From Empire to Revolution: Sir James Wright and the Price of Loyalty in Georgia

From Empire to Revolution

ADVISORY BOARD

Vincent Brown, Duke University

Cornelia Hughes Dayton, University of Connecticut

Nicole Eustace, New York University

Amy S. Greenberg, Pennsylvania State University

Ramón A. Gutiérrez, University of Chicago

Peter Charles Hoffer, University of Georgia

Karen Ordahl Kupperman, New York University

Mark M. Smith, University of South Carolina

Rosemarie Zagarri, George Mason University

From Empire to Revolution

Sir James Wright and the Price of Loyalty in Georgia

GREG BROOKING

The University of Georgia Press

ATHENS

Publication of this book was supported, in part, by the Kenneth Coleman Series in Georgia History and Culture

© 2024 by the University of Georgia Press

Athens, Georgia 30602

www.ugapress.org

All rights reserved

Set in 10.5/13.5 Adobe Caslon Pro Regular

by Kaelin Chappell Broaddus

Most University of Georgia Press titles are available from popular e-book vendors.

Printed digitally

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Brooking, Greg, author.

Title: From empire to revolution : Sir James Wright and the price of loyalty in Georgia / Greg Brooking.

Description: Athens : The University of Georgia Press, 2024. | Series: Early American places | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2023043116 (print) | LCCN 2023043117 (ebook) | ISBN 9780820365947 (hardback) | ISBN 9780820365930 (paperback) | ISBN 9780820365954 (epub) | ISBN 9780820365961 (pdf)

Subjects: LCSH: Wright, James, Sir, 1716–1785. | Governors—Georgia—Biography. | American loyalists—Georgia—Biography. | Georgia—Politics and government—To 1775. | Georgia—Politics and government—1775–1865. | Great Britain—Colonies—America—Administration.

Classification: LCC F289.W75 B76 2024 (print) | LCC f289.W75 (ebook)

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023043116

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023043117

For my wife, Adrienne,

my children, Alex, Gabby, and Michael,

and my parents, Gerri and Roger.

I love you all!

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION. Sir James, You Are My Prisoner

CHAPTER 1. The Making of an Aristocrat

CHAPTER 2. A New Governor

CHAPTER 3. A Governor in Crisis

CHAPTER 4. A Governor and Colony on the Move

CHAPTER 5. A Governor’s Authority Questioned

CHAPTER 6. A Governor Arrested

CHAPTER 7. A Governor Redeemed?

CHAPTER 8. A Governor Evacuated

EPILOGUE. A Governor’s Final Act

LIST OF SOURCE ABBREVIATIONS

NOTES

INDEX

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am a parent and a high school teacher, and I firmly believe in the wisdom that it takes a village to raise a child. It also takes a village to write a book, and I am indebted to far too many villagers to thank in the following pages. Please do not take offense if I have omitted you, for it arose simply from my well-known forgetfulness. For that, I apologize.

First and foremost, I must acknowledge the support of my family, who provided emotional support and far too often did without both material things and my presence while I journeyed to various places in search of James Wright. My wife Adrienne’s sacrifices were numerous, but most importantly, she instilled in me the belief that I could and should complete this project. My children, Alex, Gabby, and Michael inspired me to achieve my dream of becoming an author. This book is truly for them. My parents, Gerri and Roger, imparted a love of books and history. My siblings, Tracy, Brian, and Meredith, have always loved and supported me. If not for family, this project would have never been started, much less completed.

My graduate school mentors and fellow students also played an invaluable role in shaping who I am as a historian and what this book has become. Georgia College’s John Fair, Anne Bailey, and Lee Ann Caldwell embraced a middle-aged master’s student with open arms, giving me sage advice and, in the case of Anne, the terrific opportunity of serving as the graduate student editor of the Georgia Historical Quarterly. My dissertation advisor at Georgia State University, Chuck Steffen, was the perfect mentor because he taught me to relax and not take my work too seriously. My dissertation committee, which included Wendy Venet, Jeff Young, and Jim Piecuch, never took themselves too seriously but kept me on track and focused. Jim has always been a dear friend and mentor who carefully read each chapter of this manuscript. Larry Grubbs, another professor at Georgia State, has been a true friend and research companion. I also want to acknowledge the emotional and intellectual support of my fellow students at Georgia State, especially Mark Fleszar, Casey Cater, Clif Stratton, and Lauren Moran.

