USA > Georgia > A standard history of Georgia and Georgians > Part 47
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76
On January 2, 1788, Georgia formally ratified the Federal Constitu- tion, deelaring by this act her willingness to enter the proposed fed- eration since known as the United States of America. But the consent of all the states was not obtained for two full years. Nor was it until March 4, 1789, that Congress met to launch the new Ship of State npon the political seas. Georgia was the fourth state to ratify the Federal Constitution. Her remoteness from the seat of government alone denied her the first place. Nearly a month elapsed before a copy of the new compact of union was received by the state authorities. Otherwise her promptness would have made her the first state to ratify the great doen- ment. The states preceding Georgia in the order of ratification were Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey-all grouped around the seat of government. Her own ratification was unanimous. But in most of
345
346
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
the states sentiment was divided, including Virginia, where the great Patrick Henry was one of its opponents.
There were numerous reasons for this opposition to the instrument. In the first place, the Constitution had been framed to meet divergent interests. It was a compromise, or rather a series of compromises, be- tween conflicting theories and principles. All of the delegates them- selves were not agreed. In fact, some of them had refused to sign the compact. Consequently anything like unanimity among the states was not to be expected. Strenuous efforts were required to bring most of them into line; and three of the states-New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina-actually repudiated the compact, on the ground that it involved a surrender of too much sovereign power to the general Gov- ernment. But they were finally induced to ratify the instrument on the promise of certain concessions. This pledge was afterwards re- deemed in a series of amendments submitted to the people by the First Congress.
Rhode Island was so opposed to the idea of a central government that she sent no delegates to the convention. New York was finally brought into line through the powerful influence of Alexander Hamil- ton. North Carolina was the seat of a Scotch-Irish population, stubborn, loyal, tenacious of conviction. She had framed a Declaration of Inde- pendence, in 1775, hurling America's first challenge at the English throne; and she did not like the idea of relinquishing any of her rights. New York, seeing an opportunity to capture the seat of government, was the first of these states to relent. North Carolina entered the Union in 1789, Rhode Island in 1790, both after the Government had been launched.
While the campaign for ratification was at its height in New York, three of the country's ablest statesmen, Hamilton, Jay and Madison, wrote a series of articles for publication, afterwards collected in a single volume, called "The Federalist," perhaps the greatest work on the science of government ever written in America.
The principle of State Sovereignty was clearly recognized and firmly held by all the states, but some were more willing than others to yield a part of this sovereignty for the sake of its resultant benefits in securing greater protection. The Articles of Confederation, under which the states had loosely banded themselves together since 1781, amounted to little more than a rope of sand. Indeed, these articles were merely called "a league of friendship." The cohesive element was entirely lacking. There was no principle of organic union existing between the states, no centripital force binding them together around a common center. To quote the words of Washington, the states composing the old federation were "thirteen independent sovereignties eternally counteracting one another."
If the fruits of Yorktown were to be gathered-if the victories of the Revolution were to be utilized in the establishment of a great nation consecrated to the principle of human liberty-it was necessary for the states, in a spirit of concession, to come together and to discuss plans looking toward a more stable government. The problems of inter-state and of inter-national commerce, the possibilities of a foreign war, the necessity for providing adequate postal facilities, for establishing a
347
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
monetary system and for fixing a uniform standard of weights and measures, the demand for a central government in dealing with the In- dian tribes and in fixing the boundary lines between states-these were some of the reasons which made it imperative "to form a more perfect Union." Until the Federal Constitution became operative in 1789 the Continental Congress was the sole governing power. There was no bicameral Legislature, with its House and Senate, no President, no Chief Justice, no courts of law. It is little wonder that a spirit of heav- iness had commenced to brood upon the land.
