusta from whence 
 they could easily return to their own villages. Through the joint 
 efforts of Mary and Stephens this was accomplished 44 and the 
 Cherokees reached their homes in safety. 45 In June of the same 
 year, the Wolf, a noted Creek chief, came to Mrs. Matthews' 
 plantation near Savannah where he was entertained. 46 While 
 there, negotiations were carried on with him by William Stephens 
 with a view toward building up the English-Creek friendship, and 
 the Wolf finally departed well satisfied and firm in loyalty for the 
 English cause. That very month Oglethorpe sent to Savannah for 
 Mary to come to Frederica to act as interpreter at an important 
 meeting with the Creeks who had just arrived to aid him against 
 the Spaniards. 47 Again Mary complied and again proved herself 
 invaluable. 
 
 The following year Mary returned to Savannah with her husband 
 because of his failing health. While she was in Savannah her out- 
 post at Mount Venture was entirely destroyed by marauding Span- 
 ish Indians 48 and the entire body of settlers which she had gathered 
 around her lost. 49 Tragic as was its end, the outpost, and Mary's 
 term there, had served its purpose. 
 
 42 Stephens' Journal, Feb. 22, 1740. Ga. C. R., IV, pp. 518-519. See also 
 Ga. C. R., IV, p. 566. 
 
 4 3 ibid., supp. to IV, pp. 86-87. 
 
 44 Ibid., supp. to IV, p. 88. 
 
 45 Ibid., supp. to IV, p. 103-104. 
 
 46 Ibid., supp. to IV, p. 160. 
 
 47 Ibid., supp. to IV, p. 163. 
 
 48 Jacob Matthews had applied to Oglethorpe in 1740 to have Mount Ven- 
 ture defended. Oglethorpe had replied that he could not divide the regiment, 
 but he appointed Matthews a garrison of twenty men which he empowered 
 Matthews to raise. Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, p. 242. 
 
 49 Ibid., XXXVI, p. 54. The Spanish Indians promised to spare the lives 
 of all persons at Mount Venture but after the surrender they killed all the 
 men except two and also a woman and a child. Ibid., XXXVI, p. 54. 
 
78 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Matthews died soon after their arrival in Savannah and Ogle- 
 thorpe paused in his war with Spain to write Mary a letter of 
 condolence. 50 But shortly thereafter so great was his need of her 
 in the Spanish counter-attack on Georgia that Oglethorpe again 
 wrote to Mary, explaining that though he had defeated the Span- 
 iards in two rights he badly needed help, and requesting her to 
 send all the Indians she could rally to his aid. 51 This she must 
 have done for later in the same month the general gave Mary as a 
 present an Indian servant whom he had captured from the 
 Spaniards. 52 The next year, 1743, Mary's plantation once more 
 served as a bond between the white and the red men when Indians 
 on their way to join Oglethorpe at Frederica stopped there and 
 were lavishly fed and housed. 53 
 
 The year 1743 however proved to be an unlucky one for Mary 
 Musgrove Matthews and indeed for the colony of Georgia. In 
 that year Oglethorpe who had for ten years acted as a friend and a 
 steadying influence on the half breed woman, as well as a continual 
 link between the white and the red men of Georgia, returned to 
 England. He promised Mary £100 a year for her services as in- 
 terpreter and when he left Savannah in his final farewell to Georgia 
 he gave her a diamond ring and £200 with the promise of more to 
 follow. 54 His departure was a misfortune. It probably marked 
 the turning point in Mary's relations with Georgia, though this did 
 not culminate until a few years later after her unfortunate marriage 
 with Thomas Bosomworth. 55 
 
 50 Oglethorpe to Mrs. Mary Matthews, June 20, 1742, in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXVII, pp. 243-244. 
 si Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, p. 244. 
 
 52 ibid., XXVII, p. 245. 
 
 53 Ga. C. R., VI, p. 72. 
 
 54 Spalding, Thomas, A Sketch of the Life of General James Oglethorpe, in 
 Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, I, p. 252. 
 
 55 Thomas Bosomworth had been ordained minister to Savannah in 1742. 
 S.P.G. MSS— Series B, XIII, no. 10, L. C. Photostats. The S.P.G. paid him 
 a salary of £50 a year. S.P.G. MSS— Series B, XII, no. 136, L. C. Photo- 
 stats. For a sketch of Thomas Bosomworth's life, see Coulter, E. M., "Mary 
 Musgrove, 'Queen of the Creeks' : A Chapter of early Georgia Troubles," 
 in Ga. Hist. Quar., XI (1927), pp. 1-30. 
 
Oglethorpe's Policy of Indian Control 79 
 
 In June, 1744, Major William Horton, 56 in charge of the British 
 regiment, appealed to Mary asking her to hurry all the Creeks 
 possible down to his aid at Frederica. 57 In September he again 
 wrote to tell her that the Indians at Frederica were dissatisfied with 
 the presents he had given them and to ask her to come there to 
 his aid. 58 This she did, and it is proof of her influence that three 
 weeks later Horton in a letter to Thomas Bosomworth remarked 
 that before Mary's arrival in Frederica he was harassed to death, 
 and all that he did fell short of the red men's expectations, whereas 
 after her arrival the Indians seemed quite well satisfied with every- 
 thing. 59 The next year, in 1745, Oglethorpe wrote to Major Horton 
 from Durham, England, asking him to support Mary in every way 
 possible. 60 The Spanish faction among the Creeks, he stated, were 
 making the utmost endeavor to destroy the influence of Mary and 
 so great was her power and so important to the English interest that 
 every effort should be made to preserve it. The next year he wrote 
 a friendly letter to Mary herself in which he promised to recom- 
 mend her past services to the Trustees. 61 
 
 In 1747 when the Creek-Cherokee war broke out and the Creeks 
 threatened to desert to the Spaniards 62 the English turned to Mary 
 more than ever for help. Horton must have taken the words of 
 Oglethorpe to heart for he sent Mary £200 sterling worth of Indian 
 presents to give out at her trading house at the forks of the Al- 
 tamaha and even went so far as to agree to give Mary an annual 
 allowance for Indian presents which she was to distribute as she 
 saw fit. 63 The Creek loyalty to England wavered in this crisis, but 
 Mary Musgrove Matthews Bosomworth's term of alliance was 
 drawing to a close. Colonel Alexander Heron, who succeeded 
 
 56 When James Pemberton, the Philadelphia merchant, visited Frederica 
 in 1745, he was well treated by Horton. Tames Pemberton's Diary, Oct. 
 30, 1745. 
 
 57 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, p. 249. 
 68 ibid., XXVII, pp. 251-252. 
 
 59 ibid., XXVII, p. 252. 
 
 eo Ibid., XXVII, pp. 252-254. 
 
 61 Oglethorpe to Mrs. Bosomworth, July 16, 1746, in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXVII, p. 256. 
 
 62 A. G. I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-32, pp. 314, 315, 319, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 63 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, p. 259; see also ibid., XXVII, pp. 665-666. 
 Mary had established a trading house at the forks of the Altamaha in 1745. 
 Ibid., p. 255. 
 
80 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Horton, did not continue her allowance u and depended on her help 
 less than had any of his predecessors. He also, it might be ob- 
 served, had less success in holding the loyalty of the Creeks. 
 Nevertheless he recognized the value of the half-breed woman as 
 his letters show and made some efforts to hold her friendship. 65 
 At one time he wrote of Mary, "I have had personal Knowledge 
 of her Merit since my first arrival in this Country and am highly 
 Sensible of the Singular Service she has done her Country ... in 
 continuing the Creek Indians in Friendship and alliance with the 
 English; and since Malatchi the Emperor's arrival here, I am 
 more than ever Convinced that she is looked upon by the whole 
 Creek Nation as their Natural princess, and any Injury done to her 
 would be equally Resented as if it were done to the whole Nation. 
 . . . She is a Woman of such consequence that if she is driven to 
 the necessity of Flying to her Indian Friends for Bread, it will be 
 morally impossible for me to Maintain his Majesty's peace and 
 authority among them." 66 It is perhaps a pity that with this 
 knowledge and insight he did not make more effort to win Mary's 
 support. 
 
 The testimony of the officers of Oglethorpe's regiment in 1747 
 also bears out the importance of the woman Mary. They stated 
 that the whole Creek nation was greatly under her influence, that 
 Mary had always been loyal to the English, that she had brought 
 down many Creeks to support the English against the Spaniards 
 and that due to her influence, the Creeks had been a strong barrier 
 to Georgia and South Carolina against the Spaniards. 67 There is 
 no doubt that one of the most influential persons in Georgia Indian 
 relations was Mary Musgrove Matthews Bosomworth. 68 
 
 Thus we have the policy of the Georgia commissioners in their 
 efforts to control the Indians, and particularly the Creeks, a policy 
 apparently evolved by Oglethorpe and based largely on the use of 
 various types of personal influence. We have the influence of the 
 
 6 * Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, p. 260. 
 
 65 Ibid., XXVII, p. 264. 
 
 66 Alexander Heron to Andrew Stone, Deputy Secretary of State, Dec. 8, 
 1747. Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, p. 265. 
 
 67 Ibid., XXVII, pp. 267-268. 
 
 68 S. C. Indian Books, 1752-1753, III, 19. 
 
Oglethorpe s Policy of Indian Control 81 
 
 commissioner himself, strongest during the rule of Oglethorpe, but 
 effective even in the later years ; the influence of his Indian agents, 
 carefully picked and placed in the central Indian towns to keep the 
 friendship of the red men and a wary watch on all new develop- 
 ments; the influence of the Indian traders in their control of the 
 supply of goods ; and last and most important the influence of two 
 strong Indian personalities, the stronger because of their prestige 
 being built up and elaborated through the friendship and strategy 
 of Oglethorpe. Through this latter influence, and especially 
 through the influence of Mary Musgrove, the Creeks were kept 
 in virtually constant friendship for Georgia throughout our period. 
 
82 
 
 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 This map, from Urlsperger, S. Nachricht, is of especial interest here as 
 showing the Matthews plantation near Savannah. This map has also been 
 reproduced in Winsor, J. Narrative and Critical History, V, 379. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 OGLETHORPE AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE 
 FORCES IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA 
 
 The British statesmen in the first half of the eighteenth century- 
 did not concern themselves with colonial conquests. Their chief 
 attention was centered in Europe, as was natural and inevitable. 
 Their attention was directed to three things. In England they 
 wanted to keep the Hanoverians on the throne under the leadership 
 of the Whigs, and to defeat all attempts of the Stuarts to regain 
 their lost authority. On the continent they strove to maintain a 
 balance of power, a policy which is indissoluably linked with Eng- 
 land. After George I became king, they endeavored to protect and 
 safeguard his electorate of Hanover. England had no interest in 
 acquiring extensive tracts of land in distant parts of the world. 
 Her statesmen were good mercantilists, who held that no possessions 
 should be taken over except those which would serve mercantilist 
 ends : the furnishing of a source of supply for needed raw products, 
 the creating of a market for English manufactured goods, or the 
 protecting of other colonies which did these two things. The chief 
 concern of the mercantilists was the building up of commerce, not 
 the acquisition of territory. 
 
 The mercantilists shaped the British policy in the matter of 
 colonial defense. This problem was to protect the colonists from 
 the Indians in peace time and to guard them from the French and 
 the Spaniards aided of course by their Indian allies, when war 
 broke out. Various schemes were proposed for doing these two 
 things, and different plans were tried in different colonies. In later 
 years the problem of colonial defense was recognized as an im- 
 perial one, and was dealt with from an imperial point of view. In 
 the period which we are discussing, however, the idea of empire 
 had few adherents and colonial defense was in the main treated as 
 a local matter to be handled by each colony individually. The 
 
 83 
 
84 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 system followed by South Carolina was in general use among most 
 of the British colonies and among the French and Spaniards as 
 well. This system was based on a series of Indian alliances, formed 
 partly for trade but no less useful as forming a barrier behind 
 which the colonists could live in security. The Cherokees and the 
 Creeks afforded protection to the people of South Carolina, as the 
 Iroquois did to their countrymen of New York. 
 
 While these Indian alliances served a useful purpose in protect- 
 ing the English colonies, they were not enough in themselves to 
 constitute a complete defense. Soldiers were necessary when Eng- 
 land became involved in a war with France or Spain. This neces- 
 sity brought up the problem of how the troops were to be raised 
 and of who was to pay for their support. 1 The two obvious divis- 
 ions into which the troops fall are militia and regular troops. The 
 militia were not only the true militia, the entire population per- 
 manently organized in companies and regiments, but also colonial 
 troops raised by vote of a colonial assembly for a specified period 
 and paid and supplied by that body. The regular troops were 
 supported by Parliament. 
 
 The question of colonial defense was pressing in 1737, in view 
 of the strained relations between England and Spain over trade 
 in the West Indies and their dispute as to the ownership of the 
 debatable land of Georgia. At this time Oglethorpe was looked 
 on as being one of the best informed men in England on the sub- 
 ject of colonial defense. He had recently returned to London 
 from Georgia, and on February 4 he had a long talk with Sir 
 Robert Walpole, the prime minister, who was at a loss what to do 
 in American affairs with respect to the security of the colonies. Sir 
 Robert asked Oglethorpe to suggest some plan for defending them. 
 Oglethorpe wrote out his ideas and gave them to the prime minister 
 the next day. 2 He stated that there were but two ways of defend- 
 ing the colonies from the French and Spaniards and their Indians, 
 the one by forming a regular and warlike militia, the other by 
 
 1 For an excellent discussion of this subject see Pargellis, S. M., Lord 
 Loudoun in North America, Chap. 1, "Colonial Defense before 1756." Dr. 
 Pargellis outlines the methods used for colonial defense and explains why this 
 problem was never solved. 
 
 2 Egmont's Diary, II, p. 339. 
 
Oglethorpe as Commander-in-Chief 85 
 
 keeping a body of regular troops. A substantial militia was not to 
 be had for want of enough white men. Oglethorpe stated that he 
 could form about three hundred men capable of bearing arms in 
 Georgia ; South Carolina had money but no men ; North Carolina 
 had men but no money ; Pennsylvania had both ; Virginia had only 
 men ; New England had men but no money ; and New York had 
 money and few men. 3 If the defence were left to a militia it would 
 be expensive, because they must be paid when in service for the 
 neglect of their own affairs. Oglethorpe therefore believed it 
 would be better to have regular troops. Walpole said that it would 
 be hard to keep a sufficient body of soldiers because of the expense. 
 Oglethorpe answered that the expense would amount to about 
 £20,000 a year, but that if the king would allow a draft of two 
 men out of each company of infantry and two out of each troop of 
 dragoons in the English establishment, it would cost little more 
 than the present expense. Walpole said that the king would not 
 consent to this. 
 
 Oglethorpe said that in this case new troops would have to be 
 raised. He recommended that a battalion of five hundred men be 
 sent to each colony, and stated that he thought the colonies would 
 themselves pay the expense. 4 This proposal met Walpole's ap- 
 proval, and he asked for added details. . Oglethorpe said that it 
 would be necessary to put these forces under the command of a 
 single officer. If the command were left to the individual gov- 
 ernors, they would almost certainly differ among themselves as to 
 what course of action to follow, or would place the safety of their 
 own provinces ahead of the general safety of all. This divided 
 command would defeat any measures which would be necessary 
 to defending the colonies. Walpole approved of these suggestions 
 of Oglethorpe. 5 
 
 Oglethorpe's plan for the defense of the colonies thus contem- 
 plated the employment of British regulars. In spite of obvious 
 advantages which this method afforded, it was not regarded with 
 favor by the mercantilists, who wanted the colonies to provide for 
 their own defense. 
 
 3 Egmont's Diary, II, pp. 339-340. 
 
 4 Ibid., II, p. 340. 
 
 5 Ibid., II, pp. 340-341. 
 
86 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Oglethorpe's military career in Georgia had begun with the 
 founding of the colony, since the new province was avowedly estab- 
 lished as a buffer for South Carolina against the attacks of the 
 French, the Spaniards, and the Indians. His position as head of this 
 march colony made it inevitable that he should be a soldier. But his 
 military reputation soon led to his becoming the recognized defender 
 of the southern frontier. In 1735 Walpole was disturbed by the 
 danger threatening the English colonies from the French in 
 Louisiana. 6 He had then urged Oglethorpe to accept the governor- 
 ship of South Carolina, but Oglethorpe declined because he felt that 
 the interests of the two colonies might clash. 7 He agreed to go back 
 over to Georgia, however, on condition that he be given the power 
 of militia which the king had reserved to himself in the Georgia 
 charter and which at this time was exercised by Governor Robert 
 Johnson of South Carolina. He also demanded power over the 
 militia of South Carolina. 
 
 As it became more and more evident that in spite of Walpole's 
 efforts to preserve peace, a war between England and Spain was 
 sure to take place, 8 both the prospective combatants began to make 
 preparations for the coming struggle. It was clear to all that one 
 theater of war would be the Georgia-Florida border, and to its 
 defense the English turned their attention. In 1737 Walpole asked 
 Oglethorpe if he would accept the command of all the British forces 
 in America. 9 Oglethorpe replied that he would. The prime min- 
 ister inquired if accepting this office would prevent Oglethorpe 
 from continuing to sit in Parliament. Oglethorpe assured him that 
 he need not lose his seat, since this was a military, not a civil em- 
 ployment. Walpole then urged Oglethorpe, as he had done earlier 
 in 1735, to accept the governorship of South Carolina but this 
 Oglethorpe refused to do. 10 His reasons for refusing were two 
 
 6 Several representations were laid before the Board of Trade in the period 
 1715-1735 setting forth the danger the British colonies were in from the 
 growing power of the French in America. Add. MSS. 33028, p. 491, L. C. 
 Transcripts. 
 
 7 Egmont's Diary, II, p. 159. 
 
 8 Add. MSS. 32794, fo. 252, L. C. Transcripts; Add. MSS. 33028, pp. 497, 
 522, 523. 
 
 9 Egmont's Diary, II, pp. 340-341. 
 io Ibid., II, p. 159. 
 
Oglethorpe as Commander-in-Chief 87 
 
 fold : he feared that the interests of Georgia and South Carolina 
 might clash, as he had said earlier, and he did not want to give up 
 his seat in Parliament as he would have to do if he accepted a civil 
 office in the colonies. 11 His appointment would have been popular 
 in Carolina, where the people in 1737 wanted him for their gov- 
 ernor. 12 
 
 An additional reason for Oglethorpe's unwillingness to accept 
 the South Carolina governorship was that it would have added to 
 his civil duties in which he was not greatly interested and would 
 thus have taken his attention from military affairs, to which he 
 wished to devote all his time. He was the only man seriously 
 considered for the command of the defense of the southern frontier 
 in the approaching Spanish war. Walpole offered Oglethorpe a 
 commission as captain-general of the forces in South Carolina and 
 Georgia, but Oglethorpe refused to accept it unless he were given 
 a regiment of seven hundred men with the commission of colonel, 
 with which to defend the two colonies. 13 The following month 
 Walpole approved the sending of a regiment to protect Georgia, 
 if a fund could be found for it. 14 Oglethorpe suggested that the 
 companies in the mainland colonies and in the West Indies be re- 
 duced, and the money thus saved be applied to the support of a 
 regiment in Georgia. If this were done, Oglethorpe estimated that 
 the cost of the regiment would not exceed £15,000 a year. He 
 added that unless he were given the regiment he would not under- 
 take the defense of the southern frontier. In June, Oglethorpe 
 was assured by the ministry that he should have a regiment of six 
 hundred men, and should be constituted commander-in-chief of 
 the military forces in South Carolina and Georgia. 15 His com- 
 mission was dated June 20, 1737. 16 
 
 Oglethorpe proceeded at once to the raising of his regiment. 
 Governor Trelawney of Jamaica stoutly opposed the taking of any 
 companies out of that island, and threatened to throw up his office 
 
 11 Egmont's Diary, II, p. 401. 
 uibid., II, pp. 374,477. 
 
 13 Ibid., II, p. 383. 
 
 14 Ibid., II, p. 401. 
 is Ibid., II, p. 412. 
 
 26 Treasury Books and Papers, III, p. 583. 
 
88 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 if tin's were done. 17 This was a minor difficulty, however, and by 
 September plans had taken definite shape. As Oglethorpe ex- 
 plained to Egmont, he was to have a regiment of six hundred men, 
 and to name his own officers, except that Captain Cochrane, an old 
 officer now in a regiment on the Irish Establishment, had been 
 recommended to him by Henry Pelham, 18 Paymaster General of 
 the Forces. 19 Oglethorpe intended to make Captain Patrick Mackay 
 major, to appoint some ensigns from Georgia; the rest were to be 
 half -pay officers who had served in Spain. The regiment was to 
 be composed of two hundred fifty men drafted out of the Earl of 
 Rothe's regiment on the Irish Establishment, and at this time 
 stationed at Gibraltar, 20 and the Independent company then in 
 Georgia. 21 The rest Oglethorpe was to recruit in England. Rothe's 
 regiment was to be recruited and filled up out of England 22 and 
 then returned to Ireland. Walpole had wished to send Rothe's 
 regiment entire to Georgia, with its own officers. Oglethorpe 
 opposed this, however, and took the matter to the king himself. 
 In an audience with George II, he induced him to give up the idea 
 of sending Rothe's regiment. Oglethorpe's regiment was soon 
 raised, 23 and the necessary supplies provided. 24 James Vernon, one 
 of the Georgia Trustees, told Egmont in March, 1738, that Walpole 
 intended to keep Oglethorpe in England and not to allow him to 
 go again to Georgia "as believing his head too full of schemes, 
 and that he may possibly by his warmth of temper run the Colony 
 into an unnecessary quarrel with Spain." 25 Walpole intended to 
 send Lieutenant Colonel Cochrane instead. This intention was not 
 carried out. On March 30, 1738, Oglethorpe invited all the Georgia 
 Trustees to dinner at the White Hart in Holborn to see a part 
 
 17 Egmont's Diary, II, p. 418. 
 ™Ibid., II, pp. 433-434. 
 
 19 Treasury Books and Papers, III, p. 391. 
 
 20 Ibid., Ill, p. 482. 
 
 21 This company was stationed in 1735 at Fort King George. Add. MSS 
 32797, fo. 292, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 22 It was later decided to fill the vacancies in Rothe's regiment by levies 
 made in Ireland. Treasury Books and Papers, III, p. 351. 
 
 2 3 Ibid., Ill, p. 482. 
 
 24 C. O. 5: 5, p. 201, L. C. Transcripts; Treasury Books and Papers, III, 
 p. 394. 
 
 25 Egmont's Diary, II, pp. 469-470. 
 
Oglethorpe as Commander-in-Chief 89 
 
 of his regiment march through. 26 Egmont stated that he never saw 
 a finer set of young fellows, all under thirty years old. They 
 marched gaily, he said, but the sergeants and corporals were too 
 few. The new recruits embarked at Portsmouth for Gibraltar 
 where they were to join the men from Rothe's regiment and to 
 proceed with them to Georgia. 27 Lieutenant Colonel Cochrane 
 arrived at Savannah in May with part of the regiment 28 and in 
 September Oglethorpe reached Frederica with the rest of it. 29 
 These troops were to remain in Georgia until 1749. 30 
 
 Though Oglethorpe was unwilling to take upon himself the 
 duties of the governorship of South Carolina he was naturally 
 interested in seeing that a friend of Georgia was appointed. He 
 accordingly requested Walpole to have Colonel Horsey elevated to 
 this post. 31 Horsey was a friend of the Georgia Trustees and under 
 obligations to them. The new appointee soon died of apoplexy and 
 James Glen succeeded him. The divided authority with military 
 affairs under the control of Oglethorpe and civil matters under that 
 of the governor had a curious effect. The salary of the captain- 
 general of the forces in South Carolina was £1,000 a year, while 
 the governor's office carried no salary. 32 It had been expected that 
 the two offices would be held by the same man, and that thus the 
 governor's salary would be provided for. Oglethorpe had been a 
 friend of Horsey, and had offered to share his salary with him. 33 
 Toward Glen he entertained less kindly feelings, and a bitter quar- 
 rel developed between the two over the £1,000. In 1739, Glen tried 
 to secure for himself the military commission but the Privy Council 
 refused to support his claims. 34 
 
 Walpole's rule stirred up an opposition that grew slowly in 
 
 26 Egmont's Diary, II, p. 475. 
 
 27 Treasury Books and Papers, III, p. 540. 
 
 28 Egmont's Diary, II, p. 501. 
 ™Ibid., II, pp. 510, 516. 
 
 30 The regiment was disbanded in 1749, but in 1755, after the outbreak of 
 the French and Indian War, Oglethorpe presented a memorial to the king 
 asking that the old regiment be revived. Add. MSS 32859, fo. 187, L. C. 
 Transcripts. 
 
 31 Egmont's Diary, II, p. 368. 
 
 32 Ibid, II, p. 412. 
 
 33 Ibid. II, pp. 417-418. 
 3 * Ibid. Ill, pp. 22-23. 
 
90 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 strength. It consisted of the Tory party as the center, but included 
 a number of Whigs, among them Carteret, Pulteney, George Gren- 
 ville, and William Pitt. The opposition, except for the Tories, had 
 no fixed principles; its main object was to overthrow Walpole. 
 The quarrel with Spain in the late seventeen-thirties gave this 
 opposition its chance. In 1738 it precipitated a debate in Parlia- 
 ment on the duty of Great Britain to protect its merchants and to 
 defend the British seamen from the attacks of the Spaniards in the 
 West Indies. Captain Jenkins, an English trader, had circulated 
 the story that his ear had been cut off by the Spaniards. Jenkins 
 was now brought before the bar of the house of commons, where 
 he produced what he said was the lost ear. Popular sentiment 
 already favored some action against Spain, and in 1739 Walpole 
 was forced to declare war. 
 
 In June 1739 Oglethorpe received instructions to prepare Georgia 
 for defense against the Spaniards, and in the following April he 
 was ordered to attack St. Augustine. 35 The story of this attack, 
 of the siege of St. Augustine and of Oglethorpe's defeat has been 
 told by a number of writers. 36 South Carolina sent aid in both men 
 and money, 37 but this aid was of doubtful value. Oglethorpe him- 
 self had offered his entire estate, real and personal, in addition to 
 his salary, as security for the loans needed to finance the expedi- 
 tion. 38 But the inability of the fleet to co-operate with the land 
 forces because of the shallow water plus the stubborn defense of 
 the Spaniards, led to the failure of the expedition. 
 
 At the same time Vernon and Wentworth were meeting a similar 
 fate in the West Indies. 39 Vernon took Porto Bello with six ships, 
 a victory particularly pleasing to the English since the hated 
 guarda-costas had fitted out at this port. Reinforcements of twenty- 
 
 35 Treasury Books and Papers, V, p. 64. 
 
 36 See e.g. Jones, C. C. Jr. The History of Georgia, I, pp. 329-335 ; Coul- 
 ter, E. M., A Short History of Georgia, pp. 41-45. 
 
 S7 Egmont's Diary, III, pp. 129, 130, 141. 
 
 3 « Ibid., Ill, p. 146. 
 
 39 Lord EHbank's journal of the Carthagena expedition is in CO. 5 : 41, 
 pp. 441-485, L. C. Photostats. For the letters of Brigadier-General Went- 
 worth and Admiral Vernon relating to the expedition against Carthagena and 
 Porto Bello from October 3, 1740, to November 23, 1743, see C. O. 5: 42, 
 L. C. Photostats. 
 
Oglethorpe as Commander-in-Chief 91 
 
 five ships were sent to him under Sir Chaloner Ogle together with a 
 force of nine thousand soldiers under Brigadier General Went- 
 worth, who had succeeded to the command when Major General 
 Lord Cathcart died. The expedition, aided by a force of Vir- 
 ginians under Governor Gooch, appeared off Carthagena on March 
 3, 1741, but not until April 9 was the assault made on San Lazaro, 
 the key fort defending the city. The attack failed miserably, illness 
 spread among the soldiers, and the expedition returned in defeat 
 to Port Royal. 40 Vernon and Wentworth made a feeble effort to 
 take Santiago on the island of Cuba. Troops were landed sixty 
 miles away but no advance against the city was undertaken. An 
 attack on Panama was determined on but the idea was soon aban- 
 doned. Vernon and Wentworth then quarrelled openly and both 
 were recalled in 1742. The reasons for the English failure were 
 the divided command, Wentworth's incompetence, and the antip- 
 athy between Vernon and Wentworth, as well as distance, disease 
 and climate. 
 
 The counter attack of the Spaniards against Georgia was 
 launched in 1742, and Oglethorpe's sturdy and intelligent defense of 
 Frederica saved Georgia from destruction. Oglethorpe planned an 
 offensive against St. Augustine in 1742-43, but he was not able to 
 carry this into effect. 41 In July, 1743, Oglethorpe left Georgia 
 for the last time and returned to England. 42 
 
 Oglethorpe's military authority was of the character one expects 
 to find it. After the outbreak of war against Spain, Oglethorpe 
 granted commissions to privateers applying for them, raised two 
 troops of rangers, 43 called down the Creek and Cherokee Indians 
 to hinder the Spanish Indians ( Yamassees) and the runaway slaves 
 of Carolina from harassing the country and stirring up a slave 
 revolt in South Carolina, 44 bought and hired armed boats, kept up 
 the garrison at Fort Augusta, and fortified Frederica. 45 He com- 
 manded the regiment and the other troops, signed bills of exchange 
 
 40 Dictionary of National Biography, LVIII, pp. 267-272. 
 
 41 C. O. 5 : 5, pp. 235-236, L. C. Transcripts ; Treasury Books and Papers, 
 V, p. 65. 
 
 42 Treasury Books and Papers, V, p. 300. 
 
 4 3 C. O. 5 : 5, pp. 236-237. 
 
 44 Treasury Books and Papers, V, p. 31. 
 
 4 5 Ibid., V, p. 28. 
 
92 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 for his military expenses in Georgia, 46 planned and carried out the 
 offensive campaign of 1740 and conducted the defense of 1742. 
 These were the ordinary duties of a military commander. 
 
 In considering the office which Oglethorpe held as commander- 
 in-chief of the forces in South Carolina and Georgia, one notes at 
 once that this office was a purely military one. While it is true that 
 Oglethorpe exercised extensive civil authority in Georgia, it is 
 clear that he did not derive this civil authority from his military 
 office, but from other sources. The Trustees gave him power of 
 attorney to represent them in the colony, though they did not con- 
 fer on him the title of governor. The Trustees were unwilling 
 to appoint a titular governor because this would have required 
 the approval of the Privy Council and such an official could have 
 been removed only with the consent of the Privy Council. The 
 advice of the Board of Trade would have had to be asked in such 
 a case, and the hostility which existed between the Trustees and 
 both the Board and the Privy Council was bitter enough to make 
 the Trustees wish to keep the control of Georgia in their own 
 hands. 47 In addition to holding the power of attorney, 48 Oglethorpe 
 had a strong personal reputation, which increased his prestige in 
 Georgia. Furthermore, in 1735 he had been appointed Commis- 
 sioner of Indian Affairs in Georgia, and by this appointment he 
 was authorized to regulate the Indian trade of the colony and to 
 supervise Indian affairs in general. So while Oglethorpe exercised 
 civil authority in Georgia, he did so by virtue of the civil offices he 
 held and not because of his military office. 
 
 As a matter of fact, instead of increasing Oglethorpe's civil au- 
 thority, his military office was the cause of its being diminished. 
 As the pressure of his military affairs became heavier and absorbed 
 more and more of his time, Oglethorpe became increasingly neglect- 
 ful of his civil duties. In doing this he aggravated a situation 
 which was already bad, for Oglethorpe never liked to attend to the 
 
 46 The payment of the bills of exchange signed by Oglethorpe was a matter 
 of controversy for a time, but in 1744 the House of Commons voted to pay 
 all these bills. It was a vindication of Oglethorpe from the attacks which 
 had been made on him. Egmont's Diary, III, p. 293. 
 
 *t Ibid., Ill, p. 171. 
 
 48 McCain, J. R., Georgia as a Proprietary Province, p. 65. 
 
Oglethorpe as Commander-in-Chief 93 
 
 details of civil administration. 49 When the exigencies of the ex- 
 pedition against St. Augustine in 1740 caused Oglethorpe to neglect 
 the civil affairs of the colony 50 the Trustees decided to act. James 
 Vernon in particular was desirous of curtailing Oglethorpe's au- 
 thority. Citing the instance of Oglethorpe's neglect of the light- 
 house at Tybee, he suggested that all civil authority in Georgia be 
 taken from Oglethorpe. 51 The Trustees approved this suggestion, 
 and Vernon then proposed that Georgia be cut into two divisions, 
 a northern division and a southern division. 52 Each division was 
 to have a president and council, who were to be independent of the 
 president and council of the other division. Vernon wanted Wil- 
 liam Stephens, the secretary of the Trustees in Georgia, to be 
 named president of the northern division, which included Savannah 
 and Augusta. Oglethorpe might be made president of the southern 
 division, in which lay Frederica, since he lived there most of the 
 time. Stephens was to be paid a handsome salary, while Oglethorpe 
 was to receive none, since the charter would not permit a Trustee 
 to hold an office of profit. 53 This plan of Vernon's was carried 
 out in part. Georgia was divided into the northern division and 
 the southern division, and Stephens was made president of the 
 northern division. No officials, not even Oglethorpe, were ap- 
 pointed at this time for the southern division. Thus Oglethorpe was 
 deprived of much of his civil authority. He continued to be com- 
 missioner for Indian Affairs, but he no longer held his position as 
 virtual governor. 
 
 In South Carolina the separation of the civil and the military 
 was even more clear. Oglethorpe had refused to accept the gover- 
 norship of South Carolina when it was offered to him by Walpole, 
 and one reason for this had been his unwillingness to add more 
 civil duties to those he already had in Georgia. He had hoped to 
 see Horsey governor of South Carolina, knowing that he could 
 influence Horsey to do almost anything he wished. His plan mis- 
 
 4® Egmont's Diary, III, p. 169. 
 
 50 Oglethorpe's carelessness in rendering accounts was notorious. The 
 Board of Trade objected to this characteristic. C. O. 5 : 5, p. 244, L. C. 
 Transcripts. 
 
 51 Egmont's Diary, III, p. 169. 
 szibid.., III, p. 171. 
 
 53 Ibid., Ill, p. 172. 
 
94 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 carried because of Horsey's sudden death, and James Glen, Hor- 
 sey's successor, was bitter toward Oglethorpe because of the salary 
 dispute. Thus the civil authority represented by Glen and the mili- 
 tary represented by Oglethorpe were in conflict. In South Carolina 
 as in Georgia, Oglethorpe's military office gave him no civil au- 
 thority. The later situation under Lord Loudoun, who sought to 
 add civil authority to military, 54 finds no parallel in Oglethorpe's 
 day. 
 
 54 Pargellis, S. M., Lord Loudoun in North America, Preface, v. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 ANGLO-FRENCH RIVALRY 
 
 In the period with which we are concerned, the Creek confed- 
 eracy was to the British what the Choctaw nation was to the French : 
 an inconstant ally. And just as the English made continual efforts 
 to break French control over the Choctaws, so the French never 
 ceased in their efforts to win the allegiance of the Creeks. The 
 English consequently were never entirely sure of the continued 
 loyalty of their allies, the Creeks, and were forced to make constant 
 efforts to preserve it. The chief difference in these two cases was 
 one of quality, for the Creeks, as we have already pointed out, 
 were the most important nation in the southeast. Moreover, better 
 than any other Indian nation they understood the triangular game 
 of intrigue being played by England, France and Spain for 
 supremacy in that region, and being skillful diplomats, instead of 
 mere mercenary opportunists like the Choctaws, their friendship 
 was correspondingly important to England, and more particularly 
 to Georgia within whose limits most of the Creek nation lay. 
 
 We have seen the methods by which Georgia maintained control 
 of the Creeks, notably under Oglethorpe through the exploitation of 
 such Indian personalities as Tomochichi and Mary Musgrove. And 
 we have seen the important part played by Mary Musgrove in 
 particular, who for many years held the friendship of the Creeks 
 in her own two hands to give or take away almost as she chose. 
 But we must now look at the other side of the story, the forces 
 at work against these English efforts at control. 
 
 No forces were more important or more powerful than the 
 French. 1 In the first place they were established in a particularly 
 
 1 There were thirteen French and three Swiss troops, a total of 800 soldiers 
 in Louisiana in 1732. Archives Nationales, Colonies, Series A. 22, 135, 
 L. C. Transcripts. In 1750 the French forces in Louisiana were increased to 
 thirty-seven companies of fifty men each. Archives Nationales, Colonies, 
 Series A. 22, 152, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 95 
 
96 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 favorable position to carry on trade and diplomatic relations with 
 the Creeks. Mobile was in easy reach of both the Upper and 
 Lower Creek Nation, and Fort Toulouse was even more con- 
 veniently placed. This outpost, having a continual garrison of 
 thirty men sent out from among the companies stationed at Mobile, 
 was a source of tremendous strength to the French and a cor- 
 responding source of irritation to the English. They feared French 
 intervention among the Creeks and they particularly feared and 
 resented French control of the Alabamas who lived in the near 
 vicinity of the garrison. 
 
 The Alabamas (the only Creek tribe of which this was true) 
 had long been loyal to the French but when Georgia was settled 
 English traders began to try to break this allegiance and open 
 trade. In 1735 two English traders accompanied by a number of 
 Tallapoosa chiefs went down to establish storehouses in an Alabama 
 village named Akoutamopa, just three miles distant from Fort 
 Toulouse. 2 These traders offered goods at lower prices than the 
 French, and the Alabamas were naturally inclined to trade with 
 them. But so great was their loyalty that they first sent word to 
 Bienville, saying that if he would grant them the same excellent 
 terms of trade as the English they would break off all relations with 
 these strangers and continue their allegiance to the French. Bien- 
 ville wishing to hold them was forced to agree. 3 The Alabamas, 
 however, were not too loyal to be canny and realizing the danger 
 in their proximity to Fort Augusta they were careful not to offend 
 the English by open hostility. In fact when the French war with 
 the Chickasaws broke out they took great pains to remain neutral. 4 
 For some years the Georgians kept up their efforts to win over 
 the Alabamas. In 1736 word reached Bienville that they were 
 trying to persuade the Alabamas to destroy Fort Toulouse and 
 kill all the French there, 5 and in 1737 they again tried to induce the 
 Alabamas to desert their old allies, encouraged by the success they 
 were having with the Choctaws. Though they never succeeded 
 in either of these attempts, they at least succeeded in keeping 
 
 2 Bienville to Maurepas, April 14, 1735, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 258. 
 
 3 Bienville to Maurepas, April 23, 1735, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 262. 
 
 4 Ibid., pp. 260-261. 
 
 5 Bienville to Maurepas, June 26, 1736, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 296. 
 
Anglo-French Rivalry 97 
 
 Bienville and his colleagues uneasy and distracting them to some 
 extent from further intrigues with the Creeks. 6 
 
 The Creeks were important not only to the white men in the 
 southeast but also to other Indian tribes, many of which sought 
 their friendship. When the Chickasaws sent their delegation to 
 Savannah after the French attack in 1736, this was clearly brought 
 out. 7 The Chickasaws in their interview with Oglethorpe told him 
 that there was only one tribe on whose friendship they could count, 
 the Cherokees. They added that the Creeks were almost their 
 friends and this near-friendship was a bond which they were most 
 anxious to strengthen. There was reason in this wish, for the 
 Creeks had a way of being remarkably well informed on all that 
 was going on around them. The Lower Creeks in particular, dur- 
 ing the French-Chickasaw war, knew exactly what conditions were 
 at any moment. When the Choctaws proposed to raid the Chicka- 
 saws and destroy their crops in 1737 the Creeks knew about it at 
 least a month before the Choctaws expected to leave their villages. 8 
 And soon after the attack was made, the Creeks knew of its out- 
 come, which was accordingly relayed to Oglethorpe by his agent 
 among the Creeks, Lieutenant Willy. 9 The Creeks did shortly 
 become good friends of the Chickasaws for after the raid of the 
 Choctaws a small number of Chickasaws decided to migrate, and 
 migrated to the Creeks who received them with kindness. Both 
 the Creeks themselves and the Georgia traders urged the Chicka- 
 saws to settle down permanently in the Creek towns along the 
 Chattahoochee, but when Lieutenant Governor Bull of South 
 Carolina invited the immigrants to come and settle in New Windsor, 
 they accepted. 10 They did not remain there permanently however, 
 but returned to their homes in the west the following year. 11 
 
 In the meantime the French were meeting English intrigue among 
 
 6 Diron d'Artaguette to Maurepas, May 8, 1737, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., 
 p. 340. 
 
 7 Second audience of Chickasaws with Oglethorpe, July 13, 1736, in Ga. 
 C. R. (MS), XXXV, pp. 77-79. 
 
 8 Samuel Eveleigh to Verelst, June 25, 1737, in Ga. C. R., XXI, p. 487. 
 
 9 Stephens' Journal, Feb. 16, 1738, in Ga, C. R., IV, p. 82. 
 
 10 Samuel Eveleigh to Verelst, Feb. 20, 1737, in Ga, C. R., XXII, pt. 1, 
 p. 89. 
 
 11 Stephens' Journal, June 15, 1738. Ga, C. R., IV, p. 156. 
 
98 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 the Choctaws by intrigue of their own among the Creeks. 12 They 
 were aided in this during the late seventeen thirties by the unruly 
 conduct of the Carolina traders as a result of the Georgia Indian 
 act controversy. There was much uneasiness and wavering among 
 the Creeks for some time, due to the unsettled state of the English 
 and the efforts of both the French and Spaniards to gain control. 18 
 But French influence was of short duration, for in July 1739 Ogle- 
 thorpe wrote to Newcastle that the French had attacked the Lower 
 Creeks and the Indians were determined in return to make war on 
 the French. 14 Oglethorpe, little as he loved the French, was not 
 anxious for this to happen, for war with Spain was about to break, 
 and he had no desire to have the French also about his ears, besides 
 which he needed Creek aid against St. Augustine. He accordingly 
 undertook his 1739 trip to Coweta and succeeded among other 
 things in reconciling the Creeks to the French. 15 This was one 
 occasion on which Oglethorpe acted in the interests of Bienville, 
 for at that time the Frenchman was in the midst of his preparations 
 for the second campaign against the Chickasaws, and would have 
 found war with the Creeks exceedingly awkward. No war was 
 therefore fought, but the threat of it was sufficient to interrupt 
 French efforts to win over the Lower Creeks. 
 