Another group of graduate students whom I met at various conferences and research institutions also deserves mention. Michael Hattem is a dear friend and tireless supporter, and compatriot. In addition to reading much of this manuscript, he has provided tremendous encouragement throughout my academic career. Chris Pearl, Will Tatum, and Nichole George, whom I met at the David Library, made those long fellowships personally rewarding, as did the entire library staff. Josh Howard led me on numerous battlefield tours in South Carolina and has read much of this biography, providing encouragement and insight. Often traveling with us was Dan Tortora. His expertise informed much of my work on Native Americans.

Various archival and library staff made the arduous task of research much more bearable and fruitful. In addition to the kind folks at the David Library, the staff at the Georgia Historical Society, especially Stan Deaton, has gone above and beyond in assisting me for over a decade. Ellen Wilson and the Society of the Cincinnati staff made my fellowship smooth and beneficial, as did the staff at the Clements Library at the University of Michigan. Wade Dorsey and Brent Holcomb at the South Carolina State Archives answered questions and made suggestions with ease and kindness.

Another group has also provided research assistance and collegial friendship. Carol Berkin has been my most constant supporter during this project. She has critiqued many chapters and written important fellowship recommendations. Her assistance cannot be overstated. The late Robert C. Calhoon, the dean of Loyalist studies, was an early supporter of this biography, as was Todd Braisted of The On-Line Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies. Thomas Hallock and Rick Hererra improved this project with their discerning comments and suggestions. Greg Urwin was a real cheerleader during this process. David Wilson provided a couple of important hard-to-find documents. Andrew Musselman of the famed Gray’s Inn in London clarified a few important points about learning at the famed Inns of Court. Also from the United Kingdom, Ric Berman elucidated Wright’s experiences as a Mason. Lastly, I extend my gratitude to Ean Parsons from the Manor House in Sedgefield, U.K., the former home of James Wright’s father, for providing photos of the home for this volume.

Some very close friends helped in myriad ways. From my first high school history teacher, Kevin Dockrell, who inspired me to join this vital profession, to my two best friends from high school, Michael Cass and Doug Bush. Michael read the entire manuscript, which is better for it, and Doug was my constant study companion in high school. Another friend, Jim Jordan, has patiently prodded my progress with kind words and worldly advice. Also, the gang from the social studies department at North Springs High School in Atlanta afforded me time and space to write more frequently than I would have otherwise been afforded and, more importantly, always kept me laughing.

I owe a tremendous debt to the editorial staff at the University of Georgia Press: Nate Holly, Lea Johnson, and Mary Hill. Nate believed in the project from the beginning. He and Lea guided this first-time writer through the maze of publishing. I cannot imagine a better copyeditor than Mary Hill. Her appreciation for the book, eye for detail, and professionalism have made this a much better book.

Finally, aside from family is the group to whom I owe the most. Charles Baxley has led me on a dozen battlefield tours and hosted me during numerous historical conferences. His passion for the American Revolution spurred me to never give up on this project. His kindness can only be repaid by paying it forward. I hope to honor his generosity appropriately. Sandra Boling transcribed James Wright’s will, an accomplishment that still boggles the mind. Farris Cadle aided with my understanding of the legal and real estate issues in colonial Georgia, and Robert Bob Davis never failed to pass along any research tidbit he encountered. Lastly, Ken Thomas and the late Mary Bondurant Warren likely matched my passion for learning about James Wright. Their interest preceded my own. Their encouragement for this project and knowledge about the inner workings of colonial Georgia and the imperial system, combined with Mary’s transcriptions, have made this work possible.

