1. 1
A Family Affair:
The Opposing Colonial Slavery Ideologies of the Stephenses, Georgia’s
Forgotten Founding Family
Zach Ramsay
HIST 4990
Dr. John Inscoe
12/8/2015

2. 2
Introduction
When Georgia was founded as a final piece to Britain’s colonial crown jewel of North
America in 1732, there were many ways the Crown sought to utilize the highly coveted land
between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida. Originally, as outlined by James Edward Oglethorpe
in the charter for the new colony, Georgia was meant to be a place where settlers “might not
only gain a comfortable subsistence for themselves and families, but also strengthen our
colonies and increase the trade, navigation, and wealth of these our realms.”1 To carry out
these mandates Oglethorpe persuaded the Trustees to pass two laws in 1735 that were very
peculiar and highly unusual to eighteenth century colonial America. One outlawed strong
liquor, the other outlawed slavery which made Georgia unique given that no other British
colony had done so.2
With such a clear distinction made, surely there would be controversy throughout the
colony. This polarization became evident not only in Georgia but also in one of the colony’s
most prominent, and most often forgotten families, the Stephenses. WilliamStephens played a
vital role, originally as secretary of the colony and eventually as it’s President, in providing the
Trustees with invaluable, accurate information in an orderly and timely manner all the while
1 Albert B. Saye, ed., Georgia’s Charter of 1732 (Athens: University of Georgia Press,1942), 20-21 [Punctuation
added].
2 Attempts by historianshavebeen made to interpret exactly why James Oglethorpe and the Trustees placed a ban
on slavery in colonial Georgia.Itwas in no means by precedent as all other southern colonies were using,and
generally thrivingwith the useof imported West African slaves,with the ban making Georgia the loneoutlier out
of all of the thirteen American colonies.The general consensus is thatitsimply did notalign with their social and
economic vision for the colony. Ibid.

3. 3
promoting the Trustees’ moral and just abolitionist ideology. His son Thomas on the other hand
rose to prominence as a voice in Parliament for the pro-slavery Malcontents in defiant
opposition to Oglethorpe, the Trustees in England, and more interestingly, the man who
brought him over to Georgia in the first place, his father William. Coupled with their
prominence in colonial Georgia and the records available, WilliamStephens and his eventual
estranged son Thomas provide a dramatic, enlightening, and arguably understudied glimpse
into the opposing viewpoints of the black slavery debate in colonial Georgia.
Georgia: A New, Moral Beginning
To fully comprehend Williamand Thomas Stephens’ opposing ideologies of black slavery
in colonial Georgia, it is necessary to analyze the roots, or lack thereof, of slavery in the colony.
The newly established colony of Georgia was, in part, a colony that served a triad of purposes. It
was by all means designed as a corporation with a Board of Trustees, made up of
parliamentarians, merchants, and ministers, who were funded by the English Parliament and a
charter from King George II (for whom Georgia was named) with hopes of supplying the crown
with raw materials such as wine and silk to alleviate the importation costs from the
Mediterranean. A second purpose, and one that seemed to take on more importance to the
English crown, was the longstanding interest in the establishment of a permanent settlement
and buffer colony for the rich indigo and rice fields of South Carolina. In the 1730’s there were
many European empires with a vested interest in the raw materials North America provided.
The French in Louisiana, the Spanish in Florida, as well as their Indian allies throughout the