 During most of this period the control of the Creeks was a matter 
 of intrigue and counter intrigue between the French and the English 
 with a number of isolated incidents standing out as typical examples 
 of what was going on. During 1738 the English spread a rumor 
 among the Alabamas somewhat similar to the stories they had 
 circulated among the Choctaws, to the effect that Bienville had 
 proposed to Lieutenant Governor Bull of South Carolina that the 
 Chickasaws be left to French vengeance, after which the French 
 and English could join forces and exterminate all the other Indian 
 
 12 Thomas Causton to Trustees, Aug. 26, 1738, in Ga. C. R., XXII, pt. 1, 
 p. 230. 
 
 18 Oglethorpe to Trustees, July 4, 1739, in Ga. C. R., XXII, pt. 2, pp. 
 166-167. Thomas Causton to Trustees, Feb. 14, 1739, in Ga. C. R., XXII, 
 pt. 2, p. 68. 
 
 "Oglethorpe to Newcastle, July 16, 1739, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, 
 p. 216. Oglethorpe to Trustees, July 16, 1739, in Ga. C. R., XXII, pt. 2, 
 p. 179. 
 
 is Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, p. 218. 
 
Anglo-French Rivalry 99 
 
 tribes and then divide their land between themselves. 16 The high- 
 minded English, so the rumor ran, had refused to be a party to 
 such a plan, but the French still clung to it. The building of Fort 
 Tombekbe was only a step toward carrying it out. This rumor, 
 like all the others circulated by the white men at this time, was 
 cleverly calculated to prey on the fears of the natives, and was 
 based on an understanding of Indian nature. But this one was 
 especially insidious because it touched the Creeks on the one spot 
 where they were most vulnerable, their fear of a coalition among 
 the English, French and Spanish which would crush the Creek 
 confederacy like a walnut in a nut cracker. 
 
 In the same year the French retaliated and sent warnings to the 
 English themselves that the Creeks and Choctaws were planning to 
 cast off the English traders who lived among them. The English 
 believed that this information was only sent to frighten the Georgia 
 traders and keep them at Augusta but color was given the report 
 by the unsettled state of the Choctaws and the momentary success 
 the French seemed to be having with the Creeks. 17 Lieutenant 
 Willy, stationed at Okfuskee, a small fort in the Creek country, 
 was asked to investigate, which he did. He was assured by the 
 Dog King, a Creek chief friendly to the English, that there was 
 no foundation for the rumor as far as the Creeks were concerned. 
 It was true of the Choctaws, but the Choctaw attack only turned 
 the Creeks still further toward the English. 18 A Creek-Choctaw 
 war threatened for a time, a war which the English traders would 
 have welcomed as it would have prevented the two nations from 
 combining against the English, but the danger passed without any 
 open hostilities. 
 
 About this time a soldier from Oglethorpe's regiment, a man 
 named Shannon, was drummed out of the regiment for misconduct 
 and made his way to the Creeks. 19 He was later found trying to 
 enlist their allegiance for the French. Similarly in September of 
 1739 word was brought back to Georgia that the French were 
 
 !« King's Paper, May 29, 1738, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 369. 
 " Egmont's Journal, March 16, 1739, in Ga. C. R., V, p. 138. 
 
 18 Stephens' Journal, Dec. 6, 1738, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 241. Stephens' 
 Journal, April 29, 1739, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 326. 
 
 19 Stephens' Journal, Aug. 11, 1739, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 387. 
 
100 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 inciting the Creeks against the South Carolina traders, taking ad- 
 vantage of the still unsettled conditions due to the Indian Act, but 
 they also met with little success. 20 Minor incidents are these, but 
 typical of the sort of rumors continually occurring among the 
 Indians through the interference of the whites. 
 
 Bienville's campaign of 1740 against the Chickasaws 21 did not 
 involve the Creeks, in spite of their attachment for this Indian 
 nation and their friendship for the English. This was because the 
 campaign coincided with Oglethorpe's expedition against St. 
 Augustine to which he had rallied all the Creek warriors obtain- 
 able, and they were therefore distracted from taking any part 
 against the French. The French however were indirectly taking 
 action against the Creeks, for during the War of Jenkins' Ear they 
 gave all support possible to the Spaniards. 
 
 In the meantime they continued their intrigues within the Creek 
 confederacy and for a time the loyalty of this people to the English 
 was shaken. By the end of 1740 the English traders began to be 
 skeptical about the amount of support that could safely be expected 
 from the Creeks in time of trouble and their skepticism proved to 
 be well founded. 22 War parties, sent out by four Cherokee villages 
 to aid the Chickasaws against the French, 23 were attacked from the 
 rear by the Creeks. The old hatred between the two Indian nations 
 flared up and resulted in the Creek-Cherokee war of 1741. 24 The 
 Cherokees immediately appealed to the English for help, pointing 
 out that their nation was a barrier to the French who would have 
 easy access to Georgia and Carolina if they were wiped out. 25 But 
 the Georgians were not much impressed by this argument. They 
 were far too diplomatic to be led into openly supporting the Chero- 
 kees against the Creeks. In the first place they did not entirely 
 trust the Cherokees' friendship and in the second they had no 
 desire to break with the powerful Creek confederacy. Besides this 
 they were not sorry to see the two nations at war. As William 
 
 20 Benjamin Martyn to Newcastle, Dec. 5, 1739, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXX, 
 pp. 178-179. 
 
 21 For a narrative of this campaign see Archives Nationales, Marine, B4, 
 45, pp. 361-405. 
 
 22 Stephens' Journal, Dec. 18, 1740, in Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, p. 55. 
 
 23 Louboey to Maurepas, Jan. 4, 1740, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 415. 
 
 24 Stephens' Journal, Feb. 2, 1741, in Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, pp. 81-82. 
 
 25 Jdem. 
 
Anglo-French Rivalry 101 
 
 Stephens said, "it is allowed to be a never-failing Maxim that the 
 Indians falling out with one another, never forbodes any ill to 
 us."' 26 Instead Oglethorpe took steps to strengthen the waning 
 loyalty of the Creeks. He sent Captain George Dunbar from Fred- 
 erica to Savannah with orders to go up among the Creeks and talk 
 with the head men to counteract the efforts of the French and 
 Spanish, both of whom were particularly active at this time. 27 Dun- 
 bar's mission proved so successful that by the end of 1741 Ogle- 
 thorpe once more believed that the support of both the Creeks and 
 Cherokees could be counted on in case of war with France. 28 
 
 Stephens' remark about the "never-failing Maxim" was a succinct 
 statement of one of the important principles upon which the white 
 men dealt with the Indians, that of setting one tribe or one nation 
 against another. 29 This principle was equally well understood by 
 Oglethorpe, Montiano and Bienville, and at times practiced by all 
 three, though it would seem to have been less a part of Oglethorpe's 
 diplomatic equipment than of the others. There were of course times 
 when the application of this principle was not considered wise due 
 to the exigencies of a particular situation or the possible danger of 
 the two tribes concerned making peace and uniting against the 
 whites. 30 Its validity however was not often questioned, a fact 
 which makes all the more interesting any striking occasion upon 
 which it was definitely challenged. Such an occasion arose in 1742 
 when Governor George Clarke of New York wrote to the gover- 
 nors of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia asking 
 them to see that delegates were sent from all the southern tribes 
 to a general peace conference at Albany. 31 Two years before at a 
 
 26 Stephens' Journal, Dec. 18, 1740, in Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, p. 55. 
 
 27 Stephens' Journal, April 20, 1741, in Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, p. 128. 
 28 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, p. 365. 
 
 29 The Board of Trade, however, wrote Lt. Govr. William Gooch of Vir- 
 ginia, Dec. 6, 1738, that all differences and wars between Indians friendly 
 to the English should be avoided, and the Indians taught that all the English 
 in America had a single prince. C. O. 5 : 1366, pp. 293-296, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 30 When Lieut.-Governor James Wright of Georgia tried to set the Creeks 
 against the Cherokees in 1760, during the English-Cherokee war, the two 
 Indian nations came to an understanding against the whites. The London 
 Chronicle, August 16-19, 1760. 
 
 31 For details of this plan, see Clarke to Georgia Trustees, May 19, 1742, in 
 Ga. C. R., XXIII, pp. 330-332. See also Clarke to Oglethorpe, Jan. 9, 1742, 
 in Ga. C. R., XXIII, pp. 226-228 ; Journal Trustees, July 26, 1742, in Ga. C. R., 
 I, pp. 402-403. 
 
102 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 conference with the Six Nations at Albany Clarke had proposed 
 that a peace be concluded among all the English Indians in North 
 America. 32 This seemed like a sound proposition and the Indians 
 had assented, but the Iroquois had insisted that the southern Indians 
 send deputies to the next conference to be held in May or June of 
 1742. 33 Though Clarke had refused to make this a condition of 
 the peace he had realized that the presence of delegates from the 
 southern nations would strengthen the action taken and had accord- 
 ingly made his requests. The plan when Oglethorpe considered it 
 seemed to him a good one. The advantages to the English of a 
 general peace at that time were many. The attacks of the Iroquois 
 on the Chickasaws, which the French had been encouraging for 
 some time, would be stopped, and the Iroquois war parties which 
 had been causing uneasiness as they traversed Pennsylvania, Dela- 
 ware, Maryland and Virginia, on their way south to attack the 
 Catawbas in North Carolina, would also cease. 34 Moreover if all 
 the English Indians were at peace the efforts of the French to detach 
 them from their allegiance would be in vain, and this, at a time when 
 Oglethorpe was feeling hard pressed by the Spaniards, seemed to 
 him the greatest boon of all. 35 He therefore drew on the Trustees 
 for £100 to aid Clarke in his plan, and both he and Clarke wrote 
 letters to the Trustees laying the plan before them. 36 Though the 
 Trustees approved of the plan, 37 it was destined never to be realized, 
 and the Iroquois continued to send their raiding parties south. 38 
 
 Meanwhile the French continued their intrigues among the 
 Creeks, 39 and Oglethorpe, though too busy with the Spaniards to 
 give the question his personal attention, dared not let the French 
 
 32 Wraxall, P., An Abridgement of the Indian Affairs, p. 218. 
 
 33 The southern Indians did not attend. Ibid., p. 227. The Cherokees had 
 promised to attend in 1740 but had not done so. C. O. 5 : 1324, T. 61, p. 375, 
 L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 34 Benjamin Martyn to Andrew Stone, July 26, 1742, in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXX, p. 455. 
 
 35 Oglethorpe to Trustees, March 3, 1742, in Ga. C. R., XXIII, pp. 224-225. 
 
 36 Egmont's Journal, July 26, 1742, in Ga. C. R., V, p. 653. 
 
 37 Benjamin Martyn to Andrew Stone, July 26, 1742, in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXX, p. 455. 
 
 88 C. O. 5: 1327, W. 31, L. C. Transcripts. C. O. 5 : 1327, W. 33, L. C. 
 Transcripts. Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 205. Governor Clarke had warned 
 the lieutenant-governor of South Carolina of an impending attack by French 
 and Indians in 1742. Add. MSS. 32700, f. 42, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 39 Journal Trustees, March 25, 1742, in Ga. C. R., I, pp. 395-396. 
 
Anglo-French Rivalry 103 
 
 agents work on unchecked. In 1742 he therefore sent up to Mount 
 Venture to ask Mary Musgrove to use her influence against the 
 French. 40 Mary was steadily increasing in power and importance 
 at this time, and had tremendous influence with the Creek con- 
 federacy. Upon this occasion as on many others she complied with 
 the request of her English friend, and the French were checkmated. 
 
 Again in the War of the Austrian Succession Mary Musgrove 
 showed her strength. The Creeks in the early part of the war were 
 faithful to the English, chiefly because at Frederica Captain Horton 
 saw that they got plenty of the two things they liked best, plenty 
 of presents, and a chance to fight. 41 But when their enthusiasm 
 began to wane, and continued French influence was starting to sway 
 them in their loyalty, it was Mary Musgrove, more than any other 
 one person, who held them faithful and foiled the French designs. 42 
 
 Another powerful factor in the English-French rivalry for the 
 support of the Indians, and notably for the support of the Creeks, 
 was the body of Georgia traders. Time and again they pitted their 
 influence against that of the French, in the Indian villages, and 
 though sometimes they failed, more often they did not. A typical 
 example is that of John Spencer, a Georgia trader to the Upper 
 Creeks at the town of Muklasa, eight miles from Fort Toulouse. 43 
 Situated as they were near the important sphere of French in- 
 fluence, it was not surprising that a party of Upper Creeks had de- 
 serted to the French in 1740. Spencer, however, worked and 
 reasoned and promised and at last won them back to English al- 
 legiance, persuading them to settle near Muklasa where he at his 
 trading post could keep a careful watch on them. Spencer of course 
 was only one of many, and this but one of many incidents in which 
 the Georgia traders showed their value and loyalty. 
 
 Up to 1746 the English managed to retain control over at least 
 a majority of the Creeks, but the beginning of that year marked 
 the beginning of strained relations. Reports began to come in to 
 Savannah from the Creek towns that not only the Creeks, but also 
 
 *° Oglethorpe to Mrs. Matthews, March 22, 1742, in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXVII, p. 247. 
 
 41 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 207. 
 
 42 Alexander Heron to Mrs. Bosom worth, July 20, 1747, in Ga. C. R. 
 (MS), XXVII, pp. 262-263. 
 
 43 Ga. C. R., XXIV, p. 433. 
 
104 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 the Cherokees and Chickasaws, the friendly old Chickasaws, were 
 all planning to declare war on the English in March. 44 Moreover 
 the English felt that there was some weight behind these rumors. 
 Major Horton, commandant of the English forces at Frederica, 
 wrote that though he did not think the entire membership of all 
 the Creek tribes had deserted to the French, there seemed no doubt 
 that large parties had done so. There were also reports that the 
 Senecas and other northern tribes had been won over to the French. 
 The English were sorely troubled, but though a few raids were 
 made against them the threatened general war was postponed. 
 
 In the fall of the same year the French held a big Indian con- 
 ference at Fort Toulouse which a great many Creek chiefs at- 
 tended. 45 The purpose was to persuade the Creeks to join the 
 French against the English and, amusingly enough, the main argu- 
 ment presented was the old one, already used so often by both 
 sides. The English, declared the French, were planning to kill the 
 French and then exterminate the Creeks. Since this struck, as be- 
 fore, at the Creek policy of maintaining a balance of power it was 
 completely effective. The Creeks were so disturbed that they 
 plotted to kill all Englishmen who were among them, and war 
 between the English and Creeks would almost certainly have taken 
 place then had not the Cherokees happily chosen this moment to 
 fall upon their red neighbors. The Creek-Cherokee war of 1747 
 resulted and the Creeks were for a time too occupied to take action 
 against the English. 
 
 Another equally important factor in the prevention of warfare 
 at this time was the ubiquitous Mary Musgrove. Major William 
 Horton hearing the trouble that the French were causing among 
 the Creeks had wanted to have all Frenchmen arrested who came 
 to Creek villages, whether interpreters, traders or others, and had 
 as usual turned to Mary to have this accomplished, writing to ask 
 her to use her influence with the Creeks to this end, and to have 
 the Frenchmen, when arrested, sent down to him at Frederica. 46 
 
 44 Mdjor William Horton to Thomas Bosomworth, March 30, 1746, in 
 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, pp. 255-256. 
 
 « Deposition of William Gray, July 1, 1747, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, 
 pp. 261-262. 
 
 4 <* William Horton to Thomas Bosomworth, May 19, 1747, in Ga. C. R. 
 (MS), XXVII, p. 257. 
 
Anglo-French Rivalry 105 
 
 At the time of Horton's writing Mary was at her trading house at 
 the Forks of the Altamaha, and Horton had therefore requested her 
 husband Thomas Bosomworth to carry the message to her in person, 
 promising him an escort of two rangers for the journey. This 
 mission Bosomworth accomplished and Mary accordingly sent a 
 messenger to the Creeks and succeeded in bringing most of them 
 back in line for the English though as we shall see a considerable 
 part of the Indians remained hostile and later sought Spanish al- 
 liance. As for Horton's commands about the Frenchmen, there is 
 nothing on record to show that these were carried out. 
 
 The influences at work against English-Creek alliance were 
 mainly two : the French and the Choctaws. The French had been 
 working subtly and under cover for many years as we know, but 
 in 1746 they grew bold enough to send guns and ammunition to 
 every Creek town. 47 Malatchi, the head of the Lower Creeks, had 
 been given a French gun of which he was very proud and the 
 French had also promised to send a linguist up to aid him at Coweta. 
 They had moreover sent two eighteen pound guns with an officer 
 and a detachment of soldiers up to Coweta, and issued commis- 
 sions to several Indians in each Creek village hoping these special 
 representatives would work to bring the Creeks in line for the 
 French as indeed they did. The Squirrel King, a Creek chief, was 
 one of the most active in the French cause and he gained many 
 converts through his personal influence. 
 
 But another and perhaps even more important influence was one 
 that the English were building up against themselves in their deal- 
 ings with the Choctaws. The ambition of the Creeks as we know 
 was to remain the key nation of the southeast, and they realized 
 that if the English won over the Choctaws they would have little 
 need of Creek support, for the Choctaws would then be a barrier 
 against Louisiana for Georgia and the Carolinas. 48 They were 
 therefore very unwilling to have the English make peace with the 
 Choctaws and as the English seemed more and more successful 
 with these southern Indians, in exact proportion did the Creek 
 friendship for them grow less and less. It was in fact in the very 
 
 47 Extract of a journal from a person lately come from the Creek nation, 
 April 11, 1747, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, pp. 257-258. 
 
 48 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, pp. 257-258; C. O. 5 : 1344, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
106 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 years that the English felt most certain of the Choctaws that the 
 danger of war with the Creeks was most imminent. When the 
 Choctaw Revolt against the French broke out in 1746, aided by the 
 English, the Creeks plotted to turn against their old allies. They 
 were only deterred by the intervention of Mary Musgrove and 
 trouble with the Cherokees. 
 
 When the Cherokee war began to die out the French renewed 
 their efforts at control. They promised the Creeks that they would 
 provide them with all the goods they wanted if they would break up 
 the English trade with the Choctaws. 49 This of course was exactly 
 what the Creeks wanted most to do. They readily agreed and 
 would no doubt have succeeded had not friendly Creeks warned the 
 English of the danger. Mirgosbi and the Squirrel King, two Creek 
 chiefs, told William Gray, an Augusta planter, that if the Carolina 
 pack-train left as usual for the Choctaws it would be plundered by 
 the Creeks, and war would result. Moreover, Coat, a head man of 
 the Chickasaws and a friend of Gray's, advised him to take refuge 
 in the town of Augusta because Coat believed a war between the 
 Creeks and the English was about to take place. 
 
 Mary Musgrove learning of these facts advised Alexander Heron, 
 who had replaced Horton as commander at Frederica, to send an 
 agent to parley with the Creeks. 50 She suggested her brother-in- 
 law, Abraham Bosomworth, as a suitable person to carry out this 
 mission and Heron accordingly sent him to Coweta to talk things 
 over with the Creek chiefs. Again Mary Musgrove was in the 
 position of saving the English, for Bosomworth's negotiations were 
 successful and again war between the Creeks and English was 
 averted. 51 
 
 Strengthened by their friendship with Mary Musgrove and their 
 loss of influence with the Choctaws, the English regained some of 
 their lost ground with the Creeks. By the end of the war of the 
 Austrian Succession, the Georgians began to feel once more that 
 
 49 Deposition of William Gray, July 1, 1747, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, 
 pp. 261-262. 
 
 so Alexander Heron to Mrs. Bosomworth, July 20, 1747, in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXVII, pp. 262-263. 
 
 51 Alexander Heron to Mary Bosomworth, Aug. 31, 1747, in Ga. C. R. 
 (MS), XXVII, p. 264. 
 
Anglo-French Rivalry 107 
 
 they could depend on the Creeks in time of need. 52 And more than 
 ever did they feel the need of Creek allegiance for in 1749 the regi- 
 ment was withdrawn from Frederica. This, together with the re- 
 turn of the Choctaws to the French left the Creeks once more in 
 complete command of the situation as the key nation, fending off 
 both the French and Spanish from the English and acting as a 
 sliding balance among the three nations. 53 But though there was 
 tentative peace between the English and Creeks when the war ended 
 in 1748, this peace was known by all to be merely tentative. 
 
 The French continued their intrigues in the Creek villages more 
 actively than ever and when Mary Musgrove in 1749 turned against 
 the Georgians the French were more than ready to profit by it. 
 Malatchi returning from his unfortunate visit to Savannah went 
 entirely over to French interests, paid visits to Mobile, accepted 
 French presents and worked thereafter to promote the cause of the 
 French among his own people. 54 In February of 1752 several 
 French officers visited Creek towns and played on the dissatisfaction 
 of the Indians at the treatment accorded them three years before 
 at Savannah. 55 They insinuated that the English were deliberately 
 trying to start a war against the Creeks, and were so successful 
 in their efforts that the French flag was raised in several Creek 
 towns and there was again danger of the Creeks entirely deserting 
 the English. 
 
 So the contest for the Creeks went on, intensified as the outbreak 
 of the French and Indian War approached. 56 The conduct of the 
 Indians in that gigantic conflict, and the final triumph of the English 
 lies beyond our period, however, and we must leave the European 
 rivals locked in bitter strife for the favor of the Creeks, the key 
 nation of the southeast. 
 
 Among the Cherokees Anglo-French rivalry was less marked 
 than among the Creeks and the Choctaws. This was in a large part 
 
 52 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 387. 
 
 53 Memorial to the Trustees from the Inhabitants of southern Georgia, 
 April 15, 1752, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, pp. 269-270. 
 
 54 Ga. C. R., XXVI, p. 194. 
 
 55 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, pp. 269-270. 
 
 56 Ga. C. R., XXVI, pp. 351, 377, 399, 417. See also Margry, P., Decouv- 
 ertes et etablissements des Frangais dans Vouest et dans le sud de VAmeriquc 
 septentrlonale, VI, pp. 661-663, 665. 
 
108 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 due to the Cherokees' position which was further to the north than 
 any of the other Indian nations with which we have been concerned. 
 Their position affected them in two ways : they were near enough to 
 the English in Carolina and Georgia to become natural allies of these 
 people ; they were far enough from the French not to seem vitally 
 important to Louisiana and to make whatever efforts were spent 
 toward French control less effective. Moreover they were heredi- 
 tary friends of the Chickasaws, a friendship which helped to 
 strengthen the bond with the English and to increase their enmity 
 toward the French. A definite English-Cherokee alliance dated 
 from the year 1730 when seven Cherokee chiefs visited London and 
 signed a treaty of alliance. It remained unbroken until 1757. 
 
 Though the Cherokees occasioned the French little concern as 
 allies of the British, they were a definite menace as allies of the 
 Chickasaws. The Chickasaws considered the Cherokees the only 
 steadfast friends upon whom they could call for help, and this feel- 
 ing was well founded. 57 In 1736, after Bienville's first expedition 
 against the Chickasaws, a party of four hundred Cherokees and 
 Chickasaws banded together and went to the Ohio to find a peaceful 
 settlement. 58 They were led by Englishmen with a view to in- 
 terrupting French communications between Canada and Louisiana, 
 and Bienville must have realized this, for upon hearing of it he 
 immediately stirred up the French Indians of the Ohio against these 
 new settlers and the Chickasaws and Cherokees were forced to 
 withdraw. In the Chickasaws' long struggle with the French they 
 were continually aided by raiding parties from the Cherokees. The 
 two Cherokee villages Tennessee and Great Tellico were known to 
 be the most sympathetic, but there were a number of others. Es- 
 pecially during Bienville's two expeditions of 1736 and 1740 were 
 the Cherokees helpful. Four of their villages joined the Chicka- 
 saws outright and a number of others were in great sympathy with 
 them. 59 This aid to his enemies, the Chickasaws, naturally aroused 
 Bienville's resentment, and when this aid began to be a definite 
 handicap to the French he stirred up his Indian allies against the 
 
 57 Second audience of Oglethorpe with Chickasaws, July 13, 1736, in Ga. 
 C. R. (MS), XXXV, pp. 77-79. 
 
 58 Bienville to Maurepas, Sept. 5, 1736, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 327. 
 
 59 Louboey to Maurepas. Jan. 4, 1740, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 415. 
 
Anglo-French Rivalry 109 
 
 Cherokees and encouraged these allies to send raiding parties over 
 to attack the Cherokee towns. 60 The Creeks were among these 
 allies. In 1740 while the Cherokees were carrying on war with the 
 French they were attacked from the rear by a party of Creeks who 
 had been won over to the French. 61 From this episode dated the 
 Creek-Cherokee war of 1740-41, in which the Creeks were supplied 
 with arms and ammunition by the French. The Cherokees appealed 
 to the English for help, which was not in this case forthcoming. 62 
 
 Perhaps the most interesting and emigmatic figure in the history 
 of Anglo-French Cherokee relations was Christian Gottlieb Priber, 
 a man who was oddly enough neither Frenchman nor Englishman, 
 but a German Jesuit. 63 He had left his native state of Saxony and 
 had migrated to England. 64 In 1735 he asked the Trustees to send 
 him to Georgia by the next ship. 65 This they did, but on his arrival 
 in America he settled in Carolina and was naturalized there, 66 and 
 the next year went to live in the Cherokee village of Great Tellico. 67 
 Priber then learned the Cherokee language, adopted the Indian 
 mode of dress and thenceforth followed Indian customs. 68 He 
 was a well-educated man and soon came to wield a powerful in- 
 fluence over the natives, which influence he soon exerted almost 
 entirely for the French. 69 Priber's argument was one with which 
 we are familiar, the argument so frequently put forth by the weaker 
 side. Why not, said Priber, trade with both nations and thus get 
 twice as many presents? Priber's main interest however was the 
 establishment of a communistic state under the protection of the 
 Indians. He had worked out the plans for such a state in great 
 detail, and hoped to make a settlement within the Cherokee section 
 
 60 Hamer, P. M., "Anglo-French Rivalry in the Cherokee Country 1754- 
 1757," in N. C. Hist. Rev., II (1925), pp. 303-322. 
 
 61 Stephens' Journal, Feb. 2, 1741, in Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, pp. 81-82. 
 
 62 Egmont's Diary, III, p. 221. 
 
 63 For an excellent article on Priber, see Crane, V. W., "A Lost Utopia 
 of the First American Frontier," in Sewanee Review, XXVII (1919), pp. 
 48-61. 
 
 64 Mereness, N. D., Travels in the American Colonies, p. 239. 
 
 65 Journal Trustees, June 18, 1735, in Ga. C. R., I, p. 218. 
 
 66 "Account of Christian Pryber's Proceedings," in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXXVI, pp. 129-131. 
 
 67 Mereness, N. D., TraveU in the American Colonies, p. 239. 
 
 68 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, pp. 129-131. 
 
 69 "Account of Christian Pryber's Proceedings," in Ga. C. R. (MS), 
 XXXVI, pp. 129-131 ; Adair, James, History of the American Indians, p. 240. 
 
110 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 of Georgia, which would be a refuge for fugitive French, English, 
 Germans and negroes, and particularly for runaway slaves from 
 Carolina. 70 The settlers were to raise their own corn and have 
 their own herds of cattle and buy whatever else they needed from 
 the Indians. Priber expected French aid in carrying out his plans, 
 an expectation which was doubtless well grounded. In 1742 he 
 met Antoine Bonnefoy, while the latter was captive among the 
 Cherokees, and explained to him his plans, as Bonnefoy's journal 
 relates. 71 In 1743 Priber was on his way to Mobile to secure 
 French aid when he was taken prisoner by English Indians and 
 sent to Oglethorpe at Frederica. 72 There he was put in jail and 
 there, still a prisoner, he died a few years later. 
 
 There is no doubt of Priber's sincerity about the establishment 
 of a communistic state, but there is also no doubt that Priber in his 
 life among the Indians intrigued almost entirely for French in- 
 terests. In 1742 he and Bonnefoy worked among the Cherokees for 
 peace at the same time that the English were trying to incite them 
 to war. At other times he tried to incite the Cherokees to kill all 
 the English traders in their midst, and Oglethorpe was convinced 
 that Priber was working under French protection. However, strong 
 character as Priber was, and great as was his influence with the 
 Cherokees, it was never strong enough to sway the Cherokees from 
 their allegiance to the English. 
 
 A striking example of English influence among the Cherokees 
 occurred as a result of an Iroquois raiding party in 1741. In this 
 raid the old Cherokee emperor Moy Toy was killed, and it was on 
 the advice of the English traders that his successor, Skia Gunsta 
 of Keowee, was chosen king in his place. 73 French traders, too, 
 were active among the Cherokees. An outstanding example was 
 the Chevalier de Lantagnac who when a boy of thirteen visited 
 Great Tellico as a French trader. 74 While there he mastered the 
 
 70 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, pp. 129-131. 
 
 « "Journal of Antoine Bonnefoy (1741-1742)," in Williams, S. C. (ed.), 
 Early Travels in the Tennessee Country, pp. 147-162. 
 
 72 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, pp. 129-131. 
 
 73 Go. C. R., XXIII, p. 196. 
 
 74 "Account of the Chevalier de Lantagnac (1746-1755)," in Williams, 
 S. C. (ed.), Early Travels in the Tennessee Country, pp. 177-179. 
 
Anglo-French Rivalry 111 
 
 Indian language, studied the customs of the natives, and made a 
 particular point of learning the English methods of dealing with 
 the Cherokees. His information was to stand him in good stead 
 for after returning to Louisiana in 1755 he was sent to Fort 
 Toulouse as liaison officer and at this strategic post had good use for 
 all he had learned among the Cherokees. 
 
 With the outbreak of the war of the Austrian Succession in 1744, 
 of which the French and English settlers immediately waged a local 
 miniature, the support of all the Indian tribes assumed a greater 
 importance. 75 The French therefore redoubled their efforts to win 
 over the Cherokees, and had temporary success for a party of these 
 Indians was persuaded to go down among the Creeks and turn 
 them against the English. 76 But it is an interesting example of the 
 uncertainty of Indian friendship that when the Creeks refused to be 
 swayed the Cherokees immediately turned about and joined them. 
 Returning home they put one Frenchman to death and sent the 
 rest packing back to Louisiana to tell their friends there how they 
 were treated. 
 
 In 1746 the same unsettled spirit showed itself among the Chero- 
 kees as among the Creeks and Choctaws. French intrigue had 
 finally brought about a change of attitude and reports were cir- 
 culating among the Creeks and around South Carolina in March 
 that the Cherokees were on the verge of declaring war on the Eng- 
 lish. 77 Governor James Glen had planned to visit the chief Chero- 
 kee towns at this time, but was dissuaded by his friends who 
 believed the journey would be dangerous. Naturally it was only a 
 part of the Cherokee nation which had gone over to the French, 
 but this part was enough to cause a great deal of disturbance. Thus 
 for a time there was both a French and an English faction among 
 the Cherokees just as there had been among the Creeks. Even 
 at this time, however, most of the Cherokees were in favor of the 
 English. Later in the same year they asked the English to build 
 a fort in their country to protect the Overhill Towns from the raids 
 of the Choctaws and Iroquois. Governor Glen of South Carolina 
 
 75 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, p. 365. 
 ™ ibid., XXXVI, p. 207. 
 
 77 William Horton to Thomas Bosomworth, March 30, 1746, in Ga. C. R. 
 (MS), XXVII, pp. 255-256. 
 
112 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 supported this action as a sound diplomatic move, but the actual 
 construction was delayed until later. 
 
 By 1747 the Cherokees were again loyal to the English and were 
 fighting against the French, for the Creek-Cherokee war of 1747 
 had broken out 78 and the French were supplying the Creeks with 
 powder, balls and muskets. Moreover the French-supporters 
 among the Choctaws found time, in the midst of their internecine 
 struggle with the English-supporting Choctaws, to send a number 
 of war parties of considerable strength against the Cherokees. The 
 object of the French in supporting both the Creeks and Choctaws 
 against the Cherokees was two-fold : to prevent the Cherokees from 
 being free to aid the English, and to take the fur trade away from 
 their rivals. The Cherokees, however, were neither beaten nor sub- 
 dued by either of these opponents and the war of the Austrian 
 Succession found them still loyal to the English, in which loyalty 
 they continued to the end of our period. 79 
 
 78 The Creeks and Cherokees were still at war with each other in 1753, 
 C. O. 5: 1327, W. 114, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 79 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 387; S. C. Indian Book, 1753-1754, IV, 37. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 ANGLO-SPANISH RIVALRY 
 
 Although England's most formidable rival in America was un- 
 doubtedly France, whose influence with the Indians, as well as her 
 possible encroachment on the English colonies through a joining 
 of the frontiers of Canada and Louisiana, was greatly to be feared, 
 Spain was a much more tangible threat to the English colonies in 
 the southeast and particularly to Georgia. For while the conflict 
 between Georgia and Louisiana was merely a meeting of two rival 
 trading frontiers, between Georgia and Florida it was, a great deal 
 of the time, a meeting of troops and fighting ships. Moreover, 
 though Spain and France were enemies at the time of the founding 
 of Louisiana, each opposing the other's efforts at trade and coloniza- 
 tion, by the time of the Trustees in Georgia they had become friends, 
 banding together for the common purpose of opposing the English. 
 Georgia, therefore, had not only the proximity of a hostile Spanish 
 colony to combat but a hostile Spanish colony backed up by French 
 resources. 
 
 The Anglo- Spanish contest for Georgia before the coming of 
 Oglethorpe has already been traced in Chapter I and the fact noted 
 that both Georgia and Florida stood as buffer colonies, protecting 
 the more valuable settlements behind them. The early contest for 
 the favor of the Indians has also been traced, and the Yamassees 
 withdrawal to the vicinity of St. Augustine and alliance with Span- 
 ish interests already noted. This alliance was one of the few 
 permanent ones between the white and the red men, and continued 
 throughout the whole of our period. But the Spaniards, like the 
 French and the English, considered the Creeks the most important 
 Indian nation in that region, and, like the other two, continually 
 courted the favor of these Indians. Tradition was behind them, for 
 the Creeks had originally been loyal to the Spanish, then had gone 
 over to English interests, and then again after the South Carolina- 
 
 113 
 
114 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Yamassee war was over had returned once more to a position more 
 favorable to the Spaniards. Vacillation on the part of the Creeks 
 continued, with their favor sought by both sides, and in 1726 con- 
 ditions seemed so critical that the Spaniards sent a delegation to 
 treat with these Indians at the same time that President Middleton 
 of South Carolina sent Tobias Fitch on a similar mission of friend- 
 ship. For a while the Spaniards seemed to have control, for the 
 Great Chief of the Creeks and most of the Indians at Coweta were 
 won over to them, but Tobias Fitch by great skill and the liberal 
 use of presents, swung the balance, and the Creeks became English 
 allies, so to remain for many years to come. 1 
 
 Undoubtedly the friendship of the Creeks was assuming a very 
 large importance in this year, 1726, for it was also at that time that 
 Governor Benavides at St. Augustine recommended the sending 
 out of a Spanish colony to Apalache to act as a barrier against the 
 Carolinians. 2 This province was valuable as a means of keeping 
 the friendship of the Creeks, and Benavides feared apparently that 
 if it were not used for that purpose by the Spaniards it might soon 
 be so used by the Carolinians. He therefore proposed that fifty 
 Spanish families be brought over from the Canary Islands to settle 
 there each year until a total of five hundred families was reached, 
 a number which he felt would be sufficient to establish a formidable 
 barrier. The plan was not carried out, but so important was the 
 idea behind it that we find the plan brought up again and again 
 under both Governor Sanchez and Governor Montiano. 
 
 Just as Bienville had regarded the settlement of Georgia and 
 Purrysburg 3 as a menace to Louisiana, so the Spaniards regarded 
 them as an English encroachment on Spanish territory. The history 
 of Spain's title to Georgia and the conflict connected with it has been 
 admirably told, 4 and we need only note here that the establishment 
 
 1 A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-31, p. 102, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 2 A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-31, pp. 92-93, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 3 Smith, Henry, "Purrysburgh," in South Carolina Historical and Genea- 
 logical Magazine, X, (1909), pp. 187-219. Purrysburg was the little Swiss 
 settlement planted in 1730 by Jean Pierre Purry on the Carolina side of the 
 Savannah river. 
 
 4 Arredondo's Historical Proof of Spain's Title to Georgia, edited by 
 Bolton, H. E. See also CO. 5 : 283 L. C. Transcripts. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 115 
 
 of Oglethorpe's colony intensified that conflict and brought the con- 
 testants just so much closer to each other. 
 
 The establishment of Georgia was also the crystallizing factor in 
 the alliance of Florida and Louisiana, and elicited proposals for a 
 combined attack on the new little colony. In 1734 a Spanish mis- 
 sionary who had lived some time among the Georgia Indians wrote 
 at length explaining that the strength of the English lay with the 
 Indians and proposing that the French send five hundred or a 
 thousand Indians from Canada to join the Spaniards in stamping 
 out Oglethorpe's colony. 5 It is clear that Oglethorpe's philan- 
 thropic and Utopian little settlement was a cause of grave concern 
 among the Spaniards though it must not be forgotten that their 
 concern was not primarily for St. Augustine and Apalache but for 
 Mexico and the rest of Spanish America that lay behind these 
 buffers. 6 
 
 The governor of Florida at the time Georgia was settled by the 
 English was Don Francisco del Moral Sanchez, a weak man 
 who was at the same time harsh and unscrupulous, and not at 
 all to be compared with his predecessor Benavides or his successor 
 Montiano. 7 He not only took no measures against Georgia, but 
 calmly permitted the English to carry on trade with St. Augustine 
 and even allowed English store keepers to do business within the 
 walls of the city, a procedure which is understandable only on the 
 grounds that it was a source of private profit to him. 8 His 
 handling of Indian affairs was equally corrupt and objectionable, 
 and his tactlessness and harshness in dealing with the red men 
 alienated them. Moreover he did little to control unfavorable con- 
 ditions then existing among the Spanish missionaries. That these 
 fathers did a great deal for the Spanish cause among the Indians is 
 unquestionable, but their faults were also large. At one time San- 
 chez wrote back to the king that some missionaries who had been 
 living among the Indians for fourteen years had not yet learned to 
 
 5 Fray Joseph Ramos Escudero to . . . , in Brooks Transcripts, 1690 to 
 1740. 
 
 6 A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-31, p. Ill, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 7 Don Francisco Menendez to ... , Oct. 14, 1735, in Brooks Transcripts, 
 1690 to 1740. 
 
