F 290 .P56 Copy 1 Book_. ■ r\^ Co OFh'HJXAl^ lJO>fA'riOI ; SOMETIME FELLOW IX COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; SOMETIME FELLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ; INSTRUCTOR IN HIS- TORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. [The Justin Winsor Prize (if the American Hi.storical Association was awarded to the anthor for this monograph.] (From the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1901, Vol. II, pages 3-224, with twelve plates. ) WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICK. 1902. r-7 jAN 13 1303 D. ofD, GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. A STl'DY OF THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF OEOKGIA FROM THE REVOLT'TION TO THE CIVIL WAR, AVITH PAR- TICULAR REGARD TO FEDERAL RELATIONS. By ULRICH BONNELL PHILLIPS, A. M., Ph. D., SOMETIME P^ELLOW IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; SOMETIME FELLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ; INSTRUCTOR IN HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. [The Justin Wiusor Prize of the American Historieal Assoeiatioir was awarded to the author for this monograph.] . PREFACE As a result of listening to a \eiy suggestive lecture b}- Dr. F. J. Turner upon American sectionalism, I set to work some years ago to study the efl'ect of nullification upon Georgia politics. The search for information in the Georgia news- papers of the nullification period quickly showed me that I had to deal with numerous complexities in the local field which to be understood needed more than a knowledge of the main current of American politics. The conditions in Georgia had been ev^olved through the influence of men and events now long forgotten, and those local conditions were destined to iuiportance in shaping the history of the country at large. The study of the whole situation with its recurring changes has proved absorbing. My eftort has been to seek out the causes of things, and to follow developments to their conclusion. T'he work has expanded, almost of itself, until it has reached the present compass of a complete surve}^ of the antebellum period of the State's history. I have declined to adopt the suggestion of several gentlemen who have wished me to add the period of the Civil War and Recon- struction to my view, because the cataclysm of the sixties is foreign to the sequence of my narrative. The discussion of that decade would involve so many new influences and complications that the unity of the monograph would be destroyed. It is not difficult for one whose native environment is the Cotton Belt to orient himself into antebellum Georgia. I have made little use, however, of the historical imagination. (> PEEFACE. The method is that of the investigator rather than the liter- ary historian. The work is intended to ])e a thorough scien- tific treatment of its siil)]"ect. No pains have been spared in obtaining exhaustive and accurate information. I have juade research in person in every important library in America, and in several of those abroad, and have made use of a large amount of material which is in the possession of private individuals. The most useful collections of material for the work have been found in the University of Georgia Library, the Carnegie Library of Atlanta, the Congressional Library, and the libraries of the Historical Societies of Georgia, New York, and Wisconsin. The two chapters dealing with the local parties in Georgia were submitted as a master's thesis at the University of Georgia in 1899. The monograph, as a whole, is ni}^ doctor's dissertation at Columbia University in 1902. For sugges- tions, criticism, and encouragement in the work, I am indebted to Dr. J. H. T. McPherson, of Athens, Ga., to Dr. F. J. Turner, of Madison, Wis., and especially to Dr. W. A. Dunning, of New York City. To these gentlemen 1 must express mv sincere gratitude. To numerous librarians, and to persons possessing manuscripts, newspapers, or other material which I have used, I can at this time only render a sweeping expression of thanks for courtesies shown me. Ulrich B. Phillips. Milledgeville, Georgia. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I.— THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. Page. Condition of Georgia at the close of the Revolution 15 Attitude toward a union of the States 16 The confederation unsatisfactory 16 The Annapolis convention 17 Response of Georgia 17 The Constitutional Convention of 1787 17 Policy of the Georgia delegates 17 Georgia ratifies the Federal Constitution 21 Adopts a new State constitution 22 Case of Chisholm v. Georgia 24 Attitude of the State 26 The eleventh amendment 28 Georgia's Western lands 29 The Yazoo land sale 30 Popular indignation in Georgia 31 The sale rescinded 32 The purchasers protest 32 Attitude of Congress 32 Government established for the western territory 33 Remonstrance of Georgia, 1800 33 Conciliatory spirit 34 Cession of the Western lands, 1802 34 The Yazoo claims in Congress 35 Case of Fletcher ;;. Peck 36 Settlement of the claims 37 Foreign affairs 38 State rights in abeyance 38 CHAPTER II. — THE ACQUISITION OP THE CREEK LANDS. Creek cessions to the colony of Georgia 39 The Creeks in the American revolution 39 Indian affairs under the confederation 40 Treaties of Galphinton, Hopewell, and Shoulderbone 40 Dissatisfaction of the Creeks 41 Alexander McGillivray 41 Treaty of New York, 1790 42 7 8 CONTENTS. Page. Protest of Georgia - - 42 Theories of the Indian status -lo Maraudings on the frontier 44 Exasperation of the Georgians 44 Concihation 45 Treaty at Coleraine - 46 Elijah Clarke 47 Illegal settlement up( >n Creek lands 47 Destroyed by the State government 48 Public opinion in Georgia 48 Creek cessions of 1802 and 1804 49 Conspiracy of the Western Creeks 50 Creek war, 1813-14. Andrew Jackson 51 Treaty of Fort Jackson 51 Cessions of 1818 and 1821 52 Impatience of Georgia for more lands 53 Tenacity of the Creeks 54 George M. Troup 55 Treaty of Indian Spring, 1 825 56 William Mcintosh 56 Factions among the Creeks 56 Mcintosh murdered 57 President Adams repudiates the treaty 58 Antagonism of Adams and Troup 58 Treaty of Washington, 1826 59 Governor Troup defies the President 63 Attitude of Congress 64 Cession of the remaining ( rjek lands in ( ieorgia 65 CllAI'TEK HI. THE KXI'ULSION OF THK CHEUOKKES. Early Cherokee cessions <>6 Cherokees in the American revolution 66 Tenacity of the tribe for its Georgia lands Vu Cessions of 1817 and 1819 68 Refusal to make further cessions 69 The Cherokee chiefs "0 Attitude of the United States Government 70 Progress of the Indiana toward civilization 71 Attitude of Georgia "2 Discovery of gold in north (ieorgia 72 Conflict of authority "'"5 Laws of Georgia, 1830, destroy tiie Cherokee government 73 President Jackson 73 Judge A. S. Clayton "4 Chief Justice Marshall 74 Governor Gilmer 75 Tassel' s case 75 Case of the Ch(>rokee Nation /•. (ieorgia 76 CONTENTS. 9 Page. The missionaries to the Cherokees 79 Worcester appeals to the Supreme Court 80 Policy of Go /ernor Lumpkin 81 Case of Worcester v. Georgia 81 Jackson refuses to enforce Marshall's decision 82 Graves' s case 84 The Cherokees despondent 84 Factions in the tribe 85 Treaty of New Echota, 1835 86 Removal of the Cherokees, 1838 86 CHAPTER IV. THE TROUP AXU CLARKE PARTIES. Continuity of parties in Georgia 87 Their economic and social basis 87 Influence of the streams of immigration 88 The frontier 89 Parties in the RevoUition 89 Federalist and Republican parties 90 Presidential election of 1796 91 Disappearance of the Federalist party 92 The rise of personal factions 93 James Jackson '. 94 William H. Crawford 94 The Broad River settlement of Virginians 96 The North Carolinian settlement 96 The South (jeorgia aristocrats 96 George M. Troup 97 John Clarke 97 Development of personal factions 98 Checked by the war of 1812 99 The election of governor, 1819, 1S21, and 1823 100 The gubernatorial campaign of 1825 103 Character of the local vote 104 Its relation to economic geography 105 Economic and social conditions 106 Presidential election of 1824 108 Period of quiet in politics, 1825 to 1S31 Ill Indian affairs, 1825 Ill Change of party names 112 CHAPTER V. THE STATE RIGHTS AND INIOX PARTIES. Quiescence on State sovereignty, 1798 to 1823 113 Origin of the protective tariff 113 Internal improvements 114 The Colonization Society 1 115 The struggle for State rights renewed 115 The tariff of 1828 '. 117 Andrew Jackson 119 10 CONTENTS. Page. The tariff of 1832 120 Constitutional interpretation 121 State rights 121 State sovereignty 122 Nullification 123 Th9 attitude of Georgia 124 Wilson Lumpkin 125 Election of governor, 1831 126 Character of the vote 127 State rights meetings 129 State sovereignty convention, November, 1832 130 Conservatism of the legislature 131 Local factions and leaders 132 Attitude of Georgians toward the Constitution 132 Augustin S. Clayton 133 John M. Berrien 133 George R. Gilmer 134 John Forsyth 134 William H. Crawford 134 George M. Trou}) 134 Wilson Lumpkin , 135 Election of governor, ; 1833 136 State Rights party convention, 1833 ^ 137 Presidential election, 1836 138 Local affairs, 1837 to 1840 139 Influence of economic geography 140 Progress and lack of progress 141 CHAPTER VI. THE WHIGS AND THE DEMOCRATS: SLAVERY. The origin of the Whig party 143 The opposition in Georgia to Andrew Jackson 143 Merging of the State Rights party with the Whigs 144 Merging of the Union party with the Democrats 146 Presidential campaign of 1840 147 Local questions 147 Campaign of 1844; Clay defeated 148 Status of slavery in Georgia 151 Colonial history 151 Laws regulating slaves .' 152 Patriarchal system 154 Free persons of color 155 Interstate slave trade 155 The cotton gin 157 The Colonization Society; its inefficiency 158 The abolition agitation . . S 158 Southern sensitiveness 159 The slavery cjuestion enters politics 161 Sectionalism in the national parties 162 CONTENTS. 11 Page. The compromise of 1850 ^'^'^ Radical agitation in Georgia l^'"" Pacified l)y Toombs, Stephens, and Cobb l'^-* The Georgia platform of 1850 ^^ Cobb elected governor, 1851 1*56 Presidential campaign of 1852 ^^' Decline of the Whig party ^^^ Unstable alignment of the local parties 1|^'* Attitude of Georgians toward the Union 1 ' CHAPTER VII. THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRU(4(iLE AND ITS KESll/rS. The Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854 ^^1 Stephen A. Douglas ^^^ Popularity of the bill in the South Ip The bill enacted into law ."■ 1^'^ Public sentiment for and against it l^-^ The struggle in Kansas ^^"^ The Democratic convention of 1856 1 ' '^ Factions in the party ^"J* Desire of the South for slavery extension 1 75 The Dred Scott case • 1^^ Developments in Kansas 1 ' ^ Readjustment of political parties 17/^ The Know Nothings in Georgia 1 " Policy of Robert Toombs and Alexander H. Stephens 178 Benjamin H. Hill 180 The Democratic party in Georgia, 1857 180 /Joseph E. Brown ^^^ Quiet in politics, 1858 182 Strength of the sectional feeling 183 The Republican party at the North 183 Rumors of war, 1859 185 John Brown's raid 186 Southern opinion solidified 187 The Democratic party in 1860 188 The convention at Charleston 188 Dilemma of the Georgians 189 Attitude of A. H. Stephens and H. V. Johnson 189 /Joseph E. Brown and Howell Cobb 189 Robert Toombs - 190 The Democratic convention at Baltimore 190 Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell 191 Lincoln elected 191 Sentiment in Georgia 192 12 CONTENXe. CHAPTER VIII. — THE SECESSION OF THE STATE OF (;EOR(UA. Page. Early theories of secession : The Hartford convention 193 Effect of the Kansas struggle in developing secession spiiit in Georgia 193 Alarm at the growth of the llepulilican party 194 Lincoln's election 194 Governor Brown advises resistance to Northern aggression 194 Toomhs and Stephens 195 The legislature calls a convention of the people 196 Military preparations 197 Statement of Southern grievances 197 The radical leadership of the governor 197 Howell Cohb favors secession • 198 Stephens opposed to immediate secession 199 Toombs's dispatch, December 23, 1860 200 Election of delegates to the secession convention 201 Seizure of Fort Pulaski by Georgia forces 201 ('haracter of the convention 202 Its proceedings 203 Adoption of the ordinance of secession 203 Attitude of the minority 204 The local vote in the Presidential election of 1860 206 Contrasted with the local attitude toward secession 206 Ciuestion of the conservatism of secession 207 Comparison of the courses pursued by Toombs 207 Howell Cobb 207 A. H. Stephens 207 H. Y. Johnson 207 E. A. Nisbet 208 B. H. Hill 208 Thomas R. II. Cobb 208 /Joseph E. Brown 208 C. J. Jenkins 208 Conclusion 210 BIULIOCJRAPHV. Histories of Georgia 211 Local and special histories 212 Biographies and memoirs 213 Georgia laws 215 Public documents 21 5 Works on State rights and secession 216 Works on slavery 216 History of the Indians 217 Maps of Georgia 217 Files of Georgia newspapers 218 LIST OF MAPS OF GEORGIA. Page. 1. Indian cessiony. (From Eighteenth Report Bureau American Ethnology, with alterations) 40 2. Presidential election of 1796 ^^1 3. Census of 1800, whites and negroes 92 4. Gubernatorial election of 1825 104 5. Census of 1824, w^hites and negroes 10 political existence of Georgia by merging the two States into / one aroused the indignation of Georgians and heightened their esteem for autonomy and independence.* The spread of a \ rumor, when the extreme South was in the hands of the British, J that peace was about to be made on the basis of the retention / of South Carolina and Georgia as colonies, while the independ- ence of the other States was to be recognized, developed <«C. C. Jones, History of Georgia, vol. 2, p. 275. W. B. Stevens, History of Georgia, vol. 2,P.B02. ^^ \ 10 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. a lively anxiety for the preservation of the Union of the States," The proximity of powerful Indian tribes, and the Spanish possession of Florida, after 1783, made Georgia an outpost against two powers which might become hostile, and thus tended to further strengthen the desire among the citi- xens for a permanent arrangement looking to mutual support among the States. For several reasons, then, the State was in favor of a strong central government in control of inter- national affairs and matters of broad scope, while on the other hand it was not willing to make a complete surrender of its own political independence. A federal system of gov- ernment, and none other, would meet the requirements. The arrangements by which the United States carried on the war against Great Britain had been little more than an ill-defined league between independent powers. The Arti- cles of Confederation, which secured adoption only a short while before the cessation of hostilities, were hardly an improvement upon the preceding provisional organization. Month by month the unsatisfactory nature of the Confedera- tion became more patent and more distressing to all citizens who looked to a prosperous career for the American people under a stable government, j^et large numbers of men were to ])e found in many of the States who were firmly opposed to any sacrifice of authority b}^ the members of the Confed- eration. Jealousies among the commonwealths and i-eal or fancied advantages which several of the States held ovei- their neighbors increased the difficulty in reaching a solution. By the summer of 1786 the inefficiency of the confederate government had become intolerable, but the problem of securing improvements remained most delicate and compli- cated. The fact that it was accomplished in a short time, and without great confusion, demonstrates the adroitness and abilit}' of the statesmen of the time. The convention which, upon the initiative of Virginia, assembled at Annapolis in 1786 to consider interstate questions of a commercial nature, was led by Alexander Hamilton to extend its view over the general field of American political a Of. " Observations upon the effects of certain late political suggestions: by the dele- gates of Georgia" in the Continental Congress. This pamphlet, originally printed in 1781, was reprinted in a limited edition in the Wormsloe series in 1847. The text may also be found in White's Historical Collections of Georgia, pp. 10(i to 110, GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 17 conditions. The result was the adoption on September 14, of a recommendation to the Cong-ress and to the legishitures of the several States represented at Annapolis that commis- sioners be appointed from each of the thirteen States to meet in Philadelphia in May of the next year "to devise such provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exi- gencies of the Union."" The Congress approved the plan and called the convention accordingly. In response to the invitation which Georgia received, the assembly passed an ordinance February 10, 1787, appointing William Few, Abraham Baldwin, William Pierce, George Wal- ton, William Houston, and Nathaniel Pendleton as commis- sioners for the convention. The second Monday, or the 11th, of Ma^', 1787, had been set for the assembling of the convention, but a quorum of States was not obtained until the 25th of the month, when the regu- lar sittings were begun. On that day William Few was pres- ent from Georgia, but by the State ordinance two delegates were required to attend before the State could be officially represented. Georgia had no vote in the convention until the arrival of Mr. Pierce, on May 31. Mr. Houston reached Philadelphia on June 7 and Mr. Baldwin on June 11. Messrs. Walton and Pendleton are nowhere mentioned as having attended. Soon after the assembling of the convention it was decided that in it, as was the rule in Congress during the Confedera- tion, each State represented should have one vote. Georgia used her vote constantly in advocating the policy of strength- ening the central government. This was to be done by dejDriv- ing the State legislatures of some of their powers without removing all authority from them. Mr. Baldwin, the most\^ influential member of the Georgia delegation, said in the con- \ vention on June 2!): "It appears to be agreed that the gov- \ ernment we should adopt ought to be energetic and formidable, / yet I would guard against the danger of being too formida- ' ble." His colleague, Mr. Pierce, expressed the same opinion on the same day. "Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution, vol. l,p. 118 ('Id edition) H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 2 18 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Tluit the Georgia delegates acted in accord with public senti- ment at home the following extracts from the cokirans of a contemporary Augusta newspaper will tend to show: '* We hear with great satisfaction that the convention for revising the confederation is now assembled and doing busi- ness at Philadelphia. Among the many important matters to be taken under consideration by that august body the follow- ing are said to be the principles: 1st. That the Thirteen states be divided into three distinct Republics, who ought to leak together for their common defense as so many separate gov- ernments independent of each other; 2ndly. If the Thirteen states remain as they are confederated, to lessen their sover- eignty by abolishing their State Legislatures and leaving the whole laws to be made by the national congress, assembly, or parliament; 3rdly. The Thirteen states to remain as they are, except that their laws be revised by Congress so as to make the whole act in conformity as of one, and the executive powers of Congress enlarged. It is nuich to be wished that the latter may be adopted.''" When the debate began on the question as to whether rep- resentation in the National Assembly should be divided equally among the States or should be apportioned to the population. Georgia, in a measure, astonished the States of her own rank in strength and population by joining the side of the large States, seemingly against her own interests. This was ac- counted for by Luther Martin in his letter to the speaker of the house of delegates of Maryland: "It may be thought surprising, sir, that Georgia, a State now small and comparatively trilling in the LTnion, should advocate this system of unequal representation, giving up her present equality in the Federal Government and sinking her- self almost to total insignificance in the scale; but, sir, it must ])e considered that Georgia has the most extensive territory in the Union, being as large as the whole island of Great Britain and thirty times as large as Connecticut. This system being designed to preserve to the States their whole territory un])roken and to prevent the erection of new States within the territory of any of them, Georgia looked forward to when, (( Georgia State Gazette or Independent Register, July 21, 1787. This weekly newspaper was published at Augusta by John E. Smith, printer to the SUite. It afterwards became the Augusta Chronicle. aEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 19 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 Georgia warmly advocating the proposition of giving the States unequal representation.'" The discussion of the method of election of Senators brought forth several speeches from the Georgia delegation. On June 6, Mr. Pierce spoke in favor of the election of the first branch of the National Legislature by the people and of the second hy the States, in order that the citizens of the States might be represented individually and collectively. On June 29, Mr. Baldwin declared that the second branch ought to be the rep- resentation of property and that it ought not to be elected as the first. When the question was put as to whether each State should have an equal vote in the Senate, there was an exciting scene in the convention. Five States had voted on either side of the issue, and when Georgia's turn arrived to cast her ballot her delegates had the deciding voice. Mr. Baldwin had already made known his opinion as siding with the larger States, but from the fear of disrupting the convention he abandoned his intention, divided the vote of his State, and thus caused the motion to be lost by a tie." In the apportionment of representation in the lower House South Carolina was given five seats and Georgia three. Both States made resolute efforts to increase their strength in the House, but were persistently voted down on every motion to that effect. The underlying reason for these attempts, which North Carolina and Virginia supported, was the desire to equalize the power of the South in the House with that of the North, which was given a slightly larger number of seats. The principle of assignment of the seats was that each State should be entitled to one representative for ever}' 30,000 of its inhabitants, according to the authoritative estimate, with slaves counted as five to three. It was known that on this basis Georgia should not be assigned three members, but the argument was accepted that the "unexampled celerity of its population " would cause the State to be entitled to that num- ber before the Constitution could be put in effect.^ "Madison Papers (Gilpin), p. 807. 