4. 4
region provided a trio of thorns which the English crown had to be wary of.3 A third purpose,
and maybe most peculiar to most scholars of colonial America, was one of morality and a new
beginning. This third purpose was the brain child of James Oglethorpe who was famous for his
study and investigation into the conditions of London prisons and his empathy with prison
reform. Oglethorpe envisioned Georgia as a new start for the “deserving poor” instead of a life
in England’s prisons.
While the latter “moral” purpose of establishment may not initially seem of utmost
importance, it is vital to the study of colonial Trustee Georgia and one that must not be
overlooked. Throughout 1732-1752, which is formally known as “Trustee Georgia”, time and
time again the British crown, Parliament, and, most dynamically, the Board of Trustees can be
seen taking necessitated measures to defend this moral purpose. For example, the original
charter outlined the powers designated to the Trustees; they could elect their own governing
body, make land grants, and enact their own laws and taxes. Due to the charitable nature of the
Trustees, they could not receive any land nor hold any paid positions in the corporation. These
limitations placed on the Trustees would limit their power and ensure their honesty in their
governance of the newly formed colony.
With morality in mind and looking towards the growing inequality of commercial
plantation-dominated South Carolina, another implementation enacted by the Trustees was a
limit on the amount of land owned by a single owner was placed at 500 acres. Justified by the
notion that the undertaking was designed to benefit the poor, even more economic restraints
3 For a more definitiveand in-depth study of these purposes see Trevor R. Reese, Colonial Georgia: A Study in
British Imperial Policy in the Eighteenth Century (Athens, 1963)

5. 5
were put in place; people who had received charity and who had not purchased their own land
could not sell, or borrow money against it.
It is imperative to stress the morality of the Trustees and the vision they had for Georgia
and more importantly, the way they prioritized their moral missions just as highly as they did
their economic agenda. The leading historian on slavery in colonial Georgia, Betty Wood, wrote
about Oglethorpe and his comments towards the morality of the Trustees some forty-four
years after he originally landed in Savannah.4 She noted that in a letter to Granville Sharp, a
leading British abolitionist, Oglethorpe said that the Trustees had “determined not to suffer
slavery” in their colony due to the fact that they divinely believe that slavery as an institution
was “against the Gospel, as well as the fundamental law of England” and “refused to make a
law permitting such a horrid crime”. This ideology is clearly shared by Oglethorpe as well.5
Without focusing on the moral purpose of the Trustees, Georgia’s founders, and the colony of
Georgia itself, it is nearly impossible to efficiently comprehend and effectively study the lives
and ideologies of the Stephenses, a father and son that would have an active role and
ultimately played such a pivotal role in the development of colonial and pre-Revolutionary
Georgia- the Stephens.
William Stephens: The Trust of the Trustees
4 Betty Wood, ed., Slavery in Colonial Georgia, 1730-1775.(Athens: University of Georgia Press,1984).
5 Ruth Scarborough, The Opposition to Slavery in Georgia prior to 1861 (Nashville,1933),62. Wood uses
Scarborough’s sourcein her book to pointout that the notion of Oglethorpe as a prototype abolitionist“has
appealed to certain of his biographers”with Wood pointingout that biographer Amos Ettinger described him as “a
forerunner to Abraham Lincoln”and Henry Bruce wrote that “in later lifehe used languagewhich would almost
make us hail himas the firstprominent abolitionist”.

6. 6
History should remember WilliamStephens as a man of virtue and hard work who held a
vast amount of responsibility, but unfortunately, little is remembered of WilliamStephens and
his contributions to Georgia. Appointed by the Trustees as secretary of the colony in reaction to
their dissatisfaction of the book keeping by Oglethorpe, he embarked for Georgia in August of
1737. Stephens’s appointment by the Trustees would be puzzling to most based on the
circumstances surrounding his life up to that time. He was by no means in his prime when
appointed to the position, being firmly situated in the latter part of his life, sixty-six years of age
to be exact. During those years, he had fallen on hard times experiencing success and failure
with the latter being more common. As noted in his biography, Stephens was well-schooled
earning a master’s and bachelor’s degree. With a servant’s heart he worked his way into politics
serving in the House of Commons for twenty-five years. Despite this rise in his social standing,
his personal finances began to dwindle away because public office at the time was not a paid
position. After “becoming embroiled in party politics and personal feuds”, Stephens lost his seat
in Parliament in 1727 and was left with a considerable amount of personal debt.6 Unfortunately
for Stephens, his failures in life did not stop there.
Stephens left the political realm and entered the business and finance world where his
misfortunes began to accumulate even more. To alleviate his debt, Stephens was forced to sell
his father’s estate. Finally above water financially, Stephens accepted a bookkeeping and
financial management position for Colonel Samuel Horsey in 1729. Due to an economic
recession and like most companies in Europe at the time, Stephens’s employers found
6 JulieAnne Sweet, ed. William Stephens. (Louisiana StateUniversity Press,Baton Rouge). p. 21 Other than Thomas
Stephen’s account of his father and his father’s personal lifein The Castle Builders in 1759,Sweet has the singular
and most in-depth accountof the lifeof WilliamStephens.