Despite the dozens of villagers mentioned above and I am sure others I failed to acknowledge, all errors are my own.

From Empire to Revolution

INTRODUCTION

Sir James, You Are My Prisoner

A special session of the rebel Council of Safety convened in Savannah, Georgia, on the chilly evening of 18 January 1776. Their meeting at Tondee’s Tavern at the northwest corner of Broughton and Whitaker Streets focused on the recent arrival of two British men-of-war at Tybee Island. In this moment, Georgia’s rebel Council of Safety resolved to plunge Britain’s youngest colony deep into the maelstrom of rebellion by ordering the arrest of royal governor Sir James Wright and three loyal members of the Governor’s Council. Disheartening for the governor was that his best friend’s son, Joseph Joe Habersham, volunteered to execute these traitorous orders.¹ As Habersham organized his posse, the governor greeted several dinner guests at the governor’s house, sometimes referred to as the Government House, on St. James’s Square.² But this was no ordinary dinner party: it was a meeting of the highest-ranking provincial officials, and their discussion focused on the town’s ever-growing mobocracy. While anxiously eating at Wright’s mahogany dining table under the reassuring gaze of a portrait of King George II, the Loyalists were startled by a scuffle at the front door.³

Major Habersham barged into the dining room just a few seconds later and, with apparent grace and dignity, bowed to the assembled guests. He then marched to the head of the table. Placing his arm on Governor Wright’s shoulder, he stated: Sir James, you are my prisoner.⁴ The Council of Safety soon reconvened and decided that each of those arrested should be permitted to return to their respective homes upon their parole. But Wright’s parole had come with the additional guarantee that he maintain peace and keep at bay the ships of war in the harbor.⁵

The promised safety of parole seemed more dubious with each passing day. On more than one occasion, shots were fired into the governor’s home.⁶ Three weeks later, and fearing for his life, James Wright, Georgia’s most popular and successful colonial governor, whose efforts doubled the colony’s boundaries and enriched many a parvenu, secured his safety in the predawn hours of 11 February.⁷ He told Lord George Germain, the secretary of state for the American Department, that he fled Savannah in the middle of the night in order to avoid the rage and violence of the Rebels.⁸ Patriotism to king and Crown had a steep price tag.

The story of James Wright is one about loyalty—loyalty to his family, his friends, his colonies, and his country. It is also the story of loss—the loss of his wife and three daughters, his status, his power, his wealth, and his home. Manuscript collections only reveal tantalizing bits of detail about his personal life, but his professional correspondence illuminates his career. He led a thoroughly imperial life and served two colonies and two kings from the 1730s through the mid-1780s. His family history reveals much about both Wright and the transatlantic opportunities available to those with a few well-placed connections. It also sheds light on how a man could rise and fall within that imperial system, as well as the lengths to which he might go to recoup his family’s name and wealth.

The patriarch, Wright’s grandfather, had reached the pinnacle of his profession and counted King James II among his sponsors. It is possible, in fact, that James Wright was named after the infamous king. This relationship, or, better yet, his loyalty to his sovereign, cost him first his freedom and then his life, as he died a political prisoner following the Glorious Revolution of 1688. James Wright’s father then undertook the arduous task of resurrecting the family’s name and modest fortune, a task that required a transatlantic relocation to the British Empire’s periphery in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1725.⁹ His appointment as colonial chief justice afforded him a position and salary sufficient to both invest in valuable Lowcountry lands and find appropriately affluent matches for his children. He proved so successful in augmenting the wealth he brought from England that by the time of his death more than a decade later, he could rest in peace in the knowledge that his children’s future looked considerably more secure than the one bequeathed to him by his own father. But before we proceed, we must make a further examination of the lives of Wright’s paternal forebears.¹⁰

Sir Robert Wright, Last of the Profligate Chief Justices

James Wright’s grandfather Sir Robert Wright, chief justice of the King’s Bench, was born about 1634 in the North Sea town of Wangford, Suffolk.¹¹ He matriculated at Cambridge University’s Gonville and Caius College in 1651 and gained admission to the famed Lincoln’s Inn three years later before being called to the bar in 1661, even though he did not possess the keenest of minds and struggled to write his own legal opinions.¹²