 8 Antonio Diaz Mexia to the king, Oct. 15, 1735, in Brooks Transcripts, 
 1690 to 1740. 
 
116 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 ask for water, and that nearly all of them led scandalous and lazy 
 lives, 9 but he did nothing constructive to mend these ways. The 
 Indians were greatly influenced by the Spaniards, as by the other 
 white nations, through the bestowal of presents. Six thousand 
 dollars was appropriated annually for this purpose and the spend- 
 ing of it was exclusively in the hands of Don Domingo Rodriguez. 10 
 During Sanchez' administration the majority of these presents 
 consisted of English goods which had been brought in illegally and 
 from which a large share went into Sanchez' own pocket. 
 
 An open break between the Spaniards and the Creeks was brought 
 about in 1735 by an incident which a more tactful man could 
 have settled quietly. 11 A Spaniard was murdered by some 
 Creeks at Fort Pupo, whereupon Sanchez immediately ordered a 
 sortie to be made by Spanish troops into the country of the Creeks 
 to avenge this murder. The Creeks resented this, and their 
 resentment was fostered and fanned by the Georgian traders. 
 They made their usual visit to St. Augustine to receive their annual 
 presents but in an ugly mood, and when Sanchez harshly repri- 
 manded them they took up the tomahawk. Encouraged by Captain 
 Patrick Mackay, the Georgia agent for Indian affairs among the 
 Creeks, they began open war against the Spaniards and dispatched 
 an expedition of over three hundred braves to attack St. Augus- 
 tine. 12 
 
 This uprising was so serious that Sanchez was led to appeal to 
 Bienville for help. 13 In February 1736 he wrote that the Lower 
 Creeks were making raids up to the very gates of St. Augustine 
 itself and that the Spaniards would not be strong enough to check 
 them. He did not expect French troops to come to his aid, knowing 
 the distance from Mobile or New Orleans was too great, but he 
 urged Bienville to stir up one of his tribes of French Indians against 
 the Lower Creeks and thus divert them. Bienville replied to this 
 
 9 Sanchez to the king, Oct. 8, 1735, in Brooks Transcripts, 1690 to 1740. 
 
 10 Francisco Menendez to ... , Oct. 12, 1735, in Brooks Transcripts, 
 1690 to 1740. 
 
 11 Don Francisco Menendez to ... , Oct. 12, 1735, in Brooks Transcripts, 
 1690 to 1740. 
 
 12 Bienville to Maurepas, Feb. 10, 1736, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D„ p. 292. 
 Thomas Broughton to Trustees, October 1735, in Ga. C. R., XXI, pp. 3-7. 
 
 !3 Bienville to Maurepas, Feb. 10, 1736, in Ik Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 292. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 117 
 
 that inasmuch as the French were at peace with the Lower Creeks 
 he could not declare war on them, but that he would use his in- 
 fluence to stop the raids. He then ordered the Chevalier d'Erne- 
 ville, commandant at Fort Toulouse, to call the chiefs into confer- 
 ence at the fort and persuade them to cease their attacks on St. 
 Augustine. He fully expected that this would restore peace, par- 
 ticularly as he felt that the Creeks had been persuaded by Mackay 
 against their wills to engage in the present war. He was too 
 optimistic, however, for the Creek raids went on, and even though 
 later in the year Sanchez borrowed two hundred guns, three hun- 
 dred pounds of powder and a quantity of foodstuffs from the 
 French to help him stave off the invaders, 14 the Spanish troops had 
 to be called out against the Indians three times in the space of nine 
 months. 
 
 Relief came for the Spaniards however from an unexpected 
 source. Oglethorpe was unwilling to go to war with Florida in 
 1736 and fearing this might be the outcome of continued raids he 
 stepped in to check them. He ordered the Creeks to desist and most 
 of them complied, but when he discovered that some of the wild 
 Indians still continued to harass the Spaniards he ordered an armed 
 boat to guard the St. John's river and prevent any Indians from 
 crossing. This was effective, and St. Augustine was able to breathe 
 easily once more. In view of the treaty which was signed between 
 Oglethorpe and Sanchez in October of that year, it was very good 
 policy on the Englishman's part to keep on friendly terms with the 
 Spaniard. Moreover Thomas Broughton of South Carolina was 
 at the same time bringing pressure to bear on the Trustees to keep 
 the peace with Spain. 15 
 
 The treaty above mentioned was the result of a diplomatic con- 
 troversy which had been going on in Europe as well as in America, 
 involving correspondence in Europe between such important figures 
 as the Duke of Newcastle, secretary of state for the southern de- 
 partment, and Don Tomas Geraldino, Spanish Minister to London, 
 and negotiations between Oglethorpe and Sanchez in America. 
 Oglethorpe had employed as his agent to the Spaniards a clever 
 
 I* Montiano et al. to the king, Sept. 25, 1740, in A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 
 58-1-32, pp. 49-50, L. C. Transcripts. 
 15 Thomas Broughton to Trustees, October 1735, in Ga. C. R., XXI, pp. 3-5. 
 
118 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 man named Charles Dempsey. Two treaties had been signed in 
 1736, one between Dempsey and the Council of War at St. Augus- 
 tine, the other between Dempsey and Sanchez. 16 The treaties 
 had provided that the governor of St. Augustine was to restrain 
 the Spaniards and the Spanish Indians from attacking the 
 Georgians, while the governor of Georgia was to restrain the 
 Georgians and the Georgia Indians from attacking the Spaniards. 17 
 The matter of a barrier was brought up in a provision that St. 
 George's island was to be occupied by neither the English nor the 
 Spaniards, but the question of a Georgia-Florida boundarv was 
 left to the British and Spanish courts for decision. These treaties 
 were so clearly favorable to England that for signing them Sanchez 
 was removed from office, sent back to Spain, 18 and later hanged. 19 
 Philip V repudiated the treaties as having been made without au- 
 thority and Montiano was sent over to Florida to replace Sanchez. 
 By 1737 the conflict between the English and Spaniards was be- 
 ginning to result in definite bad feeling. Rumors were current 
 among the English that Governor Horcasitas of Havana was pre- 
 paring for an attack on Georgia and Carolina. Savannah was in 
 such a state of panic that the people were clamoring for forts to 
 protect them. Lieutenant Governor Bull of South Carolina sent 
 an express to Governor Gooch of Virginia to warn him of the 
 impending danger, 20 and Captain Compton of the Sea Horse, a 
 warship stationed off the Virginia coast was dispatched to the south 
 early in April. The Spanish threat however failed to materialize, 
 Savannah gradually lost its air of anxiety, the people went back to 
 their normal routine, and Compton wrote Gooch from Charleston 
 that if the Spaniards had ever had a plan for attacking Georgia 
 they must have given it up. 21 But both Oglethorpe and Montiano 
 
 16 Journal Trustees, Jan. 12, 1737, in Ga. C. R., I, p. 266. 
 
 17 For the treaty between Dempsey and the Council of War of St. Augus- 
 tine, see Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, pp. 57-61 ; for the treaty between Dempsey 
 and Sanchez, see Harris, John, Complete Collection of Voyages and Travels, 
 II, pp. 331-332. See also Add. MSS. 32794, pp. 255-260. 
 
 18 Diron dArtaguette to Maurepas, May 8, 1737, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., 
 p. 345. 
 
 19 Egmont's Journal, May 15, 1740, in Ga. C. R., V, p. 351. 
 
 20 C. O. 5 : 1337, no. 104, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 21 Gooch to Board of Trade, May 16, 1737, in C. O. 5 : 1324 T. 21, p. 115, 
 L. C. Transcripts. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 119 
 
 realized that war must soon break and redoubled their efforts to 
 prepare for it. 
 
 In the same year the Spaniards managed to heal their break with 
 the Creeks and became once more allied with the Tallapoosa Indians 
 and the Lower Creeks of Coweta. 22 This was largely through the 
 intervention of the French. The English had been pushing a plan 
 for fortifying the upper reaches of all rivers that flowed into the 
 Gulf of Mexico, and when the red men had asked the advice of 
 Diron d'Artaguette at Mobile on the matter he had persuaded them 
 that the proposed English forts would be a menace to their safety. 
 They had accordingly resisted the advances of the English and 
 turned back to their old friends the Spaniards at St. Augustine. 
 In the meantime preparation for war went forward on both sides, 
 with Oglethorpe and Montiano each struggling for the support 
 of as many Indian tribes as possible. This continued through 
 1738 and the Indians, sensing war in the air, began committing 
 outrages. The English Indians murdered a Spanish chief, Pujoy, 
 and his followers. 23 Montiano complained to Oglethorpe pointing 
 out that it was a violation of the Oglethorpe- Sanchez treaty. Ogle- 
 thorpe's reply from Frederica expressed polite regret and promised 
 that the aggressor should be punished. 24 Other outrages followed 
 on both sides, however, and a series of protests, apologies, counter 
 protests and counter apologies went travelling back and forth. 
 Feeling between the two colonies was becoming less friendly. 
 
 One of the favorite Spanish methods of harassing the English 
 had long been to encourage the Carolina slaves to run away to St. 
 Augustine. 25 This was supported by a royal decree of October 10, 
 1699, in which protection had been promised to all negro deserters 
 from the English who fled to St. Augustine and became Catholics. 26 
 The decree had been repeated from time to time, notably in 1736 
 
 22 Diron d'Artaguette to Maurepas, May 8, 1737, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., 
 p. 346. 
 
 2 3 Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, pt. 1, p. 11. 
 
 24 Montiano to Horcasitas, Feb. 16, 1738, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt 1, p. 15. 
 
 25 Montiano to Horcasitas, April 2, 1739, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt. 1, p. 30. 
 
 2 6 Montiano to the king, May 31, 1738, A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-31, 
 p. 116, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
120 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 by Philip V, and as war seemed imminent the Spaniards grew 
 unusually active in enticing slaves to their capitol, planning, as the 
 French had long been accustomed to do, to use them as soldiers. 27 
 Georgia was not affected by this, since slavery had been prohibited 
 by the Trustees, but Carolina protested bitterly, though as we have 
 seen the English later adopted much the same practice when they en- 
 couraged the Indians to bring them slaves from French plantations. 
 
 The most important thing on both sides, however, continued to 
 be the winning of Indian support. Should war break, the English 
 were sure of the Cherokees, the Chickasaws and the Uchi Indians, 
 but the Creeks were more important than any of these, and also 
 more difficult, many of them being at the time in favor of Spain. 
 In July, 1738, Montiano wrote to Horcasitas that the Indians of 
 Apalache, i.e. the Lower Creeks, were loyal to the Spaniards but 
 the English were intriguing with them and seemed to have a pros- 
 pect of success. 28 The next month he again wrote to Horcasitas 
 that the Georgians were making a great effort to assemble the 
 Creeks, Chickasaws, Cherokees and Catawbas in a general con- 
 ference, but that he had directed two chiefs faithful to the Spaniards 
 to attend and report to him what went on. 29 The conference as 
 planned was never held, but Oglethorpe's journey to Coweta the 
 next year, of which we have already frequently heard, took its 
 place. 
 
 As preparations went on, and the Indians saw war increasingly 
 more imminent they committed more and more acts of violence. 
 The Uchis killed some Spanish soldiers on the march and a body 
 of them attacked Fort Pupo. They were restrained not at all by 
 the English who considered the technique of their Indian allies 
 peculiarly well adapted to the geographical situation of the Span- 
 iards. 30 Indian raiding parties were sent out to scour the country 
 and kill all Spaniards possible, and in particular to interrupt all 
 
 27 Egmont's Journal, May 2, 1739, in Ga. C. R., V, p. 164. 
 
 28 Montiano to Horcasitas, July 22, 1738, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII. 
 pt. 1, p. 22. 
 
 29 Montiano to Horcasitas, Aug. 8, 1738, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII. 
 pt. 1, p. 24. 
 
 30 Montiano to Horcasitas, Aug. 8, 1738, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt. 1, p. 23. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 121 
 
 communication between Apalache and St. Augustine. 31 If this were 
 accomplished, and the two parts of Florida cut off from each other, 
 the English realized, it would be impossible for one to aid the other. 
 Also Apalache would be exposed to Indian attack at a time when 
 St. Augustine was too busy to help it. 
 
 Another practice which was common in the wars of the south- 
 east, and which reached a fine height of organization was that of 
 scalp buying. 32 In 1738 the English were offering their Indians 
 fifty dollars for the scalp of every Spaniard brought in, which 
 incentive naturally increased the Indians' zeal. 33 The Spaniards 
 also offered their Indians rewards for English scalps, and by 1742 
 when the war had been going on for some time they were offering 
 the Creeks one hundred pieces of eight for every English prisoner, 
 and fifty pieces of eight for an Englishman's scalp, the same prices, 
 these, that they had been accustomed to paying the Yamassee. 34 
 We might note here that the Spaniards and English were not the 
 only exponents of this delightful practice. The French throughout 
 the Chickasaw war had been paying the Choctaws for Chickasaws' 
 scalps and an interesting commerce had consequently grown up 
 among the Choctaws. Since it was only necessary to produce a 
 portion of the scalp the Choctaws had ingeniously formed the habit 
 of cutting up one scalp into as many as ten pieces and collecting 
 their bounty on each. 35 Bienville of course eventually discovered 
 this and thenceforth insisted that the whole scalp be shown before 
 any reward was paid. 
 
 During 1739 the Spaniards and French continued to work to- 
 gether to separate the Creeks from the English and made consider- 
 able progress. The Cherokees even were influenced reflexively and 
 reports from their country indicated a growing uneasiness and 
 
 31 Serrano y Sanz, Document os Historicos de La Florida y La Luisiana, 
 pp. 260-264, contains "Relation del Yndio Juan Ignacio de los Reyes, vecino 
 del Pueblo de Pocotalaca," Aug. 30, 1738. This is the report of an Indian 
 spy sent out by Montiano. Montiano to Horcasitas, Aug. 31, 1738, in Ga. 
 Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, pt. 1, p. 25. 
 
 32 For an example of Indian cannibalism, see C. O. 5 : 1327, W. 95, L. C. 
 Transcripts. For an example of the use of poisoned arrows, see C. O. 5 : 
 1325, V. 25, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 33 Montiano to Horcasitas, Aug. 31, 1738, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt. 1, p. 26. 
 
 3 * Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 121. 
 
 3 5 Bienville to Maurepas, Aug. 26, 1734, in Miss. Prov. Arch. F. D., p. 236. 
 
122 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 tendency to fall out with the English at a moments' notice. Finally 
 when the Chickasaws, the Creeks and the English party among the 
 Choctaws urgently demanded a meeting with Oglethorpe at Coweta, 
 he resolved to go there. News that England had declared war on 
 Spain did not reach Savannah until September 8, but its approach 
 had been so clearly heralded that Oglethorpe knew that war would 
 soon begin and in July set out on his journey to Coweta to win the 
 Indians to his support. It was a long and dangerous journey and 
 this Oglethorpe well knew, but he felt that not to go might be 
 more dangerous still. The Creeks were the key to control of the 
 Indians in the southeast and he knew that if the intrigues of the 
 French and Spaniards were allowed to go on unchecked the Creeks 
 would be lost to the English and might even wage active war against 
 Georgia itself. He accordingly set out on July 17 and in spite of 
 outside intrigue was warmly welcomed by the Creeks with whom he 
 negotiated his well known treaty which was the basis of the 
 English alliance with these Indians for the remainder of the Trus- 
 tees' era. As we know he thereby received the grant of lands most 
 valuable to Georgia, but what was of more immediate importance 
 he defeated the intrigues of the French and Spaniards, cemented 
 Creek-English friendship and gained the support of these Indians 
 in the War of Jenkins' Ear which followed. His Coweta con- 
 ference was thus a signal triumph for him personally and for 
 Georgia diplomatically. He returned home by way of Augusta 
 which he reached early in September. He arrived at Savannah only 
 to find that the war he had been long anticipating had been declared 
 at last. 36 
 
 The English thus approached the war in an extremely favorable 
 position as far as the Indians were concerned. The Chickasaws 
 were their firm friends, and even found time in the midst of their 
 troubles with the French to send a few warriors to Oglethorpe's 
 aid. 37 The Choctaws concerned themselves but little with the war. 
 The Cherokees were faithful supporters of Georgia once more and 
 the Creeks had been saved in the nick of time. The Spaniards 
 therefore had only the Yamassees for their allies, and these In- 
 
 36 Ga. C. R., IV, p. 208. 
 
 37 Stephens' Journal, Nov. 20, 1739, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 456. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 123 
 
 dians they had taken for granted. As to the actual number of 
 Indians who came to Oglethorpe's aid in his campaign, it is im- 
 possible to give more than an approximate figure. In February 
 1738 Montiano had written Horcasitas that six thousand Cherokee 
 warriors had been ordered to assemble in South Carolina to aid 
 Oglethorpe against the Spaniards, 38 but in August he amended this, 
 placing the total number of all Indian allies of the English at five 
 or six thousand. 39 Both these figures were greatly exaggerated. 
 Oglethorpe stated in a letter to Newcastle that he expected about 
 one thousand Indians to aid him against the Spaniards, 40 while 
 in a letter to the Trustees he placed the figure at twelve hundred, 
 comprising two hundred Creeks under Tooanahowi, the nephew 
 of old Tomochichi, four hundred other Creeks and six hundred 
 Cherokees. 41 Verelst estimated that the number of Indians raised 
 in Georgia would not exceed one thousand and this figure is 
 about right. 42 The expense of all these Indian allies was con- 
 siderable, since each warrior cost the British government £7 a year. 
 A glance at the map will make clear the main points in the de- 
 fenses of Florida in 1740. Besides St. Augustine, guarded by its 
 fortress, there was St. Marks on the Gulf of Mexico, a point of 
 tremendous importance in connecting St. Augustine with Mexico 
 and as a base for Spanish dealings with the Creeks. Between these 
 two was Fort St. Francis de Pupo on the north side of the St. John's 
 river, where was to be found the ferry over the St. John's river 
 which afforded easy access to St. Marks, the Creeks and Carolina. 43 
 West of St. Marks lay Pensacola. Other forts were Fort Picolata, 
 Fort Diego, Fort Rossa, Fort Chicketo, Fort Pinnion and the negro 
 fort, Moosa. 44 Fort St. Francis and Fort Picolata had been 
 
 38 Montiano to Horcasitas, Feb. 15, 1738, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt. 1, p. 14. 
 
 39 Montiano to Horcasitas, Aug. 31, 1738, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, 
 VII, pt. 1, p. 26. 
 
 40 Oglethorpe to Newcastle, Oct. 8, 1739, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, 
 p. 218. 
 
 41 Egmont's Journal, Oct. 5, 1739, in Ga. C. R., V, p. 231. 
 
 42 C. O. 5 : 5, pp. 235-242, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 43 Oglethorpe to Newcastle, Jan. 22, 1740, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXV, 
 p. 240. 
 
 44 Oglethorpe to William Stephens, Feb. 1, 1739, in Ga. C. R., XXII, pt. 2, 
 pp. 312-313. 
 
124 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 originally built to protect the mails between St. Augustine and St. 
 Marks from Indian attack. 45 They were only small wooden forts 
 but proved of value to the Spaniards. 
 
 The success of Oglethorpe in winning the support of the Creeks 
 had a very discouraging effect on the Spaniards. Francisco de 
 Castilla expressed Spanish sentiment in St. Augustine in 1740 when 
 he wrote to the king that after all these years of effort the Spanish 
 had nothing to show for their pains. 46 The only thing left to do 
 seemed to be to destroy the Creeks entirely. But though the 
 English had gained the upper hand it was somewhat more pre- 
 carious than the Spanish realized. In March 1740 Lieutenant Kent, 
 commander at Fort Augusta, wrote to William Stephens that he 
 did not believe the Cherokees would send the several hundred war- 
 riors that Oglethorpe was expecting. 47 He was evidently too pessi- 
 mistic, for the next month Thomas Eyre, Georgia Indian agent 
 to the Cherokees, led a hundred of these warriors down to Sav- 
 annah, with the news that several hundred more were to follow. 48 
 The Chickasaws sent seventy men, imd the Upper and Lower 
 Creeks at the same time had several hundred braves preparing to 
 join Oglethorpe. Yet while all this was going on the English 
 had to continue to combat French and Spanish intrigue in 
 the Creek villages. Though the Spanish had given up hope of 
 winning the Creeks to them they continued to play a defensive 
 game, and tried in every way to persuade the Creeks to remain 
 neutral. 49 Reaching the ear of old Chikillie, the chief mico, they 
 played up the favorite Creek policy, pointing out that the Creeks 
 were unwise to interfere in the war between the whites, but should 
 instead let them fight it out, while the Creeks continued to hold the 
 balance of power. 50 This attractive argument might have prevailed 
 had not Lieutenant Willy and Thomas Wiggin, an Indian trader, 
 worked faithfully to counteract it. A useful ally to them was 
 
 45 Montiano to Horcasitas, Jan. 31, 1740, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt. 1, p. 39. 
 
 46 Castilla to the king, Feb. 6, 1740, in Brooks Transcripts, 1740 to 1810. 
 
 47 Stephens' Journal, March 31, 1740, in Ga, C. R., IV, p. 545. 
 
 48 Stephens' Journal, April 9, 1740, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 550 
 
 49 Montiano to Horcasitas, May 13, 1740, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt. 1, p. 52. 
 
 so Stephens' Journal, May 2, 1740, in Ga. C. R., IV, p. 565. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 125 
 
 Malatchi, the son of Old Brims, who was later to be such a trouble 
 maker. Malatchi held a conference with Oglethorpe at Frederica 
 and fired with enthusiasm for the English went back to spread the 
 good word among the Creeks. 
 
 Oglethorpe, as we know, had been making steady preparations to 
 attack St. Augustine ever since news reached him of the declaration 
 of war. He made Frederica his base and concentrated his forces 
 there, and in the latter part of May 1740, he advanced against the 
 Spanish capital and laid siege to it. Details of the siege have so 
 often been recounted that they need not detain us here. The inabil- 
 ity of the British ships to support the army in its intended assault 
 led to the abandonment of this siege and the ultimate failure of the 
 expedition. 51 By July Oglethorpe had withdrawn his troops and 
 was once more back at Frederica. 
 
 The part played by the Indians in this expedition was an im- 
 portant one with which we are more concerned. Making up raiding 
 parties they harassed the Spanish plantations and forced the owners 
 to seek refuge in the forts. They cut off virtually all communi- 
 cation between St. Augustine and Apalache, which as we have 
 indicated was accustomed to go from St. Augustine, to Fort St. 
 Francis and thence to St. Marks. Montiano even wrote to Hor- 
 casitas complaining that he could not get news to or from Apalache 
 because of the English Indians. 52 In the siege of St. Augustine, 
 the Creeks and other allies were of particular aid. 53 They drove 
 the settlers from the surrounding territory into the city, helped to 
 prevent supplies from reaching the city, cut off any Spaniards who 
 wandered too far from the protection of the castle, fought the 
 Yamassee Indians, aided in the taking of Fort Diego and Fort 
 Moosa, rendered constant service as scouts and generally kept 
 Oglethorpe informed of the movements of the enemy. The In- 
 dians had their limitations as fighters, but these were well under- 
 stood by the Georgians. As Lieutenant Horton, later commander 
 
 51 Oglethorpe blamed the sea-officers, they blamed Oglethorpe, and Vander- 
 dussen blamed both. Add. MSS. 32695, fo. 190, pp. 67-69, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 52 Montiano to Horcasitas, May 13, 1740, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt. 1, p. 52. 
 
 53 Montiano estimated that towards the end of the siege Oglethorpe had 
 one hundred thirty Indians assisting him. Montiano to the king, Aug. 9, 1740, 
 in A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-32, p. 12, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
126 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 at Frederica, explained to Egmont, the Indians were useful for 
 fighting against the Spanish Indians and for ravaging Spanish 
 farms, but they were of no use in besieging a town as regular troops, 
 and would storm a breach only when the way was led by the 
 English. 54 
 
 After Oglethorpe's unsuccessful expedition against St. Augus- 
 tine there was a breathing spell in the war. The Spaniards needed 
 time to get ready for an offensive, while Oglethorpe having quar- 
 relled with Colonel Vanderdussen and the South Carolinians over 
 the conduct of the campaign was in no condition to undertake an- 
 other attack. For a while the Indians also were less active, limit- 
 ing themselves during the latter half of 1740 and the whole of 1741 
 to an occasional raid. In March 1741 the Yamassees attacked the 
 plantation of Mark Carr, who later founded Sunbury, and killed 
 several soldiers who were quartered there, 55 but there were few 
 other examples of Indian outrages. The French and Spaniards 
 again sent agents to the Creeks to try and overcome English oppo- 
 sition, but Oglethorpe countered this by dispatching Captain George 
 Dunbar to hold the Indians in line. 56 Dunbar went from Frederica 
 to Savannah where he talked with William Stephens and got what 
 information Stephens had received about the situation from the 
 Georgia traders. And about the same time fifteen Chickasaw 
 warriors came to Savannah to assist Oglethorpe against the Span- 
 iards and were sent by boat to join Oglethorpe at Frederica. 57 
 Other similar isolated incidents occurred but in general the Indians 
 took little part in the quarrel between Georgia and Florida. One 
 cogent reason for their inactivity was that the Creeks were now at 
 war with the Cherokees, and both nations therefore had little time 
 to give to the whites. 
 
 Though Spanish preparations for a counter-attack went forward 
 slowly, the Spaniards were ready to march on Georgia by 1742. 58 
 
 54 Egmont's Journal, May 7, 1740, in Ga. C. R., V, p. 349. 
 
 55 Stephens' Journal, March 30, 1741, in Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, p. 117. 
 
 56 Stephens' Journal, April 20, 1741, in Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, p. 128. 
 
 57 Stephens' Journal, July 9, 1741, in Ga. C. R. supp. to IV, p. 190. 
 
 58 Lt. Govr. William Bull of South Carolina wrote Lt. Govr. William 
 Gooch of Virginia asking him to send help to Oglethorpe. C. O. 5 : 1325, V. 
 25, L. C. Transcripts ; C. O. 5 : 1325, V. 26, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 127 
 
 Remembering the 1739 insurrection at Stono, South Carolina, 
 where the slaves had risen in revolt and murdered a number of 
 whites, the Spaniards hoped that as soon as the negroes in South 
 Carolina heard of their plans there would be another insurrection, 
 but in this they were disappointed. 59 However, by June everything 
 was ready and the Spanish fleet sailed for Frederica. The attack 
 was met by Oglethorpe on St. Simons Island and the battle of 
 Bloody Marsh was fought there with a victory for the English so 
 decisive that it greatly added to the military reputation of Ogle- 
 thorpe. The English followed this up in September by sending the 
 fleet to St. Augustine, but it was unable to force an entrance. 60 In 
 this Spanish attack the Indians were lined up much as they had 
 been two years before, with the Creeks, Cherokees and Chickasaws 
 on the English side, 61 while only the Yamassee were faithful to the 
 Spaniards. 62 The part played by the Indians was also similar, for 
 after the defeat of the Spanish on St. Simons Island, Oglethorpe 
 sent Indian raiding parties after the retreating enemy. 63 These, 
 however, were driven back. 64 
 
 During all this time the Creeks had been the chief thorn in the 
 side of the Spaniards and they had made repeated efforts to win 
 them from the English, though always without success. More- 
 over, in spite of the Creek-Cherokee war, the Creeks must have 
 spared enough warriors at least to worry the Spaniards for in 1744 
 Montiano wrote to the king that the Creeks had been constantly 
 harassing the Spaniards who were powerless to stop them. 65 The 
 few Spaniards who lived outside St. Augustine had been driven in 
 during the siege of 1740 and since then they had hardly dared go 
 outside even to get wood for fear of being cut off by the redskins. 
 Moreover the Spanish troops were no match for the Indians when 
 it came to forest warfare and Montiano's resources were so feeble 
 
 59 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 126. 
 
 60 Montiano to the kin?, Sept. 15, 1742, in Brooks Transcripts, 1740 to 1810. 
 6i Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 282; XXIX, p. 184. 
 
 62 Ibid. ; XXXV, p. 542. 
 
 63 A Spanish sergeant stated that the woods around Frederica were so full 
 of Indians that the devil himself could not get through. Add. MSS. 32699, 
 fo. 543, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 64 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 97. 
 
 65 Montiano to the King, March 15, 1744, in Brooks Transcripts, 1740 
 to 1810. 
 
128 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 that he dared not attempt to crush the Creeks entirely, which seemed 
 the only solution to the menace. He urged that the English who 
 were responsible for the hostility of the Indians be removed by 
 force of arms. 66 Montiano stated further that the Spanish Indians 
 had been almost entirely destroyed by the Creeks and English, 
 four of their eight towns having been razed in 1740, after which 
 some of the Yamassees had taken refuge in the woods and others 
 had moved away to the vicinity of Pensacola. As for the Creeks, 
 he said, few of them failed to come to St. Augustine to get their 
 presents out of the yearly allowance of six thousand dollars, but in 
 spite of this there were no Indians who caused the Spanish as much 
 uneasiness both in Apalache and St. Augustine. The secret of 
 English control, he went on, was simple and could be told in a 
 single word: presents. The English traders kept the Creeks lib- 
 erally supplied with goods, and the Georgia officials from time to 
 time made generous gifts to the Indians which kept them consis- 
 tently loyal. The remedy which Montiano suggested for all these 
 evils was two fold : to cast the English out completely, and until 
 that could be accomplished, to beat them at their own game by 
 supplying the Creeks with an abundance of presents. 67 This could 
 easily be done, Montiano believed, if the king would simply order 
 the royal company of Havana to keep its store at Havana well 
 filled with the goods necessary for Indian trade, notably pistols, 
 sabres, powder flasks, balls, flint stones, scissors, needles, combs, 
 brass kettles, and the favorite red and gray paints, besides the in- 
 evitable whisky and tobacco. 
 
 After writing all these complaints and making all these sugges- 
 tions Montiano took heart and girded his loins for new efforts with 
 the Indians. This seemed especially important in light of the im- 
 pending War of the Austrian Succession. He therefore invited a 
 number of Creeks to visit him at St. Augustine and when they 
 came, gave them liberal presents, promised them many more if 
 they would support the Spaniards against the English and told 
 them that the Squire, i.e. Oglethorpe, was too poor now to give 
 
 « 6 Montiano to the King, March 15, 1744, in Brooks Transcripts, 1740 to 
 1810. 
 67 Idem. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 129 
 
 them any rich presents. 08 His efforts, however, were in vain, and 
 one of the Indians, Smilly, went immediately to Oglethorpe and 
 with Mary Musgrove as interpreter told all that had happened at 
 St. Augustine. The French were making renewed efforts in behalf 
 of their Spanish allies, sending word to the Creeks that if they 
 dared give the English any further aid against the Spaniards the 
 French would send a large party of Choctaws against the Creek 
 towns. 60 These threats were no more successful than Montiano's 
 promises for the Creeks' only reply was to turn to Oglethorpe and 
 ask him for aid should their villages be attacked by enemy Indians. 
 
 The war opened in 1744 and the Spaniards continued their vain 
 efforts to gain Creek loyalty, sending an agent to these Indians to 
 urge a Spanish alliance upon them. 70 As Oglethorpe had so often 
 done before him, Major Horton, now commander at Frederica, 
 hearing of this turned to Mary Musgrove for help. Mary sent her 
 slave Whonny back to Horton at Frederica with the promise that 
 she would use her influence against the Spanish agent and this she 
 did with such success that once more the Spanish efforts came to 
 nothing. The English continued to hold their Indian allies, and in 
 this new war proposed to follow the procedure made obvious by 
 the geography of the district; they would send the Creeks and 
 Cherokees against Florida, and the Chickasaws against Louisiana. 71 
 
 During the same year the long discussed project of building up 
 Apalache as a barrier against the English appeared at last to be on 
 the verge of fulfillment. It had earlier, as we know, been proposed 
 by Governor Benavides in 1725 and 1726. Governor Sanchez had 
 repeated this in 1735, 72 Governor Montiano had again urged it in 
 1740 73 and in the same year Castilla had evolved his feudalistic 
 scheme for attracting settlers to Florida, a project strangely remi- 
 niscent of Sir Robert Montgomery's plan in his Margravate of 
 
 68 Ga. C. R. (MS), XXXVI, p. 121. 
 «*Ibid., XXXVI, pp. 123-124. 
 
 ™ William Horton to Mrs. Mary Matthews, Feb. 19, 1744, in Ga. C. R. 
 (MS), XXVII, p. 248. 
 
 71 Add. MSS. 32702, fo. 347, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 72 A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-31, pp. 96-97, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 73 Montiano to Horcasitas, Jan. 31, 1740, in Ga. Hist. Soc. Collections, VII, 
 pt. 1, p. 41. 
 
130 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Azilia. 74 Four years later Philip V had issued his royal decree 
 authorizing the Royal Company of Havana to bring families from 
 the Canary Islands to settle in Florida and especially in Apalache, 
 whereupon Montiano urged that the families be sent directly to St. 
 Augustine and not by way of Havana since if they stopped there 
 they might be persuaded to settle in Cuba. 75 He also urged the 
 extermination of the English as a necessary step to the success 
 of this scheme. It began to look as if the Spaniards would 
 colonize this territory properly at last and so hold the friendship 
 of the Creeks by means of proximity and convenient trading posts. 
 But as the war continued Montiano advised the king that the 
 project be delayed until the end of the war, and so once more the 
 plan was postponed. 
 
 The first years of the war saw the English still in control of the 
 Creeks in the face of continued Spanish and French efforts to 
 build up their own alliances with these people. One reason for 
 this was the failure of the royal company of Havana to supply 
 St. Augustine and St. Marks with the food and other necessities 
 which Montiano had requested and which the king had accordingly 
 ordered. 76 The Spaniards had therefore had no adequate trading 
 goods to put against the English enticements, and the English 
 continued supreme. 77 But in 1747 fate at last played into Span- 
 ish hands. The Creek-Cherokee war broke out, and since the 
 Cherokees turned to the Georgians for help the Creeks naturally 
 turned to the other side and sought help first from the French 
 and then from the Spaniards. Holding a conference among them- 
 selves they decided to ask for Spanish alliance, and dispatched 
 Topasico, one of their chiefs, to the commandant at St. Marks, 
 Don Juan de Leon, to ask if the Spaniards would receive them. 78 
 Their plan was to send a delegation to Montiano at St. Augustine, 
 
 74 Castilla to the king, Feb. 6, 1740, in Brooks Transcripts. 
 
 75 Montiano to the king, Feb. 25, 1745, in A.G.I.— Santo Domingo, 58-1-32, 
 pp. 201-209, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 76 Montiano to Trivino, March 14, 1746, in A.G.I. — Santo Domingo — 58-1- 
 32, p. 291, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 77 Montiano to the king, March 14, 1746, in A.G.I. — Santo Domingo — 
 58-1-32, pp. 294-295. Don Juan Isidoro de Leon, commandant at St. Marks, 
 to Montiano, June 26, 1747, in A.G.I. — Santo Domingo — 58-1-32, p. 320. 
 
 78 Don Juan Isidoro de Leon to Montiano, June 26, 1747, in A.G.I. — Santo 
 Domingo — 58-1-32, pp. 312-313, in L. C. Transcripts. 
 
Anglo-Spanish Rivalry 131 
 
 by way of St. Marks, but they had been such bitter enemies of the 
 Spaniards for so long that they felt unsure of a welcome. They 
 might have spared their fears, however, for when de Leon wrote 
 to Montiano to lay the matter before him Montiano eagerly jumped 
 at the idea. He immediately wrote to Spain to ask for twelve 
 thousand pesos to be spent on Indian presents for use when the 
 Creek delegation arrived at St. Augustine. 79 
 
 The Creek delegation accordingly came down to St. Augustine 
 and was received warmly by Montiano. A reason of course had 
 to be given for seeking Spanish friendship at this late date and the 
 reason they gave was as follows : 80 In the attack made on Fort 
 Moosa by the English in 1740 several years before the Spaniards 
 had taken a Creek named Nicholas prisoner, and then instead of put- 
 ting him to death they had sent him home loaded with presents. This 
 same Creek had come as ambassador to St. Augustine in 1747 ac- 
 companied by Malatchi and the two had been so well treated that 
 they had gone home and urged the other Creeks to desert the 
 English and join forces with the Spaniards. Montiano understood 
 perfectly that the Creeks wanted a Spanish alliance not from love 
 of the Spaniards but because they needed help in their war against 
 the Cherokees and could not get it from the English. But he was 
 far too wise to admit this or to reject the Creek offer of friendship, 
 particularly as he observed that the delegation which had come to 
 see him was made up of the very Indians who had been most active 
 in opposing the Spaniards in the past. He believed that if this 
 hostile group had been won over it should be easy to swing the 
 rest of the nation into line. He understood the fickle nature of 
 the Creeks and realized that they might desert him later but thought 
 it worth while to make the alliance with them, however short a 
 time it might last. At least it would give the colonists relief from 
 Indian raids for a time and it was always possible that the alliance 
 might prove of great advantage to Spain. 81 The conference there- 
 
 ™ Montiano to the king, Aug. 3, 1747, in A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-32, 
 pp. 303-312, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 80 Montiano to the king, March 15, 1748, in A.G.I. — Santo Domingo — 
 58-1-32, pp. 329-330, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 81 Montiano to the king, March 15, 1748, A.G.I.— Santo Domingo— 58-1-32, 
 p. 327, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
132 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 fore was a success and though no formal treaty was made the 
 Indian raids ceased during 1747 and 1748. 
 
 With the lull in the Cherokee war however in 1748 the need of 
 the Creeks for the Spaniards grew less. At the same time the war 
 between Spain and England also reached its conclusion. A lull 
 followed with both white nations again working to win the Creeks' 
 support though less vigorously than before, the need being now 
 less urgent. Soon after, however, influenced by Mary Musgrove, 
 the Creeks returned to their English allegiance and the temporary 
 advantage gained by the Spanish was lost. In 1749 Mary Mus- 
 grove and some Creek warriors made a threatening descent on 
 Savannah to demand that Mary's title to the three sea-islands of 
 Sapelo, Ossabaw and St. Catherine's be acknowledged. The re- 
 fusal of President Stephens to recognize Mary's claims and the 
 bitter quarrel which ensued between Mary and the Savannah 
 authorities alienated the Creek from her Georgia friends. In spite 
 of this, the majority of the Creeks remained faithful to the English, 
 and continued so in spite of the opening which the desertion of 
 Mary gave for fresh Spanish intrigue. 82 For the next three years 
 Creek loyalty to the English continued. The Spaniards encouraged 
 the Indians to steal English horses by offering to pay good prices 
 for those brought them, and both the Spanish and French continued 
 their devious attempts to persuade the Creeks to join them, 83 but 
 when the Seven Years' War opened in 1756 the Georgians still re- 
 garded the Creeks as their chief barrier against Spanish attack. 84 
 
 82 Montiano was succeeded as governor of Florida in 1748 by Melchor de 
 Navarrete. For the latter's correspondence with Spain, see A.G.I. — Santo 
 Domingo — 58-1-33, L. C. Transcripts. 
 
 83 S. C. Indian Books, 1752-1753, III, p. 23. 
 
 84 Memorial to the Trustees from the inhabitants of south Georgia, April 
 15, 1752, in Ga. C. R. (MS), XXVII, pp. 269-270. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE END OF AN ERA AND THE BEGINNING OF 
 A NEW REGIME 
 
 The Trustees' surrender of their charter was an extremely im- 
 portant event in the history of Georgia but the effects of that sur- 
 render were only gradually evident to the colonists themselves or 
 to the surrounding Indians. The surrender of the charter was to 
 lead not only to new officials and a new organization but to an 
 entirely new policy of government, and this change was nowhere 
 more evident than in the management of the Indians. Henceforth 
 the Indians were to be regarded not as a separate people with whom 
 it was necessary to maintain friendly trade relations and close war- 
 time alliances, but as subjects of the crown whom it was necessary 
 to keep satisfied and loyal if there were to be no outbreaks of re- 
 bellion. The change from the Indian's point of view was not very 
 marked, for the royal governors who replaced the Trustees' Indian 
 commissioners were wise enough to continue most of the customs 
 which the early settlers had found efficacious in their dealings with 
 the red men, but from the point of view of England the change 
 was decisive. Their policy, in short, was no longer mercantile, but 
 military. This change, however, like every other governmental 
 move in the eighteenth century with its problems of communica- 
 tion and transportation, was a long time in coming about. There 
 was a break of over two years between the last meeting of the 
 Trustees and the arrival of the first royal governor and a break of 
 nearly four years between the last meeting of the Trustees and the 
 formulation of the royal plan of centralized Indian control which 
 went into effect in 1756. In the meantime Georgia had to be 
 governed and the problems of Indian control met as they arose. 
 