7. 7
themselves in a hole they would never be able to get out of despite their best efforts.
Therefore, facing another failure, Stephens found himself in 1735 without employment and in
desperate need of income. Fortunately for Stephens, he found a benefactor in an old friend,
Colonel Horsey, who helped alleviate William’s financial burden.
Impressed by his bookkeeping, Colonel Horsey sent Williamto South Carolina to scout
out his 48,000 acre claimof land and report back to him on his findings. The subsequent work
and attention to detail provided by Stephens caught the attention of many back in England,
including the Georgia Trustees who were impressed with Stephens and his ability to translate
the lay of the land into writing on such a grand scale. This prompted the Trustees to seek
Stephens for employment upon his arrival back to England. One Trustee in particular, the Earl
of Egmont, sought to appoint Stephens to the position of governor. Due to his poor history in
the political and financial sector, the Trustees saw Williamas too much of a liability as a
governor but thought that he would fulfill the required needs of secretary admirably. 7
The Trustees, knowledgeable of the demands of the position, provided Stephens with a
hefty compensation. It included 500 acres of land as well as tools, food, clothing, linens, and
furniture. Interestingly enough, the Trustees were willing to compensate Stephens for the
expense of his entire family to travel to the new colony. Stephens declined and opted to bring
over a few hired servants, not slaves, and only his third son, Thomas.8
Upon first glance, this decision may seem insignificant, but upon closer examination into
the psychology behind it, it speaks volumes about the man WilliamStephens was. The Trustees
7 Ibid.,18.
8 Ibid.,20.

8. 8
had presented Williamwith an opportunity to start a new life with his family in Georgia despite
his setbacks in England. Why would Williamnot accept the offer? The fact that Williamrefused
to bring his family (other than Thomas) sheds light into William’s prioritization of his
professional life and his domestic life. Was it because Williamthought his family would slow
him down? Maybe he was attempting to groom Thomas, who was only in his late twenties at
the time, for a more prominent position in Georgia’s future. It is possible that, looking back at
his past failures, he did not want to expose his wife and all nine children to the possibility of
further disappointments. Regardless of his reasoning, Williamleft his family in England and
made the conscious decision to place his appointment of secretary of the colony of Georgia
above his family.
The answer to the aforementioned questions might be more evident when considering
the demands of the position to which Williamwas appointed. Stephens was to report back to
the Trustees on a plethora of matters including a tally of militiamen, forts, ammunition, and
provisions; inspecting the quality of those defenses; and the surveying of Savannah and its
neighboring towns.9 The Trustees also ordered that their employee provide a detailed account
of various agricultural experiments, including the cultivation of mulberry trees, grapevines,
timber, coffee, and “other usefull Berries, Medicinal Drugs, Roots or Bark for Dying.” The
Trustees also demanded that Stephens assess the colonists’ religious commitment and wanted
reports on the enforcement, or lack thereof, of all laws, civil and moral, at the hands of the
magistrates.10
9 Ibid.,19.
10 Coulter, E. Merton, The Journal of William Stephens 1741-1743,(Athens, University of Georgia Press,1939),262.