Gregarious and personable, Wright married three times, each time to a woman who had more money and a higher social standing than he did.¹³ These connections helped get him elected to Parliament and appointed to various and increasingly important governmental positions. But Wright always found trouble. His debauched lifestyle, coupled with an unsound moral compass, seemed a magnet for the authorities.¹⁴ But his willingness to be the king’s tool ultimately cost him his life. In 1687 and 1688 Wright became the centerpiece of two unrelated but important legal dramas, the latter, known as the Trial of the Seven Bishops, proving fatal.¹⁵ Sir Robert Wright, as he was knighted at the beginning of the decade, thus died miserable, alone, and an utter outcast at Newgate Prison. Known as the last of the profligate Chief Justices, he was said to have been fortunate that he had contemporaries such as George Jeffreys, Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and Wright’s father-in-law, William Scroggs, who considerably exceeded him in their atrocities. Had he run the same career in an age not more than ordinarily wicked, his name might have passed into a by-word, denoting all that is odious and detestable in a judge.¹⁶

Robert Wright, So Firm and Able a Judge

James Wright’s father, also named Robert Wright, was a twenty-three-year-old bachelor at the time of his father’s death. He had been born in Norfolk in 1666.¹⁷ He attended Eton College, Gaius College at Cambridge University, and the Middle Temple.¹⁸ Like his father, Wright had been successful in securing affluent spouses, marrying Alice Johnson Pitt, the heiress of John Johnson and the widow of Baldwin Pitt, Esq., the same year his father died in Newgate Prison. Alice passed away in 1723 after thirty-four years of marriage.¹⁹ It became apparent after her death that Robert had inherited his father’s seedier traits. He fathered seven children out of wedlock and likely simultaneously sustained two households, one with Alice Pitt and the other with Isabella Bulman, whom he married within a week of Alice’s death.²⁰

The Manor House in Sedgefield, County Durham, home of Robert Wright. Photo courtesy of Ean Parsons.

It is likely that this behavior compelled Wright to relocate his family to South Carolina, where he had been appointed colonial chief justice. Wright’s family would face no stigma in Charleston, and no one would question the children’s right to his inheritance.²¹ Unlike his father, however, Robert proved to be a very capable jurist.²²

Charlestonian Elizabeth Hyrne witnessed the arrival of the Wright family in the spring of 1725. She observed a gentleman of a large family. They were, she wrote, a very genteel people [of] good substance. Importantly, they have now 400 or 500 pounds in England at a place called Sedgefield, near Newcastle. She even noted that Wright has brought over a coach [with] several servants in livery. The rumor mill pondered what had brought the Wrights to Charleston. Hyrne acknowledged that some say his father was a judge in King James’s reign but that the family preferred to keep their past private. In any event, she mused, the Wrights should make good settlers, as the father had purchased a sizeable plantation on the Ashely River.²³

Wright received his official appointment from South Carolina’s Lords Proprietors, but they were in a decade-long battle for colonial control, which they lost. Wright consequently could not begin in his full official capacity until six years later.²⁴ He encountered resistance from the colonial Commons House of Assembly (usually referred to as the Assembly) prior to even taking office. Emblematic of South Carolinians’ propensity to clash with authority, Assembly members took umbrage with Wright’s lifetime appointment. But this dispute proved rather minor, and he would soon begin anew in America.²⁵

But Wright was indeed his father’s son, and his inflexibility and his Crowncentric and aristocratic worldview courted controversy throughout his tenure, traits that were also deeply ingrained in his son James. His view of the world often placed him at odds with a provincial Assembly that by the 1730s had entered a period of testing the British constitution and their role within it.²⁶ Their frustration with Wright’s strong monarchical leanings resulted in their refusal to pay his full salary, claiming he hath lately invaded and violated the known privileges of this house by having the audacity to demand that the Assembly issue writs of habeas corpus when incarcerating citizens.²⁷