6 lb., pp. 1054, 1060, 1076 20 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. When the (][uestion of legislating against the slave trade arose in the convention, South Carolina took an extreme posi- tion, with Georgia approving her contentions. The delegates of the two States threatened that if the importation of slaves were not allowed, their States would undoubtedly refuse to ratify' the Constitution. Mr. Baldwin suggested that, if left to herself, Georgia would probably put a stop to the trade. From this prophecy, which was fulfilled in a decade, and from other sidelights on the subject, we have reason to doubt that the prohibitory clause would have led to the rejection of the Constitution by Georgia. The North was forced to yield to the stubbornness of South Carolina, supported by Georgia and North Carolina. A compromise w^as hnally reached, which was embodied in Article 1, section 9, of the Constitution: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited l)y the Congress prior to the year eighteen hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.*" The deliberations of the convention were brought to a close on September 17, 1787, and the engrossed Constitution was signed by delegates from each of the thirteen States except Rhode Island. The complete instrument was delivered to the Congress of the Confederation, which, on September 28, "Re- solved unanimously that the said report, with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the sev- eral legislatures, in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each State by the people thereof, in con- formity to the resolves of the convention made and provided in that case." A copy of the Constitution and accompanying resolutions reached Georgia in time for publication at Augusta, in the Gazette, October 13, and the resolution of the Congress to subn]it it to the States was published a week later. The State legislature happened to l)e in session at the time, and on October 25 it resolved that a convention be elected on the da}' of the next general election, to consist of not more than three members from each county, to meet at Augusta in De- cember following, to consider the report and to reject or adopt any part or the whole thereof. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 21 In the Georgia Gazette of December 15 there appears an article which states: '"'The t'ollov^dng• gentlemen are appointed in the convention for this State, and are the names only of those who have come to hand: For Green County, — Daniel, Robert Christmas, Middleton; for Wilkes County, George Mathews, Florence Sullivan, King"; for Burke County, Edward Telfair, Dr. Todd, George Wal- ton; for Glynn County, George Handley, Charles Hillery, John Milton." In the issue of December 29 there appears under date of December 28: "Yesterday twenty-four mendjers of the State convention met in this town and, being a quorum, proceeded to the choice of a president, when the Hon. John Wereat, esq., was elected to that important office. Mr. Isaac Briggs was appointed secretary. Members returned from Liberty County to serve in the convention: James Powell, John Elliott, James Maxwell, esqs. ; for Effingham County, Jenkin Davis, Nathan Brown, Caleb Howell, esqs." The Gazette of January 5, 1788, is quite disappointing, for it might naturally be expected to contain an account in detail of the debates and transactions of the convention. Instead, its only article relating to the subject reads: "We have the pleasure to announce to the public that on Wednesday last the convention of this State unanimously ratified the Federal Constitution in the words following," etc. The ratification bears all the names of the delegates above named, and also those of John Wereat, president and delegate for the county of Richmond, and Henry Osborne, James Seagrave, and Jacob Weed, of Camden County. The article in the Gazette closes with a statement that "as the last name was signed to the ratification a party of Colonel Armstrong's regiment, quartered in this town, proclaimed the joyful tidings oppo- site the statehouse by thirteen discharges of tw^o pieces of artillery." In point of the time which elapsed between the receipt of instructions from Congress and the ratification of the Consti- tution by the State, Georgia should be ranked second, if not first, indeed, for her delegates signed their resolutions only twenty-four days after Delaware had signified her approval, whereas ver}^ nearly a month was required for the transmission 22 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. of news from Philadelphia to Georgia. But when dates are compared it is found that the ratifications by Delaware, Penn- sylvania, and New Jersey preceded that by Georgia; and when the States are listed according to the dates at which their notifications of approval reach the Congress, it is discovered that the news of ratification ])y two Eastern States had reached that bod}^ ])efore Georgia's communication was received, Delaware, New Jersey, and Georgia are the only States whose conventions were unanimous in their approval of the instrument. The citizens of Georgia had no objections to a closer form of union among the several States. Their repre- sentatives had obtained practically all that they had seen lit to ask. Certainty of law and order between the States, guar- antees of support against the Spanish and Indians in the pos- sible emergency of war, non-interference in the realm of local affairs and in the matter of slavery and the slave trade, and full representation in the legislature of the General Govern- ment left nothing to be desired in the Constitution. Georgia was insignificant among the States, but her ratifica- tion of the Federal Constitution was very important. When it became known to the northward that a State with such intense Southern spirit had ratified so quickly and without an amendment or a dissenting voice, a thrill of encouragement was felt ])y the workers for the cause throughout the States, while the hearts of many anti-Federalists failed them." The Georgia State constitution, which was confessedly of a temporary character, had for some years been considered unsatisfactory. As soon as the activity of the State regarding the Federal Constitution came to an end, the matter of remod- eling the State government was vigorously undertaken with the purpose of adapting it better to the Federal system. The general assembly on January 30, 1788, resolved to name three citizens from each county "to be convened after nine States have adopted the Federal Constitution, to take under their con- sideration the alterations and amendments that are necessary to be made in the constitution of this State." After receiving- news of the ratification of New Hampshire, the ninth State, Governor Handley called this convention to meet on Novem- ber 4. It formulated a new constitution, which was published aCf.,T. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, vol. 1, p. 476. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 23 in the State. Another convention was elected by the people earl}' in December, with the function of offering amendments to the proposed document, and it met on January 4, 1789. By eTanuary 20 its work was finished and the second conven- tion adjourned. The instrument, as then offered for adoption and as tinally adopted, differed from the one which it superseded in being much more systematic, and in containing several conservative but important new features. It established a bicameral legis- lature, and heightened the qualiffcations for members of the assembly. It is an interesting detail of these qualiffcations that, while only two years' residence in Georgia was required of a member of the lower house, he must have been a citizen of the United States for seven years; and for the senate, a similar requirement of three and nine years was made. This is the earliest instance where any such discrimination was made in a State constitution, and is indicative of the national spirit which existed among the people of Georgia at that time. Regarding the adoption of this second State constitution by Georgia, the following self-explanatory item occurs in the Georgia Gazette for May 9, 1789: " On Monday last (May 4) the third convention met in the Town Hall to consider the alterations proposed by the convention of January last to the constitution formed by the convention of 1788; and on Wednesday they finally adopted and ratified the new form of government, to commence in October next. * * * The new form being an assimilation to the Federal constitution, its notification and deposit was announced to the town by a discharge of eleven cannon, in honor of the federated states; when his Honor, with the President and the members of the convention, and the President and the members of the council, repaired to the Government House and drank a glass of wine to its prosperity." The eager ratification of the Federal Constitution in 1788 was undoubtedly a truthful expression of the will of the peo- ple of Georgia, But the people, in ratifying, understood that the}^ did nothing more than was involved in the literal inter- pretation of their act. They adopted the Constitution in the capacity of the people of a sovereign State, delegating certain specified powers to the central government in order to increase v 24 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. its efficiency, but reserving to themselves and to their pre- viously existing- State government all rights and powers which were not expressly thus delegated in the instrument. The new Constitution for the United States was accepted and welcomed as a reform upon the old one, and not as a revolu- tionizing instrument. Evidence of this may be found in sev- eral issues which arose almost contemporaneously with the adoption of the Constitution. Of these we may deal first with the celebrated case of Cliisolm v. Georgia before the Supreme Court of the United States. At the August term of the Supreme Court in 1792 an action was brought b}^ a Mr. Chisolm, of South Carolina, to recover a sum of money by suit against the State of Georgia." Copies of the action were served by the United States marshal upon the governor and the attorney-general of the State of Georgia. On August 11, 1792, Mr. Randolph, the Attorney- General of the United States, as counsel for the plaintiff, moved "that unless the State of Georgia shall, after reasonable previous notice of this motion, cause an appearance to be entered in behalf of the said State on the fourth day of next term, or shall show cause to the contrary, judgment shall be entered against the said State, and a writ of incpiiry of dam- ages shall be awarded."" But on motion of Mr. Randolph it was ordered b}' the court that the consideration of this motion be postponed to the February term, 1793. At that term a written remonstrance and protestation against the exercise of jurisdiction in the cause was presented to the coui't on behalf of the State. In consequence of positive instructions from the State government, the attorneys who presented its protest declined to take any part in arguing the question. Mr. Randolph made an extensive argument on the nature of the American Govertunent. He urged that the States were sovereignties, but that they might combine in government, and that they had so combined in the Articles of Confedera- tion. When that system proved inefficient the Federal Con- stitution was established and produced a new order of things. "It derives it origin innnediately from the people; and the people are individually, under certain limitations, subject to the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities thereby "The case is reported in full in A. J. Dallas, U. S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 2, pp. 419 to 480. GEOEGIA ATSTD STATE RIGHTS. 25 established. The States are in fact assemblages of these in- dividuals who are liable to process." "I hold it, therefore, no derog-ation of sovereignty in the States to submit to the Supreme Judiciary of the United States.'' The majority of the court gave decisions favorable to the plaintiff, Chief Jus- tice Ja}^ and Justice Wilson making strong arguments for the national character of the system which was erected by the United States Constitution of 1787. Justice IredeW gave the only dissenting opinion; and it is the one most interesting to us here, because it was in line with the convictions of the officials and of the people of Georgia. His argument was that the United States Supreme Court could not try a suit against a State by a citizen of another State. If such a case were within the general realm of the activity of the court the court would still be unable to try the action unless a Congressional act had established the appropriate procedure, whereas no such act had been passed. ""Every State in the Union in every instance where its sover- eignty has not been delegated to the United States I consider to be as completely sovereign," he said, ''as the United States are in respect to the powers surrendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers actually surrendered; each State in the United States is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, l)ecause the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them." The powers of the United States " require no aid from any State authorit}'. That is the great distinction between the old Articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." The power to try suits against a State, he concluded, is not expressly given to the United States Supreme Court, and therefore the court does not possess that power. As a result of the decision of the majority of the justices in favor of the plaintiff', it was ordered that notice be served upon the governor and attorney-general of Georgia, and in case the State should not appear in due form, or show cause to the contrary in the court by the first day of the next term, judgment by default should be entered against the State. Judgment was accordingly rendered against the State of Georgia in the February term of ITOi, and a writ of inquiry was awarded to the plaintiff'. But it was evident that the 2G AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. State would not obey the writ if an attempt should be made to execute it; and it was further evident that no means of executing a judgment against a State was known to adminis- trative law. The judgment lay unenforced upon the court records until the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution removed such questions from the cognizance of the court in 179S. The fact that there were a series of similar cases pending in the same court against several other States rendered the issue in the suit of Chisolm v. Georgia of interest in all sec- tions of the country. But we must now attend mainly the events in the narrower field of Georgia policy. On December 1-i, 1792, during the first session of the gen- eral assembly after the first notification to the State that Chisolm's suit was pending, a resolution was introduced in the Georgia house of representatives declaring that the suit, "if acquiesced in by this State, would not only involve the same in numberless lawsuits for papers issued from the treasury thereof to supply the armies of the United States, but would effectually destroy the retained sovereignty of the States, and would actually tend in its operations to annihilate the very shadow of the State governments, and to render them but tributary corporations to the Government of the United States." The resolution went on to suggest an *" explanatory' amendment" to the constitution." Apparentlv the motion was not carried, but it nevertheless outlined the policy which the State was to follow. Shortly after the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, in February, 1793, Governor Telfair was notified of the judgment by the United States marshal of the district. At the opening of the next session of the legislature, November 4, 1793, he discussed the subject in his annual message. That portion of the document reads: "A process from the Supreme Court of the United States at the instance of Chisolm, executor of Farquhar, has been served upon me and the attorne}'- general. 1 declined entering any appearance, as this would have introduced a precedent replete with danger to the Republic, and would have involved this State in complicated difficulties, abstracted from the infractions which it would a Augusta Chronicle and Gazette of the State, Dec. 22, 1792. H. V. Ames, Sta j Docu- ments on Federal Relations, p. 8. GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGNTS. 27 have made in her retained sovereignty. The singular pre- dicament to which she has been reduced by savage inroads has caused an emission of paper upward of £150,000 since the close of the late war, a considerable part of which is still outstanding, and which in good faith and upon constitutional principles is the debt of the United States. 1 say were action admissible under such grievous circumstances, an anni- hilation of her political existence must follow. To guard against civil discord as well as the impending danger, permit me most ardently to request your most serious attention to the measure of recommending to the legislatures of the sev- eral States that they effect a remedy in the premises by amendment to the Constitution; and that, to give further weight to this matter, the delegation of this State in Congress be requested to urge that body to propose an amendment to the several legislatures."^' The House of Representatives adopted a report for the preparation of an address to the legislatures of the several States, looking toward the amendment which all men had in mind. A bill which passed the same House soon afterwards showed a much more radical spirit than had previously been manifested. The Journal of the House for November 19, 1793, records: "The House proceeded to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to take under consideration a bill to be entitled 'An act declaratory of certain parts of the retained sover- eignty of the State of Georgia.' Mr. Speaker left the chair. Mr. McNeil took the chair of the committee, and some time being spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. McNeil, from the Committee of the Whole, reported that the committee had taken the bill under consideration, had gone through the same, and had made several amendments thereto, which he reported. And the bill as reported amended being read, a motion was made by Mr. Waldburger to strike the following section therein: 'And be it further enacted that any Federal marshal, attempting to levy on the territory of this State, or on the treasury, by virtue of an execution, by the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, for the recovery of any claim against the said State of Georgia n Augusta Chronicle, Nov. 9, 1793. Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations, p. 8. 28 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. shall be guilU^ of felony, and shall suffer death, without ben- efit of clergy, by being hanged,'' On question to strike out — yeas, 8; nays, 19. Ordered that the bill be engrossed for a third reading."'^' An item in the Journal of the same House for November 21, 1793, records that on that day the bill was finally passed and sent to the Senate. The State senate probably realized that matters elsewhere were progressing so nicely toward the amendment of the Constitution that any such violent act was micalled for in Georgia. We find no record of the passage of the tire-eating bill through the upper House. Immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chisolm r. Georgia, a Massachusetts Senator intro- duced a bill into Congress for a constitutional amendment. The legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia, each also proposed an amendment. The Congressional act for the change in the Constitution, or, as many preferred to call it, an explanatory clause, was sent to the States on March 5, 1791, and its ratification was announced by the President on Jiinuary 8, 1798.^' / The adoption of the eleventh amendment thus put an end -4.0 the controversy, which had caused much excitement. The whole matter was ill calculated to make the Georgians more national in spirit. Its chief value as an historical incident in this connection lies in the demonstration that the unanimous vote of the Georgia convention in 1788 was given in the under- standing that the State remained in possession of all residuary rights and powers. Other occasions for the expression by the State govern- ment of views on the intent of the Constitution arose in con- nection with the two subjects of Indian affairs and public lands. The history of Indian affairs may conveniently be postponed to subsequent chapters. The consideration of the developments concerning public lands and the Yazoo sale will lead us somewhat affeld before the constitutional question reappears, and will demonstrate in the later stages that after some years a reaction set in against the decided State sover- eignty views which prevailed in Georgia from 1789 to 1796. (I Augusta Chronicle, Nov. 23, 1793. 6H. V. Ames, Proposed Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, pp. IfH!, 157, and 822. McMaster, History of the People of the U.S., vol. 2, p. 182. Of. Cohen v. Virffinin. in (i Wheaton, U. S. Reports, 406. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 29 The treat}' of Paris m 1783 left Georgia in noniiiuil pos- session of a great expanse of territory stretctiing- from the Savannah River to the Mississippi. But of this region only the small portion Ijang east of the Oconee River was actually settled and possessed by the citizens. The ownership over the western lands consisted in the right merely to take pos- session of them after extinguishing the Indian title. Even this contingent ownership, called the right of preemption, was not held by Georgia without contestation. The United States Government was inclined for a time to urge that it alone possessed the right of preemption to the district south of Tennessee, but in seeking to support the argument it was forced to concede that the only valid rebuttal of the claim of Spanish possession of the region lay in the documents which established Georgia's ownership. Most of the States which possessed extensive claims to lands in the West ceded their claims to the United States about 1787. Georgia was not willing to make an unqualified gift of all her vacant territor}', but in 1788 she offered to Congress a grant of a district 1-10 miles wide, and stretching from the Chattahoochee River to the Mississippi, a district which constituted the southern half of the territory lying beyond the line of the Chattahoochee. But conditions were included in the offer. The State was to be confirmed in its possession of the lands which it did not cede and was to receive a reimbursement in the amount of $171,428.45, which it had expended in quieting and resisting the Indians, and of which a large portion was then outstanding in the bills of credit of the State. Congress rejected the ofl'er of Georgia, but resolved that it would accept a cession, if all the lands west of a line based on the Chattahoochee were offered, and if the conditions were suitably modified." The State government was not disposed to follow this sug- gestion of Congress. It was quite read}' to keep possession of all the lands to which it had claim, but was at some loss as to the best method of gaining the benefit of them for the State. In 1789 the legislature passed a law, at the suggestion of would-be purchasers, enacting a sale of some 25,000,000 acres in the western district near the Yazoo River in three "American State Papers, Public Lands, vol. 1, p. 100. 