9. 9
To say the least, the position of secretary of the colony of Georgia required an immense
commitment of physical, mental, and intellectual capital. Stephens’ superiors in England were
so demanding that even the Earl of Egmont advised him saying, “Miss no opportunity of writing
to the Trustees whether you have much to say or little, that they may timely provide and direct
what is found necessary, or have the satisfaction to know that all things go well.”11
Despite Stephens’ vast responsibilities, his placement in the hierarchy of governmental
nobility was nominally undervalued. Research on the relationship, albeit merely professional,
sheds light on the matter. His biographer notes,
“Despite their years of letter writing,the Trustees never developed a personal
connection with [William] Stephens. They were his supervisors,and he was a
member of their staff, nothing more. A social gap existed between the two; the
Trustees were ambitious gentlemen with influential connections and a degree
of wealth whereas Stephens was a failed politician and businessman with few
prospects.On rareoccasions,oneparty would cross the lineand offer a private
comment, but for the most part, their partnership remained strictly
professional.”12
Nevertheless, WilliamStephens found himself firmly situated as the secretary of the
colony of Georgia, pleasing his employers, the Trustees, with each and every detailed letter he
sent back to England. As an employee of the Trustees, it was imperative, albeit implied, that the
aforementioned moral ideology of the Trustees covered so extensively earlier was to be
promoted by all of their employees, with William not being an exception to the rule.
Thomas Stephens: The Early Stages of Involvement in Georgia
11 McPherson, Robert C., Journal of the Earl of Egmont, (Athens: University of Georgia Press,1962). p. 230.
12 Sweet, William Stephens, 23.

10. 10
Betty Wood spoke of Thomas Stephen’s prominence in Georgia when she said, “If any
one person can be credited with the responsibility of the introduction of black slavery into
Georgia than Thomas Stephens, the son of the secretary of the colony, was the man.”13
Although Thomas’s prominence in ushering in black slavery is not in doubt, it is
important to note that pro-slavery ideology did not always govern his ideals. As stated earlier,
Thomas was brought over as an assistant to his father (who was a direct employee to the
Trustees). This informal appointment by his father as his assistant allows us to infer a few things
about Thomas as a person, and ideologically. For instance, of the seven sons Williamhad, he
decided to bring Thomas. This could very well be due to the patriarchal society the Stephenses
were in. But, due to the information available about William’s past failures, we can assume that
Williamrealized the importance of the opportunity before him and the weight of the demands
that were required of the Trustees. With this in mind, surely Williamwould not only bring
Thomas with him because he was the eldest, but also because he saw Thomas as the most
capable. If there was a more capable son, or servant for that matter, that Williamthought
would be of greater assistance it can safely be assumed that he would not have brought
Thomas with him in the first place. Furthermore, with the staunch anti-slavery ideals held by
the Trustees, it can be presumed, with full faith, that Williamwould never have considered
bringing Thomas over to the fledgling, impressionable colony of Georgia if he believed Thomas
would use his position to spread an opposing ideology. While these scenarios remain pure
13 Betty Wood, “Thomas Stephens and the Introduction of Black Slavery into Georgia”, Georgia Historical Quarterly.
Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring,1974), pp. 24-40

11. 11
speculation, the circumstances surrounding William’s appointment (past political and business
failures and misfortunes, financial necessity) and his cognizant decision to bring his son Thomas
with him make these conjectures very real possibilities.
Upon their arrival in 1737, Thomas proved to be a great help to Williamand according
to William’s personal journal, his was excited at this new opportunity. Williamnoted that
Thomas had willingly abandoned his career as a book-keeper in order to help his father.14
Thomas was so enthralled with his new responsibility and threw himself into the job’s demands
so furiously that it drew concern from William, who himself was an extremely hardworking
employee.15
Thomas’s enchantment with Georgia and his immersion into his new responsibilities
provided an avenue for dissatisfaction for the way Georgia was ran. The novelty of the new
surroundings departed Thomas soon after his arrival. He had found himself in a new land, a
new climate, and working for his aging father who, as noted earlier, placed work above most
everything else in life. It is likely that all of these things played a major role in the
disillusionment Thomas Stephens soon developed with, not only Georgia, but with his father as
well.
The demands that even the assistant of the secretary of Georgia had to undergo were
taxing. The extensive amount of information that Williamprocessed, noted, and passed on to
the Trustees was daunting and required a lot of background work to be done by William’s
14 Journal of William Stephens, p. 175.
15 Wood, Thomas Stephens and the Introduction of Black Slavery into Georgia. p. 24. Wood has produced the most
comprehensive studies of colonial black slavery in Georgia.WhileSweet has the most detailed accountof William
Stephens, Betty Wood’s works on Thomas and the history of colonial slavery in Georgia arehighly recommended.