Wright’s salary dispute became such a concern that the acting governor, William Bull, tried to intercede on his behalf. With no apparent sense of irony, the slaveholding official declared in a statement to the legislature: I take it for an allowed maxim both by the laws of God and man that the labourer is worthy of his hire. I therefore think it proper to remind you that the chief justice hath duly held the Supream Courts of Judicature for more than nine years past and hath received from the publick no more than £1,400 currency.²⁸ These rough lessons also provided an education for Wright’s son, who would one day deal with similarly recalcitrant Assemblies. Despite these issues, Wright made his mark on the judicial branch. By the time he left office, the judiciary had attained its independence by refusing to yield to Assembly demands even at the literal cost of his financial stability.²⁹

As the battles for colonial control raged, a yellow fever epidemic struck the Lowcountry in the fall of 1739. It claimed Robert Wright as one of its nearly two hundred victims on 12 October.³⁰ While Wright lay stricken and confined to his bed, likely with severe body aches, a high fever, and uncontrollable vomiting, a friend of his informed the Duke of Newcastle in London of the lamentable situation. The Chief Justice of South Carolina is a very worthy gentleman, James Oglethorpe wrote, and I hope he may long continue but as all men are mortal and he is sick of an illness which hath been fatal in Carolina, his fate seemed clear.³¹

Wright owned no fewer than ten thousand acres of land in various South Carolina counties.³² According to historian George Rogers, future governor Charles Pinckney’s great mansion had been designed to emulate, if not excel, the finest mansions of that day, including former Chief Justice Robert Wright’s home.³³ Aside from his £1,000 annual salary, of which Wright received intermittent portions, there are numerous records indicating the sale of sizeable tracts of land.³⁴ Wright also reaped huge profits from his plantations.³⁵

The process of redeeming the family reputation, so tarnished in England, had begun in colonial South Carolina. Even though it would take decades, Robert Wright had begun the process. By the time of his death, his sons were well on their way to successful careers, and his daughters had been appropriately matched. Nineteenth-century South Carolina historian Edward McCrady observed, It was fortunate for the liberty of the people that so firm and able a judge as Robert Wright . . . was on the bench.³⁶ The most notable of his seven children was his fourth son, James, who would become a man of real importance on both sides of the Atlantic and die a baronet in the years following the American Revolution.³⁷

This book makes several historiographical interventions and contributions. In addition to engaging with the scant literature related to James Wright, this work affords special attention to four historiographical areas: revolutionary-era Loyalism, the frontier or backcountry, Native American relations, and, to a lesser degree, Lowcountry slavery.³⁸ Although artificially separated for this introduction, these fields are in fact inseparable. Anthropologist Sydney Mintz perfectly illustrated this point in 1996: Lifeways of all the peoples we study are forever subject to influences from elsewhere, and are forever in flux. . . . They are historical products, processual products, such that most categories and continuum run the risk of immobilizing and misrepresenting them.³⁹ The very interconnectedness of these fields is what makes this project complex and intriguing.

James Wright, Tortured by a Dual Patriotism

The scarce literature on James Wright has often focused on his life as a governor in crisis during the American Revolution and has neglected to examine his life outside of that context and the public realm.⁴⁰ This volume corrects that omission, discussing his ancestry, personal life, and entire career. Loyalists like James Wright were tortured by a dual patriotism. Wright once wrote that he always studied to promote the prosperity of the province, and happiness and welfare of the people, as well as to discharge [my] duty to the Crown with integrity, and was fortunate enough to succeed in both, till the Spirit of Rebellion broke out.⁴¹ This is the first work to minutely examine the career of a southern Loyalist, much less a Loyalist from Georgia, the often forgotten colony, but it owes a debt to previous Loyalist historians who provided an important context to Loyalism.⁴² This work is also indebted to the historians who have examined American Loyalism from a multiethnic perspective.⁴³

