Summary: The Short Life Of Free Georgia

512 Words3 Pages
The conventional idea is that Georgia did not succeed at its intentions is challenged by the interpretations of Noeleen McIlvenna, who wrote The Short Life of Free Georgia, a contradictory story of the colonization of the thirteenth colony. First and foremost, the proprietary colony was a place that was meant for debtors and the worthy poor. The colony was created to rid England of the poor and find suitable work for them. The elite looked at them with disregard; there was constant separation, such as The Black Act, which didn’t allow hunting and fishing on private property. This new colony was to be built for the betterment of English debtors. Georgia would also be used as a buffer state that would defend the southern part of the British colonies from Spanish Florida. Mcllvenna is correct in exclaiming…show more content…
There was an idea the elite had that corresponded the poor with drinking, however, the death toile rose due to environmental factors. Also, slaves were not allowed. The only people that truly wanted slaves were the few elite in the colonies. The trustees didn’t see fit that they needed this, but with influence from South Carolina and wrong information from London, they got what they wanted. The slave trade would not interrupt society until later on around 1749. The trustees were people that wanted to shake off the British form of class system, because that system tightly grabbed on to a person’s station in life and rarely let go. It was difficult for any person to move around from their societal role. They wanted change. McIlvenna makes a crucial point when she tells that Great Britain saw Georgia as a failure due to the colonists challenging the class system. It was due to self-interested parties that convinced England that Georgia was done for. These were parties were ones that encouraged such things as slavery. However, the settlers didn’t want slaves at all, they were strongly opposed to it. For example,
Open Document