12. 12
assistants, including Thomas. The demands of an assistant assuredly went underappreciated.
Thomas made note of the laziness of the white employees, Thomas’s co-workers, that his father
had hired undoubtedly aided Thomas’s growing cynicism. In the months following a promising
start to the partnership, Williamand Thomas’s relationship began to grow ever more strained.
Further investigations of Thomas’s personal journals showed that Thomas had an extremely
hard time motivating the hired white employees, especially during the summer months. Around
this time Thomas also found himself coming down with a temporarily debilitating “distemper”
that he attributed to the climate of the colony as well. These circumstances would later work to
shape his pro-slavery arguments.16
With Thomas nearly finding himself at wit’s end, in July 1738 one seminal event
between Thomas and Oglethorpe himself would prove to be the metaphorical straw that broke
the camel’s back. Betty Wood details the account brilliantly in her article on Thomas. She notes
that in July, 1738, Colonel Cockran, of Ogelthorpe’s Regiment, engaged Thomas to sell a
quantity of wine for him in Savannah. Thomas’s payment was a £9 credit payable to the
regimental store. The note was made out in Cockran’s name and re-endorsed it in favor of
Thomas Stephens; but when the latter presented it payment was refused. Thomas initially
believed that the payment was refused because Cockran was not present in Savannah.
Eventually, Thomas began to suspect that the Quarter-Master might be trying to cheat him, and
took what seemed like the logical step of asking the Savannah Magistrates to investigate the
matter. Williamwas very wary of his son becoming entangled in a civil action suit so early in his
tenure and was thankful when Thomas decided to drop the matter. What was considered a
16 Ibid.,p. 26.

13. 13
closed case by the Stephens saw the wound pried open a few days later when Thomas was
approached by Oglethorpe himself. Upon questioning of the incident by Oglethorpe, Thomas
was appalled when Oglethorpe responded with insinuations of “embezzlement” and “criminal
and felonious nature”. Oglethorpe eventually decided to leave the matter be because of the
Stephens family’s outstanding reputation. Williamwas relived the matter was finished. Thomas
saw Oglethorpe’s words as a defamation of character.17 Despite the fact that there were no
legal ramifications from the incident, it is clear that Thomas felt this was a direct attack on his
character and grew to resent Oglethorpe because of it. The Earl of Egmont himself actually
believed that this seminal moment provided Thomas with enough motivation to seek changes
in how the Trustees’s project was governed.18
The Rise of Thomas Stephens and the Malcontents
Following his short and taxing stay in the colony and leaving behind a strained
relationship with his father, Thomas Stephens returned to England in October of 1739 to
personally report to the Trustees on the state of affairs in Georgia. This trip was recommended
by Williamwho thought that a return home would do great things for Thomas’s state of mind
which, as noted earlier, had become a grave concern for William.
Prefacing Thomas’s return home were reports from a group of predominantly Scottish
settlers in the Savannah area known as the Malcontents who arrived in 1735. It is important to
17 Ibid.,p. 27-28.
18 R.A. Roberts., Diary of the Earl of Egmont. Vol 3. 105, 111-112.

14. 14
note that the Malcontents came to Georgia under different circumstances from most other
settlers. They had no debt that must be paid off in the form of labor like so many of Georgia’s
early colonists and came over with their own money on their own accord. As a result of their
financial independence and security, they did not share the same loyalties to the Trustees that
most fiscally dependent colonists of the time did. Furthermore, their monetary standing
allowed them to indulge in practices that were strictly forbidden by the Trustees. They could
afford vast tracts of land, they could buy their own slaves to do their work for them, and saw
the prohibition of rum as an unreasonable demand. Their geographic proximity to the vast
plantations of South Carolina surely added in their envy of profit.
The Malcontent faction was small in number, but they quickly began to voice their
opinions on the Trustee’s demands soon after their arrival in 1735. Patrick Talifer, a physician
from Edinburgh, soon became the voice of the Malcontents.19 Talifer worked tirelessly with the
other Malcontents of the time to enact change in the Trustees’ policy. He organized weekly
meetings in Edward Jenkin’s tavern in Savannah where an indignation of the prohibition of rum
surely reached a fever pitch during the meetings. The Malcontents went as far as organizing
horse races to encourage onlookers to join receptions afterwards at the tavern where Talifer
and other high ranking members of the Malcontents ranted on their grievances in hopes to
have other colonists join their faction and empower their voice.20 Needless to say, the
Malcontents in Georgia did everything in their power to turn the colonists against the ideals of
the Trustees. There was one problem: they needed a voice in Parliament.
19 The Clamorous Malcontents: Criticisms & Defenses of the Colony of Georgia 1741-1743.,(Beehive Press,
Savannah,Georgia, 1973).Introduction by Trevor R. Reese. p. ix-x.
20 Ibid.,p. ix.