This historiography clearly illustrates that Loyalists were virtually indistinguishable from their rebel counterparts. Demographically, they fit comfortably into every economic, ethnic, and racial category we can devise to categorize humans.⁴⁴ Aside from royal governors and some imperial officials, both groups truly identified as Americans rather than Britons. Both groups admired and sought to emulate British culture. Both groups believed in the value of empire. Yet despite these similarities, the Loyalists opposed independence. Personal issues—social, economic, and local—figured much more prominently in the decision-making process for both groups than did political ideology.⁴⁵ For example, rebel intimidation pushed many Americans from a neutral position into the waiting arms of the Crown and Parliament. Moreover, family ties often but by no means always dictated a person’s loyalty. Others were motivated by personal economic interests. Many simply feared change and felt more secure nestled in the British bosom. Still others could not comprehend that the rebellion could succeed. Of course, each of these motivations could be juxtaposed on their rebellious brethren.⁴⁶

Perhaps most importantly for this work, I have relied upon the biographers’ touch, and here I will mention them by name. It is my hope that the influence of Bernard Bailyn’s monumentally important study of the life of Thomas Hutchinson, royal governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, can be seen throughout this book. The Hutchinson revealed through Bailyn’s erudite and sensitive study is a man very much like James Wright. I am quite certain, Bailyn wrote, that the reasons for the ultimate failure of this otherwise successful and impressive politician . . . [were] his calculatingly pragmatic approach to politics, his insensitivity to the moral ingredients of public life and to the beliefs and passions that grip people’s minds, and his incapacity to respond to aspirations that transcend the ordinary boundaries of received knowledge, prudence, and common sense.⁴⁷ The quotation could apply just as aptly to James Wright. Also important among biographical studies have been the works of Andrew Walmsley, Ed Cashin, Carol Berkin, John Ferling, Sheila Skemp, Frank Lambert, and James Corbett David.⁴⁸

The lives of revolutionary-era Loyalists have only recently become a fashionable topic of historical inquiry. Aside from a consistent interest maintained by genealogists, serious historical interest in Loyalists and Loyalism has been negligible until the past generation or so, but even then, studies of southern Loyalists have been almost nonexistent. Historian John Ferling opined that those occupying the top tiers in the colonial hierarchy made decisions that impacted countless lives, determined the shape of the [American Revolution] and to some extent its length, and certainly were important to the outcome of the conflict. These well-heeled aristocrats, he argued, were ideological conduits to the citizenry, giving voice and meaning to previously ill-defined or unarticulated aspirations.⁴⁹ But what of those Loyalist leaders, those men and women, white, Black, and red, who held equally strong convictions and made innumerable consequential decisions? They too have often been neglected, simply cast as villains in American patriot historiography, because, as Thucydides once wrote, the people made their recollection fit in with their sufferings.⁵⁰ Patriots who remained loyal to their king and country were confined to the status of secondary figures, traitorous scoundrels in the rich drama of the War of Independence. This is especially true of southern Loyalists, and this volume aims to address our understanding of these Loyalists.

A New Order of Things

At the 1893 annual meeting of the American Historical Association, Frederick Jackson Turner delivered a monumental essay about the significance of the frontier in American history. Henceforth, any discussion of said frontier had to begin with Turner. In his opening remarks, he stated: The existence of an area of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward, explain American development.⁵¹ That land meant opportunity, and as long as it was available, Americans could invent and reinvent themselves in the West. Native American poet laureate N. Scott Momaday described the frontier as a dream: It is what people who have come here from the beginning of time have dreamed. It is a dream landscape to the Native American. It’s full of sacred realities.⁵² These statements aptly describe the juxtaposition of people settling the backcountry: some people wished to create a new dream, while others sought to perpetuate an existing one. This contrast was on full display during the career of James Wright in both South Carolina and Georgia and will play an important role in both his rise and his fall. This work prefers to interpret the backcountry as a zone with a defined territory and the presence of multiple cultures, as well as observable interactions between those cultures.⁵³ Most importantly, the backcountry was filled with contingency and agency. Its actors, in both their origins and their motivations, changed during Wright’s career.⁵⁴ For the most part, James Wright held the common view of Native Americans during his life: they were savages in need of civilization. His view of backcountry whites was only marginally better. He referred to settlers as a set of almost lawless white people who are a sort of borderers and often as bad if not worse than the Indians.⁵⁵