30 AMEEICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. parcels, to as many companies, for a total sum of about $200,000/' It was distinctly declared that the State would not trouble itself in the matter of extinguishing* the Indian title, or in adjusting disputes with previous settlers. The companies were required in the act to pay the full amount of the purchase money into the State treasury within two years. This stipulation was not f ultilled, and the agreement lapsed at the end of the period set. The fever of land speculation was beginning to run wild among the people of the United States. The members of the Yazoo companies of 1789 were greatly disappointed when they realized the failure of their plans. But some of the original movers were determined to persevere in their schemes, and numerous other enterprising men were eager to participate ill similar undertakings. The legislature of Georgia was induced to pass an act, approved by the governor on January 7, 1795, which enacted the sale of the greater part of the territory now comprised in the States of Alabama and Mississippi, in four districts to four new companies, for a total consideration of $500,000.* The corrupting influence which secured the passage of the act is not here in point. The important fact for our view is that the whole procedure was in open contravention of a law of the United States, Although the act was repudiated l)y the popular voice, those sections of it which deal with the theoretical power of the State in the premises may be taken as no great exaggeration of the convictions of the people. The act sets forth that although the United States had bv enactment declared its control over cessions of the Indian lands and had guaranteed the Creek Indians in the possession of all their lands west of the Oconee River, the State of Georgia had in no way transferred its right of soil or pre- emption. The right of preemption and the fee simple to the western lands were declared to be in the State, together with the right of disposing of the said lands. Upon the basis of this assertion the act proceeds to declare the sale of some 35,000,000 acres of the lands in question. «C. H. Haskins, The Yazoo Land Companies, p. 7. Stevens, Hist, of Ga., vol. 2, p. 464. Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 114. George Watkins, Compilation of the Laws of Ga., p. 3.S7. ft American State Papers, Public Lands, vol. 1, pp. 144, 156, and 157. Stevens, Hist, of Cia., vol. 2, p. 467. White, Statistics of Ga., p. 60. A. H. Chappell, Mi.scellanies of Georgia, vol. 2, p. 87. J. Hodg.son, Cradle of the Confederacy, p. 88. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 81 As soo?i a.s information of the Yazoo sale reached President Washington he sent copies of the act to Congress, with a brief message to the effect that the matter involved was worthy of deep consideration. Before an}" further steps were taken at the capital the news arrived of important developments in Georgia, which rendered it advisable to postpone any Con- gressional action. While the Yazoo bill was yet awaiting the governors signa- ture, a petition was presented by William H. Crawford and other citizens of Columbia County, demonstrating the bad policy of the bill and asking that it be given the executive veto. As the news of the act spread over the State, accom- panied by rumors of bribery in the legislature, the indigna- tion of the citizens became aroused. The sale of the lands was condemned on all sides and in the roundest of terms. James Jackson, then a member of the United States Senate, resigned his seat in order to accept a nomination to the State legislature and devote his whole energy to accomplish the nullification of the sale. A conventipn of the people of the State, in May, condemned the act of the legislature and directed the attention of the next assembly to the matter of its repeal. In obedience to the clamorous popular demand, and under the powerful leadership of Jackson, the newly elected legisla- ture passed an act in February, 1796, which rescinded the act of the previous year as being dishonorable to the State and repugnant to the constitution, in that it pretended to grant monopolies and to establish an aristocracy, which, if permitted, would overthrow the democratic form of government. The framers of the rescinding act foresaw the struggle which would be made by the grantees under the act of 1795, and they took pains to discredit their claims by a declaration of their corrupt practices and to forestall their efforts by an assertion of State sovereigntj'. They stated in the act: ''Whereas the free citizens of this State * * * are essentially the source of the sovereignty thereof * * * ; and whereas the will or constitution of the good people of this State is the only existing legal authority ^derived from the essential source of sovereignty * * * ; " and whereas, for various reasons stated, the ""usurped act"" of the Yazoo sale was unconstitutional, "be it enacted that 32 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. the 8iiid usurped act * * * is hereby declared ludl and void." All g-rants and claims arising^ from the act were declared of no effect, provision was made for the repayment of all moneys received at the treasury to those who had bought the lands, and direction was issued to the State autiiorities to assemble publicly in the near future to witness the expunging of all record of the "vile and fraudulent transaction" from the books of record of the State/' But the speculators were determined not to relinquish their enterprise so long as any hope of success remained. After it had become clear that the State government could not be shaken in its utter denial of the validity of the sale, the owners of the Yazoo scrip made appeal to the Federal authorities. The State government declared in the rescinding act of 1T'J6 that no court existed in which an issue could be tried between a State and a citizen, and that if the contrary were true the dig-nit}^ of the State would not allow it to appear where its own sovereignty was in question. A constitutional conven- tion which assembled soon afterwards was made use of in order to give more authoritative utterance to the principles upon which the sale had been declared null. A section of the new constitution was made to read in part: '"All the territory without the present temporary line and [east of the Missis- sippi Riverj is now. of right, the property of the free citizens of this State, and held by them in sovereignty inalienable but by their consent." The next section repeats the nullification of the Yazoo sale, and orders all moneys received for the lands to be returned to the purchasers or held indetinitelv, awaiting their demand. The constitution containing these clauses was ratified in 1798, and continued to be the funda- mental law of the State until 1861. This was the final dictum of the State of Georgia in the Yazoo matter. The question of the binding effect of the sale came before the Central Government at a later time as an issue between the Fedei"alist and Republican parties. Meanwhile the widespread agitation over the Yazoo com- plication led Cong-ress to inquire anew whether Georgia had indisputable right over the land in (juestion. A special com- o0, the title to a tract of 15,000 acres of land, lying within the limits of Georgia. It stated that Peck had bought this tract of Phelps, who had bought it of Prime, who had l)ought it of Greenleaf , who had acquired it from the Georgia Company, to which the Georgia legislature had sold the land in 1795. It pleaded that this title which the plaintiff had acquired had been rendered faulty by the rescinding act of 1796, and that therefore he was entitled to reimbursement in the sum of $3,000. The decision of the court was rendered by Chief Justice Marshall on February 16, 1810. It was to the effect that Peck's title to the land was valid, and that therefore Fletcher had no adequate ground for demanding reimbursement. Answering the arguments of the plaintiff's attorney, the court decided that the constitution of Georgia of 1789 established no restriction upon the legislature which inhibited the pas- sage of the act of 1795, and that that act was of force. The court dealt with the validity of the rescinding act as a general question, having no special application to Georgia. It held that when a law is in its nature a contract, and when absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law can not divest those rights. It furthei- observed that the Constitution of the United States especially forlnds the States to make laws which impair the obligation of contracts. ""The validity of the rescinding act, then, might well be doubted, were Georgia a simple sovereign power. But Georgia can not be viewed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American Union; and that a W. Cranch, U. S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 6, p. 87. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 37 union has a constitution, tlie supremacy of which all acknowl- edge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several States which none can claim a right to pass." Justice Johnson rendered a separate decision upon two points involved, and in it he displayed a view of the actual relations lietween the Central Government, the State govern- ments, and the Indian tribes, which, if it had been pronounced fifteen years before or after its actual date, would have led to vigorous replies from Georgia. He held that the Indian tribes to the west of Georgia possessed the general attributes of nations and retained the absolute proprietorship of their soil; that all the restrictions which Georgia had upon the right of soil in the Indians amounted only to an exclusion of other competitors from the purchase of their lands. He con- cluded, "And if this [right of Georgia to acquire the lands] was even more than a mere possibility, it certainly was reduced to that state when the State of Georgia ceded to the United States, by the constitution, both the power of preemption and of conquest, retaining for itself only a resulting right dependent on a purchase or a conquest to be made by the United States." In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, Randolph's majority in the House of Representatives diminished until, in 1814, a Senate bill was concurred in which provided for a compromise with the Yazoo claimants by appropriating $5,000,000 from the Treasury. The State rights adherents throughout the South were irri- tated and chagrined ])y the decision of the Supreme Court and by the final act of Congress. But it was a relief to everyone to be rid of the hated Yazoo business, which for twenty years had been so troublesome. In the view of the Georgia populace the corruption of the State government of 1795 was of more consequence than the later question of juris- diction. A vote of thanks which the legislature gave to Randolph in 1807 was awarded to the champion of Georgia's honor rather than of her sovereign rights. The people felt, indeed, that the Central Government had meddled where of right it had no jurisdiction; but as early as 1802 the State had shown that it was not absolutely opposed to the idea of a compromise, by agreeing to the possible use of a portion of the ceded lands for that very purpose. 38 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. At the period in which the decision was rendered in the case of Fletcher v. Peck the popuUir interest in internal ques- tions of all kinds was largel^y replaced by engrossing attention to foreign affairs. The South was eager for strong measures to be taken by the United States to resent the indignities offered by England and France. But New England was resolved to foster peace and commerce and was inclined to go as far as the dissolution of the Union if its end could })e achieved in no other way. This state of affairs caused a reaction from the particularist doctrines in the South and it led to the adoption of the principles of the so-called Federal- ist party by the whole body of the Democrats. Georgia was eager to engage in the war of 1812, and her leaders condemned the lack of patriotism in all those who, liv- ing in other sections, held opposing views. We have reached, then, a period coinciding roughly with the first two decades of the nineteenth century, where a dis- tinct lull occurred in Geoi'gia's contentions for the recogni- tion of her sovereign rights. CHAPTER II. --THE ACQUISITION OF THE CREEK LANDS. In the period from 1764 to 1802, during which the Missis- sippi River was the legal western boundary of Georgia, her territory embraced the homes and hunting grounds of large portions of the four main tribes of Southern Indians. Of these the Chickasaws and Choctaws dwelt so far away to the west as never to come into contact with any settlements which acknowledged the jurisdiction of Georgia. The southern limit of the Cherokee lands was 200 miles distant from the original plantation at Savannah, and that tribe also was for a long time exempt from any great encroachment by Georgians. The Creek Indians were the aboriginal proprietors of the whole southeastern district, and as such were alone concerned in the early cessions of land to Georgia. The Creek tribe or nation, exclusive of the Seminoles, with whom we are not concerned, was a loose confederation of villages, in two main divisions, called lower and upper, or eastern and western. The homes of the Lower Creeks were chiefly within the present limits of Georgia, while the villages of the Upper Creeks were grouped near the Alabama River and its tributaries. The colony of Georgia had found little difficulty in securing enough land from the Creeks to satisfy the reasonable wants of the settlers. By means of three treaties, dated, respectively, 1733, 1763, and 1773, the tribe had ceded its title to such dis- tricts as were considered most desirable by the immigrants. The result was that at the time of the Revolution, the com- monwealth was in possession of a ver}^ long and narrow strip of land bordering the Atlantic Ocean and the Savannah River. This district probably embraced an eighth of the territory now owned by Georgia, or a twentieth of that within her chartered limits in that period. During the war with Great Britain, both the Creeks and the Cherokees were guilty of numerous depredations. The 39 40 AMERICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. Cherokees were punished by a raiding party at the beginning of 1783, and were forced to make a treaty ceding their claims to certain lands about the sources of the Oconee River, Since this region had been held i^i joint possession by the Chero- kees and the Creeks, Georgia needed to extinguish the Creek claim in order to perfect her title. A delegation of Creek chiefs made a treaty with the State authorities at Augusta in 1783, ceding the claim of their tribe to the lands demanded/' It soon afterwards appeared that a part of the Creeks were dissatisfied with the treaty and claimed that it was invalid; but the malcontents did not proceed to violence, and the new lands were occupied in peace by the incoming settlers. The two treaties of 1783 were made and ratified by the State of Georgia without any participation by the Central Govern- ment of the Confederation, but in 1785 the Congress sent commissioners to the two southeastern tribes, with instruc- tions to make definitive peace and to obtain further cessions of land, if practicable. CJommissioners were also appointed by Georgia to attend the negotiations as representatives of the State. They were instructed to protest against any measures of the United States commissioners which should seem to exceed the powers given by the Articles of Confederation, and to report upon these matters to the State legislature. The Creeks were invited to a conference at Galphinton, in Georgia, but onh^ a small delegation appeared at the appointed time. The representatives of the Congress declined to nego- tiate under such circumstances, and left Galphinton in order to keep an engagement with the Cherokees at Hopewell, in South Carolina. The Georgians, however, made a treaty with the chiefs on the spot, ootaining from them a cession, in the name of the whole Creek nation, of what was called the Tallassee country, comprising the district south and south- west of the Altamaha River.* The United States commis- sioners afterwards made a treaty with the Cherokees at Hope- well, which was of little benefit to Georgia. The Georgia commissioners reported to the legislature that the instructions which had been issued by tlie Congress for the negotiations involved an infringement upon the rights of the State. The State government, after ratifying the treaty of Galphinton a Indian Aflfnirs, vol. 1, p. 23. Pickett, Hist, of Ala., vol. 2, p. 69. ''lb., vol. 1, p. 17. Historical Report, 1901.-- Phillips. Plate I INDIAN CESSIONS IN GEORGIA. £N & CO LITH.N - GEOEGIA AND STATE BIGHTS. 41 and thanking its commissioners for their vigilance and patriotism, addressed to the Congress a memorial against the, attempted infringement of State rights/' In the same spirit as at Galphinton, negotiations were held in October, 1786, at Shoulderbone Creek, between Georgia commissioners and a small delegation of Creek chiefs, who assumed authority to act for the whole nation. A treaty was made which extin- guished the Creek title to all lands east of the Oconee River, '^ A large number of Creeks showed hostility to the treaties which Georgia had recently made, and prepared to contest their validity. Alexander McGillivray, a half-breed chief of decided political ability and of great ambition, was the mov- ing spirit of this unfriendly party, which plainly comprised a majority of all the Creeks. In the treaties of Augusta, Gal- phinton, and Shoulderbone, McGillivray saw the development on the part of Georgia of a firm policy to which he was re- solved not to yield in any degree. He remonstrated with the Central Government, and at the same time directed his war- riors to harass the Georgia frontier in order to compel speed}^ attention to his protest. After making a perfunctory inves- tigation the Congress decided that the treaties of Galphinton and Shoulderbone had been made unlawfully, and that the cessions of land were invalid. The ensuing condition of affairs was very disagreeable for all parties involved. The majority of the Creeks felt out- raged by the scheming between Georgia and the treat v faction of their own tribe, and they probably made the minority feel the weight of their displeasure. The people of Georgia real- ized that the failure of the Congress to support the official and almost necessary policy of the State would afford McGil- livray an opportunity to play off one government against the other to his own advantage and at the expense of the State.'' The predicament of the Congress was no novelty for that body, for its powerlessness had become notorious. It prob- ably felt that its decision in the case was the correct one, but it had no power to make Georgia abide by that decision. On « For substance of instructions to the United States commissioners, stating that Con- gress was sovereign over all the country, and that Congress wanted none of the Indian lands, see Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 41. For resolution of the Georgia legislature, thank- ing the Georgia commissioners, see Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 17. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 67. b Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 18 to 23. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 71. (-•Report of committee, Georgia House of Representatives, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 24. 42 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. the other hand, the Confederation was so feeble that in case a war should arise with the Creeks a national force could hardily be put into the field. Congress was strongly inclined to keep the peace at any cost, but neither Georgia nor the Creeks were so aniicabl}' disposed. Desultory hostilities increased, and continued for several years. Several attempts at conciliation were made, but neither of the parties would yield upon any point. The establishment of the new system of government in 1789 placed the United States authorities in a much better position to cope with the Indian troubles of the country; but imme- diate solution was not found for all the problems. President Washington was inclined to approve Georgia's contention in Creek affairs. He decided, however, to send a confidential agent to McGillivray with an invitation for the Creek chiefs to a conference at New York. The Creeks accepted, and at New York a treaty was made, August 7, 1790, without any consultation with the government of Georgia.'* The Indians, for a monetary consideration, agreed to validate the treaty of Shoulderbone, which ceded the lands east of the Oconee. On the other hand they refused to recognize the treaty of Galphinton in any degree, but inserted an article in the new treaty reserving the Tallassee country to the Creek Nation. A novel and striking feature of the new treaty was embod- ied in the fifth article, which reads: "The United States sol- emnly guarantees to the Creek Nation all lands within the limits of the United States to the westward and southward of the boundary described in the preceding article." The Geor- gians at once attacked this article as an unwarrantable stretch of the Federal power. James Jackson declared in Congress that the treaty was spreading alarm among the people of Georgia, and complained that it had ceded away a great re- gion which was guaranteed to the State by the Federal Con- stitution.^ The State legislature adopted a remonstrance to Congress declaring the fifth article of the treaty to be liable to censure because of the objectionable and innovating phrase a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 81. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 122. The text of this and all other treaties of ths United States Government with the various tribes of Indians, between 1789 and 1825, may be found in a vohune entitled "Indian Treaties," published by authority of th2 Department of War, 182.5. The treaties ratifu'd after 1789 may also ))e found in the United States Statutes at Larg-e. bCl. McMaster, History of the People of the U. S., vol. 1, p. 001. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 43 which it contained. The fear \\ a« expressed that the giving of a guarant}^ for their lands to the Creeks by the Central Government would lead to the conclusion that the sovereignty over such lands belonged to the United States; whereas, the legislature asserted, the said sovereignty appertained solely to the State of Georgia and had never been granted to the Union b}^ any compact whatsoever." The discord over these unoccupied lands was due to oppos- ing conceptions of the status of the Indian tribes. The theory of the colonial governments had been that these tribes were independent communities with the rights and powers of sovereign nations. During the Revolution and in the period of the Confederation the central government adhered to that theory. But public opinion, following the arguments of the State governments which were involved in Indian problems, reverted to the original European conception that the rela- tions of the tribes to civilized nations were merely those of dependent communities without sovereignty and without any right to the soil but that of tenants at will. The reor- ganization of the Government in 1789 brought no change of Indian policy so far as concerned the central authorities. On the other hand, the State governments were growing more positive in their own views. Georgia was in the forefront of this development, but as in the case of the eleventh amend- ment, her doctrines were quickly accepted by States whose attention was being forcibly directed to the question by similar predicaments of their own.