 By the terms of the Georgia charter the Trustees were to govern 
 the colony for twenty-one years, which would have brought their 
 period of control to an end in June, 1753. There was never any 
 
 133 
 
134 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 question of their control continuing longer than that for one of the 
 royal ideas in granting the charter originally was to secure the 
 founding of a useful and possibly profitable colony which could 
 later be annexed at no cost to the crown. The crown therefore was 
 inevitably to assume control in 1753. But long before this the 
 Trustees had become weary of their bargain. They had found little 
 satisfaction in Georgia, their plans for a philanthropic Utopia had 
 of necessity been abandoned 1 and when in 1751 they were refused 
 the usual parliamentary appropriation for the maintenance of 
 Georgia they were only too glad to abandon the whole project. They 
 did, it is true, make a half hearted petition to the king, but when this 
 was refused they began immediate negotiations 2 with the crown 
 which resulted in the surrendering of their charter on June 23, 
 1752. 
 
 By direction of the king, the officials last appointed by the Trus- 
 tees in Georgia were continued in office until a royal governor and 
 the other necessary officials could be sent out. 3 William Stephens 
 was the last important president under the trustees. Because of 
 advancing years, he gave up his office two years before they gave 
 up their charter. 4 The end of his influence was one of the many 
 reasons why the interregnum was an unsettled one, for his prestige 
 with the Indians had been great and was sorely missed. He was 
 succeeded as president by Henry Parker, 5 and when Parker died 
 in 1752, he was in turn succeeded by Patrick Graham, a planter 
 and prominent citizen of Savannah. 6 Graham continued in office 
 only until the arrival of John Reynolds, the first royal governor, 
 in October 1754. 7 Reynolds was a blunt and tactless man, for- 
 merly an officer in the British navy, who viewed his new office as 
 essentially military in character, which of course was far from the 
 case. 8 He quarreled with his colleagues and alienated the Indians 
 
 i Go. C. R., I, pp. 54-62. 
 
 2A.P.C.C, IV, No. 149, p. 123; Journal of the Board of Trade, VIII, 
 p. 209. 
 3A.P.C.C, IV, No. 149, pp. 126-127. 
 
 4 Ga. C. R., VI, pp. 332-333. 
 
 5 Ibid., VI, p. 369. 
 
 6 Ibid., VI, p. 375. 
 
 7 Journal of the Board of Trade, IX, p. 122 ; Ga. C. R., VII, p. 9. 
 
 8 Corry, J. P., "Procedure in the Commons House of Assembly in Georgia," 
 in Ga. Hist Quar., XIII, (1929), pp. 110-127. 
 
Beginning of a New Regime 135 
 
 not only in the Bosomworth controversy but in many other matters 
 and by the beginning of 1757 conditions were so bad that he was 
 recalled. 9 
 
 Georgia therefore in these transitional years was in the condi- 
 tion of unrest natural to a state under constantly changing leader- 
 ship. There was the Trustees' Indian act still in force, yet with no 
 force behind to lend it power. 10 Waiting as it was for a royal 
 proclamation to put an automatic end to it in 1754, the act 
 inevitably fell into poor enforcement and confusion. Moreover, 
 the Board of Trade in England, lacking the incentive which an 
 influential and strong Georgia governor would have offered, began 
 sadly to neglect the southern frontier of their American colonies 
 and Georgia found itself without troops, adequate trading goods 
 or even presents with which to hold Indian allegiance. 11 Added 
 to this was the increased activity of the French and Spanish colon- 
 ists among the Indians. Sensing the sure approach of war 12 they 
 realized the value of the Indians as potential allies and persisted in 
 their intrigues. These intrigues were as we shall see richly re- 
 warded by the fickle red man as soon as he realized that the English 
 had temporarily less to offer. 
 
 Two things, then, were inevitable in this period. It was certain 
 that the importance of the red man as a source of trading sup- 
 plies would become less and his value as a potential ally would 
 become greater to all three colonizing nations. And it was natural 
 that in the face of the adverse conditions above mentioned Georgia 
 should shift from the aggressive expansive position she had held 
 for the past twenty years to a defensive one. 
 
 These changes were not immediately apparent and during the 
 first two years of the interregnum Indian allegiance continued 
 much as it had in the past. It was in this time that de Vaudreuil, 
 governor of Louisiana, sent the third and last French expedition 
 against the Chickasaws and was defeated. 13 The defeat marked the 
 
 9 Ga. C. R., VII, p. 485. 
 
 io A.P.C.C., IV, No. 149, pp. 126-127. 
 
 ii Ga. C. R., VII, p. 35. 
 
 12 Baker-Crothers, Hayes, Virginia and the French and Indian War, 
 stresses the Ohio region fur trade as a cause for the French and Indian War. 
 
 1 3 Calendar of Manuscripts in Paris Archives and Libraries relating to the 
 history of the Mississippi Valley to 1803, edited by Surrey, Mrs. N. M. Miller, 
 II, p. 1207, and Gayarre, Charles, History of Louisiana, II, pp. 64-65. 
 
136 Indian .Iff airs in Georgia 
 
 end of any real effort on the part of the French to destroy the 
 Chickasaws. Though de Vaudreuil and his successor Kerelac con- 
 tinued to send the Choctaws against their enemies 14 and to annoy 
 them in other petty ways nothing was accomplished. The English 
 redoubled their efforts to strengthen their friendship with the 
 Chickasaws, and the friendship persisted. 
 
 The Choctaws on the other hand remained, as before, loyal to 
 the French. The Choctaw revolt had ended in 1750 with the com- 
 plete victory of the French faction. 15 The English continued to 
 make sporadic efforts to gain Choctaw friendship, but these efforts 
 were only feeble and the Choctaws never became their friends. 
 Similarly the Yamassee remained as they had been before and were 
 to continue for some time, allies of the Spanish. The Georgians 
 made no efforts to win them over partly because they were too 
 few in number to bother with, but chiefly because the Creeks hated 
 the Yamassee and any English- Yamassee alliance would have 
 imperilled British prestige among this powerful and dangerous 
 people. 
 
 Trouble enough was already brewing among the Creeks. This 
 had been in the wind since the descent of Mary Musgrove Bosom- 
 worth and her Creek warriors upon Savannah. 16 Though this 
 episode had injured Mary's prestige it had also injured the prestige 
 of Georgia, and the Creeks had not since been as friendly as 
 formerly. There was also trouble among the Cherokees though 
 it was not to boil over until some years later. These difficulties 
 were due more than anything else to a change in the attitude of 
 Georgia, a change which though prompted by necessity was to be 
 costly. Georgia, as we have said, had ceased to be aggressive. It 
 was no longer holding firm its own alliances with one hand while 
 reaching westward with the other to intrigue with French allies. 
 Georgia was instead retrenching and finding itself hard put to hold 
 the ground already won. This retrenchment, as we have said, was 
 
 1 4 Surrey, Mrs. N. M. Miller, Calendar, II, p. 1215. 
 
 15 Archives Nationales, Colonies, Series C-13, A. 35, 61-69, L. C. Tran- 
 scripts. For the terms of the peace which Grand-Pre, commandant at Fort 
 Tombekbe, forced on the Choctaws, see ibid. 
 
 16 Ga. C. R., VI, pp. 252-280. 
 
Beginning of a New Regime 137 
 
 explained by the failure of the Board of Trade to provide adequate 
 protection for the southern frontier, by the confusion attendant 
 upon the constantly shifting authority in Savannah and by the co- 
 incident increase of French efforts among the Indians. 
 
 Georgia therefore was in no position to pay as much attention to 
 the Cherokees as she had earlier but left all attempts to win them 
 in South Carolinian hands. In 1753 the Carolinians built Fort 
 Prince George in the lower Cherokee country opposite Keowee 
 as a defense and to gain prestige among the Cherokees. 17 The chief 
 effect however turned out to be a stirring of the French to still 
 greater activity and a heightening of the rivalry of the two nations. 
 Georgia paid little heed to this rivalry but bent her attentions upon 
 the Creeks, for in the years 1752 to 1754 the French and the Span- 
 iards were gaining new successes with every day that passed. The 
 French were particularly successful with the Upper Creeks, and 
 made some headway even with the Lower Creeks. By 1754 the 
 French were making great inroads toward winning both the Creeks 
 and the Cherokees. Indeed so severe was the loss of Indian al- 
 legiance to the British at this time that had it been permanent it 
 might have changed the entire history of the southeast. 
 
 In July 1754 the French commander of Fort Toulouse invited all 
 the chiefs of the Upper Creeks to come to the fort for a con- 
 ference. 18 This they did, and after a parley were presented with 
 presents. So effective were the presents that when the commander 
 suggested that they go to Mobile for another parley they readily 
 agreed. 19 At Mobile Kerelac, governor of Louisiana, was waiting 
 to greet them and present the French case. He showed the Creeks 
 a letter, forged in red ink, and produced a captain whom he said 
 was the bearer of the letter. 20 The letter, Kerelac explained, was 
 from the governor of South Carolina and suggested that the French 
 and English combine to destroy the Indians. 21 Hoary though the 
 device was, it was highly effective. When Kerelac continued by 
 urging the Creeks to accept French protection and join them in 
 
 17 Hamer, P. M., "Anglo-French Rivalry in the Cherokee Country 1754- 
 1757," in N. C. Hist. Rev., II, (1925), pp. 303-322. 
 is Ga. C. R., VII, pp. 41-42. 
 
 19 Ibid., VII, p. 19. 
 
 20 ibid., VII, pp. 39-40. 
 2i Ibid., VII, p. 42, 
 
138 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 attacking the English the Indians were temporarily at least won 
 over. 22 At the same time the Spaniards were meeting chiefs of the 
 Lower Creeks at St. Marks, holding parley and persuading them 
 against the English. 23 
 
 It is clear that when the interregnum in Georgia was terminated 
 in October 1754 by the arrival of Governor Reynolds, there was 
 dire need for a strong and wise leader. But Reynolds as we have 
 already said was not such a leader. Moreover he was still lacking 
 Indian presents or support of any kind from the Board of Trade. 24 
 Reynolds did what he could, however, and as soon as he assumed 
 office turned his attention to the matter of the dangerous French 
 intrigue among the Upper Creeks. The retiring president and as- 
 sistants had voted the previous August to send what remaining 
 presents they had to the faithful Chickasaws and Lower Creeks. 25 
 When Reynolds took office, presents to the Chickasaws had already 
 been dispatched, but those to the Lower Creeks had not. Accord- 
 ingly Governor Reynolds and his council, who had succeeded the 
 assistants, now voted that these presents should not be sent, feeling 
 that should the Upper Creeks learn of them they would expect 
 similar treatment. The amount of presents was too small to 
 divide, and the only solution was to send none at all. This reason- 
 ing was doubtless sound. It is however illustrative of the defen- 
 sive attitude adopted by the colony that such a negative action 
 was the best Reynolds could concoct to offset the French and 
 Spanish activities. 26 Both he and the council realized that their 
 first need was presents and supplies, but there seemed to be 
 no way of acquiring them. 
 
 Insult was added to injury in January 1755, when Reynolds re- 
 ceived a letter from Sir Thomas Robinson, secretary of state for 
 the southern department asking that troops be raised for use 
 against Canada. 27 The French and Indian War was then well in 
 progress but it had not yet reached the limits of Georgia, though 
 
 22 Ga. C. R„ VII, pp. 39-40. 
 ™Ibid., VII, pp. 33-34. 
 
 24 ibid., VII, pp. 35, 42. 
 
 25 ibid., VII, pp. 20-21. 
 ™Ibid., VII, p. 98. 
 
 27 Ibid., XIII, pp. 46-47. 
 
Beginning of a New Regime 139 
 
 news of it was everywhere. Reynolds presented this letter to the 
 Assembly which advised him somewhat tartly that instead of being 
 able to send recruits to aid the north, Georgia was sorely in need 
 of regular troops for her own defense. Nevertheless the request 
 for aid for the north was repeated the next month. 28 
 
 The lack of presents continued to be the chief weakness of 
 Georgia. In March, 1755, for example, twenty-five Lower Creeks 
 appeared at Savannah and asked for presents. 29 Reynolds was 
 forced to tell them that none was available and gave them as a 
 substitute guns, powder and balls to hunt with on their way home, 
 a substitute which Georgia could scarcely spare at the time. Again 
 a short time later George Galphin, the trader at Coweta, after much 
 argument persuaded the Lower Creeks there not to go to Mobile 
 or to St. Marks until they had visited Savannah. 30 He wrote Rey- 
 nolds to tell him that the Indians were coming to Savannah and 
 was told that there were not gifts available for the visitors. In 
 May, 1755, twenty-eight Cherokees came to Savannah to pay their 
 respects to the Georgia governor, but with the usual covetous gleam 
 in their eyes. 32 They were greeted warmly and told that presents 
 were daily expected but had been delayed. This explanation, how- 
 ever, satisfied the Cherokees so little that they vented their resent- 
 ment all along the way home by disorderly conduct. 33 The follow- 
 ing month some of the Chickasaws who had settled near Augusta 
 paid a visit to Savannah. 34 Reynolds again made his evasive state- 
 ment about the presents and in this case even promised to send 
 them to Augusta as soon as they should arrive, but even these 
 friendly Indians considered the lack as a personal slight and be- 
 haved insolently to all the whites they encountered on their return 
 trip. 35 
 
 The French were clever enough to take advantage of this Eng- 
 lish scarcity and played up their own comparative abundance in 
 
 '28 Ga. C. R., XVI, pp. 46-47. 
 29 ibid., VII, p. 135. 
 so Ibid., VII, pp. 172-173. 
 3i Ibid., VII, p. 173. 
 wibid., VII, p. 179. 
 
 33 Ibid., VII, p. 182. 
 
 34 Ibid., VII, p. 206. 
 
 35 Ibid., VII, p. 211. 
 
140 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 every way possible. In the spring of 1755, just when the English 
 were having their greatest difficulties, they held another conference 
 at Mobile with the Upper Creeks at which presents in plentiful 
 supply were given out with large promises of more to follow. 36 
 The tables were reversed and, just as some years before the In- 
 dians had turned from the French to the English because of the 
 better and more bountiful goods, now they turned from the Eng- 
 lish to the French. 37 The French doubtless considered it no more 
 than just retribution, but the English felt that it was a definite 
 menace to their safety. 
 
 All through 1755 the Indian visits continued only to end each 
 time in the guests going away empty handed. 38 The threats of 
 enmity became greater and the Georgians became seriously alarmed. 
 Then in December came an episode which in the hands of an Ogle- 
 thorpe might have swung the balance in favor of the English once 
 more. A conference was called for the purpose of discussing the 
 Bosomworth claims. 39 At this conference Reynolds was to meet 
 both the Upper and Lower Creek chieftains at Augusta. More- 
 over a small supply of presents had at last been received. The 
 stage seemed set for the governor by tactful words and friendly 
 expansive gestures to restore the waning prestige of his people. 
 But more through stupidity than through negligence Reynolds let 
 the opportunity slide entirely. He remained at the conference only 
 one day and then returned to Savannah leaving the work to be done 
 by William Little, clerk of the assembly. 40 Little was no more 
 skillful a man than Reynolds, for instead of swaying the conference 
 he let it end in a vote to support the claims of the Bosomworths, 41 
 a vote which Reynolds immediately repudiated upon hearing of it. 
 The result was that the conference ended in increased hard feelings 
 between the Creeks and the English. 
 
 News of French success with the Creeks continued to filter 
 through the forests. The Georgians particularly at Augusta felt 
 
 36 Ga. C. R., VII, p. 173. 
 z? Ibid., VII, p. 251. 
 
 38 Ibid., VII, p. 268. 
 
 39 Ibid., XIII, pp. 82-83. 
 
 40 Journal of the Board of Trade, January 1754 to December 1758, X, 
 p. 391. 
 
 41 Bosomworth Controversy MSS., p. 51, 
 
Beginning of a New Regime 141 
 
 that a combined French and Creek attack was likely at any moment. 
 The whole colony was on edge in the fear that something would 
 happen to alienate the Creeks further. They felt that a small in- 
 cident was all that was needed to precipitate a Creek war. Such 
 an incident was inevitably forthcoming. In September of 1756 
 Edward Brown a settler on the Ogeechee had his horses stolen by 
 some Upper Creeks. 42 In a natural anger he got together seven of 
 his neighbors and followed the thieving Indians. A fight resulted, 
 and two Creeks were killed. These murders stirred the entire 
 colony, for the colonists realized that the Creeks were bound to 
 seek revenge. The settlements on the Ogeechee were abandoned. 
 The settlers fled to Augusta for refuge, only to find that the fort 
 there was in ruins from neglect and too small in any case to contain 
 the refugees. Knowing that any real Indian attack could end only 
 in massacre the people appealed to Reynolds for aid asking that he 
 get men from South Carolina if necessary. 43 Now here was a crisis 
 which Reynolds, military man that he was, could cope with. He 
 immediately raised a company of seventy rangers and prepared for 
 defense. 44 Yet the colony felt no great confidence for it realized 
 that should the Creeks and the French attack in force it was 
 doomed. Fortunately, before this could happen an Upper Creek 
 chief, Oboylaco, came to Savannah and was received by Reynolds, 
 his council and the assembly. 45 He was in a belligerent mood and 
 demanded satisfaction for the murder of the two Creeks, but 
 Reynolds for once showed a flash of diplomacy, for he explained 
 that in the fight two white men had also been killed and thus a 
 life already had been given for a life, and no further satisfaction 
 was due. He also scraped together what he could in the way of 
 presents, heaped them upon the Indian and promised his people, 
 the Upper Creeks, every sort of English aid. The chief departed 
 satisfied and the crisis was averted. 46 This did not mean however 
 that the Upper Creeks had been won back to the English. They 
 were still definitely hostile and more and more in the French in- 
 
 42 Go. C. R. t VII, pp. 392-393. 
 
 43 ibid., VII, pp. 393-394. 
 
 44 ibid., VII, p. 400; XVI, p. 84. 
 
 45 Ibid., VII, pp. 419-420. 
 **Ibid. t VII, pp. 420-425. 
 
142 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 terest. By the end of 1756 the Georgians considered the Upper 
 Creeks entirely lost as allies, for it was discovered that the Upper 
 Creeks had made a treaty with the Choctaws promising them 
 support and threatening to fight the Chickasaws if they did not 
 join in war on Georgia and South Carolina. 47 
 
 In all this trouble there was one apparent bright spot. Word 
 came to Georgia that the Carolinians and the Virginians had man- 
 aged to induce the Cherokees to reaffirm their wavering allegiance. 
 Georgia as we know had been unable to concern itself with these 
 people but the news of continued French inroads upon the Cherokee 
 loyalty had been extremely alarming. Now apparently all was well 
 in that quarter. The Carolinians had continued their policy of 
 building forts at strategic points and had begun to build Fort Lou- 
 doun on the Little Tennessee river in 1756. 48 The Virginians 
 furthermore had erected another log fort in 1756 on the same 
 river near Chotte, the chief of the Overhill towns. 49 By the end 
 of that year the English appeared well established in Cherokee 
 friendship. But this friendship was more apparent than real, for 
 in spite of their vows of allegiance the Cherokees were listening 
 with a willing ear to the French agents. The bloody Cherokee 
 war of 1757-1761 was in the offing. Though all seemed calm, the 
 Cherokees were like a volcano smouldering within, but giving off 
 no warning signs of the impending eruption. 
 
 Meanwhile war was continuing in the north and going none too 
 well for the English. Troops became a crying need, and in March 
 1756, Henry Fox, the secretary of state for the southern depart- 
 ment wrote to Reynolds from London that the Earl of Loudoun had 
 been appointed commander in chief of all the British forces in 
 North America, and once more asked him to send recruits to Lou- 
 doun's aid. 50 But Georgia as we have seen was in no better posi- 
 tion to give aid than before and when Reynolds referred this letter 
 to the assembly they once more advised him that such a step was 
 
 47 Ga. C. R., XVI, pp. 161-162. 
 
 43 Hamer, P. M., "Fort Loudoun in the Cherokee War, 1758-1761," in 
 N. C. Hist. Rev., II (1925), pp. 442-458. 
 
 49 Hamer, P. M., "Anglo-French Rivalry in the Cherokee War, 1754-1757," 
 in N. C. Hist Rev., II, (1925), pp. 303-322. 
 
 so Ga. C. R., XVI, pp. 87-88. 
 
Beginning of a New Regime 143 
 
 impossible. 51 In November Loudoun himself wrote to Reynolds 
 telling of the fall of Oswego and declaring that Georgia would now 
 probably have the weight of the entire French Indian power on 
 its back. 52 He warned Reynolds to put the Georgia frontiers in 
 a state of defense and closed his letter by asking once more that 
 Georgia send recruits to aid him. This last was of course out of 
 the question and when Reynolds consulted the assembly they de- 
 clared that far from being able to send troops they should receive 
 them to aid in their own defense. 53 
 
 Conditions rested thus until the beginning of the next year and 
 the recall of Reynolds who was replaced by Henry Ellis, an able 
 man who was to take up the reins with a firm hand and once more 
 swing the Creeks back toward English allegiance. Reynolds left 
 Georgia with the Creeks alienated, the Cherokees though appar- 
 ently friendly on the verge of revolt and only the distant Chicka- 
 saws still loyal to the English. He left Georgia poor and defenseless 
 and fearful of attack from both the French and the Indians. But 
 in spite of Reynolds' shortcomings as administrator his arrival 
 had marked an important milestone in the history of Georgia for 
 the entire character of the colony, at least from the point of view 
 of government, was now changed. Under the Trustees the gov- 
 erning body for Georgia in England had been the Trustees them- 
 selves. It was they who had appointed the Indian Commissioner 
 and the president, and to them that these Georgia officials were 
 directly responsible. Fearing and disliking the Board of Trade 
 and the Privy Council they had avoided contact with these bodies 
 in every way possible. It was precisely because all laws passed by 
 them required the approval of the Privy Council that they had 
 passed so few laws, 54 and governed almost entirely by regulations. 
 When they gave up their charter however the control of 
 Georgia passed immediately into the hands of the Board of Trade 
 which was then at the height of its power under Halifax. 55 The 
 
 51 Va. C. R., XVI, p. 91. 
 
 52 Ibid., XVI, pp. 96-98. 
 
 53 Ibid., XVI, p. 105. 
 
 54 The Trustees passed only three laws, all of which received the royal 
 approval in 1735. 
 
 55 On this subject see Basye, A. H., The Lords Commissioners of Trade 
 and Plantations, commonly known as the Board of Trade, 1748-1782, Chap. 
 II, "The Halifax Period, 1748-1761," pp. 32-104. 
 
144 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 royal governor and his council were responsible to the Board of 
 Trade and through it to the Privy Council and the king. In Indian 
 matters the governor and the courts under him were thus re- 
 sponsible to the crown. Georgia had become a unit in the imperial 
 scheme in a sense which it had not been before. 
 
 The new governor in dealing with the Indians naturally carried 
 on many fundamental practices which had been found of value 
 under the Trustees. The giving of Indian presents whenever they 
 were available, the entertainment of the Indians, the use of the 
 influence of the English traders among the Indians, and the holding 
 of frequent parleys extolling the greatness of the English and their 
 value to the Indians; all these were just as they had been in the 
 time of Oglethorpe. But there were many changes as well. The 
 royal governor when addressing the Indians spoke as a representa- 
 tive of the king, whereas the commissioner had always spoken as a 
 representative of the Trustees. All presents were henceforth given 
 in the name of the king and all advantages similarly so offered. 
 Every effort was made to create the feeling among the Indians that 
 the king was their natural ruler; a supreme benevolent being to 
 whom they were subject, not a distant chief with whom they were 
 allied. These efforts were not immediately successful in Georgia, 
 but this was not due to any weakness of the fundamental policy. 
 Other outside factors were clearly to blame : the opposing influence 
 of the French and Spanish coupled with Georgia's temporary lack 
 of goods and presents, the absence of any dynamic personality in 
 control of Georgia Indian affairs, the unsettling effects of war. 
 
 Further and more radical changes came in 1756 and they were 
 sorely needed. Georgia was ready to welcome any new system 
 which would help to regain the support of the Indians, and Georgia 
 was only one of the many colonies which felt this need. The fail- 
 ure of the Albany Congress, Braddock's defeat and the continuation 
 of the war all pointed toward the need of a new and more cen- 
 tralized Indian policy in America. An imperial war was being 
 waged and an imperial policy was the natural outcome. The 
 English were no longer competing with the French for Indian trade 
 or even Indian land; they were fighting for their very existence 
 in America. The Indian was a very important figure in this con- 
 
Beginning of a Nezv Regime 145 
 
 flict, and the English sought his aid in war even more eagerly than 
 they had his trade in peace-time. 
 
 A plan was accordingly drawn up by which the Indians east of 
 the Mississippi were arbitrarily divided into two administrative 
 districts, a northern and a southern district with one central super- 
 intendent over each. 56 To these superintendents the royal gover- 
 nors who controlled the local Indian policies were responsible. 
 They were to make reports and refer all difficult problems of Indian 
 relations to them. In Georgia the actual workings of this plan 
 were slow in coming about. Edmund Atkin, a South Carolinian, 
 was made superintendent of the southern district within which 
 Georgia naturally fell. He did not take office until 1758, and never 
 made any real use of his position, but the framework of the or- 
 ganization was there, and the beginnings of a centralized control 
 of the Indians had been made. Almost without their knowledge 
 and certainly without their consent the red men had been trans- 
 formed into subjects of the crown. Even as they roamed the 
 forest and listened to the promises of the Frenchmen lines were be- 
 ing cast out with the purpose of binding them fast to England. 
 This policy was to be pursued with vigor under the able John 
 Stuart, but for the present it was enough that the organization 
 had been formed. From 1756 to the close of the war the Indian 
 superintendents and therefore the Indians themselves were under 
 the control of the British military commanders. This might be 
 considered only a natural war-time step, but in reality it struck 
 deeper. Georgia had gone through a number of strenuous military 
 crises under the Trustees, yet to them the Indians had been no 
 more than potential allies. A change had taken place in the British 
 Indian policy. 
 
 We shall leave the relations between Georgia and the Indians 
 with the beginning of the new centralized policy and locally with 
 the accession of Henry Ellis, the successor of Reynolds. Ellis was 
 a most capable man and did much to draw the Indians back in line 
 for Georgia but since his administration lies beyond the field of this 
 thesis let us only mention one instance of his work, a conference 
 
 56 On this subject see Shaw, Helen Louise, British Administration of the 
 Southern Indians, 1756-1782, pp. 3-4. 
 
146 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 which was held by Ellis and Governor Lyttleton of South Carolina 
 and Colonel Bouquet, commander of the King's forces in southern 
 America, at Savannah in October 1757. 57 This conference which 
 was attended by both the Creeks and the Cherokees did much to 
 undo the evil wrought by the unsettled interregnum and bring the 
 Creeks back to the English. It did not, as we know, regain the 
 loyalty of the Cherokees, but it is interesting as being the final step 
 which marked the change of Indian policy in Georgia from local 
 and mercantile to imperial and military. 
 
 57 Coulter, E. M., A Short History of Georgia, p. 83. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 Thus we have Georgia, a weak experimental colony, coming into 
 being partly as a result of the idealism of a group of philanthropic 
 Englishmen, but more as a result of the fear felt by South Caro- 
 lina: fear of French and Spanish aggression, and especially fear 
 of the Creek and Yamassee Indians whose territory bordered so 
 closely on the settlement. The Yamassee had much earlier 
 been driven back but their return was a constant menace to Caro- 
 lina safety. The Creeks had for years lived in and around what 
 was to be called the Georgia country and though the Carolinians 
 had had fairly satisfactory trading arrangements with them, Creek 
 raids and outrages had been frequent, the Creeks as we know being 
 a fickle people. There had taken place earlier in the century the 
 savage South Carolinia-Yamassee war. Carolina therefore felt 
 much safer with other white people interposed between itself and 
 the undependable red men. 
 
 Georgia was established as a useful buffer to the richer more 
 populous colony to the north, but Georgia had not been settled 
 very long before the northern colony must have realized that this 
 buffer, this tool of defense which it had urged the king to interpose 
 between itself and southern dangers was a much more active and 
 independent force than it had expected. Almost immediately in- 
 stead of acting merely as an outpost of defense Georgia took steps 
 to make of itself an emissary of peace. Meetings were held with 
 the Creeks, treaties made, friendships won and from the first years 
 of the settling of Georgia to the end of the Trustees' control there 
 existed a Creek-English alliance, which though frequently strained 
 was never for long entirely broken. And so in a different way 
 from which it had expected Carolina received protection from the 
 presence of Georgia but it was the protection of peace with the 
 Creeks, not solely the protection of a defensive outpost. The 
 
 147 
 
148 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Yamassee, of course, having retreated further and further south 
 to be near their allies the Spanish, were less a menace during this 
 period than they had earlier been or than the Carolinas had expected 
 them to be. 
 
 The Indian problem of Georgia was threefold: to gain the 
 friendship of the Indians so that they should not resent the intru- 
 sion of the English upon their land and thus make it impossible for 
 the colony to exist, to gain the alliance of the Indian in questions of 
 war against the other and hostile whites further south, to gain the 
 co-operation of the Indian in matters of trade. All of these prob- 
 lems, as we have seen, Georgia resolved admirably and in many 
 ways more successfully than had the richer and more powerful 
 Carolina. It made peace with the surrounding Indians and little by 
 little through treaty and conference persuaded those Indians to cede 
 in friendship to the whites large portions of their land. It won the 
 support of the most powerful Indians of that district in time of war 
 with Spain. Though in matters of trade it never surpassed or even 
 equalled its more powerful neighbor Carolina and was vanquished 
 in the legal controversy which this trade brought about, it still set 
 itself up as a much more formidable rival than Carolina could 
 possibly have expected and managed to keep a large proportion of 
 the deerskin trade profits in its own small and somewhat puny 
 hands. 
 
 There can be little doubt that the success of Georgia in all these 
 matters was largely due to the power and personality of one man : 
 Oglethorpe. It was through him that the policy of friendship, 
 kindliness and fairness to the Indians was carried out; he it was 
 who made the treaties with them and who rallied them to his sup- 
 port in time of war. Equally important, it was he who evolved the 
 method of controlling the valuable Creeks through setting up in 
 their midst a figure of great prestige and influence who as the 
 representative of the Trustees was able to sway the red men in 
 whatever way Oglethorpe found necessary and expedient. In 
 other words, Oglethorpe was not only a kind and just man, but 
 also a very clever one. It is scarcely too strong to say that it was 
 to Oglethorpe and thus indirectly to Georgia that Carolina and 
 England owed the continued support of the Creeks and quite pos- 
 
Conclusions 149 
 
 sibly therefore the control of the Georgia territory, for had the 
 Creeks gone permanently over to the French and the Spanish as they 
 so many times came near to doing, it is probable that the Cherokees 
 would have also, and the English would have been very hard put 
 to it indeed to hold this territory against the combined efforts of 
 the French, Spanish and Indians. Though Oglethorpe left Georgia 
 in 1743, thirteen years before the end of our period, it was his 
 influence and the carrying out of his principles by his successors in 
 matters of both war and peace that insured the success of the 
 English among the southern red men. It might also be remarked 
 that it was only after the end of Oglethorpe's control that such 
 conflicts arose as those with Mary Musgrove Matthews Bosom- 
 worth, or that there was any serious danger of the loss of the 
 Creek and Cherokee friendship. 
 
 But while giving Oglethorpe full credit for all he did with the 
 Indians at this time we must not forget that one very important 
 factor was working on his side, a material factor which appealed 
 to the covetous instinct of the red men : the English had always a 
 more bountiful supply of presents and trading goods and also a 
 much more liberal policy in matters of payment for deerskins. It 
 is certain that this factor alone was of tremendous importance in 
 keeping the balance of Indian control in the hands of the English. 
 
 Opposed to the English in all matters of Indian control were 
 the French in Louisiana and the Spanish in Florida. These two 
 powers though originally rivals in the second decade of the eight- 
 eenth century, had by the time of the founding of Georgia drawn 
 together for common support against the English whom they were 
 beginning to see were a great menace to any other country wishing 
 to keep its foothold in the new world. Each of these countries 
 in the period with which we are concerned had conflicts with the 
 English and especially with Georgia in matters of trade and in 
 matters of war. Each of them was continually intriguing and 
 scheming to take the control of the English-favoring Indians away 
 from the English just as the English were constantly scheming and 
 working to take the control of the French and Spanish Indians 
 away from the French and Spanish. 
 
 With Spain, who as long as she retained her foothold in Florida 
 
150 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 had the support of the Yamassees, the main question was one of 
 Creek control. The reason for this was that the Creeks lived in 
 and bordered on the territory between Florida and Georgia which 
 was claimed and sought after by both colonies. As we have seen 
 the Spanish were never successful for long, partly because of the 
 superior and more plentiful trading goods of the English but also 
 because the English were wont to employ direct and openly friendly 
 methods with the Indians while the Spaniards relied more on 
 threats and trickery. The Spanish relations with the Indians in 
 this period therefore, except as far as the Yamassees were con- 
 cerned, were as Montiano himself said in 1743 a matter of making 
 much effort and having nothing to show for it. 
 
 The French had a more complex situation and presented a 
 broader problem to the English. In the first place many more 
 Indian nations were concerned, for the French and English were 
 rivals for nearly every Indian nation in that district and through 
 the whole period constantly intrigued each to take allies away from 
 the other. The English constantly worked to lure the Choctaws 
 away from the French, and a number of times nearly succeeded, 
 while the French never ceased in their efforts to win the Creeks 
 and the Cherokees away from the English, likewise with occasional 
 periods of success. The French moreover spent many bloody 
 years trying to exterminate the Chickasaws because they were 
 lifelong allies of their enemies the English. The French problem 
 was of course a matter of communication. Having colonies and 
 possessions in both Louisiana and Canada the French ambition was 
 to establish communications between the two by means of the 
 Mississippi. In the path of this stood the Chickasaws and also 
 to some extent the Creeks, both allies of the English. Through 
 these two people the English worked constantly to keep the 
 French from attaining their ambition and were entirely suc- 
 cessful until shortly before the opening of the French and Indian 
 war in the second half of the eighteenth century. The English 
 feared French encirclement of their own colonies, which was one 
 object the French had in mind. And so we have during this 
 whole period a conflict between these two European nations with 
 
Conclusions 151 
 
 the various Indian tribes used as pawns in a great game of inter- 
 national chess. By the beginning of the Seven Years War the 
 French were probably as strong as they had ever been and as in- 
 fluential with the Indians but it is perhaps a victory to the English 
 that they were no stronger and had got no further toward attaining 
 their end. 
 
 With the French as with the Spaniards there were differences 
 and similarities between theirs and those of the English methods of 
 control. Again on the side of the English were the better trading 
 goods and more plentiful presents, and the more friendly tactics. 
 But on the side of the French was a keen understanding of Indian 
 personality which showed itself in their manner of intrigue and 
 the fact that they so many times nearly won the English allies over 
 to their side. Points of similarity are perhaps more numerous and 
 it is amusing to see how frequently the same methods crop up in 
 different places, used by different nations against different Indian 
 tribes. There was the so frequently told story that the enemy was 
 only using the Indian as a tool to conquer an opposing Indian tribe 
 after which the whites intended to destroy their red allies. This 
 the French used with the Creeks, and the English used with the 
 Choctaws. There was the argument so frequently used by the 
 minority side with the Indians : why not trade with both nations 
 and therefore gain twice as many presents and profits ? This was 
 used by the French among the Cherokees, the English among the 
 Choctaws, the Spaniards among the Creeks. There were the con- 
 stant attempts to injure the prestige of the opposing white men, 
 and the constant attempts of all three nations to play on the Creeks' 
 desire to keep the balance of power. 
 
 Through all this the Indian stands out as a race of fickle change- 
 able people, and the Indian background against which the three 
 European nations played their little games is a constantly shifting 
 one. The Indian friend of today was the Indian enemy of tomorrow 
 and even with the most loyal of allies constant efforts had to be 
 made to keep bright the chain of friendship, and to keep down all 
 attempts to weld a counter chain of friendship in another direction. 
 
 The story of Georgia, in the years we have under consideration, 
 is only a part of the much larger story of the westward expansion 
 
\S2 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 of a great people, and this must never be lost sight of in the con- 
 sideration of local interests. Georgia was a military outpost, it is 
 true, but it was also a growing and expanding colony, extending 
 its settlements up the Savannah and Altamaha rivers and spreading 
 them southward along the coast from Tybee Island to St. Simons 
 Island. Georgia traders were ranging the forest from Savannah to 
 the Choctaw and Chickasaw villages in the west and the towns of 
 the Lower Creeks in the south. The restless spirit which caused 
 Oglethorpe to lead his first shipload of Georgians into the wilder- 
 ness also animated the settlers who followed in the wake of these 
 pioneers. The movement was only beginning by 1756 and was not 
 to reach its height until decades later, but it was a sturdy beginning. 
 
 Both the French and Spanish recognized the danger of thif 
 expansionist movement. Bienville had recognized the danger to 
 Louisiana as soon as he heard of the founding of the colony and 
 had warned his countrymen of it in 1733. The Spaniards also 
 were alert to the threat against their interests which the estab- 
 lishment of Georgia offered and tried desperately to destroy the 
 new colony before it grew too strong to be crushed. But English 
 courage and resourcefulness, coupled with fortunate circumstances 
 prevailed, and Georgia remained to fulfil its destiny, to expand 
 to the west and to see both Louisiana and Florida pass under the 
 same flag as itself. 
 
 Throughout the period we have studied, the international rivalry 
 in the southeast steadily increased in activity and volume. Intrigue 
 for the support of the red man was incessant. His value was 
 immeasurable in matters of trade, expansion, and war, and as the 
 war clouds gathered more darkly in the middle of the century the 
 Indian played a role of increasing importance. He was the key- 
 stone for three rival ambitions : the French hope of encirclement, 
 the Spanish claims to the territory of Georgia, and the restless urge 
 of the English for westward expansion. The French ambition was 
 never realized, Spain's title was never made good, but the wave of 
 English expansion continued southward and westward, an expan- 
 sion which was made possible only by the achievements of the 
 Georgia settlers in winning and holding the allegiance of the Indians 
 in these early years. 
 
Abbreviations 
 
 C. O. — Colonial Office 
 
 H. M. Stationery Office — His Majesty's Stationery Office 
 
 L. C. — Library of Congress 
 
 Map Div. — Map Division 
 
 S. P. G. — Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts 
 
 153 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 CONTEMPORARY SOURCES 
 
 A. Manuscripts : 
 Public Record Office * 
 Colonial Office Papers 
 C. O. 5:5 (Plantations general, 1733-1748). 
 C. O. 5:41-42 (Carthagena Expedition 1740-1741, 1740-1743). 
 C. O. 5:283 ("Some Observations on the Rights of the Crown of 
 Great Britain to the Northwestern Continent of America, presented 
 to the Duke of Newcastle, by Harmon Verelst, April 16, 1739"). 
 Verelst was the faithful and careful accountant of the Georgia 
 Trustees. 
 C. O. 5:373 (South Carolina. Original Papers, Letters, etc., from 
 
 the Governors.) 
 C. O. 5:1324-1327 (Virginia. Original Papers, Letters and Enclos- 
 ures to the Board of Trade from the Governors.) 
 C. O. 5:1337-1338 (Virginia. 1694-1753. Letters from the Governors, 
 Alexander Spotswood to Robert Dinwiddie, to the Secretary of 
 State.) 
 C. O. 5:1344 (Virginia. 1722-1780, 1783. Miscellaneous.) 
 C. O. 5:1366 (Entry Books of the Board of Trade.) 
 British Museum t 
 Additional MSS 32,691; 32,695; 32,699; 32,700; 32,702; 32,794; 32,797; 
 32,859 ; 33,028. These are a part of the Newcastle Papers. 
 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts t 
 S.P.G.— Dr. Bray's Associates MSS— Minute Books— I, 1735-1768. The 
 Associates of the late Reverend Dr. Bray was the parent organization 
 of the Georgia Trust. 
 S.P.G. MSS Series B XII, XIII. 
 Archives Nationales, Colonies t 
 
 * Documents in these archives are cited from the British transcripts and 
 photostats in the Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division. See Andrews, 
 C. M., Guide to the Materials for American History to 1783, in the Public 
 Record Office of Great Britain. Washington : Carnegie Institution of Wash- 
 ington, I, 1912. II, 1914. 
 
 t Documents in these archives are cited from the British transcripts in the 
 Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division. See Andrews, C. M., and Daven- 
 port, F. G., Guide to the Manuscript Materials for the History of the United 
 States to 1783, in the British Museum, in Minor London Archives, and in the 
 Libraries of Oxford and Cambridge. Washington, Carnegie Institution of 
 Washington, 1908. 
 