Joshua Piker has argued that an examination of eighteenth-century Georgia should begin with a basic fact: the Deep South was an ethnically diverse and economically fluid place that was neither [Indian] country nor European territory.⁵⁶ It was a fully contested middle ground in which all people, Native Americans included, were full-fledged actors in the drama unfolding in the American Southeast. But this is not to suggest that all actors possessed the same tools with which to shape their lives. White traders proved the most instrumental in defining European imperialism on the frontier, while men like Wright engaged them in a contest to mold the relationship between core and periphery. Native Americans were then left to carve out their own destiny within a less than unified imperial structure. More than specifically challenging Native American historiography, From Empire to Revolution employs it to tell the story of James Wright.⁵⁷

Domesticating Slavery

Although often at odds, backcountry leaders and the Lowcountry elite found common ground regarding slavery. Any discussion of slavery is multifaceted and complex. Unfortunately, aside from the jarring statistical data gleaned from James Wright’s Loyalist claim, his official documentation for postwar compensation from the British government, he left precious few details about his eleven plantations and more than hundreds of enslaved humans. Despite the paucity of records, however, this book is conversant with the historiography of Lowcountry slavery.⁵⁸ It will also be the first volume to analyze as much as possible Wright’s views upon slavery, his slaves, and his numerous plantations. He was in many ways quite typical of eighteenth-century enslavers: avaricious, acquisitive, and efficient. But Wright may have deviated in other ways from either the norm or the perceived norm of southern planters. But that story must wait for now.

Wright’s story is deeply captivating. He enjoyed a comfortable existence on two continents, and he resided near and influenced those at the very pinnacle of power. He proved himself to be one of Britain’s most able colonial governors and then, once that portion of the empire had been lost, one of the most ardent defenders of its Loyalist subjects. His story is certainly unique and merits attention on its own. More importantly, however, his story is emblematic of many colonial American stories of men and women who sacrificed all, for a variety of motivations, in the name of loyalty, order, and conservative eighteenth-century values. Averse to change and incapable of believing that the mother country plotted to enslave Americans, Wright often questioned the wisdom of the government’s policy but firmly believed that reform must come from within the constitutional system.

James Wright lived in an emerging transatlantic world that linked people, goods, and cultures across several continents. As a man of the Atlantic he equally split the first two-thirds of his life between the cosmopolitan capitals of Great Britain and South Carolina. His background and dual identity afforded him the unique ability to understand the needs and desires of people on both sides of the Atlantic. Having a foot in two colonies and in England may have meant that Wright was a man with no home or, perhaps, with many homes: London, Charleston, and Savannah. Moreover, his family owned a long tradition of service to the Crown in both Britain and America. His desire to augment his family’s status and fortune necessitated a certain degree of unquestioned loyalty to Crown and Parliament. It certainly required the fortitude to implement parliamentary legislation, odious or otherwise. Likewise, he assiduously acquired land and firmly entrenched himself among Georgia’s burgeoning planter aristocracy. His desire to secure Georgia’s economic future endeared him to the colony’s local power brokers. Walking this political tightrope required great dexterity, and Wright truly endeavored to honorably serve both his country and his colony. It has ever been my desire, he wrote to the Duke of Hillsborough, to discharge my duty to the King & People with integrity, & to the utmost of my power.⁵⁹

Born in London on 8 May 1716, Wright’s father, Robert, moved the family to Charleston nine years later in expectation of his appointment as South Carolina’s chief justice.⁶⁰ James Wright lived most of the next thirty-five years in that important colonial entrepôt. During this period he established himself as a full-fledged member of Charleston’s planter elite. He also served as the colony’s attorney general and agent to Great Britain.