Georgia's conservatism made her friendly from the very start to a closer tie of union. It was because she felt the need of a strong arm to protect her that she was loath to lower the flag of England during the colonial period ; and, for a like reason, she looked with favor at this time upon a strong central government, through which to secure her exposed borders: The Spaniards to the south and the Indians to the north and west were a constant menace. She possessed a vast territory but only a scant population. Moreover, as a result of the Revolution, she was left in a greatly enfeebled condition.
When a communication was received, therefore, inviting her to send delegates to a convention to be held at Philadelphia, on May 14, 1787, she did not need to be coaxed. Two months in advance of the time set for the meeting-destined to become historic-her Legislative Assembly at Augusta passed an ordinance, on February 10, 1787, naming six dele- gates to attend this convention, to wit : William Few, Abraham Baldwin, William Pierce, George Walton, William Houstoun, and Nathaniel Pen- dleton. Under the terms of this ordinance, it was necessary for at least two of these delegates to attend before the state could be officially represented.
The great convention in Philadelphia, from the molds of which emerged a constitution, declared by Gladstone to be the wisest instrument ever struck from the brain of man, was called as the result of a con- ference held at Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786. This gathering at An- napolis was called at the instance of Virginia, to discuss certain inter-state questions of a commercial character; but, under the leadership of Alex- ander Hamilton, it was induced to extend its view over the general field of American political conditions .* It seemed to be an opportune time for stressing the federal idea in its broadest application. Conse- quently a resolution was adopted recommending the'appointment of delegates from each of the states to attend a convention in Philadelphia. This resolution was addressed to the Continental Congress and to the various state legislatures. As set forth in this resolution the convention was called "to devise such provisions as shall appear necessary to render the Constitution of the Federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." This plan was approved by the Continental Congress, from which body an authoritative call was soon formally issued.
Originally the time set for the convention to open was Monday, May 14, 1787, in historie old Independence Hall, the birthplace of the im- mortal Declaration. But stage coaches were proverbially slow and uncertain. Bad weather always impeded travel over country roads. At
* "Georgia and State Rights," U. B. Phillips, p. 16.
348
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
any rate, it was not until nine days later that a quorum of states could be counted for the transaction of business. Accordingly, on May 25, 1787, the regular sittings of the convention began, to continue for a period of four months. Washington was elected its president. There were fifty-five members enrolled, and of these fifty-one took part in the debates, including Washington himself. These men were America's fore- most intellects, among them Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Jay and Adams. Some of the delegates, however, were obstructionists, not in sympathy with the convention's work. This is evidenced by the fact that when the final draft of the Constitution was completed it was signed by only thirty-nine members. But so finished was the product wrought by these pioneers of government that in the years which have since elapsed only fifteen amendments thereto have been adopted, not one of which is at variance with its original genius and spirit.
William Few was the only delegate present from Georgia when the convention opened. As we have already seen, two delegates were needed to give the state official representation. Georgia, therefore, was without a vote until Mr. Pierce arrived one week later. Mr. Houstoun reached Philadelphia on June 7th and Mr. Baldwin on June 11th: but if either Mr. Walton or Mr. Pendleton attended the convention no disclosure of this fact is made by the records .* We have been taught to reverence our ancestors. But this is a bad showing, especially when we consider the vast importance of this body's work, in its bearing upon the whole future history of our nation. Such remissness at the present time would not be eondoned. Perhaps there were obstacles in the way of which we are ignorant. At any rate, let us be lenient.
Despite the existing inequality between the states as regards both population and area, the voting power of all the states was made equal. In other words, each state was entitled to one vote, a principle of repre- sentation borrowed from the Continental Congress. Georgia at a subse- quent period was to take a bold stand for State Sovereignty and even as early as 1823, when Troup was governor, she was to defy successfully the power of the United States. But in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 she used her vote constantly in advocating a strong central government.t Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Pierce both made speeches, ad- dressing the convention to this effeet on the same day. Neither was an extremist. Each realized the dangers of centralization if pressed too far, but maintained the paramount wisdom of such a system if pro- vided with proper safeguards and restraints. We are not surprised to find that Mr. Baldwin was the most influential member of the delega- tion. He was the first man in Georgia to grasp the state's great educa- tional needs and to realize the part which an educated electorate was to play in the building of a great commonwealth. Accordingly, in 1784, he had drafted a charter for the University of Georgia, the oldest state university in America.