 X Documents in these archives are cited from transcripts in the Library 
 of Congress, Manuscripts Division. See Surrey, N. M. Miller, Calendar of 
 Manuscripts in Paris Archives and Libraries relating to the history of the 
 Mississippi Valley to 1803. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washing- 
 ton, I, 1926; II, 1928. 
 
 155 
 
156 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Series A, vols. XXII, XXIII (1712-1754). These volumes contain 
 letters patent, royal edicts and orders, arrets of the Royal Council of 
 State, commissions to officials, appointments, and other acts of sover- 
 eign power relating to Louisiana, its government and administration. 
 They also contain arrets, ordonnances, and regulations of the governor 
 and ordonnateur of the colony. (Report of the Librarian of Congress 
 for 1921 p. 179). 
 Series B, vols. XXV-CXXXI selected (1704-1769). This series consists 
 of the registers of the letters and other documents despatched by the 
 home government in France to colonial officials. They include instruc- 
 tions, orders, commissions, letters, etc. from the King, the Ministry of 
 the Marine (which included the department of the colonies) and 
 others, addressed to officials in the colonies, to merchants, to officials 
 of the home government and to others. In each volume the documents 
 are arranged in groups by colonies and ports, e.g. Canada, Louisiana, 
 etc. The documents copied for the Library of Congress are those 
 comprising the groups under the head "Louisiana." This material is 
 of fundamental importance for the study of colonial control and ad- 
 ministration. (Report of the Librarian of Congress for 1921 p. 180.) 
 Series C 13 (1678-1769) 54 vols. This is known as "Correspondance 
 generate de la Louisiane" and is the basic series for the internal history 
 of the colony. It consists primarily of dispatches and letters, with their 
 enclosures, from the governors, ordonnateurs, commandants, justices, 
 councillors and other civil and military officials of the colony, addressed 
 for the most part to the Ministers of the Marine. The enclosures in- 
 clude a great variety of important documents such as correspondence 
 between officials of the colony; censuses; reports on military, judicial, 
 commercial, agricultural and other matters, narratives of expeditions, 
 etc. (Report of the Librarian of Congress for 1921, p. 180.) 
 Archives Nationales, Marine * 
 
 Series B 4 , vols. XLV, L. The documents relating to the war with the 
 Chickasaws, 1739-1741, have been copied for the Library of Congress, 
 Manuscripts Division. 
 Georgia state archives. Department of Archives, Atlanta, Georgia. 
 
 In 1837, the Georgia legislature passed an act authorizing the making 
 of transcripts of the colonial records of Georgia from the originals or 
 copies in London. Twenty-two manuscript volumes of about three hun- 
 dred pages each were thus secured. They were lost by fire in 1891. In 
 1902 the Georgia legislature again authorized the making of transcripts 
 of the colonial records of Georgia. (Ga. C.R. 1:4-6.) Thirty-nine 
 volumes of about six hundred pages each were copied from material in 
 the Public Record Office. Of these thirty-nine, vols. I-XIX, XXI-XXVI 
 have been printed (for description see below). Volumes XXVII-XXXIX 
 are in transcript in the Georgia state archives. The manuscript of Vol. 
 XX was partly destroyed by fire when the publishing house burned ; about 
 half of this volume, in manuscript, is now in the Georgia state archives. 
 Colonial Records of Georgia (MS) : 
 
 XXVII. Original Papers of the Trustees, President and assistants, 
 Governor John Reynolds, Lieut. Governor Henry Ellis, 
 
 * Documents in these archives are cited from transcripts in the Library of 
 Congress, Manuscripts Division. See Surrey, N. M. Miller, Calendar of 
 Manuscripts in Paris Archives and Libraries relating to the history of the 
 Mississippi Valley to 1803. Washington : Carnegie Institution of Washing- 
 ton, I, 1926; II, 1928. 
 
Bibliography 
 
 157 
 
 and others. 1740-1756. This consists of official corre- 
 spondence, in the main. 
 
 Part 1. Original Papers of Governors Reynolds, Ellis, 
 Wright, and others. 1757-1763. This is chiefly corre- 
 spondence between the royal governors and the Board 
 of Trade. 
 
 Entry Books. 1732-1738. 
 
 Trustees' Letter Books. 1738-1745. 
 
 Trustees' Letter Books. 1745-1752. 
 
 Entry Books of Commissions, Powers, Instructions, 
 Leases, etc., by the Trustees. 1732-1738. This contains 
 Oglethorpe's commission as Indian commissioner and 
 William Stephens' commission as co-commissioner.^ 
 
 Entry Books of Commissions, Powers, Instructions, 
 Leases, etc., by the Trustees. 1738-1754. 
 
 Entry Books of Commissions, Powers, Instructions, 
 Leases, etc., by the Trustees. Commissions Special and 
 General to Governors Reynolds, Ellis and Wright. 
 1754-1781. 
 
 Original Papers of Oglethorpe, the Trustees, and others. 
 1732-1742. This is official correspondence. 
 
 Original Papers of Oglethorpe, the Trustees and others. 
 1742-1751. This contains, pp. 129-131, the "Account 
 of Christian Pryber's Proceedings." 
 
 Original Papers. Correspondence by Governor Wright, 
 the Earl of Egmont, the Earl of Halifax, the Right 
 Hon. Henry Seymour Conway, the Duke of Richmond, 
 the Earl of Shelbourne, the Earl of Hillsborough, the 
 Earl of Dartmouth, President James Habersham, and 
 others. Indian Talks. 1761-1772. 
 
 Part 1. Official Correspondence of Governor Wright, 
 President Habersham, the Earl of Hillsborough, the 
 Earl of Dartmouth, and others, 1771-1775; Indian 
 treaties, relinquishments, some unpublished minutes of 
 Governor and Council, 1775. This is made up chiefly 
 of correspondence between the governors and the secre- 
 tary of state for the colonies. 
 
 Part 2. Original Papers. Correspondence of Governor 
 Wright, the Earl of Dartmouth, Lord Germain, Wil- 
 liam Knox, Lord Cornwallis, Lieut. -Governor Graham, 
 and others. 1775-1782. 
 
 Entry Books, Letters, Memorials, Petitions, etc. of Ogle- 
 thorpe, the Trustees, Governors Reynolds, Ellis, and 
 Wright. 1733-1783. Journal of the Southern Indian 
 Congress 1763. Indian Treaties, etc. 1733-1783. 
 
 South Carolina state archives. Office of the Historical Commission of 
 South Carolina, Columbia, S. C. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 XXIX. 
 XXX. 
 XXXI. 
 XXXII. 
 
 XXXIII. 
 
 XXXIV. 
 
 XXXV. 
 XXXVI. 
 
 XXXVII. 
 
 XXXVIII. 
 
 XXXVIII. 
 
 XXXIX. 
 
 Indian Book 
 Indian Book 
 Indian Book 
 Indian Book 
 Indian Book 
 Indian Book 
 
 1710-1718 No. 1 
 1750-1752 Vol. II 
 1752-1753 Vol. Ill 
 1753-1754 Vol. IV 
 1754-1757 Vol. V 
 1757-1760 Vol. VI 
 
158 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division 
 Bosomworth Controversy MSS. This contains petitions, etc., of Isaac 
 
 Levy. Valuable for a study of the Bosomworth case. 
 British transcripts and photostats : Copies and photostats of documents 
 
 in the Public Record Office, British Museum, S.P.G., etc. 
 Brooks transcripts and translations of documents in the Archivo General 
 
 de Indias, Seville. 
 
 In 1901, the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress 
 
 bought from the transcriber, Mrs. A. M. Brooks of St. Augustine, a 
 
 collection of documents. These documents numbering 327 pieces — 1446 
 
 pages — were from the Biblioteca Colombiana at Seville and related 
 
 to the Spanish occupation of Florida. 
 Force Transcripts — Georgia Records — Indians 
 
 Peter Force (1790-1868) was a great archivist and compiler. He is 
 
 best remembered for the American Archives. 
 Force Transcripts — Georgia Records — Miscellaneous, 1732-1796. 
 French transcripts and photostats : see above, Paris archives. 
 James Pemberton's Diary, 1745 
 
 Pemberton was a Philadelphia merchant, a member of the Society 
 
 of Friends. He visited Frederica in 1745. This diary tells of his 
 
 visit. 
 * Spanish transcripts and photostats : copies of documents in the Archivo 
 
 General de Indias at Seville. 
 Archivo General de Indias, Seville 
 
 Santo Domingo — 58-1-31. Letters from Governors Benavides, Sanchez 
 
 and Montiano to the king. 
 Santo Domingo — 58-1-32. Letters from Governor Montiano to the king. 
 Santo Domingo— 58-1-33. 1751-1752, 1754. Governor of Florida to the 
 
 king. 
 
 B. Printed Sources: 
 
 "Account of the Chevalier de Lantagnac (1746-1755)" in Early Travels in 
 the Tennessee Country, edited by Williams, S. C, 177-184. The 
 Chevalier de Lantagnac was a prisoner in the Cherokee village of 
 Great Tellico, 1746-1755. 
 
 Adair, James. The History of the American Indians; particularly those 
 Nations adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida, Georgia, 
 South and North Carolina, and Virginia. London 1775. Adair, though 
 interesting and informative, was notoriously untrustworthy. 
 
 Arredondo, Antonio de. Arredondo's Historical Proof of Spain's Title to 
 Georgia. Edited by Bolton, Herbert E. Berkeley: University of 
 California Press, 1925. This contains both the Spanish text and an 
 English translation. Arredondo wrote in 1742, shortly before the 
 Spanish counter-attack on Georgia, and his work was intended to 
 serve as a defense of Spain's title to the debatable land. The historical 
 introduction has been printed separately as Bolton, H. E. and Ross, 
 Mary, The Debatable Land (Berkeley, 1925). 
 
 * For the translation of the Spanish documents used in this thesis, I am 
 indebted to Mr. Graydon M. Hough, a Harrison Scholar in the Department 
 of Romance Languages at the University of Pennsylvania. 
 
Bibliography 1 59 
 
 Bartram, William. Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, 
 East and West Florida, the Cherokee country, the extensive territories 
 of the Muscogulges, or Creek confederacy, and the country of the 
 Choctaws. Philadelphia: James & Johnson, 1791. Bartram used the 
 term "Upper Creeks" to designate the entire nation. By "Lower 
 Creeks" he meant the Seminoles. 
 
 Bolton, Herbert E. See Arredondo, Antonio de. Arredondo's Historical 
 Proof of Spain's Title to Georgia. 
 
 Calendar of Manuscripts in Paris Archives and Libraries relating to the 
 history of the Mississippi Valley to 1803. Edited by Surrey, N. M. 
 Miller (Mrs. F. M. Surrey). Carnegie Institution of Washington. 
 Department of Historical Research. 2 vols. I 1581-1739 (1926) ; 
 II 1740-1803 (1928). 
 
 Candler, Allen D[aniel]. See Georgia: The Colonial Records of the State 
 of Georgia. 
 
 Carroll, B. R. See Historical Collections of South Carolina. 
 
 The Case of the Trustees and Province of Georgia. This is the appeal drawn 
 up by Murray and Clarke, counsel for the Georgia Trustees, to the 
 Committee of the Privy Council against the report of the Board of 
 Trade. The appeal was heard January 25, 1738. I have used a photo- 
 static copy loaned to me by Professor St. George L. Sioussat. The 
 date and place of publication are not given. 
 
 Cooper, Thomas. See South Carolina, Statutes. 
 
 Crowe, William. A Sermon Preached before the Honorable Trustees, Mar. 
 20, 1739-40. One of the annual sermons preached before the Trustees. 
 
 Curnock, Nehemiah. See The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. 
 
 Decouvertes et etablissements des Francais dans Vouest et dans le sud de 
 I'Amerique septentrionale (1614-1754). Edited by Margry, Pierre, 
 Paris, 1879-1886. 6 vols. 
 
 A Description of Georgia by a Gentleman who has resided there upwards of 
 Seven Years and was one of the First Settlers. London, 1741. Anony- 
 mous. 4 pp. 
 
 Documentos Historicos de La Florida y La Luisiana siglos XVI al XVIII. 
 Edited by SJerrano]. y S[anz], M[anual]. Madrid Libreria General 
 de Victoriano Suarez. 1912. 
 
 Early Travels in the Tennessee Country 1540-1800. Edited by Williams, 
 S. C, Johnson City, Tennessee : The Watauga Press, 1928. This 
 contains: "Journal of Antoine Bonnefoy (1741-1742)"; "Account 
 of the Chevalier de Lantagnac (1746-1755)"; "De Brahm's Account 
 (1756)." It has maps, and is carefully edited. 
 
 Egmont, Earl of. See Percival, John Lord Viscount. 
 
 Force, Peter. See Tracts. 
 
 French, B. F. See Historical Collections of Louisiana. 
 
 Gentleman's Magazine. London. The numbers of this monthly magazine for 
 the decade 1733-1743 contain many news items relating to Georgia. 
 
 Georgia. The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia. Compiled by 
 Candler, Allen Dfaniel]. Atlanta: The Franklin Printing and Pub- 
 lishing Co. 1904-1916. 
 
 I. Georgia Charter, List of Trustees, By-laws and Laws, 
 
 Journal of the Trustees. 1732 to 1752. 
 
 II. Minutes of the Common Council of the Trustees. 1732 
 
 to 1752. 
 
 III. Accounts, Monies & Effects. 1732 to 1751. 
 
 IV. Stephens' Journal. 1737 to 1740. This contains also 
 
 A State of the Province of Georgia, attested upon 
 Oath in the Court of Savannah, November 10, 1740. 
 
160 
 
 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 This document had been transmitted by Colonel Wil- 
 liam Stephens to Egmont in November, 1740. Eg- 
 mont ordered it printed, with the intention of putting 
 copies in the hands of members of Parliament, in 
 order to counteract Tailfer, P. A True and Histor- 
 ical Narrative. 
 Supplement to IV. Journal of Colonel William Stephens [1740-Oct. 28, 
 1741]. 
 
 V. Journal of the Ear of Egmont, First President of the 
 
 Board of Trustees. From June 14, 1738 to May 
 25, 1744. 
 
 VI. Proceedings of the President and Assistants from Octo- 
 
 ber 12, 1741 to October 30, 1754. 
 
 VII. Proceedings and Minutes of the Governor and Council 
 
 from October 30, 1754 to March 6, 1759. 
 VIII-XII. Proceedings and Minutes of the Governor and Council 
 
 from March 8, 1759 to February 13, 1782. 
 XIII-XV. Journal of the Commons House of Assembly, January 
 
 7, 1755 to June 16, 1782, Inclusive. 
 XV1-XVII. Journal of the Upper House of Assembly, January 7, 
 
 1755 to March 12, 1774, Inclusive. 
 
 XVIII. Statutes enacted by the royal legislature of Georgia 
 
 from its first session in 1754 to 1768. 
 
 XIX. Part I. Statutes, Colonial and Revolutionary 1768 to 
 
 1773. 
 XIX. Part 2. Statutes, Colonial and Revolutionary 1774 to 
 
 1805. 
 [There is no XX.] 
 
 XXI. Original Papers, Correspondence, Trustees, General 
 
 Oglethorpe and Others. 1735 to 1737. 
 
 XXII. Part I. Original Papers, Correspondence, Trustees, 
 
 General Oglethorpe and Others. 1737 to 1739. 
 
 XXII. Part 2. Original Papers. Correspondence, Trustees, 
 
 General Oglethorpe and Others. 1737 to 1740. 
 
 XXIII. Original Papers, Correspondence, Trustees, General 
 
 Oglethorpe and Others. 1741 to 1742. 
 
 XXIV. Original Papers, Correspondence, Trustees, General 
 
 Oglethorpe and Others. 1742 to 1745. 
 
 XXV. Original Papers, Correspondence, Trustees, General 
 
 Oglethorpe and Others. 1745 to 1750. 
 
 XXVI. Original Papers, Trustees, President and Assistants, 
 
 and Others. 1750 to 1752. 
 
 Georgia Historical Society. Collections. Savannah, 1840-1913. 8 vols. Be- 
 sides articles, these volumes contain reprints of several rare pamphlets 
 dealing with proprietary Georgia. 
 
 Great Britain. Historical Manuscripts Commission. London : H. M. Sta- 
 tionery Office. See Percival, John Lord Viscount. 
 
 Great Britain. Privy Council. Acts of the Privy Council of England, 
 Colonial Series, 1613-1783. London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1908- 
 1912. 6 vols. 
 
 Great Britain. Public Record Office. Journal of the Commissioners for 
 Trade and Plantations, 1704-1763. London : H. M. Stationery Office, 
 1920-1935. 11 vols, to date. 
 
 Great Britain. Treasury. Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers, 1729- 
 1745. London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1897-1903. 5 vols. 
 
Bibliography 161 
 
 Historical Collections of Louisiana. Edited by French, Bfenjamin] F. 
 New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1846-1853. 5 vols. 
 
 Historical Collections of South Carolina. Compiled by Carroll, B. R. New 
 York: Harper and Brothers 1836. 2 vols. 
 
 An Impartial Enquiry. See Martyn, Benjamin. 
 
 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents 1610-1791. Edited by Thwaites, 
 Reuben G. Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers Co., 1896-1901. 73 
 vols. Vols. LXVIII and LXIX deal with Louisiana. 
 
 "Journal of Antoine Bonnefoy (1741-1742)" in Early Travels in the Tennes- 
 see Country, 1540-1800, edited by Williams, S. C, pp. 147-162. Bon- 
 nefoy was a captive among the Cherokees, 1741-1742. 
 
 "Journal of Antoine Bonnefoy's Captivity among the Cherokee Indians, 
 1741-1742" in Travels in the American Colonies, edited by Mereness, 
 N. D., 239-255. This is Bonnefoy's account of his captivity among 
 the Cherokees, 1741-1742. 
 
 The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. Edited by Curnock, Nehe- 
 miah. 1908-1916. 8 vols. The standard edition of Wesley's Jour- 
 nal. Vol. I contains the journal for the period of Wesley's ministry 
 in Georgia. 
 
 "Letter of Gonzalo Menendez de Canco, Governor of Florida to Philip II 
 of Spain, June 28, 1600." Translated and edited by Reding, Kather- 
 ine. Georgia Historical Quarterly, VIII (1924), 215-228. 
 
 The London Chronicle or Universal Evening Post. This contains news 
 items relating to proprietary Georgia. 
 
 McCord, David J. See South Carolina Statutes. 
 
 Mcllwain, C. H. See Wraxall, Peter. 
 
 Margry, Pierre. See Decouvertes et etablissements. 
 
 Martyn, Benjamin. An Account showing the Progress of the Colony of 
 Georgia in America from its first establishment. London, 1741. 
 Ga. C.R. Ill, 368-403. In anticipation of a Parliamentary inquiry, 
 the Georgia Trustees in June, 1741, ordered their Secretary, Ben- 
 jamin Martyn, to prepare this well-known folio. It was carefully 
 revised by the Trustees. 
 
 [Martyn, Benjamin]. An Impartial Enquiry into the State and Utility of 
 the Province of Georgia. London, 1741. Georgia Historical Society 
 Collections I, 153-201. This was the opening shot in the Trustees' 
 campaign for a Parliamentary investigation. It was printed in 
 December, 1740, though dated 1741. See Crane, V. W., "The Pro- 
 motion Literature of Georgia," in Bibliographical Essays: a Tribute 
 to Wilberforce Eames, 294. Martyn was the author but the pam- 
 phlet was read and amended by a committee of the Common Council 
 of the Trustees before it was printed. 
 
 Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1729-1740. French Dominion. I. Edited 
 and translated by Rowland, Dunbar, and Sanders, A. G., Jackson, 
 Mississippi: Press of the Department of Archives and History, 1927. 
 This is the initial volume of a projected series concerning the coloni- 
 zation, development and government of the French Province of 
 Louisiana. This volume consists of those dispatches and letters, with 
 their inclosures, from the governors and other officials addressed in 
 the main to the Minister of the Marine, which have to do with 
 French-English-Indian relations and the wars with the Natchez and 
 Chickasaw Indians. The dispatches, letters and inclosures are taken 
 from the French transcripts of the Archives of the Ministry of the 
 Colonies, Series C-13, which are on file in the Department of Ar- 
 chives and History at Jackson, Mississippi. 
 
162 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Mereness, Newton D. See Travels in the American Colonies. 
 A New Voyage to Georgia, by a Young Gentleman. 1st ed. London, 1735. 
 2nd edition London 1737. The 2nd ed. is reprinted in Georgia His- 
 torical Society, Collections II. 
 A New and Accurate Account of the Provinces of South Carolina and 
 Georgia? With Many Curious and Useful Observations on the Trade, 
 Navigation and Plantations of Great Britain, Compared with her 
 most Powerful Maritime Neighbors in Ancient and Modern Times. 
 London, 1733. Georgia Historical Society, Collections I, 42-78. 
 Anonymous. Commonly ascribed to Oglethorpe. This was the most 
 famous of all the Georgia pamphlets. This reprint is from the second 
 edition, which differed from the first edition (1732) only in the title 
 page. 
 North Carolina. The Colonial Records of North Carolina. Edited by 
 
 Saunders, William L. Raleigh, 1886-1890. 10 vols. 
 Oldmixon, John. The British Empire in America. 1st ed. London, 1708. 
 2nd ed. London, 1741. 2 vols. Volume I contains a summary of 
 Oglethorpe's treaty of 1733 with the Lower Creeks. 
 Percival, John Lord Viscount (afterwards first Earl of Egmont). Diary, 
 1730-1747. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Manuscripts of the 
 Earl of Egmont. London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1920-1923. 3 
 vols. Percival was president of the Georgia Trustees. His diary 
 supplements his Journal which is printed in Ga. C. R. V. 
 "Plans for the Colonization and Defense of Apalache, 1675." Translated 
 and edited by Reding, Katherine. Georgia Historical Quarterly IX 
 (1925), 169-175. (From Archives of the Indies, audiencia of Santo 
 Domingo, 58-2-5.) 
 Reding, Katherine. See "Plans for the Colonization ... of Apalache" and 
 
 "Letter of Gonzalo Menendez de Canco." 
 Rowland, Dunbar. See Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1729-1740. French 
 
 Dominion. 
 Serrano y Sanz, Manuel. See Document os historicos. 
 Sanders, A. G. See Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1729-1740. French 
 
 Dominion. 
 
 •Saunders, William L. See The Colonial Records of North Carolina. 
 
 South Carolina, Statutes. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina. Vols. 
 
 I-V edited by Cooper, Thomas. Vols. VI-X edited by McCord, 
 
 David J. Columbia, S. C. : A. S. Johnson, 1836-1841. 10 vols. Vol. 
 
 Ill contains the South Carolina Indian Act of August 20, 1731, the 
 
 later act of September 22, 1733 (on which the Georgia Indian Act of 
 
 1735 was based), and the South Carolina ordinance of June 26, 1736. 
 
 [Stephens, Thomas.] The Castle Builders; or the History of William 
 
 Stephens, of the Isle of Wight, Esq. . . . a Political Novel. 2nd 
 
 ed., London, 1759. Thomas Stephens was the son of the Trustees' 
 
 Secretary in Georgia, William Stephens, and was a leader of the 
 
 malcontents. 
 
 Surrey, Mrs. N. M. Miller. See Calendar of Manuscripts in Paris Archives 
 
 and Libraries relating to the history of the Mississippi Valley to 1803. 
 
 Tailfer, Patrick; Douglass, David; et al. A True and Historical Narrative 
 
 of the Colony of Georgia in America. Charleston, 1741. This was 
 
 printed in Charleston in an edition of one hundred seventy-six pages 
 
 and in London in an edition of one hundred eighteen pages. Both 
 
 editions appeared in 1741. See Ga. C. R. V, 526, 578, 583, and Crane, 
 
 V. W. "The Promotion Literature of Georgia" in Bibliographical 
 
 Essays: A Tribute to Wilberforce Eames, 281-298. The pamphlet 
 
Bibliography 163 
 
 was a bitter and scurrilous attack on Oglethorpe and the Trustees by 
 the malcontent group in Georgia. 
 
 Telford, John. The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. London: The 
 Epworth Press, 1931. Standard edition. 7 vols. Vol. I contains 
 Wesley's views on the Georgia-South Carolina Indian Act contro- 
 versy. 
 
 Thwaites, Reuben G. See Jesuit Relations. 
 
 Tracts and Other Papers Relating . . . to . . . the Colonies in North 
 America. Edited by Force, Peter. Washington, 1836-1846. 4 vols. 
 These include "Extract of the Reverend Mr. Bolzius Journal," IV, 
 No. 5. 
 
 Travels in the American Colonies. Edited by Mereness, Newton D. New 
 York: Macmillan, 1916. This contains: "Journal of Antoine Bonne- 
 foy's Captivity among the Cherokee Indians, 1741-1742" ; "Journal of 
 Beauchamp's Journey from Mobile to the Choctaws, 1746." 
 
 Wraxall, Peter. An Abridgement of the Indian Affairs, . . . 1678 to . . . 
 1751. Edited by Mcllwain, Charles H. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- 
 versity Press, 1915. This deals with Indian affairs in New York. 
 
 C. Maps: 
 
 Popple, Henry. Map of the British Empire in America ... in 20 Sheets. 
 London, 1733. L. C. Map Div. 
 
 "The Territory Between the Chattahoochee and Mississippi Rivers," in 
 Swanton, J. R. Early History of the Creek Indians and Their 
 Neighbors (1922) . Plate 5. This map was compiled by Baron de 
 Crenay, commandant of the post at Mobile, and reproduced from the 
 original in the French archives for Hamilton, Peter J., who published 
 it in the second edition of his Colonial Mobile, 190. 
 
 Seutter and Lotter. Georgia [1737?]. L. C. Map Div. 
 
 Arredondo, Antonio de [Map of the debatable land between Carolina and 
 Florida] [Circa, 1742] in Arredondo' s Historical Proof of Spain's 
 Title to Georgia (1925), edited by Bolton, Herbert E., opp. p. 112. 
 
 D'Anville. Amerique Septentrionale. Paris, 1746. L. C. Map Div. 
 
 Kitchen, Thomas. A Map of the French Settlements in North America. 
 London (1747). L. C. Map Div. 
 
 D'Anville and Robert. A new Map of North America. London [1750?]. 
 L. C. Map Div. 
 
 D'Anville. Amerique Septentrionale. Paris, 1746. L. C. Map Div. 
 
 "The Southeastern Part of the Present United States From the Mitchell 
 Map of 1755," in Swanton, J. R. Early History of the Creek In- 
 dians and Their Neighbors (1922). Plate 6. 
 
 Stuart, John. [Map of the Cherokee Country.] [Circa, 1764.] B. M. 
 Additional MSS 14,036. L. C. Map Div. 
 
 Non-Contemporary 
 A. Printed Material. 
 
 Alvord, Clarence W. The Illinois Country, 1673-1818. Springfield: 
 
 Illinois Centennial Commission, 1920. 
 The American Historical Review. New York: Macmillan, 1896-1936. 41 
 
 vols, to date. 
 
164 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Anderson, J. R. "The Spanish Era in Georgia and the English Settlement 
 in 1733." Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVII (1933), 91-108. A 
 bi-centennial address. 
 
 Baker-Crothers, Hayes. Virginia and the French and Indian War. Chicago : 
 University of Chicago Press [1928]. This thesis stresses the Ohio 
 region fur trade as a cause for the French and Indian War. 
 
 Basye, Arthur Herbert. The Lords Commissioners of Trade and Planta- 
 tions, commonly known as the Board of Trade 1748-1782. New 
 Haven: Yale University Press, 1925. The standard work on the 
 Board of Trade for its period. It treats the Board under Halifax 
 with especial fullness. For the years it covers, this supplants 
 Dickerson, O. M. American Colonial Government. 
 
 Bibliographical Essays: a Tribute to Wilber force Eames. Cambridge: 
 Harvard University Press, 1924. This contains Crane, Verner W. 
 "The Promotion Literature of Georgia." 
 
 Bolton, Herbert E. "Spanish Resistance to the Carolina Traders in West- 
 ern Georgia (1680-1704)." Georgia Historical Quarterly, IX (1925), 
 115-30. 
 
 Bolton, Herbert E. and Ross, Mary. The Debatable Land, a Sketch of the 
 Anglo-Spanish Contest for the Georgia Country. Berkeley: Univer- 
 sity of California Press. (Also printed as the introduction to Arre- 
 dondo's Historical Proof of Spain's Title to Georgia, 1925.) The 
 actual writing was done by Professor Bolton, though Miss Ross, 
 one of his graduate students, assisted materially with the research. 
 
 Bushnell^ David I., Jr. Native Villages and Village Sites East of the 
 Mississippi. Bulletin No. 69 of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 
 Smithsonian Institution. Washington: Government Printing Office, 
 1919. 
 
 Channing, Edward. A History of the United States. New York: The 
 Macmillan Co., 1905-1925. 6 vols. 
 
 Corry, John Pitts. "Education in Colonial Georgia." Georgia Historical 
 Quarterly, XVI (1932), 136-145. This article includes a brief dis- 
 cussion of Indian education. 
 
 Corry, John Pitts. "The Houses of Colonial Georgia." Georgia Historical 
 Quarterly, XIV (1930), 181-201. This throws light on the economic 
 conditions in colonial Georgia. 
 
 Corry, John Pitts. "Procedure in the Commons House of Assembly in 
 Georgia." Georgia Historical Quarterly, XIII (1929), 110-127. 
 
 Coulter, E. Merton. "Mary Musgrove, 'Queen of the Creeks' : A chapter of 
 early Georgia Troubles." Georgia Historical Quarterly, XI (1927), 
 1-30. This includes a discussion of the Bosomworth claims. 
 
 Coulter, E. Merton. A Short History of Georgia. Chapel Hill : The Uni- 
 versity of North Carolina Press, 1933. Though undocumented, this 
 volume is based on an extensive study of the sources. It has excel- 
 lent maps, including the one showing Indian land cessions, 1733-1835, 
 which is reproduced from Phillips, U. B. Georgia and States Rights. 
 
 Crane, Verner W. "A Lost Utopia of the First American Frontier", in 
 Sewanee Review XXVII (1919), 48-61. This deals with Christian 
 Priber. 
 
 Crane, Verner W. "The Origin of the Name of the Creek Indians." 
 Mississippi Valley Historical Review, V (1918), 339-42. Professor 
 Crane traces the name to a shortening of "Ochese Creek Indians." 
 Ochese was an old name for the Ocmulgee river where the Creeks 
 were living when the English first came into contact with them. 
 
Bibliography 165 
 
 Crane, Verner W. "The Philanthropists and the Genesis of Georgia." 
 American Historical Review, XXVII (1921), 63-69. This forms a 
 chapter in the author's The Southern Frontier. 
 
 Crane, Verner W. "Projects for Colonization in the South, 1684-1732." 
 Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XII (1925), 23-35. This ar- 
 ticle contains a discussion of the Margravate of Azilia. 
 
 Crane, Verner W. The Southern Frontier, 1670-1732. Durham, N. 
 C. : Duke University Press, 1928. This volume, expanded from 
 Professor Crane's thesis, is a thorough study of Indian affairs in 
 the southeast prior to the founding of Georgia. While recognizing 
 the importance of the Anglo-Spanish contest, it stresses the Anglo- 
 French rivalry as more significant. The map is excellent. 
 
 Crane, Verner W. "The Southern Frontier in Queen Anne's War." Amer- 
 ican Historical Review, XXIV (1919), 379-95. 
 
 Crane, Verner W. "The Promotion Literature of Georgia," in Bibli- 
 ographical Essays: a Tribute to Wilberforce Eames, 281-298. Among 
 the pamphlets treated are: Martyn, B. An Account Showing the 
 Progress of Georgia in America from its first establishment (Lon- 
 don, 1741) ; [Martyn, B.] An Impartial Enquiry into the State and 
 Utility of the Province of Georgia (London, 1741). 
 
 Crane, Verner W. "The Tennessee River as the Road to Carolina: the 
 Beginnings of Exploration and Trade." Mississippi Valley Histor- 
 ical Review, III (1916), 3-18. This was Professor Crane's first 
 article on the subject he treated so well in The Southern Frontier. He 
 points out that the Tennessee River might have been, but never be- 
 came, the road to Carolina. 
 
 Dickerson, Oliver M. American Colonial Government, 1696-1765. Cleve- 
 land: Arthur N. Clark Co., 1912. An excellent pioneer study of the 
 Board of Trade. This should be supplemented by Basye, A. H., The 
 Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, commonly known as 
 the Board of Trade, 1748-1782. 
 
 Dictionary of American Biography. Edited by Johnson, Allen and Malone, 
 Dumas. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928-1935. 15 vols, 
 to date. 
 
 Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Stephens, Leslie and Lee, Sir 
 Sidney. London: Smith, Elder, 1885-1901. 63 vols. 
 
 Dunn, William E. Spanish and French Rivalry in the Gulf Region of the 
 United States, 1678-1702; the Beginnings of Texas and Pensacola. 
 Bulletin No. 1705 of the University of Texas : studies in history, No. 1. 
 Austin, Texas: University of Texas [1917]. This thesis was based 
 largely on Spanish and French sources. 
 
 East Tennessee Historical Society Publications. Knoxville, Tenn. 1929-1935. 
 Nos. 1-7. 
 
 Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1896-1897. 
 Smithsonian Institution. Washington: Government Printing Office, 
 1897. 
 
 Fant, H. B. "The Indian Trade Policy of the Trustees for Establishing the 
 colony of Georgia in America." Georgia Historical Quarterly, XV 
 (1931), 207-222. 
 
 Fant, H. B. "The Labor Policy of the Trustees for Establishing the colony 
 of Georgia in America." Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVI (1932). 
 1-16. 
 
 Fant, H. B. "The Prohibition Policy of the Trustees for Establishing the 
 colony of Georgia in America." Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVII 
 (1933), 286-292. 
 
166 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Gayarre, Charles. History of Louisiana. New York: Redfield, 1854-1866. 
 4 vols. This is based largely on French sources. 
 
 Georgia Historical Quarterly. Vols. I-XX. Savannah: Georgia Historical 
 Society, 1917-1936. The official organ of the Georgia Historical So- 
 ciety. 
 
 Hamer, P. M. "Anglo-French Rivalry in the Cherokee Country, 1754-1757." 
 North Carolina Historical Review, II (1925), 303-322. Professor 
 Hamer has made extensive use of the sources, both in the United 
 States and in England. 
 
 Hamer, P. M. "Fort Loudoun in the Cherokee War, 1758-1761." North 
 Carolina Historical Review, II (1925), 442-458. This article is based 
 in part on material in the Public Record Office. 
 
 Hamilton, Peter J. Colonial Mobile. Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1897. Re- 
 vised edition, 1910. This volume traces the exploration, settlement 
 and early development of the region which is tributary to the Alabama 
 Tombigbee river basin. It contains useful maps. 
 
 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Edited by Hodge, F. W. 
 Bulletin No. 30 of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian 
 Institution. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907, 1910. 
 2 vols. This contains a linguistic table for the Indians of North 
 America. 
 
 Harris, John. Navigantium atque Itinerantium Bibliotheca. Or, A Com- 
 plete Collection of Voyages and Travels. Consisting of about Six 
 Hundred of the Most Authentic Writers. London, 1744-1748. 2 vols. 
 This contains the Oglethorpe-Sanchez treaty of 1736. 
 
 Heinrich, Pierre. La Louisiane sous la Companie des Indes, 1717-1731. 
 Paris : E. Guilmoto [1908?]. This was one of the first books to give due 
 recognition to the English-French rivalry in the southeast. 
 
 Insh, George Pratt. Scottish Colonial Schemes, 1620-1686. Glasgow: 
 Maclehose, Jackson and Co., 1922. (Chapter vi deals with the Cardross 
 colony at Port Royal.) 
 
 Johnson, James Guyton. The Colonial Southeast, 1732-1763; an Interna- 
 tional Contest for Territorial and Economic Control, in The University 
 of Colorado Studies, XIX, (1932), 163-225. This is based on printed 
 material largely. Dr. Johnson, a former student of Professor Bolton, 
 and later professor of Economics at the University of Colorado, has 
 taken the colonial period of Georgia history for his special field of 
 study. 
 
 Johnson, James Guyton. "The Founding of Spanish Colonies in Georgia 
 and South Carolina." Georgia Historical Quarterly, XV (1931), 
 301-312. 
 
 Johnson, James Guyton. "The Spaniards in Northern Georgia during the 
 Sixteenth Century." Georgia Historical Quarterly, IX (1925), 159-168. 
 
 Johnson, James Guyton. The Spanish Period of Georgia and South Carolina 
 History, 1566-1702. Bulletin of the University of Georgia, Special 
 Series: studies, No. 1, May, 1923. 
 
 Johnson, James Guyton. "A Spanish Settlement in Carolina, 1526." Georgia 
 Historical Quarterly, VII (1923), 339-348. 
 
 Johnson, James Guyton. "The Spanish Southwest in the Seventeenth Cen- 
 tury." Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVI (1932), 17-26. 
 
 Johnson, James Guyton. "The Yamassee Revolt of 1597 and the Destruction 
 of the Georgia Missions." Georgia Historical Quarterly, VII (1923), 
 44-53. 
 
Bibliography 167 
 
 Jones, Charles C[olcock]., Jr. The Dead Towns of Georgia. Savannah: 
 Morning News Steam Printing House, 1878. A history of Sunbury 
 is included. 
 
 Jones, Charles C[olcock], Jr. "The English Colonization of Georgia, 1733- 
 1752." Winsor, Justin, Narrative and Critical History of America, V, 
 Chapter VI, pp. 357-406. This chapter was written by the scholarly 
 author of The History of Georgia (1883) and is based on the same 
 sources as Jones' larger work. The "Critical Essay on the Sources of 
 Information," pp. 392-406, was by Jones, with scattered notes by 
 Winsor. When it appeared in 1887, it was a comprehensive and authori- 
 tative review of the sources at that time available. Since this essay 
 was published, however, a great deal of new material has become avail- 
 able or more readily accessible with regard to Georgia and its Indian 
 affairs in this period. 
 
 Jones, Charles C[olcock]., Jr. Historical Sketch of Tomo-chi-chi Mico of 
 the Yamacraws. Albany : Joel Munsell, 1868. This is based wholly on 
 English sources. 
 
 Jones, Charles C[olcock]., Jr. The History of Georgia. Boston, 1883. 2 
 vols. This is based largely on English sources though occasional use 
 was made of French and Spanish material. It contains excellent maps. 
 
 Jones, Charles Colcock, Jr., and Dutcher, Salem. Memorial History of 
 Augusta, Georgia. Syracuse, N. Y., 1890. A memorial history of 
 Augusta. The colonial period is treated by Jones. 
 
 McCain, J. R. Georgia as a proprietary province, the execution of a trust. 
 Boston : Badger, 1917. A pioneer monograph in its field. Some use 
 was made of the manuscript Georgia Colonial Records. 
 
 McCrady, Edward. "Slavery in the Province of South Carolina (1670- 
 1770)." American Historical Association Report (1895), 631-674. 
 This contains a brief discussion of Indian slavery in South Carolina. 
 
 McCrady, Edward. The History of South Carolina under the Royal Gov- 
 ernment, 1719-1776. New York : Macmillan, 1889. 
 
 The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. Published quarterly by the 
 Mississippi Valley Historical Association, 1914-1936. 22 vols, to date. 
 
 Mooney, James. "Myths of the Cherokees." Nineteenth Report of the 
 Bureau of American Ethnology (1897-1898), Smithsonian Institution. 
 Washington: Government Printing Office, 1898. 
 
 Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the 
 Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. 1897-1898. Washington: 
 Government Printing Office, 1898. 
 
 The North Carolina Historical Reviezv. Published by the North Carolina 
 history commission. Raleigh, N. C, 1924-1936. 13 vols, to date. 
 
 Osgood, Herbert L. The American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century. New 
 York: Columbia University Press, 1924. 4 vols. 
 
 Pargellis, Stanley McCrory. Lord Loudoun in North America. New Haven : 
 Yale University Press, 1933. 
 