15. 15
The Malcontents had sent sporadic letters to the Trustees in England prior to the arrival
of Thomas Stephens. One in particular, a petition with 121 signatures, gave rise to the
“impossibility of the province’s continuing present land system, its lack of slave labor, and its
commercial disadvantages in comparison with other British colonies.”21 The petition outlined
the economic limitations that were being forced upon the colonists due to the Trustees’ anti-
slavery stipulations. These concerns, coupled with the strengthening of their numbers in
Georgia began to raise many eyebrows, even in Parliament. The petition arrived mere months
before Thomas’s arrival in England, making his appearance that much more anticipated.
Thomas went before the Trustees on October 10, 1739 and according to Egmont’s Diary,
gave a mild account of the state of affairs. It neither affirmed the policies of the Trustees nor
sided with the Malcontents. But, in a private meeting with the Earl of Egmont days later,
Thomas told a very different story. Thomas went as far as to say that the entirety of the colony
of Georgia was in favor of Negro labor and was beginning to resent the Trustees at a dangerous
level. This came at a grave surprise to the Earl because these reports were directly conflicting to
the reports that were being sent over by Williamand Oglethorpe.22 Soon after their meeting,
Thomas realized that despite his best efforts to persuade the Earl, or any of the Trustees for
that matter, the loyalty and reports of Oglethorpe and Williamto the Trustees would trump his
pleas for change. This is when Thomas made the conscious decision to take a stand against his
father and the Trustees. He knew that if change was to be made in Georgia, it could only
happen in Parliament.
21 Ibid.p. xv.
22 It should be noted that duringthe early riseof the Malcontents and their regular meetings in Edward Jenkin’s
tavern, Williamwas regularly spotted there, taking notes and sending back correspondences to the Trustees.

16. 16
The Trustees and their project in Georgia were dependent upon funds that were
allocated by Parliament. Without these funds, the Trustees would not have been able to
continue their project. Thomas saw this as his point of attack. Thomas was aware of the
Malcontents and other groups in Georgia who were beginning to grow restless. At this point,
Thomas, albeit unofficially, became the voice for these dissatisfied groups. Thomas was
officially at odds with his father and the Trustees.
Opposing Ideologies: William and the Trustees v. Thomas and the Malcontents
It is unknown exactly when Williambecame aware of his wayward son’s notions to defy
him and his employers in England. Due to the fact that information had to travel by boat across
the Atlantic, surely it took some time. William, expecting Thomas to return after his meeting
with the Trustees, surely had given some inkling to Thomas’s intention when the return voyage
arrived and Thomas was nowhere to be found.
Nevertheless, Thomas’s frustrations with the Trustees led him to take an ardent stance
in defiance of their ideals, which were naturally shared by his own father. Thomas returned to
Savannah to the surprise of his father who thought he would never see him again due to
Thomas’s vocal stance against the Trustees’ project. William, cautious of his son’s agenda, had
his worst fears come to fruition when, on his first day following arrival, Thomas called together
many colonists and urged them to voice their dissension with Georgia’s governing body and
begin to formulate a plan of action. It was there that Thomas was officially commissioned as an
agent for the Malcontents in Parliament.