From an old newspaper of the period, we learn that in the main there were three propositions for the convention to consider: (1) to combine the original thirteen states into three distinct republics, leagued
- "Debates on the Constitution, " Jonathan Elliott.
t "Georgia and State Rights, " U. B. Phillips.
349
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
together for common defense; (2) to abolish the various state legislatures and to form a National Government with legislative power lodged in a Congress, Assembly or Parliament; and (3) to retain the various state legislatures and to enlarge the powers of the central Government, giv- ing Congress the right to revise laws made by the state and so adjusting state and Federal relations as to avoid frietion .* Substantially, it was the last of these propositions which the convention adopted.
Before there could be any agreement among the delegates, three great compromises were essential.
1. First, the Connectieut Compromise. This was a compromise be- tween the large and the small states. It was adopted as a substitute for Virginia's plan of government. The Virginia delegates favored a bi- eameral Legislature, consisting of a Lower House to be elected by the people and an Upper House to be elected by the Lower House. To this proposal most of the smaller states objected, since it gave them no weight of influenee in either branch. Thereupon the Connecticut Com- promise was offered. In substance, this compromise provided for a Lower House to be elected by the people, and for an Upper House in which all of the states should be equally represented. The larger states made a snecessful fight for representation in the Lower House based upon population, and it was largely to appease the smaller states that representation in the Upper House was made equal.
Strange to say, Georgia, though the most sparsely settled of all the states, favored for the popular branch of Congress, a system of repre- sentation based entirely upon population. Throughout the entire debate on this question she sided with the stronger states, as if in faet she were one of them, and seemingly at variance with her own interests.t This meant at least a temporary surrender of her equal voice in the Federal eouneils. It implied a willingness on her part, for the present at least, to aeeept disparagement at the hands of other states. But Georgia was looking to the future. She possessed a territory vast in extent, destined in time to become an empire within itself. The adoption of this prin- eiple might involve some loss of prestige for a few years but in the end it would make Georgia the dominant member of an imperial sisterhood. This was a far-sighted poliey. If Georgia had not in after years re- linquished a part of her territory to form the states of Alabama and Mississippi, she would today be entitled to twenty-nine representatives in Congress, which would put her in the lead of Texas by thirteen members. Luther Martin, in a letter addressed to the speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, thus explained Georgia's action in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Said he :
"It may be thought surprising, sir, that Georgia, a State now small and comparatively trifling in the Union, should advocate this system of nnequal representation, giving up her present equality in the Federal Government and sinking herself almost to total insignifieanee in the seale; but, sir, it must be considered that Georgia has the most extensive territory in the Union, being as large as the whole island of Great
* Georgia State Gazette or Independent Register, July 21, 1787, published at Augusta, Georgia.
t "Georgia and State Rights, " [. B. Phillips, p. 1S.
350
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
Britain and thirty times as large as Connecticut. This system being designed to preserve to the states their whole territory unbroken and to prevent the erection of new states within the territory of any of them, Georgia looked forward to when, her population being increased in some measure proportional to her territory, she should rise in the scale and give law to the other states, and hence we found the delegation of Geor- gia warmly advocating the proposition of giving the states unequal representation."
Georgia's delegation was far-sighted, but its inability to foresee a division of the state's imperial domain in consequence of the Yazoo frand litigation may have kept it from weakening upon this proposition.
Most of the members of the Constitutional Convention were agreed as to the necessity for creating a Senate to act as a conservative cheek upon the Lower House and to preserve a sort of legislative balance. But the method of electing senators elicited some debate. Mr. Pierce, who spoke on June 6th, thought that while members of the Lower House should be elected by the people, members of the Senate should be elected by the legislature-the former body to represent the states individually, the latter collectively. Mr. Baldwin, who spoke on June 29th, favored making the Senate representative of property interests. He, too, favored electing senators by the states.