 Ross, Mary. "French Intrusions and Indian Uprisings in Georgia and South 
 Carolina (1577-1580)." Georgia Historical Quarterly, VII (1923), 
 251-81. 
 
 Ross, Mary. "The French on the Savannah, 1605." Georgia Historical 
 Quarterly, VIII (1924), 167-94. 
 
 Ross, Mary. "The Restoration of the Spanish Missions in Georgia, 1598- 
 1606." Georgia Historical Quarterly, X (1926), 171-99. 
 
 Ross, Mary. "The Spanish Settlement of Santa Elena (Port Royal) in 
 1578." Georgia Historical Quarterly, IX (1925), 352-379. 
 
 Ross, Mary. See Bolton and Ross, 
 
168 Indian Affairs in Georgia 
 
 Rothrock, Mary U. "Carolina Traders Among the Overhill Cherokees, 1690- 
 1760." East Tennessee Historical Society Publications, I (1929), 3-18. 
 
 Sellers, Leila. Charleston Business on the Eve of the American Revolution. 
 Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1934. This contains 
 a discussion of the Charleston deerskin trade, chiefly for the period 
 after 1760. 
 
 Sewanee Review. New York, 1892-1936. 44 vols, to date. 
 
 Shaw, Helen Louise. British Administration of the southern Indians, 1756- 
 1783. 1931. This thesis, based largely on a study of the documents in 
 the Public Record Office, traces the development of the new imperial 
 policy of the British govenment toward the Indians after 1756. 
 
 Smith, Henry A. M. "Purrysburgh." South Carolina Historical and Gen- 
 ealogical Magazine, X (1909), 187-219. This sketches the history 
 of Purry's Swiss settlement on the Carolina side of the Savannah. 
 
 South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine. Vols. I-XXXVII. 
 Charleston : South Carolina Historical Society, 1900-1936. 
 
 Spalding, Thomas. A Sketch of the Life of General James Oglethorpe in 
 The Georgia Historical Society Collections, I, 239-295. This is 
 based largely on English sources. It contains little documentation. 
 
 Stevens, William Bacon. A History of Georgia, I, New York, 1847; II, 
 Philadelphia, 1859. Superseded by Jones, Charles C[olcock], Jr., The 
 History of Georgia. 
 
 Swanton, John R. Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors. 
 Bulletin No. 73 of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian In- 
 stitution. Washington : Government Printing Office, 1922. This is an 
 indispensable tool to any study of the Creek Indians. It contains eight 
 valuable maps, showing among other things the location of the Creek 
 towns and the migrations of the Indians. 
 
 Swanton, John R. Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Ad- 
 jacent Coast to the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin No. 43 of the Bureau 
 of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Washington : Gov- 
 ernment Printing Office, 1911. This is a valuable tool for any study 
 of the Indians of the southeast. It contains maps. 
 
 The University of Colorado Studies. Boulder, Colorado : The University of 
 Colorado, 1902-1933. 20 vols. 
 
 Urlsperger, Samuel. Ausfiihrliche Nachricht von den Saltzburgischen Emi- 
 granten. Halle, 1735-1742. This important series of tracts was be- 
 gun in 1734 with the general title given above. It was reissued in 
 1735 with the added special title Der Ausfuhrlichen Nachricht en von 
 der Koniglich-Gross-Britannischen Colonie Saltsburgischer Emi- 
 grant en in America, Einster Theil. The "Zweiter Theil" includes con- 
 tinuations No. 6 to No. 12, and the "Dritter Theil" Nos. 13 to 18. 
 There are valuable maps of Savannah and its vicinity. 
 
 Wilson, Adelaide. Historic and Picturesque Savannah. Boston, 1889. 
 
 Winsor, Justin. Narrative and Critical History of America. Boston: 
 Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1887-1889. 8 vols. This contains Jones, 
 Charles C[olcock], Jr., "The English Colonization of Georgia, 1733- 
 1752," in V, 357-406. 
 
 B. Maps. 
 
 "The Colonies in 1760 showing extent of settlement." Prepared under the 
 direction of Lansing, Marion F. (1908), in Channing, E. A History 
 of the United States, II, following p. 603. 
 
Bibliography 169 
 
 "Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi and Adjacent Gulf Coast," in 
 Swanton, J. R. Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and 
 Adjacent Coast to the Gulf of Mexico. (1911.) Plate 1. 
 
 "Indian Tribes of the Southeastern United States," compiled by Swanton, 
 J. R., in Swanton, J. R. Early History of the Creek Indians and their 
 Neighbors (1922). Plate 1. 
 
 "Territory of the States of Georgia and Alabama Illustrating the Geo- 
 graphical Distribution and Movements of the Tribes and Towns of 
 the Creek Confederacy." Compiled by Swanton, J. R., in Swanton, 
 J. R. Early History of the Creek Indians and their Neighbors (1922). 
 Plate 2. 
 
 "Southern Frontier, 1670-1732," in Crane, Verner W. The Southern Fron- 
 tier (1928), following p. 325. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Adair, James, his opinion of Chicka- 
 saws, 36; mission to Choctaws, 37 
 
 Agramont, Abraham, buccaneer, leads 
 raid on Spanish missions, 12 
 
 Akoutamopa, Alabama village, 96 
 
 Alabama Indians, live near Fort 
 Toulouse, 96; loyal to French, 96; 
 English try to win over, 96; neu- 
 tral during French-Chickasaw 
 War, 96; English circulate rumor 
 among, 98 
 
 Albany, New York, center of fur 
 trade, 32 ; and Indian conference, 
 101 ; Iroquois conference at, 102 
 
 Albany Congress, its failure shows 
 need of new Indian policy, 144 
 
 Altamaha river, southern boundary 
 Margravate of Azilia, 15 ; Mount 
 Venture built on, 75 ; Mary Mus- 
 grove's trading house on, 79n, 
 105; Georgia settlements on, 152 
 
 Amelia Island, Spanish outpost, 13 ; 
 arid 1739 English-Creek treaty, 73 
 
 Anglo-French frontier, in Caribbean, 
 17; in Canada, 17; in western 
 Pennsylvania, 17; in western Vir- 
 ginia, 17 
 
 Anglo-Spanish frontier, in the Carib- 
 bean, 10 ; in Louisiana, 10 ; in 
 Texas, 10 
 
 Anniversary sermons, preached be- 
 fore Associates of Dr. Bray, 23 ; 
 preached before Trustees, 25w 
 
 Apalache, Spanish colony planned 
 for 114; and Mexico, 115; in- 
 habited by Lower Creeks, 120; 
 communication with St. Augustine 
 interrupted, 121, 125; Creeks men- 
 ace Spanish in, 128; and buffer 
 colony, 129; plan for colonization 
 of, 130; Spanish plan to colonize 
 deferred, 130 
 
 d'Artaguette, Diron, advises Indians, 
 119 
 
 Associates of Dr. Bray, and Trustees, 
 22n; parent organization of Geor- 
 gia Trustees, 23 
 
 Atkin, Edmund, Indian superintend- 
 ent, 145 
 
 Attorney-general, receives questions 
 from Board of Trade, 60 
 
 Augusta, Ga., headquarters for In- 
 dian traders, 31; founded, 32; his- 
 tory of, 32n ; garrison at, 33n ; 
 number of traders at, 39n ; Ogle- 
 thorpe absent from, 45.; Weddell 
 constable at, 49; Stephens sends 
 stray Cherokees to, 77 ; garrison at, 
 91 ; in northern division of Geor- 
 gia, 93 ; an outpost against Ala- 
 bama, 96; and French rumor, 99; 
 William Gray a planter at, 106; 
 visited by Oglethorpe, 122; Lt. 
 Kent commander at, 124 ; Chicka- 
 saws settle near, 139 ; Indian con- 
 ference at, 140; French and Indian 
 attack feared by, 140-141 ; settlers 
 take refuge in, 141 
 
 Ayers, Robert, Trustee, directed to 
 draw up petition to King, 61 
 
 Azilia, plan for Margravate of 
 Azilia, 15 ; and Castilla's plan, 129- 
 130 
 
 B 
 
 Balance of power, understood by 
 Creeks, 69; in Europe, 83; Creek 
 policy of, 104, 124 ; its preservation 
 a Creek policy, 151 
 
 Baltimore, Lord, patent, 58 
 
 Barbados, Carolinians emigrate from, 
 11 
 
 Barnwell, John, sent to build Fort 
 King George, 15 ; South Carolina 
 Indian commissioner, 30 
 
 Barrier, South 'Carolina's Indian al- 
 liances, 84 
 
 Benavides Bazan, Antonio, governor 
 of Florida, protests against build- 
 
 171 
 
172 
 
 Index 
 
 ing of Fort King George, 15 ; 
 recommends planting barrier colony 
 against South Carolina, 114; pre- 
 decessor of Sanchez as governor 
 of Florida, 115; and plan for 
 buffer in Apalache, 129 
 
 Bienville, Jean Baptiste le Moyne, 
 sieur de, trade policy with Indians, 
 39 ; understands game of interna- 
 tional politics, 69; consulted by 
 Alabamas, 96; receives word of 
 Georgia plot, 96; uneasy over 
 English intrigues with Choctaws, 
 96; prepares for second campaign 
 against Chickasaws, 98; English 
 rumor concerning, 98; his 1740 
 campaign against Chickasaws, 100 ; 
 policy of setting one tribe against 
 another, 101 ; first expedition 
 against Chickasaws, 108; his ex- 
 peditions against Chickasaws, 108; 
 incites Indians of Ohio region 
 against English, 108; fears Geor- 
 gia, 114; Sanchez asks aid of, 116; 
 orders conference with Creeks, 
 116-117; buys Chickasaw scalps, 
 121 ; regards Georgia as menace to 
 Louisiana, 152 
 
 Biloxi, founded, 17 
 
 Blake, Joseph, deputy governor of 
 South Carolina, urges reform in 
 South Carolina Indian trade, 28 
 
 Bloody Marsh, Oglethorpe's victory 
 at, 127 
 
 Board of Trade, considers Georgia 
 Indian Act, 26 ; its Indian policy, 
 26n ; encourages deerskin trade, 
 30; favors Charleston over Savan- 
 nah, 32; petition referred to, 54; 
 hearings of South Carolina-Georgia 
 controversy, 56 ; sends questions to 
 attorney-general, 60 ; disregards 
 his opinion, 60; reports to commit- 
 tee of the Privy Council, 60; 
 refuses to recommend disallow- 
 ance of South Carolina ordinance, 
 60; Trustees appeal against report 
 of, 61 ; enemies of Trustees, 62w ; 
 representations to concerning 
 French, 86m-; hostile to Trustees, 
 92; objects to Oglethorpe's care- 
 lessness, 93m; urges peace among 
 all English Indians, 101m ; neglects 
 Georgia, 135; fails to protect Geor- 
 
 gia, 137 ; fails to support Reynolds, 
 138; hostile to Trustees, 143; con- 
 trols Georgia, 143; its powers, 143- 
 144 
 
 Bonds, required of Indian traders, 44 
 
 Bonnefoy, Antoine, Priber and, 110; 
 urges Cherokees to remain at 
 peace, 110 
 
 l3osomworth, Abraham, mission to 
 Creeks, 106 
 
 Bosomworth, Mary Musgrove Mat- 
 thews, see Musgrove, Mary 
 
 Bosomworth, Thomas, secretary for 
 Indian affairs, 47; Mary Mus- 
 grove's unfortunate marriage with, 
 78; account of his life, 78m; or- 
 dained minister at Savannah, 78m; 
 letter to, 79; carries message to 
 Mary, 105 
 
 Bosomworth claims, conference cal- 
 led to discuss, 140 
 
 Bosomworth controversy, Reynolds 
 alienates Indians in, 134-135 
 
 Boundaries, of Georgia and South 
 Carolina, unsettled, 62 ; of Georgia 
 and South Carolina to be de- 
 termined, 63 
 
 Bouquet, Col. Henry, attends Indian 
 conference at Savannah, 146 
 
 Braddock, Edward, General, his de- 
 feat shows need of a new Indian 
 policy, 144 
 
 Brailsford, John, witness in legal 
 case, 55m 
 
 Bray, Dr. Thomas, leader in move 
 to found Georgia, 22 
 
 Brims, Emperor of Creeks, supports 
 English, 14 ; Mary Musgrove sister 
 of, 73 ; father of Malatchi, 125 
 
 Broughton, Thomas, seeks monopoly 
 in Indian trade, 28 ; urges peace 
 with Spain, 117 
 
 Brown, Edward, Upper Creeks steal 
 horses of, 141 
 
 Brown, John, applies for appoint- 
 ment as secretary for Indian af- 
 fairs, 47 
 
 Brown, , counsel for South 
 
 Carolina, 34 
 
 Buffer, Creeks a buffer for Georgia, 
 34 
 
 Buffer colonies, Florida, 10, 20; New 
 Mexico, 20: Georgia, 22; Georgia 
 a buffer for South Carolina against 
 
Index 
 
 173 
 
 French, Spaniards, and Indians, 
 86; and colony in Apalache, 129; 
 Georgia and Florida both buffers, 
 113 
 Bull, William, Lt. -governor of South 
 Carolina, calls special session of 
 assembly, 52; receives Shepard's 
 protest, 56; invites Chickasaws to 
 settle at New Windsor, 97; and 
 rumor circulated among Alabamas, 
 98; warns Gooch, 118; asks Gooch 
 to aid Oglethorpe, 126«- 
 
 Cabrera, Juan Marques, governor of 
 Florida, retreats from Guale, 12 
 
 Cadillac, Lamothe, governor of 
 Louisiana, arrives in Louisiana, 18 
 
 Canada, linked to Louisiana, 108 ; to 
 be linked to Louisiana, 113; Geor- 
 gia to be attacked by Indians from, 
 115; Georgia asked to send troops 
 against, 138 ; French try to link to 
 Louisiana, 150 
 
 Canary Islands, Spanish colonists to 
 be brought from, 114; colonists 
 from, 130 
 
 Cannibalism, example of among In- 
 dians, 12ln 
 
 Cardross, Lord, raids Spanish mis- 
 sions, 12 
 
 Carolina, trade rivalry with Louis- 
 iana, 18; John Wesley on, 54; 
 taxes Indian goods imported, 57; 
 requires license of Virginia trad- 
 ers, 57 ; runaway slaves from, 91 ; 
 and Cherokees, 108; Priber settles 
 in, 109; Spanish want barrier 
 against, 114; to be attacked from 
 Havana, 118; protests against 
 Spanish encouraging runaway 
 slaves, 120; builds Fort Prince 
 George, 137; regains friendship of 
 Cherokees, 142; builds Fort Lou- 
 doun, 142 
 
 Carolina Indian act, of 1707, 57, 58; 
 of 1711, 57, 58 
 
 Carolina Indian trade, threatened by 
 royal instructions, 62 
 
 Carolina Indian traders, fear Trus- 
 tees' monopoly in Indian trade, 58 ; 
 none denied a Georgia license, 58; 
 Carolina ordinances intended to 
 
 protect rights of, 59; to take out 
 licenses in Charleston, 60; to give 
 bond on receiving license, 61 ; not 
 to be charged extra fee, 62 ; and 
 settlement of Indian act con- 
 troversy, 64; troublesome with 
 Creeks, 64 ; unruly conduct, 98 
 
 Carolina pack-train, threatened by 
 Creeks, 106 
 
 Carolinians, to pay £5 for Georgia 
 license, 44; hostile to Oglethorpe, 
 63 ; wish to see Georgia destroyed, 
 64 
 
 Carr, Mark, his plantation attacked 
 by Yamassees, 126 
 
 Carteret, John, Lord, opposed to 
 Walpole, 90 
 
 Carthagena, expedition against, 90n; 
 attacked by Vernon, 91 
 
 Castilla, Francisco de, advises de- 
 struction of Creeks, 124; his plan 
 for colonization, 129 
 
 Catawba Indians, hostile to Six Na- 
 tions, 67-68; attacked by Iroquois, 
 102; to attend Indian conference, 
 
 , 120 
 
 Cathcart, Lord, dies, 91 
 
 Catholics, runaway slaves encouraged 
 to become, 119 
 
 Charleston, founded, 11 ; trade rivalry 
 with Mobile, 18 ; center for Indian 
 trade in southeast, 30, 31 ; its In- 
 dian trade, 3ln; deerskins exported 
 from, 3Sn ; assembly meets in, 52 ; 
 committee sent from, 54; and rum 
 act, 55'; distant from many Caro- 
 lina traders, 58 ; visited by Ogle- 
 thorpe, 63 ; immigration to, from 
 Savannah, 65 ; William Stephens to 
 be sent to, 65; Compton writes 
 from, 118 
 
 Charleston merchants, active in In- 
 dian trade, 30; send committee to 
 Savannah, 54 
 
 Charter, see Georgia charter 
 
 Chattahooche river, Chickasaws 
 urged to settle on, 97 
 
 Cherokee Indians, mission of Sir 
 Alexander Cuming to, 16; one of 
 four great Indian nations, 18; sign 
 treaty of allegiance with English, 
 19; friendly to Georgia, 34; 
 grouped in three sections, 35 ; com- 
 plain of South Carolina traders, 
 
174 
 
 Index 
 
 35n ; myths of, 35n ; Oglethorpe's 
 influence over, 45; Roger Lacy 
 agent to, 49 ; Indian agents among, 
 50»; control of trade with, 53; 
 Oglethorpe instructs agent to, 54; 
 Virginians trade with, 57; im- 
 portance to Georgia, 67; act as 
 two-fold barrier for Georgia, 67; 
 hostile to Iroquois, 67-68; barrier 
 for Georgia against Iroquois, 68; 
 shut out desirable immigration, 
 68 j wars with Iroquois, 68; cede 
 land to South Carolina, 68m; im- 
 portance to Georgia, 69 ; stray war- 
 riors ask help of Mary Musgrove 
 Matthews, 77; a buffer for South 
 Carolina, 84; called down to aid 
 Oglethorpe against St. Augustine, 
 91 ; friendly toward Chickasaws, 
 97; attacked by Creeks, 100; send 
 aid to Chickasaws, 100; renew 
 loyalty to English, 101 ; join Creeks 
 against Georgia, lOlw ; fail to at- 
 tend conference, I02n; attack 
 Creeks, 104; plan to make war on 
 English, 104; war with Creeks, 
 106; Anglo-French rivalry among, 
 107; aid Chickasaws against 
 French, 108; allies of Chickasaws, 
 108; form alliance with English, 
 108; four villages join Chickasaws, 
 108 ; friends of Chickasaws, 108 ; 
 migration to the Ohio, 108 ; natural 
 allies of English, 108 ; seven chiefs 
 visit London, 108; attacked by 
 Creeks, 109; and Iroquois raiding 
 party, 110; hold Bonnefoy captive, 
 110; French traders active among, 
 110; Priber unable to influence 
 against English, 110; French win 
 faction of, 111; party among sup- 
 ports French, 111; unsettled spirit 
 among, 111; at war with Creeks, 
 112; Choctaws send war parties 
 against, 112; return to loyalty 
 toward English, 112; war against 
 Creeks, 112n; English sure of, 
 120; to attend general Indian con- 
 ference, 120; loss of English in- 
 fluence among, 121-122; support 
 Oglethorpe in War of Jenkins' Ear, 
 122; numbers of, 123; Oglethorpe 
 aided by six hundred of, 123 ; sent 
 against Florida, 129; appeal to 
 
 Georgians for help, 130; and war 
 against Creeks, 131 ; lull in war 
 against Creeks, 132 ; less friendly 
 toward Georgia, 136; and Fort 
 Prince George, 137; Savannah 
 visited by band of, 139; English- 
 Cherokee war, 142 ; reaffirm alleg- 
 iance to English, 142; attend 
 Indian conference at Savannah, 
 146; and French and Spanish, 149; 
 French sought to win over, 150; 
 French argument among, 151 
 Cherokee language, Priber learns, 
 109; mastered by Chevalier de 
 Lantagnac, 110 
 Chickasaw Indians, one of four great 
 Indian nations,, 18 ; war with 
 French, 19 ; loyal to English, 19, 36 ; 
 location, 36 ; population, 36 ; allied 
 with Natchez, 36n ; Oglethorpe's 
 opinion of, 36n; traders to, 44; 
 control of trade with, 53 ; send 
 delegation to Savannah, 97 ; allies 
 of Cherokees, 97 ; band of migrate 
 to Creeks, 97; Choctaw raid 
 against, 97; hold interview with 
 Oglethorpe, 97 ; and rumor circu- 
 lated among Alabamas, 98 ; French 
 1740 expedition against, lOOw ; at- 
 tacked by Iroquois, 102; plan to 
 make war on English, 104; Bien- 
 ville's first expedition against, 
 108; friends of Cherokees, 108; 
 migration to the Ohio, 108 ; English 
 sure of, 120 : to attend Indian con- 
 ference, 120; French pay Choc- 
 taws for scalps of, 121 ; invite 
 Oglethorpe to conference, 122; 
 send warriors to aid Oglethorpe 
 against Spanish, 122; send seventy 
 men to Oglethorpe's aid, 124; 
 Savannah visited by band of, 126 ; 
 defeat French expedition, 135 ; 
 French give up attempt to destroy, 
 136; Reynolds sends presents to, 
 138 ; Savannah visited by band of, 
 139; and Upper Creek-Choctaw 
 treaty, 142 ; long war with French, 
 150; Georgians trade with, 152 
 
 Chicken, George, South Carolina 
 Indian commissioner, 30 
 
 Chicketo, Fort, see Fort Chicketo 
 
 Chikillie, Creek chief, 124 
 
 Choctaw Indians, one of four great 
 
Index 
 
 175 
 
 Indian nations, 18 ; allied to 
 French, 19; location, 36; popula- 
 tion, 36 ; fickle, 36 ; towns of, 36n ; 
 warriors of sold into slavery, 37 ; 
 allies of French, 37 ; John Wesley's 
 opinion of, 37 n ; Creeks fear Eng- 
 lish alliance with, 69 ; fickle, 95 ; 
 mercenary opportunists, 95 ; inclin- 
 ing toward friendship with English, 
 96 ; Lower Creeks know plans of, 
 97 ; English intrigue among, 97-98 ; 
 English circulate rumors among, 
 98 ; plan attack on English traders, 
 99 ; English-Choctaw friendship 
 alienates Creeks, 105; seek to pre- 
 vent formation of English-Creek 
 alliance, 105 ; return to French al- 
 legiance, 107 ; Cherokees ask pro- 
 tection from, 111; unsettled spirit 
 among, 111; divided into factions, 
 112; send war parties against 
 Cherokees, 112; French buy scalps 
 from, 121 ; not involved in War of 
 Jenkins' Ear, 122; Oglethorpe in- 
 vited to conference by English 
 party of, 122; to be sent against 
 Creeks, 129; French faction de- 
 feats English faction among, 136 ; 
 sent against Chickasaws by French, 
 136 ; and treaty with French, 
 136«; treaty with Creeks, 142; 
 English intrigues with, 150; Eng- 
 lish spread rumor among, 151; 
 English argument among, 151 ; 
 Georgians trade with, 152 
 
 Choctaw Revolt, aided by English, 
 '106 
 
 Chotte, Cherokee town, 142 
 
 Clark, Charles, counsel for Georgia, 
 54; his argument in Georgia-South 
 Carolina controversy, 58; asserts 
 that port of Savannah includes 
 southern branch of Savannah river, 
 59 
 
 Clark, John, secretary for Indian af- 
 fairs, 47 
 
 Clarke, George, attempts to keep 
 peace among Indians, 68 ; and In- 
 dian conference at Albany, 101 ; 
 proposes general peace among 
 English Indians, 102 ; warns South 
 Carolina, 102n 
 
 Coat, Chickasaw warrior, warns 
 Gray, 106 
 
 Cochrane, Lieut. Colonel, and Ogle- 
 thorpe's regiment, 88 ; intended by 
 Walpole for command of regiment 
 in Georgia, 88; reaches Savannah, 
 89 
 
 Colonial defence, handled by each 
 colony individually, 83 
 
 Columbus, Georgia, near Coweta, 34 
 
 Committee of Council for Plantation 
 Affairs, South Carolina com- 
 plaint referred to, 54 
 
 Committee of the Privy Council, re- 
 ceives report from Board of Trade, 
 60 ; hears Trustees' appeal, 61 ; re- 
 ports to Privy Council, 61 
 
 Common Council of Trustees, to dis- 
 pose of money, 42; to regulate 
 Indian trade, 45 
 
 Commons House, in South Carolina, 
 29 
 
 Communistic state, Priber's plan for, 
 109 
 
 Complaints, Indian commissioner to 
 hear complaints from Indians, 43 
 
 Compton, Captain, stationed off Vir- 
 ginia coast, 118; writes Gooch 
 Spanish danger is over, 118 
 
 Constable, duties of, 43 
 
 Coosaponakeesa, Indian name of 
 Mary Musgrove, 74 
 
 Corruption, in Indian trade, 43 
 
 Coweta, near site of Columbus, 34 ; 
 Oglethorpe and, 70 ; Oglethorpe's 
 journey to, 72; Mary Musgrove 
 born at, 73 ; Oglethorpe stricken 
 with fever at, 73 ; French send guns 
 to, 105 ; French to send linguist to, 
 105; Abraham Bosomworth's mis- 
 sion to, 106; Spaniards win sup- 
 port of, 114; Oglethorpe's journey 
 to, 120 ; Indian conference called 
 at, 122; Oglethorpe's journey to, 
 details of, 122 ; George Galphin the 
 trader at, 139 
 
 Craven, Governor, leads expedition 
 against Yamassees, 14 ; sends John 
 Musgrove on mission to Creeks, 74 
 
 Credit, amount to be allowed is 
 limited, 44 
 
 Creek Indians, one of four great In- 
 dian nations, 18 ; friendly to Geor- 
 gia, 34 ; population, 34 ; description 
 of, 34n ; origin of name, 34n ; Mon- 
 tiano's opinion of, 35 ; hold key 
 
176 
 
 Index 
 
 position, 35; Spanish trade with, 
 39 ; English trade with, 39 ; slow in 
 paying debts, 41 ; as middlemen in 
 deerskin trade, 41 ; Oglethorpe's in- 
 fluence over, 45 ; Captain Patrick 
 Mackey agent to, 49 ; Indian agents 
 among, 50» ; control of trade with, 
 53; Tanner agent to, 54; Carolina 
 traders among lawless, 64; im- 
 portance to Georgia, 67; fear 
 English-Choctaw alliance, 69; a 
 confederacy, 69; hold key position 
 in Georgia, 69 ; understand balance 
 of power, 69; buffer for Georgia 
 against French and Spaniards, 69 ; 
 regulations concerning, 70; and 
 treaty with Oglethorpe, 70n; land 
 cession of, 70n; impressed by 
 Tomochichi's funeral, 72; Ogle- 
 thorpe's journey to Coweta, 72; 
 Patrick Mackey agent to, 72; 
 Tomochichi distributes presents to, 
 72 ; Georgians need support of, 73 ; 
 1739 treaty with English, 73; John 
 Musgrove's mission to, 74; in- 
 fluenced in favor of English by 
 Mary Musgrove, 75; plan attack 
 on Yamassees, 76; meeting with 
 Oglethorpe at Frederica, 77; aid 
 against Spaniards requested, 79; 
 Spanish faction among, 79; 
 threaten to desert to Spaniards, 79 ; 
 a buffer to Georgia against Span- 
 iards, 80 ; kept friendly to Georgia 
 by Mary Musgrove, 81 ; buffer for 
 South Carolina, 84; called down 
 to aid Oglethorpe against St. 
 Augustine, 91 ; fickle, 95 ; skillful 
 diplomats, 95 ; band of Chickasaws 
 migrate to, 97; Chickasaws seek 
 friendship of, 97; know all that 
 happens in the forests, 97 ; alleg- 
 iance to English wavers, 98; 
 French intrigue among, 98; fear 
 a coalition among English, French, 
 and Spanish, 99 ; plan attack on 
 English traders, 99 ; incited against 
 South Carolina traders by French, 
 100; not involved in 1740 French 
 campaign against Chickasaws, 100 ; 
 Captain George Dunbar sent to, 
 101 ; renew loyalty toward English, 
 101 ; waning loyalty of towards 
 English, 101 ; join Cherokees 
 
 against Georgia, 101h; French in- 
 trigues among, 102; turn away 
 from English, 103 ; plan to make 
 war on English, 103-104; attacked 
 by Cherokees, 104; attend confer- 
 ence at Fort Toulouse, 104 ; French 
 among to be arrested, 104; plan to 
 kill English, 104; Mary Mus- 
 grove's influence with, 105 ; receive 
 guns from French, 105 ; wish to 
 remain key nation, 105; interfere 
 with English Choctaw trade, 106; 
 plan to turn against English, 106 ; 
 a sliding balance, 107 ; lean toward 
 French, 107; visited by French 
 officers, 107; attack Cherokees, 
 109; send raiding parties against 
 Cherokees, 109; rumors among, 
 111; unsettled spirit among, 111; 
 urged by Cherokees to desert Eng- 
 lish, 111 ; visited by party of French 
 Cherokees, 111 ; supplied by French 
 with muskets, 112; at war with 
 Cherokees, 112, 112w; loyalty to 
 Spaniards, 113; Spaniards send 
 delegation to, 114; Tobias Fitch's 
 mission to, 114; open break with 
 Spaniards, 116; influenced by Pat- 
 rick Mackay, 117; ordered to cease 
 raids against Spaniards, 117; make 
 peace with Spaniards, 119; many 
 favor Spanish, 120; to attend In- 
 dian conference, 120; Spanish buy 
 English scalps from, 121 ; invite 
 Oglethorpe to Coweta, 122; wel- 
 come Oglethorpe to Coweta, 122 ; 
 won over by Oglethorpe, 122; 
 Oglethorpe aided by six hundred 
 of, 123; Spanish wish to destroy, 
 124; fight against Yamassees, 125; 
 Malatchi's influence among, 125 ; 
 part played at siege of St. Augus- 
 tine, 125 ; at war with Cherokees, 
 126 ; thorn in side of Spanish, 127 ; 
 accept Spanish presents, 128 ; 
 Montiano too weak to crush, 128; 
 report French threat to Oglethorpe, 
 129; sent against Florida, 129; 
 threatened by French, 129; ask 
 Spanish for alliance, 130; remain 
 loyal to English, 130 ; seek aid from 
 French and Spanish, 130 ; delega- 
 tion visits St. Augustine, 131 ; seek 
 Spanish alliance, 131 ; buffer for 
 
Index 
 
 177 
 
 Georgia, 132; cease raids against 
 Spanish, 132; desert Spanish, 132; 
 majority loyal to English, 132; 
 descent upon Savannah, 136; fear 
 English- Yamassee alliance, 136; 
 more hostile toward English, 140; 
 Augusta fears attack by, 141 ; won 
 back to loyalty to English, 143; 
 attend Indian conference at Savan- 
 nah, 146; feared by South Caro- 
 lina, 147; Oglethorpe's policy 
 toward, 148 ; importance to Geor- 
 gia, 149 ; French seek to win over, 
 150; rumor spread by French 
 among, 151 ; Spanish argument 
 among, 151 
 
 Creek-Cherokee War, of 1741, 77, 
 100, 109; of 1747,79 
 
 Creek-Choctaw War, threatens to 
 break out, 99 
 
 Cross, Thomas, marries widow of 
 John Clark, A7n 
 
 Crozart, Antoine, proprietor of 
 Louisiana, 17 ; surrenders charter, 
 18 
 
 Cuba, in War of Jenkins' Ear, 91 ; 
 rival of Florida for Spanish 
 colonists, 130 
 
 Cumberland island, and 1739 Eng- 
 lish-Creek treaty, 73 
 
 Cuming, Sir Alexander, his mission 
 to Cherokees, 16 
 
 D 
 
 Deerskin trade, valuable to England, 
 9; valuable to Great Britain, 27; 
 amount exported from South Caro- 
 lina, 27-28 ; boom period in, 28 ; in 
 Virginia, 31 ; Savannah needs ware- 
 houses for, 32m; in Georgia, 38; 
 Charleston merchants and, 38; 
 statistics on Charleston exports of, 
 38n; English-Spanish rivalry for, 
 39; English-French rivalry for, 
 39 ; Spanish methods ?n, 39 ; 
 French methods in, 39-40; English 
 methods in, 40 ; use of credit in, 40; 
 Creeks as middlemen in, 41 ; Geor- 
 gia and South Carolina rivals for, 
 148 ; English policy of payment a 
 liberal one, 149 ; English have more 
 goods than Spanish, 150 
 
 Delaware, Iroquois raiding parties 
 
 traverse, 68 ; traversed by Iroquois 
 war parties, 102 
 
 DeLeon, Don Juan Isidoro, com- 
 mandant at St. Marks, 130; relays 
 Creek message to Montiano, 131 
 
 Dempsey, Charles, English agent to 
 Spaniards, 117-118; and treaty 
 with Spaniards, il8, USn 
 
 Diego, Fort, see Fort Diego 
 
 Dobell, John, secretary for Indian 
 affairs, 47 
 
 Dog King, Creek chief friendly to 
 English, 99; advises Georgia In- 
 dian agent, 99 
 
 Dormer, James, leases garden to 
 Weddell, 49 
 
 Dunbar, Captain George, accom- 
 panies Oglethorpe, 72; sent among 
 Creeks, 101 ; mission to Creeks, 
 126 
 
 East India Company, and Georgia 
 Indian act, 57 
 
 Egmont, Earl of, see Percival 
 
 Elibank, Henry, Lord, Journal of, 
 90?* 
 
 Ellis, Henry, governor of Georgia, 
 able governor, 143 ; regains friend- 
 ship of Indians for Georgia, 145 ; 
 holds Indian conference at Savan- 
 nah, 146 
 
 Encirclement, French policy, 152 
 
 England, Weddell sent over from, 
 49 ; South Carolina-Georgia con- 
 troversy to be referred to, 54 ; and 
 balance of power, 83 ; and problem 
 of colonial defense, 84 ; war against 
 Spain threatens, 84; war against 
 Spain imminent, 86; Oglethorpe's 
 regiment in part to be recruited in, 
 88; Earl of Rothe's regiment in 
 part to be recruited in, 88; Priber 
 migrates to, 109; war against 
 Spain, 122; ends war against 
 Spain, 132 ; and Georgia's Indian 
 policy, 133 
 
 English, north of Georgia, 10; 
 Creeks cede land to, 70;?; attempt 
 to break French control over Choc- 
 taws, 95 : encourage intertribal 
 wars, 101 ; alienate Creeks by 
 Choctaw alliance, 105 ; lose in- 
 
178 
 
 Index 
 
 fluence with Choctaws, 106 ; form 
 alliance with Cherokees, 108; Prib- 
 er's plan regarding haven for, 
 110; rumors of Cherokee war on, 
 111; opposed by French and 
 Spanish, 113; trade with St. Aug- 
 ustine, 115; not to occupy St. 
 George's island, 118; plan to build 
 forts, 119; encourage Indians to 
 bring in French Negro slaves, 120 ; 
 encourage Indians to send raiding 
 parties against Spaniards, 120; in- 
 trigue with Lower Creeks, 120 ; 
 plan to divide Florida, 121 ; Mon- 
 tiano urges destruction of southern 
 colonies of, 128 ; maintain control 
 of Creeks, 130; Montiano urges 
 destruction of, 130; Indians steal 
 horses of, 132; fail to win Choc- 
 taws, 136; maintain friendship 
 with Chickasaws, 136; Creeks less 
 friendly toward, 140 ; Upper Creeks 
 remain hostile toward, 141 ; regain 
 Cherokee friendship, 142; regain 
 loyalty of Creeks, 143 ; spread 
 rumor among Choctaws, 151 ; their 
 methods compared with those of 
 French, 151 
 
 English Indians, general peace 
 among, 102 
 
 d'Erneville, commandant at Fort 
 Toulouse, 117; calls Indian con- 
 ference, 117 
 
 Eveleigh, Samuel, South Carolina 
 Indian commissioner, 29 
 
 Expansion, desired by English, 9 
 
 Eyre, Thomas, agent to Cherokees, 
 49 ; accompanies Oglethorpe, 72 ; 
 Georgia Indian agent to Cherokees, 
 124; leads Cherokees to Ogle- 
 thorpe's aid, 124 
 
 Fenwick, Major John, South Caro- 
 lina Indian commissioner, 29 
 
 Fitch, Tobias, sole Indian commis- 
 sioner in South Carolina, 30; mis- 
 sion to Creeks, 114 
 
 Fleet prison, Georgia colonists from, 
 22 
 
 Florida, Spaniards in, 9, 10; and war 
 against Georgia, 86 ; conflict with 
 Georgia, 113 ; allied with Louisiana. 
 