17. 17
Upon his arrival back in England a few months later, Thomas began working as a lobbyist
in Parliament raising awareness of the concerns of the colonists in Georgia. He noted that
people were leaving for South Carolina in seek of higher profits.23 His main purpose was to be a
constant voice of defiance to the Trustee’s campaign of anti-slavery ideology and his persistent
presence created a firestorm of controversy in Parliament and a back-and-forth battle of
literary propaganda between the Malcontents and the Trustees.
In 1741 the Malcontents drafted a pamphlet titled A True and Historical Narrative of the
Colony of Georgia in hopes to fan the flames of discontent in parliament. A True and Historical
Narrative was a work of satire filled with “admiration” for James Oglethorpe ridiculing his
vanity with a sarcastic and bitter tone throughout. A True and Historical Narrative hoped to
bring to light the perception held by the Malcontents that the leadership of Oglethorpe and the
Trustees was to blame for the slow progress of the colony.
The Trustees were forced to respond and did so using the writings of a familiar name,
WilliamStephens. In 1740 Williamdrafted A State of the Province of Georgia, attested upon
oath in the court of Savannah, November 10, 1740. Williamsecured a multitude of signatures in
support of his literature and sent it over to the Trustees who decided to publish the pamphlet a
year later under the name of An Impartial Enquiry into the State and Utility of the Province of
Georgia in retaliation to A True and Historical Narrative. 24An Impartial Enquiry served a few
purposes, but maybe none as important as a means to secure funding from Parliament that was
23 Followinglittleto no responsefrom Parliamentin regards to the petition, some crossed the Savannah River into
South Carolina.
24 It should be noted that in Thomas Stephens’s report to the Earl of Egmont he reported to the Earl that the
signatures were a coherence and not genuine. Thomas said thatOglethorpe forced the signees to sign their name.
Whether true or not is left for debate. The poor personal relationship between Oglethorpe and Thomas Stephens
leads to the questioningof the validity of Thomas’s accusation.

18. 18
then vital. The Trustees counter-attacked Thomas and the Malcontents by publishing An
Account Shewing the Progress of the Colony of Georgia in America from its first Establishment.
In the pamphlet the Trustees answered the complaints of the Malcontents directly
outlining their motives behind the project that was the colony of Georgia. An Account shewing
the Progress of the Colony of Georgia in America from its first Establishment was a logical,
persuasive argument for their motives and the Trustees could not have presented their
argument to Parliament or their dissenters any more plainly. This publication arguably saved
the Trustees’ project. Yet, history has shown us, it was only a temporary respite.
As the publication battle was waged, Thomas Stephens was trying to make his voice
heard in Parliament. Meeting with representatives over the course of three years, he spoke of
the poor conditions in Georgia that he had witnessed, which according to him, was a result of
poor governance that was actively prohibiting progress. It was in 1742 that Thomas Stephens
made the choice to actively entrench himself in this publicized war of propaganda.
The Hard Case of the Distressed People of Georgia and the subsequent publication of A
Brief Account of the Causes that have retarded the Progress of the Colony of Georgia firmly
cemented Thomas Stephens’s place in the debate and brought his name to the limelight. It was
one thing for Thomas to voice his opinion to singular members of Parliament, but quite another
to publish two hard- hitting pamphlets that directly attacked the Trustees and more personally
his father Williamwho had recently been appointed as President of the colony. Thomas’s
publications presented a shift in how the debate on colonial slavery would be viewed.
Following the two pamphlet’s publication, Thomas sought to further his agenda in the
form of a petition. The petition claimed that the impracticality of the Trustees’ schemes in

19. 19
Georgia had been opposed logically and were just. Thomas claimed that for seven years now,
the Malcontents and their supporting factions had requested what were viewed to them as
reasonable alterations such as commercial land ownership and ownership of a limited amount
of slaves to no avail. Thomas continued to argue that the refusal of the Trustees to enter in to
compromising talks with the Malcontents had resulted in the colony being incapable of fulfilling
the stated purposes for establishment.25
Thomas’s adamant stance against his father surely had an effect on how the black
slavery debate played out. It can reasonably be argued that nearly every member of Parliament
at the time knew the circumstances surrounding the situation. Thomas, who was deliberately
brought over by his father Williamin lieu of their entire family, now stood at ideological odds
with the man who, by all practical means, gave rise to his career in the first place. Was each
Parliamentarian’s own personal deliberation due to their recognition that a son who would defy
his father to this extent had to make Thomas’s argument seem that much more compelling and
genuine? Coupled with the fact that William, so infuriated with his wayward son’s position,
persuaded the Trustees to regrant his land in order to deprive Thomas of his inheritance, the
members of Parliament knew that each side was so adamant in their stance that even blood
could not serve as a middle ground.26
Despite Thomas’s best efforts, the ideological proxy war between the Malcontents and
the Trustees came to an end shortly after Thomas’s publications. His pamphlets, although
25 Egmont Diary,Vol. III,p. 265.
26 Colonial Records of Georgia,Vol. I. p. 431.