There was an exciting scene in the convention when the question was put as to whether each state should have an equal vote in the Senate. Says a well-known student of this period : * "Rhode Island having refused to take part in the convention, and New Hampshire hav- ing no delegates present when the vote on the compromise was taken, there were only eleven States represented. The vote of the States was taken in this way : the delegates from each State took a vote among them- selves to determine the State's attitude, each State having one vote. The roll of States was then called, beginning with the oldest. Ten States had voted and the vote stood a tie when Georgia's turn came. It was a most critical moment. Georgia's vote was expected to be against the Connec- tieut Compromise, as Georgia had consistently voted with the States desiring a strong national government. But one of the two Georgia dele- gates then present, Abraham Baldwin, was convinced that failure to accept the Compromise might mean the disruption of the convention. He therefore refused to follow William Few in voting against the Compromise and in this way divided the vote of Georgia."
Mr. Baldwin's attitude towards the Connecticut Compromise may be explained. in a measure at least, by the fact that he was a native of the Nutmeg commonwealth. Fiske, the great historian, has paid this tribute to Mr. Baldwin : + "It was Abraham Baldwin, a native of Connecticut, and lately a tutor in Yale College, a recent emigrant to Georgia, who thus divided the vote of that State and prevented a decision which would in all probability have broken up the convention. His state was the last to vote and the house was hushed in anxious expectation, when this brave and wise young man yielded his private conviction to what he
* "History of Georgia," R. P. Brooks, pp. 132-133.
t "Critical Period of American History, " John Fiske, p. 251.
351
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
saw to be the paramount necessity for keeping the convention together. All honor to his memory !"
Thus, in the creation of our Federal Senate, we owe to Mr. Ballwin the principle which preserves the parity of the states. He had fought for nnequal representation in the Lower House and had intimated his intention to support this principle for the Senate; but to prevent a threatened rupture of the convention, he changed his intention, divided the vote of Georgia, and eaused the motion for an unequal representa- tion in the Senate to be lost.
2. The Compromise, as to a basis of representation, between the free and the slave states. One member for each 30,000 inhabitants was the ratio upon which the convention finally agreed. But the free states were not willing for slaves to be counted, in reckoning a state's population. On the other hand, the slave states insisted upon an inelnsion of slaves. Says Mr. Brooks :* "A similar question had arisen during the war. Money for the army had been raised by requisition on the States in pro- portion to their population. At that time the North had maintained that the slaves were persons, and that the South's pro rata of money should be reekoned on the whole population, white and black. The South, on the other hand, had claimed that slaves were property only and not persons. It is clear that self-interest colored the views of both seetions at both times. The dispute had been settled by counting a slave as three- fifths of a person in estimating the population for purposes of taxa- tion; and now, in 1787. this former compromise was adopted, both as to representation and direct taxation; so that until the Civil War, in estimating the unmber of representatives from the South in Congress, the negroes helped to swell the Southern representation."
Under this apportionment, Georgia was given three members. South Carolina, with a much larger population at this time, was allotted five members. Neither state was satisfied with the manner in which slaves were to be counted. Each fought to inerease its strength in the Lower House ; but without success. Georgia was not entitled even to three mem- bers on a striet application of this rule, but she was allowed this num- ber sinee her rapid growth in population would justify it before the Constitution could be put into effect. An effort was made to equalize power between the North and South ; but the North was given a slight advantage in the number of seats.
3. The Compromise, between State and Federal systems as to gov- ernmental control over commeree, especially in relation to an abolition of the foreign slave trade. As we have already noted, slaves were not allowed in Georgia under the rule of her trustees; but when the colony in 1752 was relinquished to the Crown it became a slave-holding eolony and her support thereafter was given to an institution which she had formerly condemned. In common with South Carolina, she possessed at this time important interests in slave property and expected to in- erease her employment of slave lahor as her industries expanded and her population multiplied. To quote the same authority above eited : + "All the States exeept South Carolina and Georgia desired to prohibit the
* "History of Georgia," R. P. Brooks, p. 135.