 115; Oglethorpe wants peace with, 
 117; defenses of, 123; colonization 
 scheme for, 130 ; as rival of Geor- 
 gia, 149; and boundary dispute 
 with Georgia, 150 
 
 Fort Chicketo, protection for Florida, 
 123 
 
 Fort Diego, defense for Florida, 
 123 ; captured by English, 125 
 
 Fort King George, independent com- 
 pany stationed in, S8n 
 
 Fort Loudoun, built by Carolinians, 
 142 
 
 Fort Moore, built as a trading post, 
 32 
 
 Fort Moosa, Negro fort, 123 ; cap- 
 tured by English, 125; English at- 
 tack on, 131 
 
 Fort Picolata, defense for Florida, 
 123 ; built to protect mails, 123-124 
 
 Fort Pinnion, protects Florida, 123 
 
 Fort Prince George, built by South 
 Carolinians, 137 
 
 Fort Pupo, Creeks murder a Spaniard 
 at, 116; attacked by Indians, 120; 
 on St. John's river, 123 ; built to 
 protect mails, 123-124; protects 
 communications between St. Aug- 
 ustine and Apalache, 125 
 
 Fort Rossa, protects Florida, 123 
 
 Fort St. Francis de Pupo. See Fort 
 Pupo 
 
 Fort Tombekbe, and rumor circulated 
 among Alabamas, 99 ; Grand-Pre 
 commandant at, 136n 
 
 Fort Toulouse, built, 19; plot to de- 
 stroy, 96; strategically located, 
 96; garrisoned from Mobile, 96; 
 garrison of, 96; Muklasa near, 
 103; Indian conference at, 104; 
 Chevalier de Lantagnac liaison 
 officer at, 111; Indian conference 
 at, 117, 137 
 
 Fox, Henrv, asks Reynolds for 
 troops, 142 
 
 France, rival of Great Britain for fur 
 trade, 9; rival of England for In- 
 dian friendship, 113 
 
 Franco-Spanish frontier, in Carib- 
 bean, 19; in Texas, 19; in Florida, 
 19 
 
 Frederica, Oglethorpe at, 45 ; Mary 
 Mussrrove to send word to, 75 ; 
 Oglethorpe wants interpreter at, 
 
Index 
 
 179 
 
 77; Indians at dissatisfied, 79; 
 visited by James Pemberton, 79n ; 
 Oglethorpe and regiment arrive at, 
 89; defended by Oglethorpe, 91; 
 fortified, 91; in southern division 
 of Georgia, 93; Captain George 
 Dunbar sent from, 101 ; Creeks at, 
 103 ; French prisoners to be sent 
 to, 104 ; regiment withdrawn from, 
 107; Priber sent to, 110; Ogle- 
 thorpe replied from, 119; Malatchi 
 at, 125 ; Oglethorpe's base, 125 ; 
 Chickasaw warriors sent to, 126 ; 
 Dunbar departs from, 126 ; Spanish 
 fleet sailed for, 127 ; many Indians 
 at, I27n; Horton commander at, 
 129 ; Whonny sent to, 129 
 
 Frederica island, and 1739 English- 
 Creek treaty, 73 
 
 French, expansion of colonies, 9 ; 
 early activities in Georgia, 18w ; 
 and price of Indian goods, 4ln ; 
 English traders forbidden to trade 
 with, 44; attempt to win Creeks 
 and Cherokees, 45 ; Indian allies of 
 English needed against, 68; repre- 
 sentations to Board of Trade con- 
 cerning, 8>6n ; try to break English 
 control over Creeks, 95 ; troops in 
 Louisiana, 95n; control Alabamas, 
 96 ; attack Lower Creeks, 98 ; in- 
 cite Creeks against South Carolina 
 traders, 99-100; intrigue with 
 Creeks, 100 ; support Spanish in 
 War of Jenkins' Ear, 100 ; intrigue 
 with Creeks, 101 ; encourage Iro- 
 quois to attack Chickasaws, 102; 
 intrigue with Creeks, 102; South 
 Carolina warned against, "102w; 
 hold Indian conference ; 104 ; win 
 over Senacas, 104; send guns to 
 Creek towns, 105 ; work to prevent 
 formation of English-Creek al- 
 liance, 105; Choctaw Revolt and, 
 106 ; regain Choctaw friendship, 
 107 ; send officers to Creeks, 107 ; 
 aided by Priber, 109; win over part 
 of Creeks, 109 ; expected to aid 
 Priber, 110; Priber's plan regard- 
 ing haven for, 110; Cherokees be- 
 tray French, 111; intrigues with 
 Cherokees successful, 111; win fac- 
 tion among Cherokees, 111 ; supply 
 Creeks with muskets, 112; sup- 
 port Creeks and Choctaws against 
 
 Cherokees, 112; Sanchez borrows 
 guns from, 117; aid Spaniards, 
 119; use Negroes as soldiers, 120; 
 intrigue among Creeks, 121 ; Ogle- 
 thorpe defeats intrigues of among 
 Creeks, 122; intrigue with Creeks, 
 124; send agents to Creeks; 
 threaten Creeks, 129 ; make efforts 
 to win Creeks, 130; increase their 
 efforts to win control of Indians, 
 135 ; give up attempt to destroy 
 Chickasaws, 135-136 ; gain new suc- 
 cesses, 137 ; redouble efforts among 
 Indians, 137; stirred by building 
 of Fort Prince George, 137; win 
 support of Upper Creeks, 137 ; con- 
 ference with Upper Creeks at Mo- 
 bile, 140; their continued success 
 with the Creeks, 140; Augusta 
 fears attack by, 141 ; continue in- 
 trigue with Cherokees, 142; and 
 Georgia Indians, 144 ; and new In- 
 dian policy of English, 145 ; feared 
 by South Carolina, 147 ; import- 
 ance of Creeks to, 149 ; as rivals of 
 English for Indian friendship, 150; 
 encirclement policy of, 150 ; in- 
 trigue with Creeks and Cherokees, 
 150; spend years in effort to ex- 
 terminate Chickasaws, 150 ; spread 
 rumor among Creeks, 151 ; their 
 methods of dealing with Indians 
 contrasted with those of English, 
 151 ; fear westward expansion of 
 English, 152 
 
 French and Indian War, and Ogle- 
 thorpe, S9n; Indian affairs at out- 
 break of, 107; Ohio region fur 
 trade a cause of, \3Sn; and Geor- 
 gia, 138 
 
 French-Chickasaw war, Choctaw raid 
 during, 97 
 
 French Indian traders, and Georgia 
 Indians, 65 
 
 Frontiers, Anglo-Spanish, 10 ; Anglo- 
 French, 10; Franco-Spanish, 10 
 
 Fuentes, Captain Francisco, defends 
 Snanish mission on St. Catherine's, 
 12 
 
 Fur-trade, rivalry for, 9; Georgia 
 trade regulated by Trustees, 26; 
 stimulated by founding of Georgia, 
 58; French efforts to gain, 112; a 
 cause of French and Indian War, 
 \3Sn 
 
180 
 
 Index 
 
 Galphin, George, Georgia trader at 
 Coweta, 139 
 
 Garcitas Creek, LaSalle's colony on, 
 17 
 
 George I, and Hanover, 83 
 
 George II, grants audience to 
 Tomochichi, / 1 ; grants audience to 
 Oglethorpe, 88 
 
 Georgia, role of Indian in, 9; Anglo- 
 Spanish rivalry for, 10; trade 
 rivalry with Louisiana, 18 ; early 
 activities of French in, 18m; why 
 founded, 22 ; account of genesis of, 
 22n ; boundaries, 23 ; parts settled, 
 23 ; buffer colony, 23 ; Negro slav- 
 ery in forbidden, 24; account of 
 under Trustees, 24w ; Negro slav- 
 ery forbidden in, 2Sn ; a poor 
 colony, 32 ; form of license for In- 
 dian trader, 42m ; cut off from 
 South Carolina, 51; controversy 
 with South Carolina, 53 ; to be held 
 accountable for losses of South 
 Carolina traders, 53 ; no rum to be 
 landed in, 54 ; threatened by Indian 
 war, 55 ; closes Indian trade to Vir- 
 ginians, 57 ; Clarke's argument in 
 behalf of, 58 ; its founding aids fur 
 trade, 58; objects to South Caro- 
 line ordinance, 59 ; and petition to 
 King, 61 ; boundaries indefinite, 61 ; 
 to pass act similar to South Caro- 
 lina for regulating Indian trade. 
 61; disliked by Carolinians, 64; 
 traders few, 65 ; Oglethorpe's de- 
 scription of, 67m ; in danger of 
 raids by Iroquois, 68 ; and Negro 
 slavery in, 70m ; Tomochichi's opin- 
 ion of, 71n ; Indian education in, 
 74m ; England and Spain dispute 
 ownership of, 84 ; able to raise 
 three hundred militia, 85 ; and war 
 against Florida, 86; Oglethorpe to 
 return to, 86 ; interests differ from 
 those of South Carolina, 87 ; in- 
 dependent company in, 88; Ogle- 
 thorpe ordered to defend, 90; 
 counter attack of Spaniards on, 
 91 ; Oglethorpe leaves for last time, 
 91 ; refuses to take sides in Creek- 
 Cherokee war, 100; attempts to set 
 Cherokees against Creeks, 101m ; 
 
 regains friendship of Creeks, 106- 
 10/ ; Mary Musgrove turns against, 
 107; natural allies of Cherokees, 
 108 ; Priber sails for, 109 ; conflict 
 with Florida, 113; conflict with 
 Louisiana, 113 ; to be attacked from 
 Havana, 118; Negro slavery pro- 
 hibited in, 120; and surrender of 
 its charter by Trustees, 133 ; par- 
 liamentary appropriation for, 134 ; 
 in state of unrest, 135 ; neglected 
 by Board of Trade, 135; shifts 
 from offensive to defensive, 135 ; 
 abandons aggressive attitude, 136 ; 
 intrigues with Creeks, 137 ; neglects 
 Cherokees, 137 ; its defensive atti- 
 tude, 138 ; in need of guns and pow- 
 der, 139; in need of troops, 139; 
 alarmed by its lack of Indian pres- 
 ents, 140; fears Creek uprising, 
 141 ; Chickasaws asked to make 
 war on, 142; too weak to send 
 troops to aid Loudoun, 142; con- 
 trolled by Board of Trade, 143; 
 threatened by French Indian power, 
 143 ; change in Indian policy of, 
 144; lacks Indian presents, 144; 
 new Indian policy in, 144; unit in 
 imperial scheme, 144 ; and the In- 
 dian superintendents, 145 ; its 
 buffer character, 147 ; keeps Creeks 
 at peace, 147 ; reasons for found- 
 ing Georgia, 147 ; its Indian prob- 
 lem threefold, 148 ; more successful 
 than South Carolina in Indian af- 
 fairs, 148; as rival of Louisiana 
 and of Florida, 149 ; and boundary 
 dispute with Florida, 150; and 
 westward expansion, 151-152; a 
 military outpost, 152; its founding 
 a threat to Florida and Louisiana, 
 152; restless spirit of its colonists, 
 152 ; under same flag as Louisiana 
 and Florida, 152 
 
 Georgia assistants, appoint provis- 
 ional Indian commissioner, 46 
 
 Georgia charter, and reasons for 
 founding Georgia, 22m ; cuts Geor- 
 gia off from South Carolina, 51 ; 
 sets bounds of colony, 54 ; effect 
 of its surrender on Georgia, 133 ; 
 terms of, 133-134 
 
 Georgia-Florida boundary, unset- 
 tled, 118 
 
Index 
 
 181 
 
 Georgia Indian act, passed by Trus- 
 tees, 26; analyzed, 41-45; creates 
 office of treasurer, 49 ; controversy 
 over, 51 ; patterned on South 
 Carolina Indian act, 51; stirs 
 Charleston merchants, 52; copy 
 sent to Gooch, 57; discussed, 57; 
 not opposed by Virginia, 57; 
 Clarke's argument for, 58; com- 
 pared with South Carolina acts, 
 58; and South Carolina ordinance, 
 59; modification necessary, 59; 
 monopoly in trade, 60; merely 
 regulation, 61 ; of no force, 135 
 
 Georgia Indian agents. See Indian 
 agents 
 
 Georgia Indian commissioners. See 
 Indian commissioners 
 
 Georgia rum act, rum prohibited by 
 Trustees, 26; South Carolina- 
 Georgia dispute over, 51; Savan- 
 nah authorities stave rum, 52; 
 difficult to enforce, 59; restrictions 
 in enforcement of, 60 
 
 Georgia Trustees. See Trustees 
 
 Georgia rivers, description of, 56» 
 
 Geraldino, Don Tomas, correspond- 
 ence with Newcastle, 117 
 
 Germans, migration of, 68; Priber's 
 plans regarding haven for, 110 
 
 Gibraltar, Earl of Rothe's regi- 
 ment stationed at, 88; Oglethorpe 
 regiment sails for, 89 
 
 Glen, James, hostile to Trustees, 63 ; 
 salary dispute with Oglethorpe, 
 63; recommended by Egmont for 
 South Carolina governorship, 63n; 
 reconciled to Trustees, 64; and 
 settlement of Indian act contro- 
 versy, 64, 65 ; and Cherokee land 
 cession, 68w ; dispute with Ogle- 
 thorpe over salary, 89; tries to 
 secure military commission, 89 ; 
 succeeds Horsey as governor of 
 South Carolina, 89; hostile to 
 Oglethorpe, 94; abandons visit to 
 Cherokees, 111; favors building of 
 fort among Cherokees, 111-112 
 
 Gooch, William, Lt. Governor of 
 Virginia, accepts Georgia Indian 
 act, 57; attempts to keep peace 
 among Indians, 68 ; commands Vir- 
 ginia forces in War of Jenkins' 
 Ear, 91 ; advice of Board of Trade 
 
 to, 10b* ; informed by Compton 
 that Spanish danger is over, 118; 
 warned by Lt. Governor Bull, 118; 
 asked to aid Oglethorpe, I26n 
 
 Graham, Patrick, president of Geor- 
 gia, 134 
 
 Grand-Pre, de, commandant at Fort 
 Tombekbe, \36n 
 
 Gray, William, Augusta planter, 
 warned by Creeks, 106 
 
 Great Britain, rival of France and 
 Spain for fur-trade, 9 
 
 Great Tellico, Cherokee village, 108, 
 109; Priber settles in, 109; visited 
 by Lantagnac as French trader, 
 110 
 
 Grenville, George, opposed to Wal- 
 pole, 90 
 
 Guale, colonized by Spaniards, 10, 11 
 
 Giiemes y Horcasitas, Juan Ferdando 
 de, captain-general of Havana, 
 plans to attack Georgia, 118; Mon- 
 tiano writes to, 120, 123 ; Montiano 
 complains to concerning English 
 Indians, 125 
 
 Gulf of Mexico, and rivers flowing 
 into, 119 
 
 H 
 
 Habersham, James, his views on 
 deerskin trade, 3ln;- Savannah 
 merchant, 66; on Indian trade 
 settlement, 66 
 
 Halifax, Earl of, Board of Trade 
 under, 14 
 
 Hanover, and George I, 83 
 
 Hanoverians, and Whigs, 83 
 
 Havana, and Governor Horcasitas, 
 118; and Indian presents, 128; to 
 be avoided by colonists bound to 
 Florida, 130 
 
 Helpers, in Indian trade, 44; not to 
 be discharged in Indian country, 
 44; principal trader responsible 
 for, 45 
 
 Herbert, John, sole Indian commis- 
 sioner in South Carolina, 30 
 
 Heron, Col. Alexander, successor to 
 Major William Horton, 79-80; his 
 opinion of Mary Musgrove, 80 ; 
 stops Mary Musgrove's allowance 
 for Indian presents, 80 ; advised by 
 
182 
 
 Index 
 
 Mary Musgrove, 106 ; sends Abra- 
 ham Bosomworth to Creeks, 106 
 
 Hillispylli, Creek warrior, visits 
 London, 71 
 
 Hinckley ("Jingle"), English pirate, 
 led pirate raid on Spanish mis- 
 sions, 12 
 
 Holborn, White Hart in, 88 
 
 Horsey, Samuel, governor of South 
 Carolina, attends meeting of Trus- 
 tees, 62; dies of apoplexy, 63, 89; 
 recommended for South Carolina 
 governorship by Oglethorpe, 89 ; 
 friendly to Oglethorpe, 93 
 
 Horton, Major William, asks help 
 of Mary Musgrove, 76; praises 
 Mary Musgrove, 79; promises 
 Mary Musgrove annual allowance 
 for Indian presents, 79; requests 
 Mary Musgrove to send Creeks to 
 his aid, 79; sends Mary Musgrove 
 Indian presents to distribute, 79; 
 and James Pemberton, 79m ; Indian 
 policy of, 103 ; fears Creeks will 
 desert, 104; asks Mary Musgrove 
 to arrest Frenchmen, 104 ; and mis- 
 sion of Thomas Bosomworth, 105 ; 
 succeeded by Alexander Heron, 
 106; his evaluation of Indian's 
 fighting qualities, 125-126; asks 
 Mary Musgrove's help, 129 
 
 House of Commons, votes to pay 
 Oglethorpe's bills, 92n 
 
 Hutchinson, Archibald, John Wesley 
 writes to, 53 
 
 Hutchinson's island, and rum act, 55 
 
 Iberville, Pierre le Moyne, sieur de, 
 
 settles Biloxi, 17 
 Illegal trade with Indians, in Georgia, 
 
 39 . 
 Illinois, attached to Louisiana, 18 
 
 Illinois Indians, account of, 36n 
 
 Indentured servants, basis of labor 
 system of Georgia, 25 
 
 Independent company, in Georgia. 
 88 
 
 Indian act. See Georgia Indian act, 
 South Carolina Indian act. 
 
 Indian agents, duties of, in South 
 Carolina, 29 ; salary, 42, 49 ; Ogle- 
 thorpe appoints, 49; duties of, 50; 
 
 among Cherokees and Creeks, 50n ; 
 Oglethorpe sends instructions to, 
 54. Georgia agent orders South 
 Carolina trader whipped, 55 ; use 
 of among Cherokees, 69 ; Ogle- 
 thorpe's use of, 81 ; duties of 81 ; 
 Lt. Willy, Georgia agent, among 
 Creeks, 97; Georgia Indian agent 
 incites Creeks against Spaniards, 
 116 
 
 Indian co-commissioners, William 
 Stephens appointed co-commis- 
 sioner with Oglethorpe, 45 
 
 Indian commissioners, in South 
 Carolina, 29, 30 ; duties in Georgia, 
 42-43 ; forbidden to accept gifts, 
 43 ; presents to, 43 ; to grant 
 licenses to Indian traders, 44; 
 Oglethorpe first Indian commis- 
 sioner, 45 ; William Spencer ap- 
 pointed provisionally, 46 ; directed 
 to grant licenses to all who apply, 
 61 ; to license Carolina traders, 65 ; 
 their policy for controlling Indians, 
 80; Oglethorpe is appointed, 92; 
 replaced by royal governors, 133 
 
 Indian conferences, at Fort Toulouse, 
 117; called by English, 120; at St. 
 Augustine, 131-132; at Fort Toul- 
 ouse, 137; at Augusta, 140; at 
 Mobile, 140; as a policy of Georgia, 
 144; at Savannah, 145-146 
 
 Indian goods, list of, 128 
 
 Indian policy, of Georgia Trustees, 
 26 ; of Board of Trade, 26w ; new 
 imperial policy of English, 145 
 
 Indian population, in southeast, 34n 
 
 Indian presents, to be distributed by 
 Indian commissioner, 43 ; to Chero- 
 kees, 69 ; Trustees give Tomochichi 
 allowance for, 72n ; Mary Mus- 
 grove is promised annual allowance 
 for, 79; Mary Musgrove to dis- 
 tribute, 79 ; given out at Frederica, 
 103; argument concerning, 109; 
 use of among Creeks, 114; Spanish 
 presents for Creeks bought from 
 English, 116; Spanish win Indians 
 by, 116; Montiano urges Spanish 
 to give presents liberally to Indians, 
 128 ; Spanish give Creeks supply 
 of, 128; the secret of English in- 
 fluence over Indians, 128; Mon- 
 tiano orders supply of, 131 ; 
 
Index 
 
 183 
 
 Georgia short of, 135; at Fort 
 Toulouse conference, 137 ; needed 
 "by Reynolds, 138; Reynolds sends 
 to Chickasaws, 138; Reynolds has 
 none for Cherokees, 139 ; Reynolds 
 has none for Chickasaws, 139; 
 Reynolds has none for Lower 
 Creeks, 139; Reynolds' lack of, 
 139; given by French to Upper 
 Creeks, 140; Reynolds obtains 
 small supply of, 140 ; given by 
 Reynolds to Upper Creeks, 141 ; 
 given by royal governors, 144; 
 English have more than French, 
 149, 151 
 
 Indian slavery, in South Carolina, 
 27 ; among Choctaws, 37 ; among 
 Indians, 37; not prohibited in 
 Georgia, 37 ; in South Carolina, 
 account of, 37n; examples of in 
 Georgia, 37-38; not to be employ- 
 ed in Indian country, 45 
 
 Indian slave trade, in Georgia, 37 
 
 Indian superintendents, part of a new 
 Indian policy, 145 
 
 Indian trade, discussion of Trustees' 
 policy towards, 3\n\ corruption in, 
 43; Indian commissioner forbidden 
 to engage in, 43 ; in South Carolina, 
 52 ; regulated, 53 ; dispute over to 
 lie dormant, 54 ; and Georgia 
 Trustees, 56; petition concerning, 
 56; Carolina excludes Virginia 
 traders, 57 ; Virginians have traded 
 with Cherokees, 57 ; boom era in, 
 58 ; monopoly in by Trustees 
 feared, 58 ; John Wesley's opinion 
 on, 59 ; and Georgia Trustees, 60 ; 
 and petition to King, 61 ; informa- 
 tion regarding needed, 62 ; Caro- 
 lina trade open to Georgians, 64; 
 few Georgians in, 65 ; threat of 
 French and Spanish in Georgia 
 trade, 65 ; need of regulation for, 
 66 ; and Yamacraws, 70 ; regulated 
 by treaty of 1733, 70; to be regu- 
 lated by Indian commissioner, 92 ; 
 English trade with Choctaws, 106 ; 
 and Georgia Indian policy, 148 
 
 Indian traders, Carolina traders' riv- 
 alry with Louisiana, 18n; require 
 license in South Carolina, 29; 
 Cherokees ask for Virginia traders, 
 3Sn ; South Carolina traders carry 
 
 smallpox to Cherokees, 35n; 
 South Carolina traders are com- 
 plained of, 35n ; Georgia traders li- 
 censed, 38 ; number engaged in the 
 trade, 38 ; number at Augusta, 39n ; 
 one arrested, 42»; complaints 
 against to be heard by Indian com- 
 missioner, 43 ; not to make gifts to 
 Indian commissioner, 43 ; fines 
 against, 43 ; to assist Indian com- 
 missioner, 43 ; amount of credit to 
 Indians limited, 44; forbidden to 
 trade with French or Spanish, 44 ; 
 required to give bond, 44 ; required 
 to publish names, 44; subject to 
 orders of Indian commissioner, 44; 
 Carolina traders to pay £5 fee in 
 Georgia, 49; to pay ten shillings 
 fee for license, 49; Indian agents 
 cooperate with, 50; South Caro- 
 lina traders resent Georgia In- 
 dian act, 51 ; Carolina traders re- 
 quired to take out Georgia license, 
 51; opposed to planters, 52; South 
 Carolina ordinance intended to 
 protect South Carolina traders, 
 52 ; quarrelling among, 55 ; Caro- 
 lina traders and Georgia Indian 
 act, 56; South Carolina traders 
 shut out of Georgia trade, 56n ; to 
 obtain licenses at Savannah, 60; 
 lawless and insubordinate, 63-64; 
 to be allowed to trade with Caro- 
 lina Indians, 64; half of traders 
 to be Georgians, 65 ; Spanish trad- 
 ers and Georgia Indians, 65 ; disre- 
 gard South Carolina Indian com- 
 missioner, 66; influence of with 
 Cherokees, 69; regulations con- 
 cerning, 70; meet Oglethorpe at 
 Uchee Town, 72 ; influence of on 
 Indians, 81 ; English traders try to 
 win friendship of Alabamas, 96 ; 
 urge band of Chickasaws to settle 
 on Chattahoochee, 97; fear Creeks 
 will desert English, 100; keep 
 Creeks friendly to English, 103 ; 
 French traders among Creeks to 
 be arrested, 104; Cherokees are 
 incited to kill English traders, 110: 
 English traders dictate choice of 
 Cherokee emperor, 110; French 
 traders active among Cherokees, 
 110; Georgia traders arouse 
 
184 
 
 Index 
 
 Creeks against Spaniards, 116; ad- 
 vise William Stephens, 126; Eng- 
 lish traders supply Creeks with 
 ample amount of goods, 128 ; 
 Georgia traders influence Indians 
 greatly, 144; activities of Georgia 
 traders, 152 
 Indians, their role in Georgia, 9 ; at- 
 tack Spaniards, 11; aid Carolin- 
 ians, 12; Spaniards court favor of, 
 13 ; attack Carolina, 14 ; delegation 
 of visit London, 16 ; Texas In- 
 dians destroy LaSalle's colony, 17; 
 the four great nations, 18; nature 
 of, 19 ; in Texas, 20 ; contemporary 
 description of, 34m; linguistic 
 groups in southeast, 34m ; may give 
 presents to Indian commissioner, 
 43 ; amount of credit to limited, 44 ; 
 debts of to be forfeited if excessive 
 credit is allowed, 44; Oglethorpe 
 a friend of, 45; to be named in 
 trader's license, 45 ; function of In- 
 dian agent among, 50; and South 
 Carolina traders, 51 ; effect on of 
 South Carolina-Georgia contro- 
 versy, 55 ; allies of Great Britain, 
 58; and monopoly of trade, 60; 
 and French and Spanish traders, 
 65 ; friendship of vital to Georgia, 
 67 ; proprietary Georgia concerned 
 with five Indian nations, 67 ; raids 
 by northern Indians, 67; schools 
 for, 7 An ; destroy Mount Venture, 
 77 ; join Oglethorpe at Frederica, 
 78 ; Oglethorpe requests aid of 
 against Spaniards, 78 ; English In- 
 dians at Frederica dissatisfied, 79 ; 
 Spanish Indians a menace to Eng- 
 lish colonies, 84; inter-tribal wars 
 encouraged by English, 101 ; peace 
 among English-favoring Indians 
 urged, 101m; take Priber prisoner, 
 110; fickle and uncertain, 111; 
 harshly treated bv Sanchez, 115; 
 proposal to send Canadian Indians 
 against Georgia, 115; strength of 
 English lies with, 115; conference 
 at Fort Toulouse, 117; commit out- 
 rages, 119; English Indians mur- 
 der Pujoy, 119; English encourage 
 them to bring in French Negro 
 slaves, 120; cannibalism among, 
 121m; use of poisoned arrows, 
 121m ; cost of to British, 123 ; num- 
 
 ber of Oglethorpe's allies, 123 
 their part in siege of St. Augus 
 tine, 125 ; fighting qualities of, 126 
 role of in Spanish counter-attack 
 127; Yamassees almost destroyed 
 128; effect of charter's surrender 
 on, 133; new policy in manage- 
 ment of, 133 ; prestige of William 
 Stephens with, 134; alienated by 
 Governor Reynolds, 134-135 ; fickle 
 nature of, 135 ; French and Span- 
 ish renew efforts among, 135 ; im- 
 portance as allies in war increases, 
 135 ; French increase efforts 
 among, 137 ; and royal governors 
 of Georgia, 144 ; their importance 
 to English increases, 144-145 ; and 
 the Indian superintendents, 145 ; 
 won back to friendship for 
 Georgia, 145 ; and Georgia's In- 
 dian policy, 148; as factors in 
 English-French rivalry, 150; char- 
 acterized, 151 ; fickle character of, 
 151; keystone for ambitions of 
 Europeans in America, 152 
 
 Inland passage, used in deerskin 
 trade, 31 
 
 Interpreters, in Indian trade, 43 
 
 Inter-tribal wars, encouraged by 
 English, 101 ; policy of Oglethorpe, 
 Montiano and Bienville, 101 
 
 Ireland, Rothe's regiment to be re- 
 turned to, 88; and Rothe's regi- 
 ment, 88w 
 
 Irene, Indian school, 74m 
 
 Iroquois, a potential danger to 
 Georgia, 68; send raiding parties 
 against Cherokees and Catawbas 
 68; a buffer for New York, 84 
 Albany conference of, 101-102 
 attack Chickasaws, 102; insist that 
 southern Indians send delegates to 
 conference, 102 ; Cherokees and 
 raiding party of, 110; Cherokees 
 ask protection from, 111 
 
 Iroquois war parties, attack Cataw- 
 bas, 102 
 
 Izard, Ralph, South Carolina Indian 
 commissioner, 29 
 
 Jenkins, Captain, appears before 
 
 Parliament, 90 
 Jenkins' Ear, War of. See War of 
 
 Jenkins' Ear. 
 
Index 
 
 185 
 
 Jesuit, Priber a Jesuit, 109 
 Johnson, Robert, governor of South 
 
 Carolina, exercises power over 
 
 militia, 86 
 Joliet, Louis, explorations of, 17 
 
 K 
 
 Kent, Lieut. Richard, commander at 
 Augusta, 124; expects no help 
 from Cherokees, 124 
 
 Keowee, Cherokee village. Sir 
 Alexander Cuming at, 16; home 
 of Skia Gunsta, 110; Fort Prince 
 George near, 137 
 
 Kerelec, Marquis of, governor of 
 Louisiana, 136; sends Choctaws 
 against Chickasaws, 136; held In- 
 dian conference, 137 
 
 King George, Fort. See Fort King 
 George. 
 
 Labor system, in Georgia, 25 
 
 Lacy, Roger, agent to Cherokees, 49, 
 54 
 
 Land system, villages, 24 ; limitations 
 on land, 24 
 
 Lantagnac, Chevalier de, French 
 trader among Cherokees, 110 
 
 La Salle, Robert Cavelier de, plants 
 colony in Texas, 17 
 
 Law, John, and Mississippi Bubble. 
 18 
 
 Leman, Ensign, accompanies Ogle- 
 thorpe, 72 
 
 Licenses of Indian traders, might be 
 withdrawn, 43; principal trader 
 and two assistants, 44; provisions 
 of, 45 ; required of Virginia traders 
 by Carolina, 57; power to license 
 Indian traders divided between 
 Georgia and South Carolina, 65 
 
 Lighthouse, at Tybee, neglected by 
 Oglethorpe, 93 
 
 Lincoln's Inn, and Charles Clark, 54 
 
 Little, William, and Indian confer- 
 ence at Augusta, 140 
 
 Little Carpenter, Cherokee chief, 
 visits England, 16 
 
 Little Tennessee River, Fort Lou- 
 doun built on, 142 
 
 Logan, George, South Carolina In- 
 dian commissioner, 29 
 
 London, Tomochichi's visit to, 71 ; 
 visit of Cherokees to, 108 
 
 Long Canes Creek, and Cherokee 
 land cession, 68w 
 
 Loudoun, John Campbell, Earl of, 
 tries to add civil authority to mili- 
 tary, 94; Reynolds asked to send 
 troops to, 142 ; warns Reynolds of 
 danger from French, 143 
 
 Loudoun, Fort. See Fort Loudoun 
 
 Louis XIV, orders Iberville expedi- 
 tion, 20 
 
 Louisiana, founded, 17 ; granted to 
 Crozat, 17; under Company of the 
 Indies, 18 ; royal colony, 18 ; trans- 
 terred to Spain, 18; trade rivalry 
 with Carolina, 18; threatens 
 Georgia, 86; military strength of, 
 95n; Choctaws a potential barrier 
 against, 105; and Cherokees, 108; 
 linked to Canada, 108; Chevalier 
 de Lantagnac returned to, 110; 
 Cherokees force French to return 
 to, 111; conflict with Georgia, 113; 
 to be linked to Canada, 1 13 ; men- 
 aced by founding of Georgia, 114; 
 allied with Florida, 115; DeVau- 
 dreuil governor of, 135 ; and Indian 
 conferences, 137; as rival of 
 Georgia, 149; French try to link 
 to Canada, 150; endangered by 
 founding of Georgia, 152 
 
 Lower Creek Indians, migrate from 
 Chattahoochee to Ocmulgee, 13 ; 
 South Carolina trade with, 28 ; on 
 Chattahoochee, 34; names of 
 towns, 34n; Oglethorpe's 1733 
 treaty with, 70 ; near Fort Tou- 
 louse, 96 ; know Choctaw plans for 
 raid, 97 ; determine to make war 
 on French, 98 ; Bienville to send 
 his Indian allies against, 116; make 
 raids on St. Augustine, 116; allied 
 with Spaniards, 119; wavering in 
 loyalty, 120; send warriors to aid 
 Oglethorpe, 124; French success 
 among, 137; and Reynolds, 138; 
 conference at St. Marks, 138; and 
 George Galphin, 139; Savannah 
 visited by band of, 139; Georgians 
 trade with, 152 
 
 Lyttleton, William Henry, governor 
 of South Carolina, attends Indian 
 conference at Savannah, 146 
 
186 
 
 Index 
 
 M 
 
 Mackay, Patrick, agent to Creeks, 
 49; orders South Carolina trader 
 whipped, 55 ; his conduct complain- 
 ed of, 5Sn; ordered to support To- 
 mochichi, 72; Georgia Indian 
 agent to Creeks, 72; to be major in 
 Oglethorpe's regiment, 88; incites 
 Creeks against Spaniards, 116 
 
 Malatchi, Creek chief, and Mary 
 Musgrpve, 80; given a French 
 gun, 105; goes over to French, 
 107; ally of English, 124-125; 
 holds conference with Oglethorpe, 
 125; visits St. Augustine, 131 
 
 Margravate of Azilia. See Azilia 
 
 Marquette, Father, explorations of, 
 17 
 
 Marshalsea Prison, Georgia colonists 
 from, 22 
 
 Maryland, Iroquois raiding parties 
 traverse, 68; crossed by Iroquois 
 war parties, 102 
 
 Matagorda Bay, LaSalle's colony 
 near, 17 
 
 Matthews, Jacob, owner of Indian 
 slave, 38 ; marries Mary Musgrove, 
 75; urged to join Oglethorpe, 76; 
 health fails, 77; asks to have 
 Mount Venture defended, 77n; 
 dies, 78 
 
 Matthews, Mary Musgrove. See 
 Musgrove, Mary 
 
 Mercantilists, ends desired, 83 
 
 Mexico, valuable to Spain, 10; and 
 St. Augustine, 115;. and St. Marks, 
 123 
 
 Middleton, Arthur, sends Tobias 
 Fitch to Creeks, 15, 114 
 
 Mileage, for Indian traders, 43 
 
 Militia, and colonial defense, 84; 
 needed against French and Span- 
 iards, 84 
 
 Mines, in Mexico, 10 
 
 Mirgosbi, Creek chief, warns Eng- 
 lish, 106 
 
 Missionaries, Spanish missionaries 
 among Indians, 115; Spanish mis- 
 sionaries lazy, 115-116 
 
 Missionary, proposal of Spanish mis- 
 sionary, 115 
 
 Mississippi Bubble, bursts, 18 
 
 Mississippi river, desired by Spain, 
 
 20; Chickasaws near, 36; French 
 use to connect Louisiana with 
 Canada, 150 
 
 Mobile, founded, 17; French base 
 for negotiations with Indians, 17 ; 
 trade rivalry with Charleston, 18; 
 founded, 20; overshadowed by 
 Charleston, 32 ; Fort Toulouse 
 garrisoned with troops from, 96; 
 strategic position of, 96 ; visited by 
 Malatchi, 107; Priber starts to- 
 ward, 110; Spaniards expect no 
 troops from, 116; Diron d'Arta- 
 guette at, 119; Indian conference 
 at, 137; and George Galphin, 139 
 
 Montgomery, Sir Robert, his plan 
 for the Margravate of Azilia, 15, 
 129-130 
 
 Montiano, Manuel, governor of 
 Florida, understands game of in- 
 ternational politics, 69; policy of 
 setting one tribe against another, 
 101 ; successor of Sanchez as gov- 
 ernor of Florida, 115 ; favors plant- 
 ing of buffer colony against Eng- 
 lish, 114; sent out to replace San- 
 chez, 118; realizes war with Eng- 
 land is imminent, 118-119; sends 
 protest to Oglethorpe, 119; fears 
 loss of Lower Creek friendship, 
 120; sends out Indian spy, 121w; 
 overestimates number of English 
 Indians, 123 ; complains of English 
 Indians, 125 ; his estimate of Ogle- 
 thorpe's Indian allies, 125n ; com- 
 plains of Creek attacks, 127; too 
 weak to crush Creeks, 127-128 ; in- 
 vites Creeks to St. Augustine, 128 ; 
 and plan for buffer in Apalache, 
 129; and plan for colonization of 
 Apalache, 130; Creeks sent dele- 
 gation to, 130; prepares welcome 
 for Creeks, 131 ; welcomes Creeks, 
 131 ; understands Creek nature, 
 131 ; his estimate of Spanish suc- 
 cess with Indians, 150 
 
 Moore, Fort. See Fort Moore 
 
 Moore, James, governor of South 
 Carolina, leads expedition against 
 St. Augustine, 13 ; urges reform in 
 South Carolina Indian trade, 28; 
 sole Indian commissioner in South 
 Carolina, 30 
 
 Moosa, Fort. See Fort Moosa 
 
Index 
 
 187 
 
 Mount Venture, Mary Musgrove's 
 trading house, 75; twenty rangers 
 at, 75; Mary Musgrove at, 76; 
 destroyed by Spanish Indians, 77; 
 garrison appointed for, 77m; mas- 
 sacre at, 77m; Oglethorpe appeals- 
 to, 103 
 Moy Toy, crowned emperor of 
 Cherokees, 16; Cherokee emperor, 
 110 
 Muklasa, Upper Creek town, 103 
 Murray, counsel for Georgia, 54 
 Musgrove, John, South Carolina In- 
 dian commissioner, 29 ; interpreter 
 between Tomochichi and John 
 Wesley, 74; interpreter to Creeks, 
 74 ; marries Mary Musgrove, 74 ; 
 dies, 75; his children, 75m. 
 Musgrove, Mary, owner of Indian 
 slave, 37; aids Oglethorpe with 
 Yamacraws, 70; early life of, 73; 
 account of, 73n; interpreter, 74; 
 becomes firm friend of Oglethorpe, 
 75 ; builds Mount Venture, 75 ; her 
 brother killed, 75 ; her influence 
 over Creeks, 75 ; her children, 75m ; 
 at Mount Venture, 76; Ogle- 
 thorpe's opinion of, 76; paid £20 
 by Trustees, 76; receives delega- 
 tion of Upper Creek warriors, 76 ; 
 her overseer killed in siege of St. 
 Augustine, 76n; gives aid to stray 
 Cherokee warriors, 77; returns to 
 Savannah, 77; services as inter- 
 preter requested, 77; given an In- 
 dian servant by Oglethorpe, 78; 
 receives letter of condolence from 
 Oglethorpe, 78; her aid sought by 
 Major Horton, 79; Oglethorpe 
 promises to aid, 79; is promised 
 annual allowance for Indian pres- 
 ents, 79; quiets Indians at Fred- 
 erica, 79 ; receives Indian presents 
 for distribution, 79; builds trading 
 house, 79n; her importance to 
 English, 80; keeps Creeks friendly 
 to Georgia, 81 ; and Oglethorpe's 
 Indian policy, 95 ; holds control of 
 Creeks, 95; Oglethorpe asks aid 
 of, 103; in War of Austrian Suc- 
 cession, 103; arrests Frenchmen 
 104; at forks of Altamaha, 105 
 advises Alexander Heron, 106 
 prevents Creek defection from 
 
 English, 106; turns against Georg- 
 ians, 107 ; Horton asks aid of, 129 ; 
 interpreter at interview between 
 Oglethorpe and Smilly, 129; her 
 quarrel with the Georgia authori- 
 ties, 132; induces Creeks to renew 
 friendship with English^ 132; her 
 descent on Savannah, 132, 136 ; her 
 conflict with Georgia, 149 
 
 N 
 
 Nairne, Thomas, and regulation of 
 Indian trade, 29 
 
 Natchez Indians, war with French, 
 19 ; allied with Chickasaws, 36n 
 
 Navarrete, Melchor de, governor of 
 Florida, succeeds Montiano, \32n 
 
 Negro slavery, forbidden in Georgia, 
 24; reasons for this prohibition, 
 25 ; forbidden in Georgia, 25m ; op- 
 posed by Oglethorpe, 25m ; prohib- 
 ited in Georgia, 70m 
 
 Negro slaves, not to be employed in 
 Indian country, 45 
 
 Negroes, Priber's plans regarding 
 haven for, 110 
 
 Nequasse, Cherokee town, Sir Alex- 
 ander Cuming at, 16 
 
 Newcastle, Thomas Pelham-Holles, 
 Duke of, correspondence relative 
 to building of Fort King George, 
 16; Oglethorpe's letter to, 98; 
 correspondence with Geraldino, 
 117; Oglethorpe writes to, 123 
 
 New England, and militia, 85 
 
 New Jersey, Germans and Scotch 
 Irish immigration from, 68 
 
 New Mexico, Spanish buffer, 20 
 
 New Orleans, founded, 18; made 
 capital of Louisiana, 18 ; Spaniards 
 expect no troops from, 116 
 
 New Windsor, and rum act, 55 ; 
 Chickasaws settle at, 97 
 
 New York, Iroquois a buffer for, 84 ; 
 and Indian conference, 101 ; has 
 money but few men for militia, 85 
 
 Nicholas, a Creek Indian, 131 
 
 Nicholson, Francis, governor of 
 South Carolina, sends Barnwell to 
 build Fort King George, 15 ; sup- 
 ports South Carolina traders, 28 
 
 North America, and English Indians 
 in, 102 
 
188 
 
 Index 
 
 North Carolina, German and Scotch 
 Irish immigration to, 68 ; and 
 militia, 85 ; Catawbas in, 102 
 
 Nottaway, Indian slave, 38 
 
 Oboylaco, Upper Creek chief, 141 ; 
 visits Savannah, 141 
 
 Ocmulgee river, Lower Creeks settle 
 on, 13 
 
 Ogeechee river, and 1739 English- 
 Creek treaty, 73; Edward Brown, 
 a settler on, 141 ; settlements on 
 abandoned, 141 
 