^ The contiict in policy was felt to be very unfortunate. The treaty of New York w\as regretted by Georgians because it tended to emphasize the lack of harmony and to show the Creeks that in a possible war with Georgia they would not have to fear the arms of the Union.'' The frontier settlers did not stop with coldly disapproving the treaty. They hotly declared that they would permit no line to be marked out as a permanent boundarj^ between Georgia and the Creek lands denied to her. Fuither trouble was made by a party of the Creeks dominated by Spanish influence. Frontier depreda- a Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 791. ''Robert Weil, The Legal Status of the Indian, p. 17. Cf. charge of Judge Walton to a Georgia grand jury, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 409. Cf. message of Governor Milledge, April 18, 1803, in MSS. journal of the .senate of Georgia, 1803, p. 4. c Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 24; report of committee, Georgia house of representatives. 44 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. tions began again and continued spasmodically for several years. The Georgians became highly incensed at the Indian outrages, the more so because of the impossibility of deciding where retaliation for the maraudings should be made. A large number of the Creeks were known to be peaceable and friendl\% but exact knowledge of the attitude of each village could not be had." A period of comparative quiet at the beginning of 1793 was rudely disturbed in March by the raid of a party of Creeks upon Glynn and Camden counties on the extreme southern frontier of Georgia. The whole State was thrown into excitement. The disorderly Creeks along the whole border took the marauding fever to such an extent that Governor Telfair proposed to build a line of blockhouses reaching from North Carolina to Florida.* On May 8, the governor wrote to the President that the savages were making such havoc that retaliation by open war was the only resort. At the middle of June General Twiggs was dispatched with about TOO militia to invade the Creek country. He advanced as far as the Ocmulgee River, but there turned back because of the lack of supplies. During July and August the State authorities continued active preparation for warfare. Councils of war were held, and their recommendations for an offensive campaign w^ere sent to the President for his approval. But Washington was strongly opposed to a Creek war. He replied that he utterly disapproved the plans, because the right of declaring war belonged to Congress alone, because a great portion of the Creeks were clearlv desirous of peace, and because of considerations regarding Spain, and regarding the Cherokees.' It soon became apparent that the great majority of the Creeks were very much troubled that the hostility had arisen. Their alarm at the threatening preparations of Georgia caused them to give information that the marauders belonged to a few specified towns on the Flint and Chattahoochee rivers, and to intimate the willingness of the tribe as a whole to make reparation for damages.'' The overtures of the Creeks re- rt Pickett, vol. 2, p. 122. Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 258, 327, 369, 392, and 409. Stevens, vol. 2, p. 445. J* Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 368. <• lb., pp. 365, 369, and 370. d lb. , pp. 327, 383, and 386. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 45 moved all cause for war, much to the disappointment of Gov- ernor Telfair, who wanted a few battles which would tend to vindicate Georgia's policy and advance her contentions for the validity of the treaties of Galphinton and Shoulderbone. The sentiment for the rights and dignity of the State was at this time so radical that the governor was prompted to inform the Central Government on September 26, 1793, of certain "con- ditions that will be required on the part of the State of Georgia on the establishment of peace between the United States and the Creek Indians,""'" The death of Alexander McGillivray, in February, 1793, left the Creeks so disorganized that very delicate handling was required before any treaty could be negotiated and rati- fied b}'^ what the United States Government considered the sovereign Creek Nation. James Seagrove took up residence in the midst of the tribe, as United States Indian agent, in the effort to restore tranquillity. His work encountered the opposition of the lawless element of the Creeks and of the self-sufficient, unruly whites on the frontier. In April, 1794, he was able to bring a delegation of the chiefs on a friendly visit to the governor of Georgia. All parties expressed themselves as anxious for peace, and the delegation went home well satisfied.'^ The work of conciliation was having effect among the Georgians as well as with the Indians. In August, Governor Matthews wrote the Creeks that the State wanted no more of their lands if they w^ould desist from depredations.'' The good faith of this statement may be ques- tioned; but it is clear that Matthews was less aggressive than his predecessor in office, and that the general temper of the State was more moderate. In December the Georgia legislature requested the Central Government to make arrangements for making a treaty with the object of extinguishing the Creek claim to the lands be- tween the Oconee and the Ocmulgee. On June 25, 1795, Washington appointed three commissioners for the purpose. The negotiations were held at Coleraine, in southern Georgia, in June, 1796. When it was found that the Creeks would cede no lands, a treaty was made which ratified the treaty of New York and established peace /^ alndian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 412. ft lb., p. 472. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 154. clb., vol, 1. p. 497. (ilb., pp. 486 and 560. 46 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Commissioners from Georgia were present during the negotiations at Coleraine, but they felt that their importance was not fully recognized, The}^ drew up a protest against the proceedings of the United States commissioners and against the treaty as made.^ A large part of the document consists of complaint about slights to the dignity of the Georgia conmiissioners. Onh^ two points in the protest are worthy of note. The fifth article remonstrated against the cession >)y the (^reeks to the United States of land in Georgia for the purpose of posts and trading houses without the con- sent of the State government. This point met the approval of the United States Senate, and the objectionable clause was stricken from the treaty. The sixth article repeated the com- plaint of Georgia against the power of the Central Govern- ment to repudiate the treaties of Galphinton and Shoulderbone and foretold disastrous consequences if such a policy should be continued. In accordance with this part of the protest a committee of the lower House of Congress reported that it failed to find reason for the relinquishment to the Creeks of the land obtained ])y Georgia through the treaty of Galphin- ton unless from general policy toward keeping the peace. It recommended that the United States make compensation to Georgia for the injury." Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina was chairman of the committee, and Georgia realized that her claims found enough support in Congress to make any strong- resolutions unnecessary on her part. The protest of the Georgia commissioners failed to rouse any great turmoil, for a more S3nn]jathetic understanding now prevailed. The Cen- tral Government was not inclined to support the unwarranted action of its commissioners, and, on the other hand, the people of Georgia probably thought that the representatives of the State, from the influence of personal pique, had overstated their case. Throughout the remaining years of the century there was peace on the Creek frontier. Indeed, the hatchet was not again dug up until the time of the second war between the United States and Great Britain. The general atmosphere of the ('reek Ijorder at the end of the century is well indicated by an incident which occurred in a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 613. Stevens, vol. 2, p. 456. bib., vol. 2, p. 770. GEORGIA AKD STATE RIGHTS, 47 1794, with Elijah Clarke" as its central figure. Clarke was a rough and fearless son of the backwoods, who sometimes with the best of intentions, thought that his own will should be the law of the land. When he saw the cabins of the settlers being- built within sight of each other and contemplated the ever- swelling tide of immigration from Virginia and the Carolinas, he felt that the population of Georgia was about to become too dense. With an unconscious application of the doctrine of beneficent use, he decided that 20,000 Creeks could not actually need forty or fifty million acres of good tobacco and corn lands. His actions were governed accordingly. He had defeated the Indians as a general in the Continental Army, and had a contempt for their power in battle. As for inter- ference from any other source, he expected Georgia to sup- port his undertaking, and thought that a bold front would prevent trouble with the Federal authorities. A number of home seekers fell in with the scheme of Clarke to take possession without ceremony of some of the luiceded Creek lands. These men were not necessarily of desperate character. The clause in the treaty of New York, 1790, which guaranteed the title of the Creeks to all their lands not then ceded, justified the conduct of Clarke and his followers in the minds of many people in middle Georgia. Clarke launched his enterprise by establishing' his band of pioneers on lands west of the Oconee and within the district guaranteed to the Indians. He built two little forts for protection, and began clearing the ground for cultivation. Governor Matthews heard a rumor of the settlement in May, 1794, but did not obtain definite information until July. He then sent officers to command Clarke to move ofi' the Creek lands. Upon receiving a refusal to obe}^ the governor issued a proclamation against the settlement and ordered the arrest of the leader. Clarke surrendered himself to the authorities of Wilkes County. Four justices of the peace sat upon the case, and with unanimous voice and in pompous terms declared him discharged from custodv. The governor then wrote Washington for advice and assistance, meanwhile organizing a troop of horse to place Clarke's settlement in state of siege. The Indians had already complained to the aElijah Clarke sometimes wrote his name Clark. His sons nearly always used the longer form. 48 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. President. Washington directed Governor Matthews to sup- press the settlement with the use of the military, in case such force were necessary. Judge Walton, of the Georgia bench, made occasion to condemn the settlement and to urge its abandonment. But Clarke and his men declared that they would maintain their ground at the expense of their lives. The governor pushed on his militar}^ preparations. Federal and State troops were hurried to the vicinity of the illegal settlement, and artillery was ordered to the spot from Savan- nah, It soon became evident that armed resistance on the part of Clarke would be foolhardy. At the end of September he evacuated his forts with the honors of war, and thus closed the episode. * While many of the frontiersmen were disposed to ignore the forms of the law, especially where the inferior race was concerned, the State as a whole was inclined to emphasize the observance of legal and constitutional restrictions by its own citizens as well as by the United States Government. The incidents of the Yazoo sale demonstrated that the two gov- ernments were not entirely in accord upon all points; but at the beginning of the new century there was no single dis- pute between them which was not smoothly approaching a settlement. The ratification of the articles of agreement and cession between Georgia and the United States, in 1802, gave very general satisfaction in the State. The government of Georgia was glad to extricate itself from the predicament in which the Yazoo sale had placed it. The lands ceded to the United States were remote from the settled districts, and of little practical value to the State at that time; while as a considera- tion for them the Central Government agreed to pay a sum of money, yielded all claim to land or jui'isdiction within Georgia's limits east of the Chattahoochee line, and promised to remove the Indians from the territory of the State as soon it should become practicable. Very soon after the signing of the agreement, commission- ers of the United States entered upon successful negotiations for a Creek cession. The Indians, by the treaty of Fort Wil- kinson, agreed to yield their title to a part of the Tallassee country, lying south of the Altamaha, and to a part of the dis- a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 495, fl. Stevens, vol. 2, p. 404. Pickett, vol. 2, p. 156. G. R. Gilmer, Georgians, pp. 190 to 194. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 49 trict between the Oconee and the Ocomulgee. The Georgians had hoped to obtain greater cessions, but were contented for the time being witli what was obtained for them. Some of the - Western Creeks were disposed to make trouble over the en- croachment upon the lands of their nation, but the very effi- cient Indian agent, Col. Benjamin Hawkins, proved equal to the occasion and pacified the malcontents. The Georgia authorities were not disposed to let the United States Government forget the obligation assumed in 1802. Negotiations were held at the Creek Agency on the Flint River in 1804, in which the Indian title was extinguished over the remaining territory east of the Ocmulgee. Another treaty was made with the Creek chiefs at Washington, D. C, in 1805, but no further lands could then be secured for Georgia. '^^ During the next decade the tremendous wars in Europe attracted attention everywhere at the expense of other matters. The probability that America w^ould be in- volved, and the fact that Georgia was a frontier State, added to the consideration that there was no pressing need for more land, led to the avoidance of any policy tending to arouse the hostility of the Indians or the Spaniards in Florida. The Creeks were thus granted a respite from the theretofore incessant demands for territory. Toward 1812 relations became strained between the United States and England. Anticipating the outbreak of war, British emissaries began the work of securing allies among the Amer- ican Indians. The great chief Tecumseh readily fell in with the plans of the British and undertook to incite all the tribes between Canada and Florida to attack the frontier settlements. The Upper or W^estern Creeks were already ill disposed toward the whites, and their A^oung warriors listened eagerly to the speeches of Tecumseh at Atauga and Coosada, on the Ala- bama River, in October, 1812. The older and more experi- enced chiefs shook their heads at the incendiary talking, but the bulk of the Western tribes put aside their advice as that of timid dotards. The Creeks, like the Cherokees, were at this time in a transitional stage from savagery to semi-civilization. Their habits and disposition had formerly been those of huntsmen and warriors; but in imitation of their white neighbors, and "For the three treaties, see Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 669, 691, and 696. H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 4 50 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. largely through the instruction of the United States Indian agents, they had begun to raise cattle and to cultivate the ground more extensively. The younger element, however, sighed for the barbaric life of their forefathers and resented the advance of the white settlements. As a rule the Eastern Creeks were decidedly peaceable, but among the tribes on the Alabama all the young men were anxious for battle. Their warlike spirit was iiredthe more by the urging of their proph- ets and medicine men, who foretold victory over the Amer- icans, and long life in happy hunting grounds for the braves who fell in battle. A wide conspiracy was organized among the Western Creeks in the winter and spring of 1812-13, with- out the knowledge of the Americans or of the friendly Indians. The older chiefs of the Upper Creeks tinally discovered the trouble brewing, and in April, 1813, protested their goodwill to the United States in letters to Colonel Hawkins. Alexan- der Cornells, one of the older chiefs and sub-agent of the United States for the Upper Creeks, learned the details of the plot. He saw that the prophets of the Alabamas, who were enemies of the plan of civilization and advocates of the wild Indian mode of living, were the chief assistants of Tecumseh in preparing the outbreak which was just beginning. Cor- nells at once informed Hawkins of his discoveries and hurried in person to Milledgeville to get aid from the governor of Georgia. But neither Colonel Hawkins nor Governor Mitch- ell could be certain that the trouble among the Upper Creeks was anything more serious than a contest for power betwen rival groups of chiefs." Murders and depredations had already begun on the Ten- nessee frontier, which was nearer the Upper Creek villages than were the Georgia settlements. The hostile spirit was also encountered by the little colony of Americans near Mo- bile and by the settlers in Mississip])i. The first skirmish was at Burnt Corn, in Southern Alal)anui, where the Creeks repulsed an attack of badly organized frontiersmen. On July 30 an outrage was perpetrated which aroused all the Southern people to the serious character of the uprising. This was the capture of Fort Minis, on the lower course of the Alabama a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 813, 846, 848, and 898. GEORGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 51 River, and the massacre of almost every man, woman, and child who had fled within its stockade for refuge. Large numbers of Americans were at once put in readiness to invade the Alabama country. Gen. Andrew Jackson quickly organized a little army of Tennesseeans and crossed the bound- ar}^ in October. He attacked and defeated the Creeks wher- ever he could find them, but the want of food and supplies hampered him and prevented a rapid campaign. Raids into the Creek country were made b}^ General Cocke with an army from East Tennessee; by General Floyd with Georgia militia, and by General Claiborne with a force of Mississippians and Choctaws. Each of these achieved a victory, but from lack of supplies was compelled to make a hasty retreat to his respective basis of operations. At the beginning of 1814 both Jackson and Floyd met with reverses, due as much to the wildness of the country as to the bravery of the Indians. But in March Jackson advanced with strong reinforcements and won a decisive victory at the Horseshoe on the Tallapoosa River. All of the surviving hostile Creeks fled across the Florida boundary,'* In August Jackson assembled at Fort Jackson the chiefs who remained in Alabama and dictated terms of peace to the Creek Nation. This done, he threw diplomatic considerations to the winds and advanced with his army into Florida, then a colony of the neutral power, Spain. He expelled the British from Pensacola and drove the Creeks and Seminoles into the dense swamps; but his conduct in foreign territory had almost led to censure from the President, when he transferred his forces to New Orleans and won such a signal victory there that his l)opularity with the people led the Cabinet to drop its consid- eration of his former conduct. There were some further slight hostilities with the Creeks and Seminoles in 1815, but the final pacification in October simply established more firmly the treaty of Fort Jackson of August 9, 1814. By this treaty or capitulation of Fort Jackson the Creeks were forced to give up a great quantity of land. The terri- tory ceded lay in what is now central and southern Alabama and in southern Georgia. Jackson's object in requiring the particular cession that he demanded was a strategic one. He a Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 813. Pickett, vol. 2, pp. 271 et sq. Henry Adams, Hist. IJ. 8., vol. 7. 52 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. wished to isolate the Creeks as far as he could from other possible enemies of the United States. The cession of lands in the valle}^ of the Ala))ania led to a strong settlement of whites between the Creeks on the east and the Chickasaws and Choctaws on the west, while the securing of a broad belt in southern Georgia cut off the Spaniards and Seminoles from all mischievous communication." At the time of holding the treaty Colonel Hawkins repre- sented to (xeneral Jackson that Georgia was anxious to secure possession of her Creek lands as far as the Flint River: but in addition to the ai-gument of strategic advisability the fact was clear that while the Western Creeks had been warring upon the United States the Eastern half of the nation had remained friendly, thus it would hardly be fair to require the Eastern Creeks to give up an unnecessary amount of theii' lands as punishment for what the Western Creeks had done. The Georgia legislature in December addressed a remon- strance to the President of the United States regarding the treaty of Fort Jackson. The citizens of Georgia, it said, liad hoped that the United States would have taken advantage of the victory over the Creeks to carry out the agreement made with Georgia in 1802. But as a matter of fact, Georgia had obtained little or no benefit from the treaty. The terri- tory acquired, it stated, was sterile and unprofitable. All the territory left to the Creeks lay in Georgia or very near its western boundarv. The protest concludi d with a request that further cessions be soon obtained. Negotiations were set on foot to accomplish the wish of the Georgians, the result of which was a cession at the Creek Agency, January 22, 1818, of 1,500,000 acres of land in two parcels, the one lying about the headwaters of the Ocmulgee River, and the other consisting of a tongue of land lying between the Altamaha River and the northern boundary of the cession of 1814. This second district, which was the larger of the two, was not held in high esteem for agricul- tural purposes, and therefore the treaty of 1818 did not secure for the Creeks a long intermission from the importunities of Georgia. President Monroe in a message to Congress, March 17, 1820, a Pickett, vol. 2, p. 826. Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 838. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 58 requested appropriations to extinguish by treaty the Indian title to all remaining lands in Georgia. As a result of this a treaty was made at Indian Spring, January 18, 1821, by which Georgia obtained from the Creeks their remaining lands east of the Flint Kiver. Governor Clarke convened the legislature to distribute the ceded lands, and sent in a message which was characteristic of the attitude of Georgia. He stated that the Federal authorities showed themselves ready to abide by the agreement of 1802 whenever favorable opportunities arose, and he advised that the State government should seize the occasion to insist upon a cession from the Cherokees/' The assembly was, as usual, not unresponsive to such advice. During its session in the following 3^ear the legislature addressed to the Central Government another remonstrance, dealing to some extent with the theoretical issue. "It has been the unfortunate lot of our State to be embroiled in the question of territorial right almost from the commencement of her existence," the protest ran. ""The State of Georgia claims a right to the jurisdiction and soil of the territor}' within her limits. She admits, however, that the right is inchoate, remaining to be perfected by the United States in the extinction of the Indian title, the United States * * * acting as our agents."* The Indian tribes were indisposed for further cessions; the Federal Administration declined to coerce the tribes; the State government grew more radical in its demands. George M. Troup succeeded John Clarke as governor, and introduced a new regime in Indian policy. He sent to the assembly in December, 1823, a message couched in no doubtful wording. He urged that the legislature should demand of the United States Government li])eral appropriations and the proper steps for extinguishing the Indian title to all lands in Georgia. He said that the Central Government had been niggardly in its actions; that the state of things had been growing worse and worse. He referred to the occasion in 1814 when the United States required the Creeks to cede a large amount of land in the Alabama valley, but only a worthless district in Georgia. He emphasized, as a special grievance, that in 1814 the United oNiles's Register, vol. 20, p. 181. b Prince, Laws of Georgia to 1820, p. 631. U. S. Executive Papers, No. 57, 17th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 4. 54 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. States had guaranteed to the ('reeks all the lands not ceded by them at Fort Jackson.*^ On December 15 a committee of the State senate made a report in consonance with the governor's message, and in lan- guage as strong as the governor had used. This was quickly adopted in the senate with a unanimous vote, in the house without a division, and received the governor's signature on December 20. The memorial thus prepared, and presented to Congress April 5, 1824:, had as its burden that Georgia hoped to see "her laws and her sovereignty coextensive with the limits within which she had consented to confine herself. '''' On March 10, 182-1:, the Georgia delegation in Congress addressed a remonstrance to the President on the dilatory policy then being followed. The answer of Mr. Monroe ap- peared on March 30 in a message to Congress. Differing from the opinion of the Georgians, he stated that the United States Government had steadily been doing its duty in regard to the compact with Georgia; that the Creeks and Cherokees refused to cede more lands; that the Government was not bound to remove the Indians by force; and he intimated that Georgia would have to wait for her lands until the Indians should change their minds. At this time matters had reached a new stage with the Creeks. They had been making successive cessions of land from 1814, and felt cramped for room. The territory which they had yielded, up to this point, was what had been for- merly their hunting grounds; but when all the district east of the Flint River had })een given up, and when the Georgians still demanded more, it became a question of almndoning their homes and migrating to a strange country. The nation had advanced considerably in the arts of civilization, and could att'ord to do without extensive hunting grounds; but when the lands as far as the Chattahoochee were demanded, the Creeks resolved to stand upon the guarantees of their terri- tory in the treaty of Fort Jackson, and firmly refused to sell their homes. Meanwhile the Cherokees had reached the same conclusion, and went so far as to send a delegation to Wash- aW. Harden, Life of G. M. Troup, p. 197. b Acts of Georgia General Assembly 1823, p. 218. Harden's Troup, p. 200. Indian .Vfl'airs, vol. 2, p. 491. QEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 55 ington to make positive statement that their nation would cede no more lands for any consideration." In this state of things it seemed that the United States authorities must simpl}^ let matters rest until the Indians could be induced to sell out. Such would probably have been the case had not George M. Troup been governor of Georgia; but this fact became an important one as further develop- ments took place. Referring to Monroe's message, Troup wrote to J. C. Calhoun, then Secretary of War, "The abso- lute denial of our rights, as we understand them and have long understood them, at the moment when we believed that they would have been most respected, is a subject of mortification and regret." ^' His course of action f I'om that time was toward the end of removing that cause of Georgia's mortification. President Monroe, without expecting any substantial results, appointed as commissioners to treat with the Southern Indians James Meriwether and Duncan G. Campbell, two citizens of Georgia. These gentlemen proceeded to arrange a confer- ence with the Creek chiefs at Broken Arrow December 7, 182-i:. Their request for a cession of lands was met b}^ a ref- erence to the guaranties contained in the treaties of 1790 and 1814, and a refusal to sell any territory. The commissioners, however, discovered that the chiefs of the Lower Creeks were in favor of moving beyond the Mississippi, while the Upper Creeks were opposed to the idea and were intimidating the treaty faction. Meriwether and Campbell at once adjourned the meeting to consult the Federal authorities regarding a change in their instructions. They requested of the President powers to hold a convention with the Georgia Creeks alone, representing that the Upper Creeks were under the control of Big Warrior and opposed to a cession; that the Cherokees, and especially John Ross, were urging the Creeks against ceding; that the United States Indian agent refused to give them any aid, while the sub- agent perfidiously opposed them. Nevertheless, they stated, the Lower Creeks were willing to cede their lands, following the advice of their great chief, William Mcintosh, who was the principal chief of the eastern half of the nation. "Niles's Register, vol. 26, pp. 101 and 139. U. S. Senate Doc. No. 63, 18th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 4. bNiles's Register, vol. 20, p. 276. 56 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Upon the refusal of the President to grant the powers requested, the commissioners made an alternative request for power to negotiate a treaty witli Mcintosh for a cession of the lands of the Lower Creeks, the cession to be valid upon ratification by the whole Creek Nation. Mr. Monroe stated his approval of the second plan offered, reprimanded the agent. Colonel Crowell, for his inditi'erence, and discharged the sub- agent, Walker, for his obstruction of the work of the commis- sioners. The Lower Creek chiefs memorialized the President on January 25, 1825, that the party opposed to the cession, called the "Red Sticks," were plotting for the destruction of the friendly chiefs and asked for protection by the United States from Big Warrior and his followers. At the same time they appointed Mcintosh and seven other Creek chiefs to arrange for a cession of the Creek lands in Georgia. Meriwether and Campbell assembled the Creeks anew at Indian Spring on February 10, 1825. In their report of the proceedings it is stated that nearly -100 chiefs and headmen were present, with only a few from Alabama, and that these latter withdrew after protesting that the partial assembly had no power of cession. A proposition was made the Lower Creeks to exchange all their lands in Georgia for an equal acreage west of the Mississippi, with a bonus of $5,000,000 from the United States. This was agreed to as the basis of the treaty, and on February 12 the instrument was signed by practically all the chiefs present. « The treaty was at once hurried off to Washington with accompanying documents. On the next day Colonel Crowell, in a letter to the Secretary of War, gave his version of the nego- tiations, endeavoring to prevent the ratification of the treaty. He wrote that only eight towns of the fifty-six composing the nation were represented at Indian Spring, that the treaty was signed by Mcintosh and his party alone, and that only two of the signers besides Mcintosh himself were chiefs of high grade. The authorities at Washington had already been informed by the Georgia representatives that Crowell's oppo- sition to a cession by the Creeks was due to his antagonism to Governor Troup in State politics. The treaty of Indian Spring was approved by the Senate ulndian Allairs, vol. 2. pp. 571 to 582. GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 57 and signed by the President on March 5, 1825. Governor Troup issued a proclamation on March 21 that the Creeks had ceded to the United States all their lands in Georgia, to pass into the possession of the State on or before September 1, 1826, and warned all persons against intruding upon the Indian lands for any purpose whatsoever. He soon began negotia- tions with Mcintosh, however, to secure the privilege of hav- ing the lands surveyed before the date set, in order that they might be occupied as early as possible in the winter of 1826. Mcintosh wrote on April 12, 1825, that he would consent to the survey if the United States Indian agent did not object. On April 25 he gave the desired consent on behalf of the friendly Creeks without attaching the condition of the agent's approval. The Red Stick Creeks had for some time been vowing ven- geance against Mcintosh and his supporters. A party num- bering more than a hundred warriors surrounded his house on the night of April 29, 1825, set fire to it, and shot Mcintosh to death as soon as he showed himself. By this murder, fol- lowed by that of two other chiefs of their party, the whole body of the friendly Creeks were thrown into terror and fled for their lives to the white settlements." The friendly Creeks and the Georgians had for some time suspected Crowell and other white men of inciting the Red Sticks to violence. Governor Troup informed the United States Government of his suspicions and on June 16 appointed commissioners on behalf of the State to take evidence regard- ing CrowelFs guilt or innocence. Upon the arrival of T. P. Andrews as a special agent of the United States, the governor demanded CrowelFs suspension from office. Andrews accord- ingly suspended Crowell, but a few days later wrote him an open letter apologizing for having done so upon false charges. Troup wrote Andrews on June 28 that he had read his letter in the Milledgeville Patriot, and ordered him to suspend inter- course with the government of Georgia. General Gaines was also sent down from Washington to inquire into the true state of things. Upon his taking side with Crowell and Andrews an acrimonious correspondence ensued between the governor and himself. Finally Troup read an open letter from Gaines a Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. !S7d to 683, 618, 770. and 771. 58 AMERICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. to himself iu the Georgia Journal, and wrote Gaines on August 6, "1 have lost no time to direct j^ou to forbear fur- ther intercourse with this government." On the next day the governor demanded of the President that Gaines be recalled, as a punishment for his intemperance of language and disre- spect to the constituted authorities of a sovereign State and the great bulk of its people. Upon the publication of a sec- ond letter by Gaines in the same temper as the former one, Troup, in the name of the government of Georgia, demanded '' his immediate recall, arrest, trial, and punishment under the articles of war." The Secretary of War replied to Troup on September 10, "The President has decided that he can not, consistently with his view of the subject, accede to your demand to have General Gaines arrested."'^' Andrews and Gaines continued to publish letters defending themselves and reflecting upon the Georgia government. Troup imrsed his wrath in silence. The duty for which Andrews and Gaines had been sent among the Creeks was to inquire into the manner in which the treaty of Indian Spring had been negotiated. Upon receiv- ing preliminary reports against the justice of the treaty. President Adams began steps to have the survey of the lauds postponed. Governor Troup informed him, however, that since the legislature had decided that the treaty had vested the jurisdiction and the right to the soil in Georgia, and had authorized the governor to have the lands surveyed for dis- tribution, the survey would promptly be made. The reply of the President was delayed until the receipt of a report from General Gaines that a very large majority of the Creek chiefs denounced the treaty for intrigue and treach- ery. Tne Secretary of War wrote to the governor of Georgia, July 21, 1825: "I am directed by the President to state dis- tinctly to your excellency that, for the present, he will not permit such entry or survev to be made."''' For the time being the governor had nothing farther to say, so he waited for the meeting of the legislature. He seems to have yielded the question of inunediate survey to fall back upon the more im- portant position of defending the validity of the treat}^ itself. " Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. 603, 804, 807, 813, 816, and 817. Niles's Register, vol. 28, p. 196, and vol. 29, p. 14. 6 Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 809. GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 59 The legislature very early in its session showed its attitude by a unanimous resolution of l)oth houses, expressing belief in the fairness of the treat}^ and thanking Messrs. Campbell and Meriwether for their services in obtaining the cession. A further resolution was adopted and approved December 23, 1825, that full reliance ought to be placed in the treaty of Indian Spring, that the title to the territory acquired by it had become an absolute vested right, that nothing short of the whole territory acquired by it would be satisfactory, and that the right of entry upon the expiration of the time set in the treaty would be insisted upon. ** The Georgia delegation in Congress stated to the Secretary of War, on January 7, that the State refused to grant the invalidity of the treaty at Indian Spring upon any grounds yet advanced, and declared that the President knew, and had infor lied the Senate lief ore sending the treaty for ratification, of all the objections to its validity which had subsequently been urged. Notwithstanding these utterances on the part of the authoi-- ities of the State of Georgia, Mr. Adams instituted negotia- tions for a new treaty with the Creeks. At Washington on January 24, 1826, a treaty was signed by the Secretary of War and "the chiefs of the whole Creek Nation." By it the Creeks ceded all their lands in Georgia except a district lying west of the CUiattahoochee, and the United States guaranteed to the Creeks such lands as were not ceded. The President, on January 31, submitted to the ' Senate the new treat}^ as abrogating and replacing the treaty of Indian Spring, which he said had been ratified under the belief that it had been con- cluded with a large majority or Creek chiefs, and would soon be acquiesced in by the remainder, whereas, in fact, the rati- fying party had proved small and impotent, and, after the death of their two principal chiefs, were not able to put the treaty in force, though they still claimed all the moneys for themselves. He hinted at unworthy practices in negotiating the former treaty, but failed to mention the chicanery which took place in connection with the latter one.* a Nov. 18, 1825: Ga. Senate Journal, 1825, p. 56. Ga. Senate Journal, 1825, p. 838. Indian Atfairs, vol. 2, p. 741. ?' Indian Affair.s, vol. 2, pp. 612, 613, and 717. See Benton and McKenney on the corrup- tion of the chief.s in the negotiations at Washington: T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, vol. 1, p. 164. Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 665. 60 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. During the summer of 1826 Governor Troup held little com- munication with Washington, but his few utterances and his actions show that he was not charitabl}^ disposed toward Mr. Adams. In June the Georgia government, with the consent of the President, began a survey of the boundary between Georgia and Alabama. On June 21^, Troup wrote the Secre- tary of War that the Cherokees had stopped the surveying- part}' with threats of force. The Secretar}' replied, August 6, that the President protested against any use of force to complete the survey. Troup retorted that he had said noth- ing about using force, and that if he had done so it would not have concerned the President, since " Georgia is sovereign on her own soil."" The treaty of Indian Spring gave Georgia the right of entry and possession of the lands involved from September 1, 1826. Governor Troup not recognizing any abrogation as valid, ordered the State surveyors to begin their work on the day set, although ])y the treaty of Washington the Creek title was to continue until January 1, 1827. When the survey began, some of the Creeks protested to the President. On Sep- tember 16, the Secretary of War protested in the name of the President against any survey before the end of the year. On October 6, Troup wrote the Secretary that the survey had been practically accomplished and no opposition had been encountered.^ Upon the assembling of the legislature the governor reviewed the progress of Indian affairs in his message of November 7, and exhibited the then existing status. ""The new treat}^," said he, ''prescribed new boundaries for Geor- gia, and by its perpetual guarantee made them permanent." The executive could not allow such a violation of the consti- tution of Georgia. He declared that there was such a rad- ical difference between the United States Government and the Georgia government as to the rights of sovereignty and juris- diction which the State claimed under her charter over the territory within her limits that harmony could not contiiuic if the Indians were to remain. ' The resolutions which the general assembly adopted on December 22 show that the situation was considered a verj^ "Indian AlVairs, vol. 2, pp. 7J2 and 74:5. i> lb., pp. 7-12 and 743. <• lb., p. 786. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 61 serious and distressing- one. The preamble set forth that "the unfortunate misunderstanding- between the General Government and the State of Georgia has been marked by features of a peculiar character, and plainly indicating- a force and power in the former which should have formed the sub- ject of concern, if not alarm, to our sister States; but we regret to sa}^ that the very reverse has been the fact, and a cold, if not reproachful, indifference has taken the place of a much more deserved regard." It then proceeded to set forth what Georgia considered the true state of the case. "'It is not for forfeited privileges we supplicate, but we seek the redress of violated rights. * * * It is a sovereign, and not a subject, that sues; it is an equal, and not an inferior, that remonstrates." The resolutions which followed declared that Georgia owned exclusively the soil and jurisdiction within her existing chartered and conventional limits, and that the attempted abrogation of the treaty of Indian Spring in so far as it would divest Georgia of any rights acquired under the treaty was illegal and unconstitutional." Following the spirit of the legislature's resolutions, and ignoring the treaty of Washington, Troup directed his sur- veyors to cover the whole of the Creek lands in Georgia in their surveys; but when they entered the district not ceded in the last treaty they were menaced by Creek Indians. Troup wrote the Secretary of War of this on January 27, stating- that there was reason to believe that the United States agent was the instigator of the Creeks, and demanding whether he was acting- under orders. Before receiving this letter the Secretary of War wrote Governor Troup, January 29, that complaints of intrusions had reached Washington through the Indian agent; that the action of the surveyors was in direct violation of the treaty of Washington, which was among the supreme laws of the land, and that, "charged by the Constitution with the execution of the law\s, the President will feel himself compelled to employ, if necessary, all the means under his control to maintain the faith of the nation by carrying the treaty into effect." On the next day the Sec- retary directed R. W. Habersham, United States attorney for a Acts of Ga., 1826, p. 227; Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 733. For large collection of docu- ments on Creek affairs to January, 1827, see U. S. House Executive Doc. No. 59, 19th Congress, 2d sess., vol. 4 (404 pp.). 62 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. the district of Georgia, to obtain the proper process to have the United States marshal arrest the intruding surveyors/' Having taken these steps, Mr. Adams saw fit to ask Congress to share his responsibility. He therefore stated his view of the whole case in a message of February 6, 1827. Citing the United States statute of 1802, that any person attempting to settle or survey lands belonging to the Indians should be pun- ished, he stated that he had begun civil process against the surveyors. In abstaining in the early stage of proceedings from the use of the military arm he said that he had been governed by the consideration that the surveyors were not to be considered in the light of solitary transgressors, but as the agents of a sovereign State. Intimations had been given, he continued, that should the surveyors be interrupted they would at all hazards be sustained by the military force of the State, whereupon a conflict must have been imminent. Fear- ing a collision Ijetween the State and Federal governments, the President begged to submit the matter to Congress for legislation.''' Without w^aiting for definite Congressional action, Mr. Adams dispatched Lieutenant Vinton to Milledgeville in the capacity of aide of the commanding general of the United States forces, with a conmiunication to the efi'ect that the gov- ernor nmst stop the survey at once or the United States would take strong measures to have it stopped. The climax of the whole matter was now reached. Though Troup's course of action had excited some criticism within the State as well as a vast amount of it outside, the people of Georgia to a man were in strong support of the governor in this time of need. Mr. Habersham resigned his office as United States attorney, refusmg to array himself against his native State, to which he owed higher duties than to the United States, while all his friends applauded his action. The whole State rang with the slogan of '^ Troup and the treaty." George M. Troup was never known for half-heartedness in word or deed, but upon this occasion he fairly surpassed him- self as a hotspur. He wrote on February 17 to the Secretary of War, in reply to the document received from the hand of a Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 865. Harden's Troup, p. 482. b Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p. 863. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 68 Lieutenant Vinton: "You are sufficiently explicit as to the means by which you propose to carr}^ jour resolution into effect. Thus the military character of the menace is estab- lished and I am only at libert}^ to give it the defiance which it merits. You will distinctly understand, therefore, that I feel it my duty to resist to the utmost any military attack which the Government of the United States shall think proper to make upon the territory, the people, or the sovereignty of Georgia, and all the measures necessary to the performance of this duty, according to our limited means, are in progress. From the first decisive act of hostility you will be considered and treated as a public enemy, and with the less repugnance because you, to whom wo might constitutionally have ap- pealed for our own defense against invasion, are yourselves the invaders and, what is more, the unblushing allies of the savages whose cause you have adopted."'^' On the very day of his letter of defiance to the President the governor took what he considered the proper measures to counteract the usurpations of the Federal authorities. First, in regard to the civil arm of the State, he ordered the attorney and solicitor general to take legal measures to liberate any surveyors who might be arrested by United States officers and to make indictments against all such officers. Then, clothing himself with his military prerogative, George M. Troup, commander in chief of the army and navy of the State of Georgia, issued the following order from headquarters at Milledgeville: "The major-generals connnanding the Sixth \ and Seventh Divisions will immediately issue orders to hold in readiness the several regiments and battalions within their respective commands to repel any hostile invasion of the ter- ritory of this State. Depots of arms and annnunition, central to each division, will be established in due time."^ — When the documents were published throughout the coun- try, great interest was aroused in the very unusual state of things which they exhibited. Everyone was on the qui vive for further developments, but those were disappointed who looked for exciting occurrences. Certain events had already taken place which led to the relief of the strain. January 31 the Secretary of War wrote Colonel Crowell, who was still nHarden's Troup, p. 485. Niles's Register, vol. 32, p. 16. feHarden's Troup, p. 487. Niles's Register, vol. 32, p. 16. 64 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. the agent to the Creeks, that the Department of War had just received reliable information that the Creeks would not refuse to sell their remaining lands in Georgia, and ordered Crowell to negotiate to that end/' Very soon after his orders of February 17 Governor Troup learned of the efforts which were making for the final cession, and took the news, as well he might, to mean that the Presi- dent was retreating from his position and that Georgia was victorious in her contest. Troup wrote to the Georgia Congressmen February 21, expressing his pleasure at learning that the President would try to obtain the remaining Creek lands for Georgia, This letter is both a pt«an of victory and a disquisition on the Federal Constitution. *' 1 consider all questions of mere sov- ereignty," he wrote, "as matter for negotiation between the States and the United States, until the proper tribunal shall be assigned by the Constitution itself for the adjustment of them. * * * The States can not consent to refer to the Supreme Court, as of right and obligation, questions of sov- ereignty between them and the United States, because that court, being of exclusive appointment by the Government of the United States, will make the United States the judge in their own cause. This reason is equally applicable to a State tribunal. * * * Of all the wrongs wantonly and cruelly inflicted, none have been borne with more patience than the charge of seeking a dissolution of the Union. My intentions have been to cement and perpetuate it by preserving, invio- late, the rights of the parties to the compact, without which the compact w^ould l)e of no value; and to this end I have unceasingly laljored. '"''' After the excitement had subsided reports were made in Congress by the committees to which the President's message of February 5 had Ixh'u referred. Accompanying its report with an exceedingly voluminous collection of documents, the House committee advised, on March 3, that it would be expe- dient to purchase the Indian title to all lands in Georgia, and "that, until such a cession is procured, the law of the land, as set forth in the treaty of Washington, ought to be maintained aXJ. S. House Executive Docs. No. 238 (p. 7), 20th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 6 bHarden's Troup, i>. 490. Niles's Register, vol. 32, p. 20. GEORGIA AND STATE RKUITS. (;5 by all nece.syar}' and constitutional nieans."" The report of the Senate committee, presented b}" its chairman, Mr. Benton, on March 1, was a strong'ly reasoned document, well calcu- lated to restore public tranquillity. Making- a resume of the trouble from the beginning, the report first set forth Presi- dent Adams's motives for his actions and tacitly expressed approval for what he had done. Then, investigating the claims made by Georgia, it set them forth with the usual arguments in their support. It showed that the State founded her claim to jurisdiction over all her chartered territorv not ceded in lSi)'2 by virtue of the independence of the sovereign States at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and that she appealed to the decision in the case of Fletcher r. Peck that the Indian title was not inconsistent with the title in fee in the State to the lands occupied by the Indians. It set forth the contention that under the agreement of 1802 the United States had simply the function of negotiating and ratifying treaties with the Indians of Georgia and no other power in the premises: that if the United States agents had committed a fraud in connection with the treaty of Indian Spring, the Federal authorities could not interfere with the rights of Georgia, completely vested by the ratification of that treaty, but must find some other way to indemnify the Creeks. The report practically justified Georgia in all that she had done and urged that not the slightest preparation be made for military force to coerce a sister State. '^ Negotiations were in progress during the sunuiier of 1827 for a further cession by the Creeks, for w^hich the treaty was concluded on November 15.' It was afterwards found that even this treaty left a small amount of Georgia territory in the possession of the Creeks, and a final treaty was made in Januar}^, 1826, which extinguished the Indian title to the last strip of Creek land in Georgia.'^ " Harden's Trnup, p. 488. ''Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. 869 to 872. '■ U. S. House Exec. Docs. No. 238 (p. Ut, 20th Cong., 1st sess.. vol. 6. ''Atlienian (pub. at Athens, Ga.). ,Tan. 25, 1828. H. Doc. 71 >2. pt. 2 5 CHAPTER IIl.-THE EXPULSION OF THE CHEROKEES. At the beginning of the American Revolution the hunting- grounds of the Cherokees were conceded to extend from the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge to the neighborhood of the Mississippi River, and from the Ohio River almost as far south as central Georgia. Most of their villages, however, were located in eastern Tennessee and northern Georgia. The settlement of the country by the whites, and the acqui- sitions of the Indian territory by them, was naturalh" along the lines of least resistance. That is to say, the Cherokees first ceded away their remote hunting grounds and held most tenaciously to the section in which their towns were situated. At an early stage in the Revolution a body of militia from the Southern States made a successful attack upon the east- ern villages of the Cherokees, who were in alliance with the British. The tribe was at once ready for peace, and signed a treaty with commissioners from Georgia and South Carolina at Dewits Corner, on May 20, 1777, acknowledging defeat at the hands of the Americans, establishing peace, and yield- ing their title to a section of their lands, lying chiefly in South Carolina. The Cherokee families which had lived upon the lands con- quered now moved westward, extending the settlements of the tribe farther along the course of the Tennessee River. At the same time five new villages were built by the most warlike part of the nation on Chickamauga Creek and in the neighboring district southeast of Lookout Mountain." Before the end of the Revolution the Cherokees Avere again at war with the Americans, and Gen. Elijah Clarke led an expe- dition against this settlement on the Chickamauga. The sudden raid caused such terror in the Indian villages that the « Public Lands, vol. 1, p. o9. Indian Ali'iiirs, vol. 1, p. ISl. Stevens, vol. 2, p. -413. 66 GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 67 inhabitants eagerly promised great cessions of land m order to be rid of the invaders. Clarke made what he called a treaty at Long Swamp, but the agreement was necessarily informal and extra-legal. The fact that it was not followed up b}^ the proper authorities caused Clarke to think that the people had not benefited sufficiently by his exertions. The injury to his feelings in this connection was probably respon- sible in part for his attempted settlement on Indian lands in 1794. At the close of the Revolution, as we have already noted, the Cherokees ceded to Georgia their claim to a district about the sources of the Oconee, which the}' held as hunting ground in joint possession with the Creeks. In the territor}^ which the Cherokees retained, the districts near the Georgia settle- ments were less attractive than the Creek lands to the south. The upland region in the State was being rapidly settled, however, and new lands were in demand. The State made occasional attempts between 1785 and 1800 to obtain further cessions. Frequent conventions were held by commissioners of the United States and the Cherokee chieftains, at some of which representatives of Georgia were present. But the tribe held fast to its Georgia lands. By the treaty of Hopewell in 1785 the Cherokee Nation placed itself under the protection of the United States and agreed to specified boundaries for its territory, but it made no cession which concerned Georgia. The agreement of Hopewell was confirmed at a convention on the Holston River in 1791, and again at Phila- delphia in 1793, but the boundaries on the southeast remained practically unchanged. ^' The treaty of Philadelphia was rendered necessary by hos- tilities arising with the tribe in 1793; the Chickamauga towns, as usual, provoked the unpleasantness on the Indian side, while the settlers on the frontier of North Carolina and Ten- nessee were quite as much to blame on the side of the whites. Considerable excitement prevailed for several months, and raids were made by each party; but the fact that the Creek country intervened between Georgia and the chief settlements of the Cherokees directed the warlike energies of the tribe to the north and northeast. "Indian Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 83, 124, and 543. 08 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL AySOCIATIUN. \ After 1795 no con.siderable portion of the Cherokee Nation was at any time .seriously inclined to war. Those of its mem- bers who preferred the life of hunters moved away to the far West, while the bulk of the tribe remaininjif settled down to the pursuit of agriculture. The chief complaint which Geor- gia could make of them in later years was that they kept possession of the soil, while white men wanted to secure it ; for themselves. The invention of the cotton gin in 1798 had the effect after a few years of increasing the preference of the Georgians for the warm and fertile Creek lands, over the Cherokee t(>r- ritory which was ill adapted to cotton with the then prevail- ing system of agriculture. For this reason it was not until all of the Creek lands had been secured for settlement that the State authorities began to make strenuous efforts for the expulsion of the Cherokees. In the intervening years cer- tain moderate steps were taken, which must now engage our attention. As early as 1803 Thomas Jefferson suggested the advis- ability of removing all of the southern Indians west of the Mississippi, and in 1809 a delegation of Cherokees, at the instance of the United States Indian agent. Return J. Meigs, made a visit to the Western lands. At that time a consider- able part of the Cherokee Nation favored removal, but the matter was postponed. General Andrew Jackson reported, in 1816, that the whole nation would soon offer to move West. When negotiations wei"e made for a treaty in the next year it was found that there was a division of opinion. The Lower Cherokees, who lived chieffy in Georgia, were disposed to emigrate, while the Upper or Tennessee division of the nation preferred to remain and to change from their wild life to the pursuit of agriculture. By the treaty signed at the Cherokee Agency, July 8, 1817, a tract of land was ceded in Georgia, and arrangement was made that such Indian families as so desired might take up new homes in the Far West.'^' Within the next two years about one-third of the Cherokees moved into the Louisiana Territory; but it happened quite unexpectedly that each section of the nation had altered its disposition, so that a large part of the Upper C'herokees moved «C. C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, in Report of U. S. Bureiui of Ethnology, 1883-84, ]>p. 1203 and -215. mdiiin AfTiiirs, vol. '_', \>\>. ]2'> and 129. GEORGIA AND STATP: RIGHTS. 69 away from Tenneysee, while rao.st of the Lower Ciierokees remained in Georjfia, Thus, when a treaty came to be made in 1S19, it was found that a largv area had been vacated to the north and east, but only a small district could be obtained in Georgia. It further appeared that, owing to the influence of a powerful chief named Hicks, the westward movement had almost completely stopped." The treaties of 1817 and 1819 provided that the head of an}- Cherokee family living- in the district ceded to the United States might at his option remain in possession of his home, together with 640 acres of land, which should descend to his heirs in fee simple. The Georgia legislature, of course, pro- tested against this provision as violative of the rights of the State, while Congressional committees declared that in so far as the treaty provided for Indians to become citizens, it in- fringed upon the powers of Congress.'^ The agreement was accordingly modified and the Cherokee family holdings were gradually purchased during the next few years. Georgia was at this period beginning to grow insistent upon obtaining possession of the Cherokee lands as well as those of the Creeks. In March of 1820, President Monroe requested appropriations from Congress to extinguish by treaty the Indian title to all lands in Georgia. When the Cherokees \ were officially approached upon the subject in 1823, the council of chiefs replied to the commissioners, Messrs. Campbell and Merriwether: ''It is the fixed and unalterable determination of this nation never again to cede one foot more of our land."* That part of the tribe which had emigrated had suffered severely from sickness, wars, and other calamities, and the remainder refused to follow them. To emphasize their deci-, sion a delegation proceeded to Washington, where they declared ] to the President that, "the Cherokees are not foreigners, but the original inhabitants of America, and that the}^ now stand on the soil of their own territory, and they can not recognize the sovereignty of an}^ State within the limits of their terri- tory."^ "Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. 187, 138, 2.59, and 402. O. H. Prince, Laws of Georgia to 1820, p. 321. 6U. S. House Journal, 16th Cong., 1st sess., p. 336. Prince, Laws of Georgia to 1820. p. 531. U. S. Reports of Committees, No. 10, 17th Cong. 1st sess., vol. 1 (Jan. 7, 1822). U. S. Reports of Committees, No. 4, 17th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 2 (1823). '•U. S. House Journal. Kith Cong.. 1st sess., p. 31.5 (Mar. 17, 1820). Indian .VfTnirs, vol. 2, i)p. 468 and 474. 70 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSUCIATION. It may easily be surmised that the chiefs who delivered this declaration were not full-blooded, wild Indians. As a matter of fact, the average member of the tribe, while not savage, was heavy and stupid; but the nation was under the complete control of its chiefs, who were usually half-breeds, or white men married into the nation. Many of these chiefs were intelligent and wealthy, but their followers continued to live from hand to mouth, with little ambition to better them- selves Each family cultivated a small field, and perhaps received a pittance from the annual subsidy of the United States; but, as a rule, the payments for cessions of land never percolated deeper than the stratum of the lesser chiefs. The attitude of the United States had undergone a great change. Formerly the tribes near the frontiers had been held as terri- ble enemies, but they had now become objects of commisera- tion. The policy of the Government had once been to weaken these tribes, but that had given place to the effort to civilize them." It is remarkable that the United States Government was still inclined to regard the Indian tribes in the light of sov- ereign nations. The Cherokee delegation was received at Washington in 1824: with diplomatic courtesy, and its repre- sentations attended to as those of a foreign power. The Con- gressional Representatives of Georgia viewed the matter from the standpoint of their State. They accordingly remonstrated with the President, March 10, 1824, against the practice of showing diplomatic courtesy to the Cherokees. They said that too much time had been wasted, while the Indians were further than ever from removal. If a peaceable purchase of the Cherokee land could not be made, they demanded that the nation be peremptorily ordered to remove and suital)ly indem- nified for their pains. Mr. Monroe replied in a message to Congress on March 30 that the United States had done its best in the past to carry out the agreement of 1802, and that the Government was under no obligation to use other means than peaceable and reasonable ones. Governor Troup entered his protest against the message on April 24, urging that Georgia had the sole o Message of Governor Gilmer, Dec. 6, 1830, Nlles's Register, vol. 39, p. 339. Of. Letter of Superlntenrleiit of Indian Affairs to Seoretary of War, Mar. 1, 182(), Indian Affairs, vol. •2. ]). (iSS. GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 71 right to the lands, and denying that the Indians were privi- leged to refuse when a cession was demanded. The Cherokees, for their part, held to their contention for national rights, appealing to the clause in the Declaration of Independence ''that all men are created equal," and reiterating their deter- mination to give up not an inch of their land.^' As far as concerned results, the Cherokees had the best of the argu- ment. The effort to drive them west was given up for the time. The delegation returned home to lead their tribesmen still further in the ways of civilization. A Cherokee alphabet was devised by Sequoyah in 1825, a printing press was set up at the capital, New Echota, in the following year, and soon after- ward steps were taken to formulate a written constitution for the nation. Meanwhile the Cherokee population was increas- ing with considerable rapidity. In 1818 an estimate had been made which placed the number east of the Mississippi at 10,000, and it was thought that 5,000 were living on the Western lands. A census was taken in 1825 of the Cherokee Nation in the East. Of native citizens there were numbered 13,563; of white men and women married in the nations, 147 and 73, respectively; of negro slaves, 1,277. The Cherokee national constitution was adopted in a con- vention of representatives on July 26, 1827. It asserted that the Cherokee Indians constituted one of the sovereign and independent nations of the earth, having complete jurisdiction over its territory, to the exclusion of the authority of any other State, and it provided for a representative system of government, modeled upon that of the United States.^ Of course Georgia could not countenance such a procedure. Governor Troup had just worsted President Adams in the controversy over the Creek lands, and the State was prepared at least to hold its own against the Cherokees. The legisla- ture, on December 27, adopted resolutions of no doubtful tenor. After praising Governor Troup for his able and patriotic conduct regarding the Creek lands, the preamble showed that since the agreement of 1802 the Indians had been removed entirely from Ohio, Kentucky, North and South aNiles's Register, vol. 26, pp. 100, 103. Indian Affair.s, vol. 3, pp. 476, 502, 736. ''Indian Affairs, vol. 2, pp. 651, 652. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, p. 241. For text of the Cherokee eonstitntion see U. S. E.xecutive Document No. 91, 23d Cong., 2d .sess., vol. 3. Cherokee Phoenix, Feb. 28, 1828. 72 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. CaroliiKi, Tt'uiu'sscc, iiiid Missouri, from lu^urly all of Arkansas and Alabama, and that large cessions had been obtained in Mississippi, Illinois. Michigan, and Florida. The resolutions followed: ^'That the policy which has been pursued by the United States toward the Cherokee Indians has not been in good faith toward Georgia. * * * That all the lands, appropriated and unappropriated, which lie within the con- ventional limits of Georgia belong to her al)solutely; that the title is in her; that the Indians are tenants at her will, * * * and that Georgia has the right to extend her authority and her laws over her whole territor}^ and to coerce obedience to them from all descriptions of people, be they white, red, or black, who may reside within her limits." The document closed with the statement that violence would not be used to secure Georgia's rights until other means should have failed. " When a year had passed with no developments in further- ance of the policy of the State, Governor Forsyth advised tie passage of an act to extend the laws of Georgia over the Cherokee territory, but suggested that sucii law should not take eftect until the President should have had time again to urge the Indians to emigrate. The legislature accordingh*, by an act of December 20, 1828, carried out its threat of the previous .year, enacting that all white persons in the Cherokee territory should be subject to the laws of Georgia, providing that after June 1, 1830, all Indians resident therein should be subject to such laws as might be prescril)ed for them by the State, and declaring that after that date all laws made by the Cherokee Nation should be null and void.'' Before any further legislative steps were taken, a new and unexpected development arose which tended to hasten some early solution of the complex problem. In July, 1829, de- posits of gold were found in the northeastern corner of th(^ State, and the news rapidly spread that the tields were as rich as those being worked in North Carolina. As soon as the news was known to be authentic there came a rush of adven- turers into the gold lands. In the summer of 1830 there were probably 3,000 men frt)m various States digging gold in Cher- okee Georgia. The intrusion of these miners into the Chero- n Acts of Georgia General Assembly, 1827, p. 249. For a defense of Georgia see Benton^ Thirty Years' View, vol. 1, p. 163. ''Athenian, Nov. 18, 1828. Dawson, fU)iiii)i!ation of (icdry-id Laws. \>. 