+ "History of Georgia, " R. P. Brooks, p. 136.
352
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
importation of any more negroes from Africa. The New England States were very anxious to give Congress the control over commerce. The South, opposed to making an unreserved surrender in this matter, advocated requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses before any measure affecting commerce should become law. They feared that the New England States would get a monopoly of the carrying trade; would impose ruinons freight rates for transporting rice and indigo to Europe ; and would enact tariff legislation hostile to the interests of purely agricultural States. Here was good material for a compromise. New Hampshire, Massaelmsetts and Connecticut voted to prolong the slave trade for twenty years; and Georgia and South Carolina supported congressional control over commerce."
To bring matters to a focus, it was contended by Georgia's delegates that, if the importation of slaves were not allowed, Georgia would un- doubtedly refuse to ratify the Constitution. South Carolina made a similar contention. In arguing the case for Georgia, Mr. Baldwin was candid enough to admit, however, that if left to herself Georgia would probably put a stop to the trade. Says Mr. Phillips: * "From this prophecy which was fulfilled in a decade and from other side-lights on the subject, we doubt if the prohibitory clause would have lead to the rejection of the Constitution by Georgia." But the North was forced to yield rather than put the instrument in jeopardy of rejection, and incidentally of a serious loss to its commerce. Accordingly a compro- mise was reached designating the year 1808 as the time for all importa- tion of slaves to cease. If any were imported in the meantime, a tax of $10 per capita was to be imposed. But Georgia did not wait until 1808 to prohibit the foreign slave traffic. She inserted a clause to this effect in her state constitution of 1798, ten years before the time was up.
On September 17, 1787, the convention ended its deliberations, after a session of four months. The great instrument destined to become the fundamental law of a new nation was then engrossed and signed by the various state delegations. Rhode Island alone took no part in shaping the compact of Union. Only two of Georgia's delegates appear to have signed the instrument: Abraham Baldwin and William Few, though Georgia had gained substantially every point for which she had con- tended. Straightway the new Constitution was transmitted to the Conti- nental Congress which, in a resolution adopted September 28th, directed its transmission to the various state legislatures, with an accompanying letter, said Constitution to be ratified by the people of each state in con- vention assembled.
It happened that, on the arrival of this communication in Georgia, our law-makers were in sessior. at Augusta. Following its publication in the Georgia Gazette, on October 13th, a convention was called by formal resolution to meet in Augusta. This convention was to be held on Decem- ber 27th, and was to decide the fate of the new Constitution, so far at least as Georgia's ratification or rejection was concerned. Pursuant to call, this convention met at the time and place specified. Hon. John Wereat, an illustrious patriot, at one time governor of the state, was made its president. To the office of secretary, Isaac Briggs, Esq., was elected. All
* "Georgia and State Rights," U. B. Phillips, p. 20.
353
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
of the delegates were not present when the convention assembled, but those who attended first and last and who signed the instrument formally attesting its ratification were: James Powell, John Elliott and James Maxwell, from Liberty; Henry Osborne, James Seagrove and Jacob Weed, from Camden; Edward Telfair, Dr. Todd and George Walton, from Burke; George Handley, Charles Hillery and John Milton, from Glynn; Robert Christmas, a Mr. Daniel and a Mr. Middleton, from Greene; George Mathews, Florence Sullivan and a Mr. King, from Wilkes; and Jenkin Davis, Nathan Brown and Caleb Howell, from Effingham. There appear to have been no delegates present from either Franklin or Washington counties. John Wereat signed the ratification as president and also as delegate from Richmond. Isaac Briggs was also from this county ; but the name of any other delegate from Richmond is not to be found in the records.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.