 Ogle, Sir Chaloner, reinforces Ver- 
 non, 91 
 
 Oglethorpe, James Edward, founds 
 Georgia, 16; account of, 16w; op- 
 poses negro slavery in Georgia, 
 25n ; increases garrison at Augusta, 
 33n ; his opinion of Chickasaws, 
 36n ; presents Indian slave to Mary 
 Musgrove, 38; Georgia Indian 
 commissioner, 45; does not hold 
 title of governor of Georgia, 45m ; 
 returns to England, 46; requires 
 South Carolina traders to take out 
 Georgia license, 51 ; instructs In- 
 dian agents not to molest Carolina 
 traders, 54 ; fears Indian war, 55 ; 
 receives Privy Council instructions 
 from Trustees, 62n ; salary dispute 
 with Glen, 63 ; directed to cooper- 
 ate with Lt. Governor Bull, 63 ; 
 visits Charleston to settle dispute, 
 63; writes that Carolinians want 
 Georgia destroyed, 64 ; his descrip- 
 tion of Georgia, 67n ; understands 
 game of international politics, 69; 
 seeks friendship of Creeks, 69; and 
 Yamacraw Indians, 70 ; and Tomo- 
 chichi, 70 ; wins Creeks to personal 
 allegiance, 71 ; builds up prestige 
 of Tomochichi, 71-72 ; arranges 
 funeral for Tomochichi, 72; acts 
 as pall-bearer for Tomochichi, 72 ; 
 journey to Coweta, 72; his return 
 to England, 72n ; builds up prestige 
 of Mary Musgrove, 73 ; negotiates 
 treaty with Creeks, 73; stricken 
 with fever, 73 ; expenses of 
 Coweta journey, 73n; Mary Mus- 
 grove and John Musgrove inter- 
 
 preters for, 74; meets Mary Mus- 
 grove, 74 ; calls on Mary Musgrove 
 for advice, 75; sends Mary Mus- 
 grove to Altamaha, 75 ; asks Mary 
 Musgrove to come to his aid, 76; 
 his good opinion of Mary Mus- 
 grove, 76; calls Mary Musgrove's 
 overseer into service, 76n; sends 
 for Mary Musgrove as inter- 
 preter, 77; appoints garrison for 
 Mount Venture, 77n; appeals to 
 Mary Musgrove for aid, 78 ; gives 
 Alary Musgrove an Indian servant, 
 78 ; gives Mary Musgrove diamond 
 ring, 78 ; his steadying influence on 
 Mary Musgrove, 78; leaves 
 Georgia for last time, 78; sends 
 letter of condolence to Mary Mus- 
 grove, 78; promises to commend 
 Mary Musgrove to Trustees, 79; 
 urges Horton to aid Mary Mus- 
 grove, 79 ; his Indian policy, 80-81 ; 
 talks with Sir Robert Walpole, 84 ; 
 favors regular troops rather than 
 militia for colonial defense, 85 ; his 
 plan for colonial defense, 85; his 
 views on militia, 85 ; recommends 
 a battalion of regulars for each 
 colony, 85 ; declines offer of South 
 Carolina governorship, 86; mem- 
 ber of Parliament, 86; offered 
 command of all British forces in 
 America, 86; offered governorship 
 of South Carolina, 86; commander 
 in chief of military forces in South 
 Carolina and Georgia, 87; raises 
 regiment, 87 ; popular in Carolina, 
 87 ; has audience with George II, 
 88; not to be permitted to take 
 regiment to Georgia, 88 ; to have 
 regiment of six hundred men, 88 ; 
 dispute with Glen over salary, 89; 
 leads regiment to Frederica, 89 ; 
 recommends Horsey for governor- 
 ship of South Carolina, 89; asks 
 that his regiment be revived, 89w ; 
 fails to take St. Augustine, 90; 
 offers personal estate as security, 
 90; ordered to attack St. Augus- 
 tine, 90 ; beats off Spanish counter 
 attack, 91 ; leaves Georgia for last 
 time, 91 ; plans offensive against St. 
 Augustine, 91; duties of, 91-92; 
 neglects civil duties, 92; his bills 
 
Index 
 
 189 
 
 paid, 92m; dislikes civil authority, 
 93 j his carelessness in rendering 
 accounts, 93m ; his policy for In- 
 dian control, 95 ; holds interview 
 with Chickasaws, 97 1 and Coweta 
 journey, 98; letter to Newcastle, 
 98; prevents attack on French by 
 Lower Creeks, 98 ; policy of setting 
 one tribe against another, 101 ; re- 
 gains loyalty of Creeks and Chero- 
 kees, 101 ; strengthens waning loy- 
 alty of Creeks, 101 ; aids plan of 
 Clarke for general peace, 102 ; be- 
 lieves Priber is in French interest, 
 110; Priber captured and sent to, 
 110; feared by Spaniards, 114-115; 
 his colony feared by Spaniards, 
 115; and treaty with Sanchez, 117; 
 checks Creek raids against Span- 
 iards, 117; realizes war with Spain 
 is imminent, 118-119; replies to 
 Montiano's protest, 119; journey 
 to Coweta, 120; invited to Coweta, 
 122; journey to Coweta, details of, 
 122 ; his estimate of number of In- 
 dians aiding him, 123; number of 
 Indian allies, 123 ; expects several 
 hundred Cherokees to aid him, 
 124 ; his success discourages Span- 
 ish, 124 ; his expedition against St. 
 Augustine, 125 ; meets Malatchi in 
 conference, 125 1 blames sea-offi- 
 cers for his defeat, 125m; number 
 of his Indian allies, 125m ; sends 
 Captain George Dunbar to 
 Creeks, 126; quarrels with Col. 
 Vanderdussen, 126 ; Bull asks 
 Gooch to send aid to, 126m ; beats 
 off Spanish counter-attack, 127 ; 
 his victory at Bloody Marsh, 127 ; 
 sends out raiding parties of In- 
 dians, 127; Montiano's statement 
 concerning, 128; and Mary Mus- 
 grove, 129; interview with Smilly, 
 129; needed by Georgia, 140; his 
 Indian policy reviewed, 144 ; esti- 
 mate of his influence in Georgia, 
 148-149; his restless spirit, 152 
 Oglethorpe's regiment, Major Wil- 
 liam Horton in command, 79 ; offi- 
 cers of favor Mary Musgrove, 80 ; 
 Oglethorpe asks for regiment of 
 seven hundred men, 87 ; to consist 
 of six hundred men, 88 ; Egmont's 
 
 opinion of, 89 ; embarks at Ports- 
 mouth, 89; reaches Savannah, 89; 
 reaches Frederica, 89; sails for 
 Gibraltar, 89 ; secures recruits from 
 Rothe's regiment, 89; disbanded, 
 89m; withdrawn from Frederica, 
 107 
 
 Ohio river, migration to, 108 ; its fur 
 trade a cause of French and In- 
 dian War, 135m 
 
 Okfuskee, small fort in Creek coun- 
 try, 99 
 
 Old Brims. See Brims 
 
 Ossabaw island, reserved by Creeks, 
 73 ; claimed by Mary Musgrove, 
 132 
 
 Overhill towns, location, 35; Chero- 
 kees ask English to protect, 111 
 
 Palachacola, Umpychi a chief of, 71 
 
 Panama, projected attack on, 91 
 
 Paris, Ferdinando John, solicitor for 
 Georgia, 54 
 
 Parker, Henry, appointed sole In- 
 dian commissioner, 46 ; death, 48 ; 
 writes Trustees that Indian trade 
 needs regulating, 66 ; President of 
 Georgia, 134; dies, 134 
 
 Parliament, pays Indian agents, 50m; 
 controls trade, 57; and regular 
 troops, 84; debate in over West 
 Indies trade, 90 
 
 Pelham, Henry, Paymaster General 
 of the Forces, recommends Cap- 
 tain Cochrane, 88 
 
 Pelham-Holles, Thomas, Duke of 
 Newcastle. See Newcastle, Duke 
 of 
 
 Pemberton, James, Philadelphia mer- 
 chant, visits Frederica, 79m 
 
 Pennsylvania, Iroquois raiding par- 
 ties traverse, 68 ; German and 
 Scotch-Irish immigration from, 
 68; has both men and money for 
 militia, 85 ; traversed by Iroquois 
 war parties, 102 
 
 Pensacola, Lower Creek chiefs visit, 
 14; founded, 20; and St. Marks, 
 123 ; Yamassees settle near, 128 
 
 Percival, Sir John, Viscount Perci- 
 val, afterwards first Earl of Eg- 
 mont, sends Gooch a copy of 
 
190 
 
 Index 
 
 Georgia Indian act, 57; discusses 
 Indian trade with Horsey, 62; be- 
 lieves that Board of Trade are 
 enemies of Trustees, 62w; recom- 
 mends Glen for governorship of 
 South Carolina, 63n; and Georgia 
 Indian trade, 65 ; and Oglethorpe's 
 regiment, 88 ; conversation with 
 James Vernon, 88; his opinion of 
 Oglethorpe's regiment, 89; Hor- 
 ton's explanation to, 125-126 
 
 Percival Square, Tomochichi buried 
 in, 72n 
 
 Periagoes, used in deerskin trade, 
 31 ; used in Indian trade, 54 
 
 Peru, valuable to Spain, 10 
 
 Petition to King, Trustees consider 
 sending, 61 
 
 Philadelphia, James Pemberton a 
 merchant of, 79n 
 
 Philip V, issues royal decree promis- 
 ing protection to runaway slaves, 
 119-120; issues royal decree, 130; 
 repudiates Oglethorpe - Sanchez 
 treaty, 118 
 
 Picolata, Fort. See Fort Picolata 
 
 Pinnion, Fort. See Fort Pinnion 
 
 Pipemaker's Bluff, and 1739 English- 
 Creek treaty, 73 
 
 Pirate raids, threaten existence of 
 Guale, 12 
 
 Pitt, William, opposed to Walpole, 90 
 
 Ponpon, South Carolina, Mary Mus- 
 grove baptized at, 73 
 
 Port Royal, Scot colony at, 12; de- 
 stroyed by Spaniards, 12; Vernon 
 retreats to, 91 
 
 Porto Bello, captured by Admiral 
 Vernon, 90; expedition against, 
 90n 
 
 Portsmouth, England, Oglethorpe's 
 regiment embarks at, 89 
 
 Pozobueno, Jacinto, Marquis of, pro- 
 tests against building Fort King 
 George, 16 
 
 Presents, may be given to Indian 
 commissioner, 43 ; also see Indian 
 presents 
 
 President of Georgia, office held by 
 William Stephens, 45 
 
 Priber, Christian Gottlieb, among 
 Cherokees, 109; early life of, 109; 
 learns Cherokee language, 109 ; ar- 
 ticle concerning, 109n; incites 
 
 Cherokees to kill English traders, 
 110; intrigues in French interest, 
 110; sent to Frederica as prisoner, 
 110 
 
 Prince George, Fort. See Fort 
 Prince George 
 
 Principal trader, regulations concern- 
 ing, 44 
 
 Privateers, commissioned by Ogle- 
 thorpe, 91 
 
 Privy Council, passes on Georgia 
 Indian act, 26 ; receives South Car- 
 olina complaint, 54; receives re- 
 port from Board of Trade, 60; re- 
 ceives report of Committee of 
 Privy Council, 61 ; instructions to 
 Trustees, 62; refuses to support 
 Glen in his quarrel with Ogle- 
 thorpe, 89 ; hostile to Trustees, 92, 
 143; and provincial governor, 143- 
 144 
 
 Pujoy, Spanish Indian, murdered by 
 English Indians, 119 
 
 Pulteney, William, Lord, opposed to 
 Walpole, 90 
 
 Pupo, Fort. See Fort Pupo 
 
 Purry, Jean Pierre, in South Caro- 
 lina, 114n 
 
 Purrysburg, and rum act, 54 ; a men- 
 ace to Louisiana, 114; South Caro- 
 lina settlement, l\4n 
 
 Pye, John, applicant for appoint- 
 ment as secretary for Indian 
 affairs, 47 
 
 R 
 
 Raiding parties, of Iroquois and of 
 Cherokees, 68 ; of Cherokees, 108 ; 
 sent bv French against Cherokees, 
 108-109 < 
 
 Rangers, in South Carolina, 28 ; at 
 Mount Venture, 75 ; used by Ogle- 
 thorpe in St. Augustine expedition, 
 91 ; escort Thomas Bosomworth, 
 105 
 
 Regiment. See Oglethorpe's regi- 
 ment 
 
 Register, salary, 48; office to be 
 joined to that of secretary for In- 
 dian affairs, 48 
 
 Regulation of Indian trade, in 
 Georgia, 26-27; in South Carolina, 
 28 ; opinion of attorney general on, 
 
Index 
 
 191 
 
 60; and Georgia Indian act, 61; 
 needed but difficult to bring about, 
 66 
 
 Report of Board of Trade, pro- 
 Carolina, 60; Trustees appeal 
 against, 61 
 
 Report of Committee of Privy Coun- 
 cil, favors South Carolina, 61 
 
 Reynolds, John, governor of Georgia, 
 arrives at Savannah, 134; charac- 
 terized, 134-135 ; recalled, 135 ; 
 lacks Indian presents, 138 ; tries to 
 regain friendship of Upper Creeks, 
 138; and George Galphin, 139; and 
 request for troops, 139 ; gives guns 
 to Lower Creeks, 139 ; and Bosom- 
 worth claims, 140; meets Creeks in 
 conference at Augusta, 140; and 
 crisis with Upper Creeks, 141 ; 
 raises troop of rangers, 141 ; is 
 urged to get help from South 
 Carolina, 141 ; is asked to send 
 troops to aid Loudoun, 142 ; condi- 
 tion of Georgia at time of his re- 
 call, 143 ; recalled, 143 ; warned by 
 Loudoun of danger from French, 
 143; succeeded by Ellis, 145 
 
 Rigby, Nicholas, secretary for In- 
 dian affairs, 47; discharged as 
 clerk, 48 
 
 Robinson, Sir Thomas, asks Georgia 
 to send troops to Canada, 138 
 
 Rodriguez, Don Domingo, buys In- 
 dian presents for Spaniards, 116 
 
 Rossa, Fort. See Fort Rossa 
 
 Rothe, Charles Edward, Earl of, his 
 regiment, 88; 88w 
 
 Rothe's regiment, Oglethorpe's regi- 
 ment to secure recruits from, 89 
 
 Royal African Company, and 
 Georgia Indian act, 57 
 
 Royal company of Havana, and In- 
 dian presents, 128 ; and Indian sup- 
 plies, 130; and the colonization of 
 Apalache, 130 
 
 Royal governors, continue Trustees' 
 Indian policy, 133 
 
 Rum, Trustees' prohibition on not to 
 apply to Carolinians, 59 
 
 Rum act. See Georgia rum act 
 
 Rumors, circulated among Alabamas, 
 98; circulated among Choctaws, 
 98 ; sent out by French, 99 ; of im- 
 pending Indian war, 104 ; of Cher- 
 
 okees joining French, 111; regard- 
 ing a Spanish attack on Georgia, 
 118; spread by French, 137; stor- 
 ies spread by whites among In- 
 dians, 151 
 Runaway slaves, Creeks to return, 
 70; harass English, 91; Priber's 
 plan regarding haven for, 110; 
 Spaniards encourage Carolina 
 slaves to run away to St. Augus- 
 tine, 119; Spanish offer protection 
 to, 119; used as soldiers by Span- 
 iards and French, 120 
 
 St. Augustine, founded, 10; over- 
 shadowed by Charleston, 32; 
 Creeks aid Oglethorpe against, 75 ; 
 Mount Venture an outpost against, 
 75 ; Mary Musgrove's overseer 
 killed at siege of, 76n; Oglethorpe 
 and, 77 ; Oglethorpe ordered to at- 
 tack, 90; siege of, 90; offensive 
 against abandoned, 91 ; expedition 
 against causes Oglethorpe to neg- 
 lect civil duties, 93; Oglethorpe 
 needs Creek aid against, 98; Ya- 
 massee withdrawal to, 113; and 
 Governor Benavides, 114; and 
 Mexico, 115; English storekeepers 
 in, 115; Creek expedition sent 
 against, 116; Creek raids against, 
 116; visited by Creeks, 116; Creek 
 attacks on x 117; Creeks cease raids 
 against, 117; treaties at, 118; and 
 Creeks, 119; Spaniards encourage 
 Carolina slaves to run away to, 
 119; communication with Apalache 
 interrupted, 121 ; guarded by for- 
 tress, 123 ; Francisco de Castilla in, 
 124; mails to, 124; communication 
 with Apalache broken, 125 ; Ogle- 
 thorpe's expedition against, 125 : 
 English send fleet against, 127; 
 Spanish outside of harassed by 
 Creeks, 127; Creeks receive pres- 
 ents at, 128; Montiano invites 
 Creeks to visit, 128; and plan for 
 colonization of Apalache, 130: 
 Creek mission to, 130; supplied 
 from Havana, 130; Malatchi and 
 Nicholas visit, 131 ; visited by 
 Creeks, 131 
 
192 
 
 Index 
 
 St. Catherine's island, Spanish settle- 
 ment on, 10; claimed by Mary 
 Musgrove, 132 
 
 St. Francis de Pupo, Fort. See Fort 
 Pupo 
 
 St. George's island, buffer between 
 English and Spaniards, 118 
 
 St. Marks, route to, 123; Spanish 
 base for dealing with Creeks, 123 ; 
 mails to, 124 ; Creeks send mis- 
 sion to, 130 ; supplied from Ha- 
 vana, 130; Creeks visit, 131; con- 
 ference with Lower Creeks at, 138 ; 
 and George Galphin, 139 
 
 St. John's river, and 1739 English- 
 Creek treaty, 73 ; Indians not al- 
 lowed to cross, 117; ferry at, 123 
 
 St. Simon's island, ceded by Creeks 
 to English, 70« ; Oglethorpe de- 
 feats Spanish on, 127 ; and Georgia 
 settlements, 152 
 
 Sanchez, Don Francisco del Moral, 
 governor of Florida, favors erec- 
 tion of buffer against English, 114 ; 
 handles Indian affairs poorly, 115; 
 appeals to Bienville for aid, 116; 
 buys Indian presents from English. 
 116; sends troops against Creeks, 
 116; stirs resentment of Creeks, 
 116; and treaty with Oglethorpe, 
 117; borrows guns from French, 
 117; removed from office, sent 
 back to Spain, and hanged, 118; 
 treaty with Dempsey, 118; and 
 treaty with English, 118« ; and plan 
 for buffer in Apalache, 129 
 
 San Lazaro, English attack on, 91 
 
 Santo Domingo, French settle, 19 
 
 Sapelo island, Spanish outpost, 12 ; 
 reserved by Creeks, 73 ; claimed by 
 Mary Musgrove, 132 
 
 Savannah, a potential rival of 
 Charleston, 31 ; lacks warehouses, 
 32n ■; Indian traders to visit, 44: 
 Oglethorpe absent from, 45 ; visit- 
 ed by traders, 45 ; Weddell granted 
 a town lot in, 49 ; its authorities 
 advised by Indian agents, 50 ; 
 South Carolina traders carry rum 
 past, 51 ; authorities stave rum, 52; 
 committee sent to. 54 ; and rum act, 
 54. 55 ; port of, 56 ; convenient for 
 Carolina traders, 58; port to in- 
 clude southern branch of river, 59; 
 
 Georgia traders to secure licenses 
 at, 60 ; exodus from, 65 ; old In- 
 dian town at, 7\n\ Tomochichi 
 buried at, 72; Mary Musgrove to 
 send news to, 75 ; visited by Upper 
 Creeks, 76 ; Mary Musgrove's 
 plantation near, 76n, 77 ; two Cher- 
 okees visit, 77 ; Jacob Matthews 
 dies at, 78; Thomas Bosomworth 
 ordained minister at, 78n ; Lt. 
 Colonel Cochrane arrives at, 89 ; in 
 northern division of Georgia, 93 ; 
 Chickasaw delegation at, 97; Cap- 
 tain George Dunbar sent to, 101 ; 
 reports at, 103 ; Malatchi returns 
 from, 107; in state of panic, 118; 
 Oglethorpe returns to, 122; Cher- 
 okee warriors visit, 124 ; Dunbar 
 arrives at, 126; visited by band of 
 Chickasaws, 126; Mary Mus- 
 grove's descent upon, 132 ; Patrick 
 Graham a citizen of, 134; Mary 
 Musgrove's descent upon, 136 ; un- 
 rest in, 137; and George Galphin, 
 139; band of Cherokees visit, 139; 
 visited by band of Lower Creeks, 
 139; visited by Chickasaws, 139; 
 Reynolds returns to, 140 ; Indian 
 conference at, 146 ; and Indian 
 traders, 152 
 Savannah river, northern boundary 
 Margravate of Azilia, 15 ; and 
 control of Indian trade, 151 ; and 
 rum act, 55; southern branch of, 
 56 ; navigation of, 59, 60 ; no white 
 men to settle south of, 69-70; and 
 English-Creek 1739 treaty, 73 ; 
 and Mary Musgrove, 74; Swiss 
 settlement on, 114m; Georgia set- 
 tlements on, 152 
 Savannah Town, and rum act, 54; 
 
 and traders, 55 
 Saxapahaw river, as boundary in In- 
 dian trade, 28 
 Saxony, Priber a native of, 109 
 Scalp-buying, prices paid, 121 ; by 
 English, 121 ; by Spanish, 121 ; by 
 French, 121 
 Scotch-Irish, migration of, 68 
 Sea Horse, British warship, 118 
 Secretary for Indian affairs, office 
 created by Georgia Indian act, 42 ; 
 duties of, 42; Indian traders to 
 publish names in office of, 44; of 
 
Index 
 
 193 
 
 minor importance, 46; qualifica- 
 tions needed for office, 48; duties, 
 48; salary, 48; collects fee from 
 Indian traders, 49; see Wesley, 
 Charles; Clark, John; Bosom- 
 worth, Thomas; Dobell, John; 
 Rigby, Nicholas 
 
 Secretary of Georgia, office held by 
 William Stephens, 45 
 
 Seepeycoffee, Coweta chief, son of 
 Brims, loyal to Spanish interests, 
 14; shifts allegiance to English, 15 
 
 Senecas, won over by French, 104 
 
 Senauki, wife of Tomochichi, visits 
 London, 71 
 
 Seven Years' "War, and Creeks in 
 Georgia, 132; Indian affairs at be- 
 ginning of, 151 
 
 Shannon, William, drummed out of 
 Oglethorpe's regiment, 99 
 
 Shepard, Carolina trader, 55 ; his rum 
 confiscated, 55, 59 
 
 Six Nations. See Iroquois 
 
 Skia Gunsta, succeeds Moy Toy as 
 Cherokee emperor, 110 
 
 Slaves, Spanish encourage Carolina 
 slaves to run away to St. Augus- 
 tine, 119; English buy French 
 Negro slaves from Indians, 120; 
 slave insurrection at Stono, 127 
 
 Smallpox, among Cherokees, 35n 
 
 Smilly, Creek Indian, reports to 
 Oglethorpe on Spanish conference, 
 129 
 
 Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge, founded, 23 
 
 Society for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel in Foreign Parts, founded, 
 22-23, pays salary of Thomas 
 Bosomworth, 78w 
 
 South Carolina, list of royal gover- 
 nors, 15»; Georgia cut off from, 
 51 ; resents staving of its traders' 
 rum, 52 ; controversy with Geor- 
 gia, 53 ; officials make formal 
 complaint against Georgia, 54; 
 represented by Solicitor General 
 Strange, 54; sends committee to 
 Savannah, 54 ; threatened by Indian 
 war, 55 ; complains of Patrick 
 Mackay, 55m; its right to a free 
 trade with Indians. 56; excludes 
 Virginia traders, 57; defends its 
 ordinance as temporary measure, 
 
 59; its position on navigation of 
 Savannah river stated, 59; bound- 
 aries unsettled, 61 ; to pass act 
 similar to Georgia for regulating 
 Indian trade, 61 ; Egmont recom- 
 mends Glen for governorship of, 
 63n; and Cherokee land cession, 
 68n; Tomochichi's opinion of, 
 71w; Mary Musgrove in, 73-74; 
 its system of Indian alliances, 84; 
 and militia, 85; Georgia a buffer 
 for, 86 ; Oglethorpe popular in, 87 ; 
 interests of differ from those of 
 Georgia, 87; aids Oglethorpe in 
 attack on St. Augustine, 90 ; slave 
 revolt feared in, 91 ; warned of 
 impending French attack, 102w ; 
 rumors of Cherokee war in, 111; 
 Swiss in, \l4n; Reynolds urged to 
 get men from, 141 ; Chickasaws 
 asked to make war on, 142; and 
 reasons for founding Georgia, 147 ; 
 protected by Georgia, 147; its war 
 against Yamassees, 147; less suc- 
 cessful than Georgia in Indian af- 
 fairs, 148; its debt to Georgia, 
 148 ; its debt to Oglethorpe, 148 
 
 South Carolina assembly, called in 
 special session, 52; and Governor 
 Glen, 64 
 
 South Carolina-Georgia Indian act 
 controversy, questions at issue, 56 ; 
 arguments advanced in, 58 ; settle- 
 ment of near, 63 ; Carolinians un- 
 willing to compromise, 64 ; settle- 
 ment reached, 64 ; terms of 
 settlement, 64-65 
 
 South Carolina Indian acts, of 1731 
 and 1733, 41; act of 1731, 51; act 
 of 1733, 51 ; licenses at Charleston, 
 60 
 
 South Carolina merchants, resent 
 passage of Georgia Indian act, 51 ; 
 opposed to planters, 52 
 
 South Carolina ordinance, passed 
 June 26, 1736, 52; provisions, 52- 
 53 ; complained of by Trustees, 
 56 ; encourages violations of Geor- 
 gia Indian act, 59 ; not disallowed, 
 60 
 
 South Carolina planters, opposed to 
 Indian policy of merchants, 52 
 
 South Carolina traders, disregard 
 Georgia commissioner, 66; French 
 
194 
 
 Index 
 
 incited Creeks against, 100 
 Southern Indians, asked to attend 
 
 Albany conference, 102 
 Spain, rival of Great Britain for fur 
 trade, 9; colonial expansion of, 10; 
 war against England threatened, 
 84 ; war against England imminent, 
 86; a menace to Georgia, 113; war 
 against England, 122; Spanish- 
 Creek alliance would benefit, 131 ; 
 ends war against England, 132 
 Spaniards, fear French, 9; intrigues 
 with Lower Creeks, 28; Florida a 
 menace to Georgia, 32; trade with 
 prohibited, 44; Indian allies of 
 English needed against, 68 ; Mount 
 Venture an outpost against, 75; 
 defeat Oglethorpe, 90; launch 
 counter attack on Georgia, 91 ; in- 
 trigue with Creeks, 101; court 
 favor of Creeks, 113; friendship 
 with Yamassees, 113; regard Geor- 
 gia as Spanish territory, 114; send 
 delegation to Creeks, 114; open 
 break with Creeks, 116; send 
 troops against Indians, 117; not to 
 occupy St. George's island, 118; 
 make peace with Creeks, 119; use 
 Negroes as soldiers, 120; intrigue 
 among Creeks, 121 ; Oglethorpe 
 defeats intrigues of, 122; dis- 
 couraged by Oglethorpe's success 
 124; intrigue with Creeks, 124 
 try to keep Creeks neutral, 124 
 counter-attack on Georgia, 126 
 send agents to Creeks, 126, 129 
 lack trading goods, 130; make ef- 
 forts to win Creeks, 130; Creeks 
 seek friendship of, 131 ; reasons 
 for making alliance with Creeks, 
 131 ; take Creek prisoner, 131 ; en- 
 courage Indians to steal horses of 
 English, 132; intrigue with Creeks, 
 132; increase their efforts to win 
 control of Indians, 135 ; keep 
 loyalty of Yamassees, 136; gain 
 new successes among Indians, 137 ; 
 conference with Lower Creeks, 
 138; and Georgia Indians, 144; 
 feared by South Carolina, 147 ; 
 Yamassees settle near, 148 ; im- 
 portance of Creeks to, 149; fear 
 westward expansion of English, 
 152 
 
 Spanish Indian traders. See Indian 
 traders 
 
 Spencer, John, Georgia trader, 103 ; 
 wins over Upper Creeks, 103 
 
 Spencer, William, is appointed In- 
 dian commissioner provisionally, 
 46; clerk to Indian commissioner, 
 48 
 
 Squirrel King, Creek chief, acting in 
 French interest, 105 ; warns Eng- 
 lish, 106 
 
 Stephens, William, appointed Indian 
 co-commissioner, 45 ; recognizes 
 Ogethorpe's superior authority, 46 ; 
 recommends Thomas Bosomworth 
 for office, 47; suggests joining 
 office of register to that of secre- 
 tary for Indian affairs, 48; to be 
 sent to Charleston, 65 ; pall-bearer 
 for Tomochichi, 72 ; his opinion of 
 Jacob _ Matthews, 75 ; quotation 
 from journal of, 76; sends fifty 
 Upper Creek warriors to Marv 
 Musgrove, 76 ; statement from his 
 journal, 76; saves stray Cherokee 
 warriors, 77; treats with the Wolf, 
 a Creek chief, 77; president of 
 northern division of Georgia, 83 ; 
 quotation from journal of, 100-101 ; 
 advises Dunbar, 126 ; refuses to 
 recognize Mary Musgrove's title to 
 sea-islands, 132 ; president of 
 Georgia, 134 
 
 Stono, South Carolina, slave insur- 
 rection at, 127 
 
 Strange, John, counsel for South 
 Carolina, 54; argument of, 56-57; 
 presents argument for South Caro- 
 lina, 57; argument on navigation 
 of Savannah river, 59 
 
 Stuart, John, Indian superintendent, 
 145 
 
 Stuarts, and Whigs, 83 
 
 Sunbury, Georgia, founded, 31 ; his- 
 tory of, 31rc; founded by Mark 
 Carr, 126 
 
 Swiss, in Louisiana, 95w ; in South 
 Carolina, 114n 
 
 Tallapoosa Indians, chiefs aid Eng- 
 lish, 96; allied with Spaniards, 119 
 Tanner, agent to Creeks, 54 
 
Index 
 
 195 
 
 Tennessee, Cherokee village, 108 
 
 Tennessee river, Chickasaws near, 36 
 
 Tombekbe, Fort. See Fort Tom- 
 bekbe 
 
 Tombigbee river, Chickasaws near. 
 36; study oT, 17m 
 
 Tomochichi, Oglethorpe and, 70 ; 
 friendship with Oglethorpe, 71 ; 
 visit to London, 71 ; account of his 
 visit to London, 71m; answer of 
 King, to, 71m; his opinion of Geor- 
 gia and South Carolina, 71m; his 
 speech to Trustees, 7ln; home of, 
 7 In; portrait of, 71m; presents 
 given to, 71m; funeral of, 72; 
 buried in Percival Square, 72n ; de- 
 scription of his funeral, 72n ; Trus- 
 tees give allowance to, 72m ; visited 
 by John Wesley, 74; plans to at- 
 tack Yamassees, 76; and Ogle- 
 thorpe's Indian policy, 95 
 
 Tooanahowi, nephew of Tomochichi, 
 visits London, 71 ; leads Creeks to 
 aid Oglethorpe, 123 
 
 Topasico, Creek chief, 130; mission 
 to St. Marks, 130 
 
 Tortuga, and Santo Domingo, 19 
 
 Tory party, and Walpole, 90 
 
 Toulouse, Fort. See Fort Toulouse 
 
 Towers, Thomas, Trustees directed 
 to draw up petition to King, 61 
 
 Trading goods, Indian commissioner 
 may not sell, 43 ; Georgia lacking 
 in, 135 
 
 Treasurer for Indian affairs, office 
 created by Georgia Indian act. 41 ; 
 duties of, 42; to receive fees from 
 Indian traders, 44 ; duties, 49 
 
 Treaty, Oglethorpe- Sanchez, (1736). 
 terms of, 118 
 
 Treaty of Madrid, (1670), a com- 
 promise between English and 
 Spanish claims, 11 
 
 Treaties, Indian, English-Yamassee 
 (1715), 70; English-Cherokee 
 (1730), 19; English-Creek (1733), 
 70, 70m; English-Creek (1739), 
 73; French-Choctaw (1750), 136m; 
 Choctaw-Upper Creek (1756), 142 
 
 Trelawney, Edward, governor of 
 Jamaica, opposes removal of mili- 
 tary companies from Jamaica, 87 
 
 Trustees, and the associates of the 
 late Dr. Bray, 22m ; plans for Geor- 
 
 gia, 24, 25 ; Indian policy, 31m ; ap- 
 point Indian commissioner, 45 ; fail 
 to fill vacancy, 46 ; appoint Thomas 
 Bosomworth, 47; applied to for 
 office, 48; maintain Weddell for a 
 year, 49 ; grant Weddell a town lot 
 in Savannah, 49; pay salaries of 
 Indian agents, 50; pay Indian 
 agents, 50m ; empowered to pass 
 laws, 53; and rum act, 54; pay 
 witnesses in legal case, 55m; re- 
 ceive complaint against Patrick 
 Mackay, 55m; petition concerning 
 Indian trade, 56; Carolina traders 
 fear control of Georgia Indian 
 trade by, 58; not to prohibit rum 
 to Carolinians, 59 ; and monopoly 
 of Indian trade, 60; disappointed 
 in report of Board of Trade, 60; 
 appeal to Privy Council, 61 ; in- 
 structed to license all traders, 61 ; 
 proposed instructions for, 61-62; 
 Horsey meets with, 62; send 
 Oglethorpe copy of Privy Council 
 instructions, 62m; disliked by Board 
 of Trade, 62m ; reconciled with 
 Glen, 64; differ in viewpoint from 
 colonists, 67 ; and prohibition of 
 Negro slavery in Georgia, 70m ; 
 Tomochichi's appeal to, 71m; give 
 Tomochichi allowance, 72m; give 
 money for Indian schools, 74m ; in- 
 vited by Oglethorpe to review 
 regiment, 88-89 ; do not appoint a 
 titular governor, 92; hostile to 
 Privy Council and to Board of 
 Trade, 92; divide Georgia, 93; not 
 to hold salaried office under ap- 
 pointment of Trustees, 93 ; approve 
 of Clarke's plan, 102 ; Priber and, 
 109; advised by Thomas Brough- 
 ton, 117; prohibit slavery in Geor- 
 gia, 120 ; Oglethorpe writes to 
 concerning Indian allies, 123; last 
 meeting of, 133 ; surrender charter, 
 133; abandon Utopian plans for 
 Georgia, 134; weary of Georgia, 
 134; govern by regulations, 143; 
 hostile to Board of Trade and to 
 Privy Council, 143 ; laws passed by, 
 143m; royal governors continue 
 Indian policy of, 144 
 Trustees' office, in Westminster, 71 ; 
 Tomochichi visits, 71 
 
196 
 
 Index 
 
 Tybee, lighthouse at neglected, 93 
 Tybee island, and Georgia settle- 
 ments, 152 
 
 U 
 
 Uchi Indians, attack Fort Pupo, 120 ; 
 English sure of, 120 
 
 Uchi Town, visited by Oglethorpe, 
 72 
 
 Umpychi, Creek chief, visits Lon- 
 don, 71 
 
 Upper Creek Indians, chiefs make 
 journey to Mexico, 14; divisions 
 of, 34; delegation of visits Savan- 
 nah, 76 ; near Mobile, 96 ; desert to 
 French, 103; John Spencer a 
 trader to, 103; send warriors to 
 aid Oglethorpe, 124; invited to 
 conference at Fort Toulouse, 137 ; 
 won to French support, 137-138 ; 
 French intrigue with, 138 ; con- 
 ference at Mobile, 140; horses of 
 Edward Brown stolen by, 141 ; 
 Reynolds prevents war with, 141 ; 
 lost to Georgians, 142; treaty with 
 Choctaws, 142 
 
 Utopia, Trustees plan to make Geor- 
 gia an, 134 
 
 Vanderdussen, Colonel Alexander, 
 blames Oglethorpe for St. Augus- 
 tine defeat, 125m ; quarrels with 
 Oglethorpe, 126 
 
 Vaudreuil, Marquis of, governor of 
 Louisiana, sends French expedi- 
 tion against Chickasaws, 135 ; sends 
 Choctaws against Chickasaws, 136 
 
 Verelst, Harman, accountant to 
 Trustees, 7\n ; his estimate of 
 number of Oglethorpe's Indian 
 allies, 123 
 
 Vernon, Edward, Admiral, captures 
 Porto Bello, 90; letters of, 90» ; 
 expedition against Santiago^ 91 ; 
 quarrels with Wentworth, 91 ; re- 
 called, 91 
 
 Vernon. James, a Trustee, conver- 
 sation with Egmont, 88; proposes 
 that Georgia be divided, 93 ; wants 
 all civil authority in Georgia taken 
 from Oglethorpe, 93 
 
 Virginia, amount of deerskins ex- 
 ported, 3\n ; does not oppose Geor- 
 gia Indian act, 57; its traders 
 excluded from Carolina Indian 
 trade, 57; not vitally concerned 
 about Georgia Indian trade, 58; 
 Iroquois raiding parties traverse, 
 68; German and Scotch Irish im- 
 migration to, 68; has men but no 
 money for militia, 85 ; sends troops 
 to West Indies in War of Jenkins' 
 Ear, 91 ; crossed by Iroquois war 
 parties, 102 ; and Governor Gooch, 
 118; Sea Horse stationed at, 118; 
 builds fort among Cherokees, 142; 
 regains friendship of Cherokees, 
 142 
 
 W 
 
 Walpole, Sir Robert, discusses col- 
 onial defense with Oglethorpe, 84, 
 85 ; offers Oglethorpe command of 
 all forces in America, 86; urges 
 Oglethorpe to accept governorship 
 of South Carolina, 86 ; approves 
 sending regiment to Georgia, 87 ; 
 intends to keep Oglethorpe in Eng- 
 land, 88j wishes to send Rothe's 
 regiment to Georgia, 88; Ogle- 
 thorpe recommends Horsey to, 
 89 ; and the opposition, 90 ; declares 
 war against Spain, 90 
 
 War of Austrian Succession, Mary 
 Musgrove aids English in, 103 ; 
 English-Creek, English-Choctaw 
 relations during, 106-107; Indians 
 in, 111 
 
 War of Jenkins' Ear, Spaniards 
 threaten Georgia during, 32 ; causes 
 exodus from Savannah, 65 ; Mary 
 Musgrove during, 75; debate in 
 Parliament concerning, 90 ; and In- 
 dians in, 122; Creeks support Eng- 
 lish in, 122 
 
 Warehouses, needed in Savannah, 
 32m 
 
 Weddell, Austen, treasurer for In- 
 dian affairs, 49; constable at 
 Augusta, 49 
 
 Wentworth, Thomas, Brigadier- 
 General, in War of Jenkins' Ear, 
 90; letters of, 90m; expedition 
 against Santiago, 91 ; quarrels 
 
Index 
 
 197 
 
 with Vernon, 91 ; recalled, 91 ; suc- 
 ceeds Lord Cathcart, 91 
 
 Wesley, Charles, secretary for Indian 
 affairs, 46; Oglethorpe's private 
 secretary, 46; returns to England, 
 47 
 
 Wesley, John, his opinion of Choc- 
 taws, 37n; opinion on South 
 Carolina-Georgia Indian, act con- 
 troversy, 53; views on South 
 Carolina-Georgia controversy, 54 ; 
 letter of, 59; visits Tomochichi, 
 74; visits Musgrove plantation, 
 74; and Indian school "Irene," 74?/ 
 
 West Indies, Spaniards in, 9 ; Anglo- 
 Spanish conflict in, 10; Spain and 
 England quarrel over trade of, 
 84 ; and Oglethorpe's regiment, 87 ; 
 Spanish interference with British 
 trade in, 90; Vernon and Went- 
 worth in, 90 
 
 Westminster, Trustees' office in, 71 
 
 Westward expansion, growth of 
 Georgia a part of, 1^2 
 
 Wharf, none at Savannah before 
 1751, 32 
 
 Whigs, leadership of, 83 ; and op- 
 position to Walpole, 90 
 
 White, Taylor, counsel for Georgia, 
 54 
 
 White Hart, Trustees guests of 
 Oglethorpe for dinner at, 88 
 
 Whonny, Indian slave, 37; carries 
 message for Mary Musgrove, 129 
 
 Wiggin, Thomas, Georgia Indian 
 trader, 124 
 
 Willy, Lieutenant, Georgia Indian 
 agent among Creeks, 97; investi- 
 gates rumor, 99; counteracts 
 Spanish arguments, 124 
 
 Wolf, The, Creek chief, seeks aid 
 from Mary Musgrove, 77 
 
 Wright, Sir James, governor of 
 Georgia, his Indian policy, lOlw 
 
 Wright Square, formerly called Per- 
 cival Square, 72n 
 
 Yamacraw Bluff, Musgrove trading 
 house at, 74 
 
 Yamacraw Indians, and Oglethorpe, 
 70; treaty with English, 70; former 
 members of Creek Confederacy, 
 70« ; Tomochichi chief of, 71 ; plan 
 to attack Yamassees, 76 
 
 Yamassee Indiajis, revolt of 1597 
 against Spanish rule, 11; war 
 against Carolina, 14; enemies of 
 Georgia, 34; move south of 
 Altamaha, 36; allies of Spaniards, 
 36 ; former members of Creek con- 
 federacy, 70n ; Yamacraw Indians 
 plan attack on, 76; attacked by 
 Creeks and Cherokees, 91; with- 
 drawal to St. Augustine, 113; 
 Spanish buy English scalps from, 
 121 ; support Spanish in War of 
 Jenkins' Ear, 122 ; fight against 
 Creeks, 125 ; attack Carr's planta- 
 tion, 126 ; almost destroyed, 128 ; 
 disregarded by Georgians, 136; 
 remain allies of Spanish, 136; and 
 war with South Carolina, 147; 
 feared by South Carolina, 147 ; set- 
 tle near Spanish, 148 ; and Florida, 
 149-150 
 
 Yamassee War, account of, 14w ; 
 effect on Indian trade of South 
 Carolina, 28 ; leads to change in 
 regulation of Indian trade in South 
 Carolina, 29 ; and Mary Musgrove, 
 73