Fully utilizing the station into which he was born, Wright embarked on a legal career at a very young age. Shortly thereafter he married Sarah Maidman in February 1742.⁶¹ She bore him nine children before her death aboard the H.M.S. Epreuve, along with two daughters, when the ship was lost at sea in 1764.⁶² In 1737 Wright became South Carolina’s attorney general, a position he held, off and on, until becoming that colony’s agent to London twenty years later.⁶³ After spending three years fulfilling his duties in London, he was appointed lieutenant governor of Georgia by the Crown, a temporary expedient until he could replace the popular but ill Henry Ellis, becoming the third and final royal governor of Georgia. A thorough eighteenth-century conservative, Wright believed government to be the purview of the independently wealthy, virtuous citizen.⁶⁴ Moreover, he possessed a comprehensive familiarity with the southern colonies and a keen understanding of the British imperial system. As governor, Wright, whom one historian termed an aristocratic servant of the king, oversaw colonial Georgia’s greatest era of economic and territorial expansion.⁶⁵ His tenure represented royal government at its most effective in no small part because of both his personal investment in the colony and his belief that local matters should be subordinated to imperial concerns.⁶⁶

Wright believed that Georgia’s future rested on agricultural expansion, which required peace with the Indians and a revision of the colony’s land laws. He oversaw two massive cessions of Indian land (1763 and 1773) and worked diligently to maintain peaceful relations with the Native Americans. He also thought that treaty obligations applied to both parties, although guaranteeing colonial obedience proved quite difficult. Lastly and against significant opposition from some corners, Wright insisted that ceded land only be granted to settlers, not speculators.⁶⁷

Chapter 1 highlights Wright’s career from the early 1730s to his gubernatorial appointment in Georgia in 1760. His rise was steady and progressive, no doubt initially aided by his father’s connections. Chapter 2 examines Wright’s early years in office, especially notable for Native troubles and the conclusion of the French and Indian War. The next chapter illustrates Wright at his critical best, deftly navigating the Stamp Act crisis. The fourth chapter finds Wright traveling back to England to negotiate his second Native American land cession in a decade. Chapter 5 sees the war’s beginning in New England and Wright fight for his political life in Georgia. The sixth chapter finds Wright actually fighting for his life and witnesses his capture and escape from Georgia’s rebels. Chapter 7 examines Wright’s influence upon Britain’s southern strategy, his return to Georgia, and his role during the siege of Savannah. Chapter 8 explores the final years of the revolution and Wright’s ultimate evacuation. The epilogue reviews Wright’s final few years, tirelessly working to ensure compensation for Georgia’s loyal subjects.

CHAPTER 1

The Making of an Aristocrat

At the cost of his life, James Wright’s grandfather Sir Robert Wright loyally served as King James II’s chief justice. James’s father, also named Robert Wright, faithfully upheld the prerogative of King George II as chief justice of South Carolina. Both judges possessed significant, though occasionally squandered, fortunes, and the Wright family story reveals the integration of a once-important English family into the colonial economic and political power structure during their generational attempt to redeem both their name and their fortune. James Wright’s father brought significant capital to Charleston in 1725 and augmented his wealth throughout his life through purchases of land and human beings, providing educations, dowries, and substantial inheritances to each of his children. James Wright and his siblings married well and consolidated their holdings. Acutely aware of his own ancestry, Wright followed in the path of both his father and grandfather, choosing a career in the legal field and holding a deep devotion to the English constitution as represented by Crown and Parliament. Like his father, he used his strong legal mind to climb the socioeconomic ladder.

Although Wright frequently appeared in legal documents and newspapers, a lack of documentary evidence makes a full accounting of his life and early career impossible to re-create. This is mostly true because much of his personal correspondence was destroyed at the beginning of the American Revolution.¹ Enough evidence exists, however, to construct a dependable and nuanced sketch of his long journey to the pinnacle of power in colonial America. From an early age, Wright occupied a central role in provincial Charleston—he was a church leader, Freemason, landholder, lawyer, attorney general, and, lastly, colonial agent to Great Britain.