20. 20
powerful in nature, were not capable of usurping the Trustees, Oglethorpe, or his father
Williamand the amount of collective power that they held at the time.
Following a genuine deliberation in the House of Commons on the future of the colony
of Georgia following Thomas’s publications, the conclusion was drawn by Parliament that the
publications contained “false, scandalous and malicious charges tending to asperse the
characters of the Trustees.”27 In a dramatic scene Thomas Stephens was called before the
entire House and demanded to kneel before the Speaker of Parliament. While on his knees
Thomas was reprimanded by the speaker and required to admit to his fallacies. The speaker
would not permit publication of his reprimand, therefore speculation is the only tool available
to decipher what was said that day. Thomas Stephens and his influence in Parliament was, by
all means and purposes, over.
While Thomas Stephens may not have brought about the immediate change he had
hoped for, it is evident that his efforts expedited that process. His public humiliation before the
House of Commons, although gratifying for the Trustees and a temporary setback for the
Malcontents, did prove one thing; the colony of Georgia and the project of the Trustees was
falling into opprobrium. The colony was not nearly as efficient as originally hoped for and its
record of internal strife with little to no economic validity prompted many people, on both
sides of the Atlantic, to question any reason why its existence should be maintained. If it were
not for the threat of war with Spanish Florida and the profitable plantations of South Carolina,
Georgia may very well have ceased to exist following the firestorm of controversy between the
Trustees and the Malcontents.
27 Egmont Diary,Vol. V, p. 641.

21. 21
Following Thomas’s humiliation, the Stephen’s family quietly slid into their place in the
annals of history. Thomas sought refuge in South Carolina and little is known of his career
following his move. It was not until 1759 that he published The Castle Builders, a work that was
a pseudo-biography of his fatherbut in reality served as a defense for his actions from 1738-
1743. 28
Conclusion: A Study and Interpretation of Opposing Slavery Ideologies the Stephens Family
An in-depth investigation into Williamand Thomas Stephens gives a snapshot into the
ferocity of the slavery debate in colonial Georgia. For instance, the passion that is found in the
literature of the time by Williamand his son Thomas, prove that this was not a casual debate on
whether slavery should or should not be permitted. The battle lines drawn in the sand in the
Stephens family were comparable to the brother versus brother mentality that consumed the
entire country in the Civil War. Thomas Stephens’s opposing stance of his father was not one
out of domestic discord or some trivial familial feud; it was the product of two men, with valid
arguments in support of their own ideals, who saw the fulfillment of their agenda take priority
over their own family. This is, in and of itself, the most valid and genuine glimpse history has to
offer into the state of the debate over colonial slavery in Trustee-controlled Georgia.
Furthermore, the morality of the Trustees and their genuine desire to provide a moral
high ground in the face vehement opposition from Thomas Stephens and the Malcontents
28 Castle Builders is the only real inklinghistorianshaveinto the personal lifeof WilliamStephens. Williamwas
famous, or infamous depending on perspective, for focusinghis writingsolely on his profession and noton his
personal life.For example, in his personal journal heonly cites his wife one time, speakingof her death back home.

22. 22
prove that, without a doubt, the original governing ideology in Georgia was based on a staunch
anti-slavery ideal. The Trustees were not attempting to experiment with the livelihoods of
families, they were hoping to create a utopian society free of greed and surplus. As with most
trials of this sort, human nature (and the envy of wealthy rice plantations across the river)
proved too much to overcome.