19S. Prince, Dige.st of the Laws of Georgia to 1837, p. 278. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 73 kee territory was unlawful under the onactinents of three several governments, each clamiing jurisdiction over the re- gion. The United States hiws prohibited anyone from settling or trading on Indian territory without a special license from the proper United States official: the State of Georgia had extended its laws over the Cherokee lands, applying them, after June 1, 1830, to Indians as well as white men; the Chei'- okee Nation had passed a law that no one should settle or trade on their lands without a permit from their officials. '^' A conflict of authorities was immment, and yet at that time no one of the three governments, nor, indeed, all of them com- bined, had sufficient police service in the section to check the great disorder which prevailed. The government of Georgia was the first of the three to make an eflicient attempt to meet the emergency. Governor Gilmer wrote to the President October 29, 1S30, stating that the Cherokee lands had been put under the laws of Georgia, and asking that the United States troopvS be withdrawn. General Jackson, whose view of the Indian controversy was radically opposed to that of Mr. Adams, did not hesitate to reverse the policy of the Government. He had already ex- pressed his belief that Georgia had a rightful jurisdiction over her Indian lands, and he lost no time in complying with Mr. Gilmer's request to withdraw his troops. The general assembly of Georgia was called in special session in October for the purpose of making additional law^s for the regulation of the gold region. By an act of December 22, 1830, a guard of ()0 men was established to prevent intrusion and disorder at the gold mines. By the same act it was made unlawful for any Cherokee council or legislative body to meet, except for the purpose of ceding land, while the same penalty of four years' imprisonment was fixed to punish any Cherokee offi- cials who should presume to hold a court. Not content with this, the legislature enacted by the same law that all white pervsons resident in the Cherokee territory on March 1, 1831, or after, without a license from the governor of Georgia or his agent, should be guilty of a high misdemeanor, with the penalty provided of not less than four years' confinement in the penitentiary. The governor was empowered to grant « Athenian, August 4, 1829. Georgia Journal, September 'l. 18.30. G. White, Historieal Collections of Georgia, p. 1.36. 74 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. licenses to those who should take an oath to support and de- fend the constitution and laws of Georgia, and uprig-htly to demean themselves as citizens of the State." The attitude of the judge of the Georgia superior court, who had most of the Cherokee territory in his circuit, had already been shown in a letter which he, Judge A, S. Clayton, wrote Governor Gilmer June 22, 1830, suggesting a request to the President for the withdrawal of the United States troops. Nine citizens of Hall County had just been brought before him l)y the Federal troops for trespassing on the Cherokee territory. He wrote: "When I saw the honest I citizens of your State paraded through the streets of our town, in the center of a front and rear guard of regular troops, i belonging, if not to a foreign, at least to another government, ^ * * "^ for no other crime than that of going upon the soil of their own State, * * * 1 confess to you 1 never so dis- tinctly felt, as strong as m}' feelings have been on that subject, the deep humiliation of our condition in relation to the exer- cise of power on the part of the General Government within the jurisdiction of Georgia.'"''' Three months later Judge Clayton, in a charge to the grand jurv of Clarke County, expressed his belief in the constitu- tionality of the recent extension of Georgia's laws, and his intention to enforce it. He said that he would disregard any interference of the United States Supreme Court in cases which might arise before him from the act of Georgia. "I / only require the aid of public opinion and the arm of the 1 executive authority," he concluded, "and no court on earth besides our own shall ever be troubled with this question."'' It was with good reason that the State olhcials were deter- mined if possible to keep the Cherokee (questions out of the Federal courts. The policy of Chief Justice John Marshall was known to be that of consolidating the American nation b}^ a broad interpretation of the Federal Constitution, and a consequent restriction of the sphere of the State governments. The Cherokee chiefs had learned to their sorrow that Presi- " Athenian, OetoherlO anrl 20, 1830. Niles's Register, vol. 39, p. 263. Act.sof Georgia Gen- eral Assembly, 1830, p. 111. Prince, Digestof Georgia Laws to 1837, p.279. Georgia Journal, .lanuary 1, 1831. ''The original of this letter is among the archives in the State eapitol, Atlanta, tia. (MSS.). (•Niles's Register, vol. 3S, p. 101. aEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 75 dent Jacksou readily conceded all that Mr. Adams had strug- gled to den}^ to Georgia. The hostile legislation of Georgia had paralyzed the working of the Cherokee constitution. The President admitted the right of the State to survey the Indian lands, to extend its laws over thcnn, and to annul the laws of the Cherokees, He refused to recognize the C-herokee consti- tution and denied that the nation had any rights as opposed to Georgia. With such cold comfort from the Executive, the chiefs determined to resort to the judicial branch of the Federal Government in a final effort to save their homes f I'om the rapacity of Georgia. Mr. William Wirt was engaged as counsel ])y the Cherokees. On June 4, 1830, he wrote Governor Gilmer suggesting that the State and the Cherokee Nation make up a case before the United States Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of the attempt of Georgia to extend her laws over the territory in question." In ver}^ curt terms the Governor declined the suggestion, stating that the court mentioned had, under the (Constitution, no jurisdiction in the matter. Mr. Wirt con- tinued in his championship of the Indian cause, and intro- duced a motion before the Supreme Court for an injunction to prevent the execution of the obnoxious Georgia laws. Before the motion for injunction was argued a case arose which the Cherokees thought might test the matter. George Tassel, a Cherokee Indian, had ])een convicted of murder in the Hall County superior court and lay in jail under sentence of death. ITpon a writ of error being carried to the United States Supreme Court, the State of Georgia was cited, through its governor, December 12, 1830, to appear and show cause why the writ should not be decided against the State. Gov- ernor Gilmer, in a message of December 22, submitted the citation to the legislature, stating in his own behalf, '* So far 'ds concerns the executive department, orders received from the Supreme Court in any manner interfering with the deci- sions of the courts of the State in the constitutional exercise of their jurisdiction will be disregarded, and an}- attempt to enforce such orders will be resisted with whatever force the laws have placed at my command." The response of the general assembly was a resolution requiring the governor to a Niles's Register, vol. 38, pp. 69 and 71. 76 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. iisL' all his lej>al power to repel every invasion upon the ad- ministration of the criminal laws of the State from whatever quarter. It "Resolved that the State of Georgia will never so far compromit her sovereig-nt}" as an independent State as to become a party to the case sought to be made before the Suj^reme Court of the United States by the writ in (question." The governor was authorized to send an express to Hall County to have the sheritf execute the laws without fail in the case of Tassel." The test case of the Cherokee Nation r. Georgia w^as soon afterwards reached upon the docket of the Supreme Court.'' The bill set forth the complainants to l)e '* the Cherokee Nation of Indians, a foreign state, not owning allegiance to the United States, nor to any State of this Union, nor to any prince, potentate, or state other than their own." It alleged that, as evidenced by numerous treaties named, the United States had always shown an ardent desire to lead the Chero- kees to a higher degree of civilization; that the Cherokee Nation had established a constitution and form of government, a code of civil and criminal laws, with courts to carry them out, schools, and churches; that the people had become agri- culturists; and that under severe provocations they had faith- fully observed all their treaties with the United States. The bill claimed for the Cherokees the l)enetit of the clauses in the Constitution that treaties are the supreme laws of the land, and judges are bound thereby, and that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. It stated that, in violation of the treaties, the Georgia legislature had. in December, 1828, passed an act to add the territory of the Cherokees to Carroll, Dekalb, and other counties, and to extend the laws of the State over the said territory; that in December, 1829, another act was passed to annul all laws of the Cherokees. It further set forth that application for pro- tection and for the execution of treaties had been made to the President, who replied, "that the President of the United States had no power to protect them against the laws of Geor- gia.'' The com})lainant asked that the court declare null the two laws of Georgia of 1828 and 1829; that the Georgia offi- cials be enjoined from interfering with Cherokee lands, mines, a Nlles's Register, vol. 39, pp. 338 and 339. hFor report of the ease, .'^ee R. Peters, jr., U.S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. .">, p. 1. GEUKGIA AND STATE KIGHT8. 77 and other propert}" or with the persons of Cherokees on account of anj^thing done by them within the Cherokee terri- tory; that the pretended right of the State of Georgia to the possession, government, or control of the lands, mines, and other property of the Cherokee nation, within their territory, be declared by the court unfounded and void. On the daj^ appointed for the hearing the counsel for the complainant filed a supplementary bill, citing as further griev- ances of the Cherokees that, in accordance with a resolution of the Georgia legislature and in defiance of a writ of error allowed by the Chief Justice of the United States, the man called Corn Tassel, or George Tassel, had actually been hanged by a Georgia sheriff; that the Georgia legislature had passed additional laws of objectionable character, providing for a surve}' preparatory^ to the disposition of the Cherokee lands, forbidding the exercise of powers under the authority of the Cherokee Indians and their laws, and authorizing the governor to take possession of all gold mines in the Cherokee territory; and that the governor of Georgia had stationed an armed force of Georgians at the mines to enforce Georgia laws. The case was argued on the part of the complainant by Mr. Sergeant and Mr. Wirt. No counsel appeared for the State of Georgia. The opinion of the court, as rendered by Chief Justice Mar- shall, granted that the counsel for the plaintifi's had established that the Cherokee Nation Avas a State and had been treated as a State since the settlement of the colonies: but the majority of the court decided that an Indian tribe or nation in the United States was not a foreign state in the sense of the (yon- stitution and could not maintain an action in the courts of the United States. The decision concluded accordingly, ""If it be true that the Cherokee Nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future. The motion for an injunction is denied." In a separate opinion Mr. Justice Johnson held that the name "State" should not be given to a people so low in grade of organized society as were the Indian tribes. He contended, with the treaty of Hopewell as an illustration, that the 78 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. United States allotted cei'tain lands to the Cherokees, intend- ing to give them no more rights over the territory than those needed bv hunters, concluding that every advance of the In- dians in civilization must tend to impair the right of preemp- tion, .which was of course a right of the State of Georgia. Mr. Justice Thompson gave a dissenting opinion, in which Mr. Justice Story concurred, that the Cherokee Nation was competent to sue in the court and the desired injunction ought to be awarded. It was clear that nowhere in the opinion of the court was it stated that the extension of the laws of Georgia over the Cherokee territory was valid and constitutional. This one case had been thrown out of court because no standing in court could be conceded to the plaintiffs. The decision was against the Cherokee Nation for the time being; but it did not necessarily follow that a subsequent decision w^ould bear out the claims of the State of Georgia. Messrs. Wirt and Sergeant had brought their action against the State of Georgia in the name of the Cherokee Nation only because no yjromising opportunity for making a personal case had arisen. One of the complaints in the bill for injunction was that the cases where the Georgia laws operated in the Cherokee territory were allowed to drag in the Georgia courts so as to prevent any one of the Cherokee defendants from carrying his case to the United States Supreme Court by writ of error. An attempt had been made to utilize the Tassel case, but the prompt execution of the criminal put an early end to the project. The first case which arose of a character suitable for the purpose of the attorneys was upon the con- viction of Samuel A. Worcester for illegal residence in the Cherokee territory. The history of the case was as follows: The act of the Georgia legislature approved December 'i'l^ 1830, which we have noticed, made it unlawful for white persons to reside in the Cherokee territory in Georgia without having taken an oath of allegiance to the State and without a license from the State authorities. This law was directed primarily against the intruding gold miners; but the message of the governor had stated the expediency of considering all white persons as intruders, without regard to the length of their residence or the permission of the Indians. The law was accordingly made one of sweeping application. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. i\) There were at the time resident among- the Cherokees twelve or more Christian missionaries and assistants, some of them maintained by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. These men were already suspected of interfering in political matters and would probably have been made to feel the weight of the law without inviting attention to themselves, but they did not passively await its action. They held a meeting at New Echota Deceml)er 29, 1830, in which the} passed resolutions protesting against the extension of the laws of Georgia over the Indians and asserting that they considered the removal of the Cherokees an event most earnestly to be deprecated." After sufficient time had elapsed for the intruders to have taken their departure, if so disposed, the Georgia guard for the Cherokee territory arrested such white men as were found unlawfully residing therein. Among the number arrested were two missionaries, Messrs. Worcester and Thompson. On writ of habeas corpus the}^ were taken before the superior court of Gwinnett County, where their writ was passed upon b}^ Judge Cla\'ton. Their counsel pleaded for their release upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the law of Georgia. The judge granted their release, but did so upon the ground that they were agents of the United States, since they were expending the United States fund for civilizing the Indi- ans. Governor Gilmer then sent inquiries to Washington to learn whether the missionaries were recognized agents of the Government. The reply was received that as missionaries they were not governmental agents, but that Mr. W^orcester was United States postmaster at New Echota. President Jackson, upon request from Georgia, removed Mr. Worcester from that office in order to render him amenable to the laws of the State. The Cherokee Phoenix, the newspaper and organ of the nation, expressed outraged feelings on the part of the Indians at the combination of the State and Federal executives against them. The governor wrote Mr. Worcester, May 16, advising his removal from the State to avoid arrest. Ma}' 28 Col. J. W. A. Sandford, commander of the Georgia Guard, wrote each of the missionaries that at the end of ten days ho would arrest n Athenian, January 25, 1831. Gilmer, Georgians, p. 381. White, Historical Collections of Georgia, p. 139. 80 AMERICAN HISTUKICAL ASSOCIATION. them if found upon Cherokee territory in Georgia. Not- withstanding- their address to the governor in justification of their conduct, they were arrested by the guard, the Rev. Sanuiel A. Worcester, the Rev. Elizur Butler, and the Rev. James Trott, missionaries, and eight other white men, for illegal residence in the territory. Their trial came on in the September term of the Gwinnett County superior court. They were found guilty, and on September 15 were each sentenced to four years' confinement at hard labor in the State peniten- tiary. But a pardon and freedom were offered to each by the governor on condition of taking the oath of allegiance or promising to leave the Cherokee territory. Nine of the pris- oners availed themselves of the executive clemency, but Worcester and Butler chose rather to go to the penitentiary, intending to test their case before the Supreme Court." On the occasion of their second arrest the missionaries had Ix'on taken into custody by a section of the Georgia Guard, commanded by a subordinate officer, Colonel Nelson. During the journey from the scene of the arrest to the place of temporary confinement the treatment of the prisoners was needlessly rough, extending in the cases of Messrs. Worcester and McLeod to positive harshness and violence. These two clergymen complained to the head of their missionary board of having been put in shackles, and of other indignities. The S;ate government condemned the severity of the guard, and or.iered an inquiry made into Nelson's conduct. That officer explained that his course of action had been rendered neces- sary by the unruly character of his prisoners. The contro- versy was practically closed by the retort of the Rev. Mr. McLeod that Colonel Nelson's statements were false and his conduct villainous.'' The cases of Worcester and Butler, who refused the gov- ernor's conditions for pardon, were appealed to the United States Supreme Court, from which a writ of error was issued on October 27. 1831. Wilson Lumpkin, who had become governor of Georgia, submitted to the legislature on November 25, 1831. copies of the citations of the United States Supreme Court to the State " White. Historical Collections of Georgia, p. 140. Niles's Register, vol. 40, p. 296. refer- ring to Cherokee Phoenix, May 28. 1S31. Niles's Register, vol. 40. p. 29(i. ( ieorgia .lonrnnl. Seiit. 29, 1S31. Niles's Register, vol. 41, p. 17(i. ''Gilmer. Georgians, pp. 414. 5.3(i. (ieorgia .loiunal. <>il. U, INW. and l»ec. .=S. l.><:tl GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 81 of Geoi'o'ia to appear and .show cause wliy the jiidgineiits which had been made against Worcester and Batler should not he set aside. With the documents went a message: "In exercis- ing the duties of that department of the government which devolves upon me, I will disregard all unconstitutional requi- sitions, of whatever character or origin they may be, and, to the best of my abilities, will protect and defend the rights of of the State, and use the means afforded me to maintain its laws and constitution." The legislature on December :i6 adopted resolutions uphold- ing the constitutionality and the soundness of policy in the recent enactments of the State, declaring that it had become a question of abandoning the attempt to remove ttie Indians or of excluding from residence among the nation the white persons whose etiorts were known to l)e in opposition to the policy of the State. Regarding the citation received, the legislature resolved, ""That the State of Georgia will not compromit her dignity as a sovereign State, or so far yield her rights as a member of the Confederacy as to appear in, answer to, or in any way become a party to any proceedings ])efore the Supreme Court having for their object a revisal or interference with the decisions of the State courts in criminal matters. "'' The hearing on the writ of* error in Worcester's case came up before the Supreme Court during the course of the year 1882.^ The case was argued for the plaintiff by Messrs. Ser- geant, Wirt, and E. W. Chester, the State of Georgia, of course, not being represented. The Chief Justice, in deliv^er- ing the opinion of the court, went into an extensive historical argument. He stated that the right acquired by the English discovery was the exclusive right to purchase, but the "absurd idea that the feeble settlements on the sea coasts * * * acquired legitimate power to * * * occupy the lands from sea to sea did not enter the mind of any man." The grants of the king, he said, were grants against European powers only, and not against the natives; the power of war was given for defense, not for conquest. He then discussed the treaties of the United States with the Cherokees, declar- ing that in the treaty of Hopewell the expressions, "the «Niles's Register, vol. 41, p. 313. Acts of Georgia General Assembly, 1831, pp. 259, 21)8. '> F(ir rci)ort of the case Worcester v. Georgia, see G Peters, p. .'il."") it seij. H. Doc. 702. pt. 2 6 82 AMEKICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. Cherokees are under the protection of the United States," certain lands are " allotted" to the Cherokees for their " hunt- ing grounds," "the United States shall have the sole right of managing all the affairs " of the Cherokees, did not mean that the Cherokees were not recognized as a nation capable of maintaining relations of peace and war. Taking up the later treaties and the laws of the United States, the opinion was further supported that the Cherokees had been and should be recognized as constituting a distinct national state. The conclusion was reached that "the Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. * * * [The whole intercourse is vested in the United States Government.] The act of the State of Georgia, under which the plaintiff was prosecuted, is consequently void, and the judgment a nullity. It is the opinion of the court that the judgment of the Georgia county superior court ought to be reversed and an nulled. " The case of Butler -y. Georgia, similar in all respects to that of Worcester, was in effect decided in the same manner by the opinion ren- dered in Worcester's case. The judgment for which the Cherokees had so long oeen hoping was thus finally rendered; but they rejoiced too soon if they thought that by virtue of it their troubles were at an end. Governor Lumpkin declared to the legislature, November 6, 1832, that the decision of the court was an attempt to " prostrate the sovereignty of this State in the exer- cise of its constitutional criminal jurisdiction,"' an attempt at usurpation which the State executive would meet with the spirit of determined resistance. He congratulated himself that the people of Georgia were unanimous in "sustaining the sovereignty of their State." "■ The unchanged attitude of Georgia boded ill for the hopes of the Cherokees. But the position of the Federal Executive rendered the situation desperate in the last degree for those Indians who were still determined not to give up their homes. President Jackson sunply refused to enforce iho judgment of the Supreme Court. He intimated that now that John Marshall had rendered his decision, he might enforce it. Of fiNiles's Register, vol. 13. p. 206. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 88 course the chief justice had no authority beyond stating what he thought right in the case. Worcester and Butler remained at hard labor in the Georgia penitentiary, and tlie Cherokee chiefs began at length to realize that no recourse was left them against the tyranny of the State. As far as the two missionaries were concerned, they felt that their martyrdom had been sufficiently long, and adopted the course of conciliating the State in order to secure their liberation. They informed the attorney-general of Georgia on January 8, 1833, that they had instructed their counsel to prosecute their case no further in the Supreme Court. Appreciating the change in their attitude. Governor Lump- kin pardoned both of them January 10 on the same conditions that he had offered them some months before, and ordered their release from prison." Most of the people of Georgia approved of the pardoning of Worcester and Butler under the circumstances, but that action of the governor found many critics among the ultra- montanists. A meeting of citizens of Taliaferro County, which lay in the center of the hot-head section, resolved, on April 23, 1833, with only one dissenting vote, "That the executive of Georgia, in the case of the missionaries, did, by his conduct, sacrifice the dignit}^ of the State and prove himself incapable of sustaining her honor. * * - Resolved, further, that there is no one so well qualified to repair the tarnished honor of the State as our patriotic fellow-citizen, George M. Troup.'' The attacks upon Mr. Lumpkin grew so strong that in view of his prospective candidacy for a second term as governor his friends saw fit to publish the various documents and considerations which had led to the release of the two mis- sionaries c: b In the course of the year 1831 a final tilt occurred between the State of Georgia and the Cherokee Nation, supported by the Supreme Court. The case was very similar to the former one of George Tassel. A citation of the Supreme Court, dated October 28, 1834, summoned the State of Georgia to appear and show cause why the error shown in the writ of o Southern Recorder, January 17, 1833. Date of pardon given as January 14 in Nile.s's Register, vol. 43, p. 382. ''Niles's Register, vol. 44, pp. 202 utid 3o9. 84 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASS<)(1IATI0N. error in the ease of James Graves, tried and eonvicted of murder, should not be eorrected. On November 7 Mr. Lump- kin sent a copy of the citation to the leoisUiture, statino- that it constituted a third attempt to control the State in the exer- cise of its ordinary criminal jurisdiction. "Such attempts, if persevered in,'' he said, '"will eventuate in the dismember- ment and overthrow of our great confederacy. * * * I shall * * * to the utmost of my powcn-, protect and de- fend the rights of the State." The legislature adopted reso- lutions Avhich it considered appropriate to the occasion, refer- ring to the ''residuary mass of sovereignty wliich is inherent in each State * * "" in the confederacy." Graves was exe- cuted in due time, according to the sentence of the Georgia court. The case of Graves was superfluous so far as it concerned the status of the Cherokee Nation. Th(> fiasco of the decision in Worcester's case established the permanent triumph of Georgia's policv, and rendered it only a (piestion of a very few years when the Indians would l)e driven from their terri- tory within the limits of the State. As far as regards the Federal Executive, the government of Georgia stood upon the vantage ground, after 1827, which it had won by its victory over Mr. Adams. General Jackson approved of the contention of the State, and from the time of his inauguration used his influence foi' the removal of the Indians. In a message of December S. 1S29, he stated, in reply to the Cherokee protest against the extension of Geor- gia laws over them, that the attempt by the Indians to estal)- lish an independent government in (ireorgia and Alabama would not 1)e countenanced ))v the President. During 1821> and 1880 his agents were urging the Cherokee chiefs to make a cession and at the same time persuading individual tribes- men to move west. In the latter year he threw o])en the lands vacated by the piecemeal removal for disposition by Georgia, l)ut ordered a stop to the removal of the Cherokees in small parties with the purpose of building up a strong cession party within the tribe east of the Mississipj)!.'' '(Niles's Register, vol. 47, ji. TJO. (JcorKia Sciiiitc .loiimal, 1S30, p. i;59. Acts of (icorsia General Assembly, 1834, p. 337. ''Athenian, December 22, 1829. message of (iovcriior flilincr. Xiles'.'< Register, vol. 3"). p. 339. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, \>. 'JtU. aEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 85 The state government was not unmindful of its advan- tageous position. In 1831 the legislature directed the gov- ernor to have all the unceded territory in the State surveyed, and to distribute the land among the citizens of the State bv the land-lottery system. An act of December, 1834, author- ized the immediate occupation of the lands thus allotted, though it gave the Indians two years in which to remove from their individual holdings." President Jackson persisted in his attempts to persuade the Cherokees to remove in a bod}^ Early in 1831 it was dis- covered that a treaty party was developing in the nation. This party sent a delegation to Washington, which signed a preliminary treaty looking to a cession, but John Ross, the principal chief of the nation, protested. May 29, 1831, with such a show of support by the great bulk of the nation that the treaty failed of ratification.'' The division among the Cherokee leaders had at length opened a way for the linal success of Georgia's efforts. In February, 1835, two rival Cherokee delegations appeared at Washington, with John Ross at the head of the orthodox party and John Ridge as the leader of the faction in favor of emigration, flohn Ridge, Major Ridge, Elias Boudinot, and other chiefs had finally come to see the futility of opposition to the inevitable, and were ready to lead their people west- ward.' The Ridg(> party signed a treat}?^ of cession on March 14, which requii'ed the approval of the whole Cherokee Nation })efore becoming effective; b»it in a council of the Cherokees, held at Running Waters in June, Ross succeeded in having the treat}' rejected.'' The maneuvering of the two factions in the following- months engendered ill-feeling among the Cherokees and strengthened the position of Georgia. In December, 1835, a council was called by United States commissioners to meet at New Echota. The meeting was a small one, because of the opposition of the Ross party; but on Decemlier 29 a treaty ('Acts of Ga. Qen. Assem., 1831, p. 141. Acts of Ga. Gen. As.'?em., 1834, p 105. Prince, Digest of Ga. Laws to 1«37, p. 202. '>Royco, The Cherokee Nation, p. 275. '•Cf. Their memorial to Congress, Nov. 27, 1834, U. S. Exec. Docs. No. 91, 23d. Cong., 2d. sess., vol. 3. Cf. Also defense of the Treaty Policy, in letters by Elias Boudinot. formerly editor of the Cherokee Phoenix, Southern Banner, .Jan. 7, 1837, ff. dWhite, Historical Collection.s of Ga., p. 143. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, p. 279. Southern Banner, .\pr. Ifi and June IS, 1835. 8(i AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. was signed with the chiefs attending wliich provided for the cession of all the remaining Cherokee lands east of the Mis- sissippi River for 15,000,000 and lands in the West, The Ross party protested against the treaty, but were not able to pre- vent its ratification at Washington/' The news of the definitive ratification served only to increase the discontent among the Indians. A confidential agent of the Secretaiy of War reported, September 25, 1837, that upon investigation be found that the whole Cherokee Nation was irreconcilable to the treaty and determined that it should not bind them.^ Public sentiment thi'oughout the United States, especially among the opponents of the Administration, became deeply stirred with sympathy for the Indians. Within the halls of Congress Webster, Clay, and Calhoun were vigorous in their condemnation of the New Echota treaty.' President Van Buren was so influenced by this torrent of remonstrance and criticism as to suggest to the governors of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina, on May 23, 1838, that an extension of not more than two years be allowed in which the Cherokees might move away. Mr. Gilmer, who had again become governor of Georgia, replied, on May 28, that he could give the plan no sanction whatever. He feared that the suggestion was the beginning of another attack upon the sovereignty of the State, and declared his determination to take charge of the removal in person if the Federal Government should fail in its duty.'' There was, however, to l)e no further contest. General Scott had already arrived in the Cherokee country to direct the removal. He issued a proclamation. May 10, 1838. that every Cherokee man, woman^ and child nnist be on their wa}' west within a month. On May 18 John Ross made a last inefi'ectual offer to arrange a substitute treaty. The emigra- tion was at once pushed forward, and on December 4 the last party of the Cherokees took up their westward march. (I Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem. 1835. p. 342. Niles's Register, vol. 49, p. 343. Benton, Thirty Years' View, vol. 1, p. 024. Royce, The Cherokee Nation, p. 282. '' Royee, The Cherokee Nation, p. 280. c Benton, Thirty Years' View, vol. 1, p. 625. Royce, The Clierokee Nation, p. 290. dGilmer, Georgians, pp. 240 and 538. CHAPTER IV.-THE TROUP AND CLARKE PARTIES. In nearly all of the constitutional and political matters which we have treated in the preceding- chapters the people of Georgia acted as a compact body. The ratification of the Federal Constitution was unanimous; the condemnation of the Yazoo sale was overwhelming; the demand for the Creek and Cherokee lands proceeded from the whole people, as well as from the officials. Thus, to the outside world, the State presented a united front. Yet internal contests were almost continuously waging From the close of the Revolution to the time of the Civil War there were factions and political parties in Georgia which, though the}' underwent several changes of name and of policy, preserved a certain degree of continuity through the whole period. This continuity of parties was due not onl}'^ to tradition in families and localities, but very largely to inequalities in the economic condition of the population. The character of these inequalities and the consequent differentiation of the classes of the people will perhaps be best understood after an inves- tigation of the process by which the territory of the State was settled. The establishment of Oglethorpe's colony at Savannah and the settlement of the coast region are well known and need no discussion here, A fact to be remembered is that Savannah, Frederica, Darien, Ebenezer, St. Mar3's, and the adjacent districts in the low country were settled by colonists who had come directly from Europe, whether English, Scotch, or German. The source of settlement of the hill country in middle Georgia, however, was quite dift'erent. The earl}- inhabitants were chiefly of English, Scotch, and Irish extrac- tion, but the}^ came into Georgia by way of Virginia and North Carolina instead of through Savannah.^ They had "G. R. Gilmer, Georgians, pp. 8 and 175. 88 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Ih'coiiic Amerieiinized het'ore rcachino- the Ijouiidaries of (rcoroiii. As a rule tli(\v hud been iMig-aged in raising tobacco ill their former homes. The system of tobacco culture Avas such as to exhaust the soil quickly and to require the peri- odical shifting- of the farmer to new fields. When the best lands of the two early tobacco States had liecome exhausted, there began an exodus of a part of their population in search of fresh territory. Westward was the natural trend of migra- tion; })ut when the Alleghenies barred progress in that direc- tion, smiling valleys were seen to stretch to the southwest and were usually followed by the seekers for new homes. Thus the piedmont region of the Southern colonies was grad- ually settled, and at the close of the Revolution several thou- sand people were living in middle Georgia. These settlers were hardly such typical frontiersmen as those who crossed the mountains and exj^lored the Mississippi basin; yet they were very different from the dwellers upon the seaboard. Each family bad moved slowly across the country with its loaded beasts of burden, its horned cattle, and an occasional slave, but without vehicles, for bridle paths were the only roads by which to travel." Hogs, sheep, and l)oulti-v W(U-e not to ])e found about the earthen-floored and mud-plastered log (•al)ins of the early settlers, for that kind of })roperty was too troublesome to dri^'e or to carry.'' The very boldness of these })ioneers in breaking their bondage to the river bank is evidence of the difference in their tempera- ment from that of their lowland brethren, who considered themselves out of reach of the world when not within stone's throw of a creek or an inlet. This movement across the country began some thirty years after the founding of the colony; at the close of the Revolution it gathered strength and continued steadily to increase. The bulk of the popula- tion of Georgia to-day is composed of the descendants of the unmigrants from the neighboring States to the P^ast. Thei-e were, then, two centers of immigration in the early history of the State, and each came to have its own frontier, the one to the south bordering tlu^ seaboard region and not fai fiom navigable waterways, so depending upon the coast towns for market; the other on the edge of the Virginia and "G. Andrews, Utiuinisf eiices of an Old r.onrfria Lfiwyor. ji. T.>. ''(iilincr, (ioorginns. r4E0R(UA AND STATE RTOHTS. 89 North Carolina settlement in middle Georgia, independent of watercourses in the immediate vieinitv, l)Ut relying- for neces- sary trading upon the villages at the head of navigation on the several large rivers in the State. The backwoods famili(>s of both frontiers were similarly placed in many respects their contact with the Indians, their isolation from society, their necessity for self-reliance, and their general dearth of property in slaves. A peculiar result of the settlement of the State from these two nuclei was the development of what we may call a semi-frontier between them. This area lay just to the north of the rank of seaboard counties and extended from the neighborhood of the Savannah River to the edge of thc^ Indian country, where it joined the true frontier. It had nearly all of the features of the Creek and Cherokee border, but differed in having a few members of the planter class scattered among- its Cracker" citizenry and in never having alarms from the Indians. The region long remained thinl}^ settled on account of its reputation for sterility, and its inhab- itants yielded but very gradually to the elevating influences working 1)oth from the seaboard and from the hill country. During the Revolution, Whigs and Tories were almost equal in number in (leorgia. Partisans on either side carried on the local contest with such determination that the severity of the warfare in the extreme South was probably exc(>eded nowhere on the continent.". The [)roportion of Toiies in the uplands was pro])ably greater than on the seaboard, because the inland population was little concernc^d with taxation at the seaports levied upon articles which rarely found their way to homes where food and clothing* were .produced within the household a^.d where luxuries were unknown. In fact, the whole revolutionary spirit among Georgians was due rather to sympathy with the northern colonies than to any sense of great oppression in their own cases. The acti\e revolution ary movement in the colon}" originated with the settlers from ' London. 17S3 pp.140 and 141. Stokes designates as Crackers tlie gieat crovv.l ol immigrituts then pouring into the inland region ol Georgia from western Virginia and North Carolina. The stones which reached him at Savannah of their method ot liie were distorted and fantastic and yet, with proper allowance lor the author's cockney point of view, his account gives a valuable side light upon conditions in that period ''H. :M'Call, History of (Georgia, vol. i 90 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIOlSr. New En^iand in St. John's parish, or Liberty County, and was caused largely by a feeling of indignation at the hard- ships of the people in Boston. The desire for independence was not rapid in spreading to the remote districts in Georgia; yet in the later years of the war the hill country patriots became more strenuous against the British and the loyalists than were their colleagues in the New England settlement or in Savannah. After the achievement of independence, the whole remain- ing population of Georgia was anxious to enjoy and perpetu- ate its advantages. For that reason the people were practi- cally un/inlmous in approving the Federal Constitution. The Constitution was regarded largely as a means to an end. The unanimity of the convention of January, 1788, in its favor need not indicate that the Federalist party would later control the State, for other influences, such as the need of the State for national protection against the Indians on the west and the Spanish in Florida, were more powerful than any party allegiance in causing the solid vote in favor of strong central government. The Federalist and Repulilican parties began to develop soon after the establishment of the new frame of government. The former, which should have been called the Nationalist instead of the Federalist party, adopted the policy of a broad construction of the Constitution, with the principle as a basis that that instrument established an Amerirai\ nation in place of a confederation of States; the Republican part}^, on the other hand, favored a strict or narrow construction of the powers given by the Constitution to the General Government, which it held to be simply a central goveriunent in a federa- tion of States, each of which had previously been sovereign, and each of which had retained for itself all rights and juris- diction not expressly ceded in the literal woi'ding of the Con- stitution. Chiefly on account of tne peculiar course of Indian affairs, and the suit of Chisolm against the State, the niajoritx' of the people in Georgia adopted the views of the Republican party. During Washington's second administration, there may have arisen a good deal of local discussion over the correct interpretation of the Constitution; but the Yazoo controversy Historical Report, 1901.- Phillips Plate .lUS BIEN & CO.l MAP OF GEORGIA IN 1796 showing the local sQ-en^lh of Uie Federalist mid Rppublican parties as recorded in the returns ol the election orpresidenlial electors jii that vear KKPl-BLICAN MAJOKrn- I 1 50 to 60 per- cent of Uie total vote E3 60 ., 75 ovei'75 ..,.,, I I 50 to 60 percent of Llio U^lal volt H^ Tie vol.. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 91 arising in 1793 and 1795 dwarf od all other issues then before the State, Some of the Federalist leaders were found to be prominently connected with the bribery in the Yazoo sale, and we may suppose that the strength of their party was diminished in consequence. The vote recorded in the choice of electors to vote for a successor to President Washington gives us an opportunity to examine the local situation of the adherents of the two national parties of the period. This vote occurring in 1796, while the Yazoo affair was fresh in men's minds, was undoubt- edly affected by the excitement over the fraud; but as it affords the only source of knowledge to be found for the rela- tive strength of the Federalist and the Republicans, the county returns must be utilized for what they may be worth. The Federalists were badly beaten, carrying only 4 counties out of 21 and almost tying the vote in two others.^' South Georgia, as far as can be learned, was uniformly Republican and with large majorities. The remoteness of the southern seaboard counties from the sanctum of the "Augusta Chronicle and Gazette of the State,'' to which we are indebted for our information, is probably responsible for the failure of returns from those counties. Middle Georgia, though also carried by the Republicans, was divided in opinion. From the returns which we have, the indication is plain that the tv\^o centers of population of the State were at some variance in their political views, and further that there was a tendency for the frontier of each to support the views of its respective mother settle- ment. After 1796 the few facts which can be gleaned indicate that there was a dwindling in the number of voters who were pro- fessedly Federalists, while parodoxically the general attitude of the Federalist party came to be assumed in considerable degree by the government and people of the State. We have no record as to the character of the action taken by the legis- lature of Georgia in response to the Virginia and Kentuck}^ resolutions of 1 796. A message of Governor James Jackson is extant, dated January 6, 1799, in which he states to the Georgia legislature that according to the request of the gov- ernor of Kentucky, he transmits certain resolutions of the legislature of that State on the subject of the alien law of the aAugusta Chronicle, Dec. 17, 1796. ^>2 AMEKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. United IState.s." The journals of the legislative houses of Georgia for 1799 do not now exist, the explanation being that they were pro1)a]>ly among the papers destroyed by Sherman's army during the invasion of the State in 1864. But there is a manuscript index to the house journal which contains the item. "Alien and sedition laws, resolutions re- lating thereto, ISO."''' Thus we know that some action was taken, but what that action was no one can sa}'. We have already noticed the extremely modest and loyal tone of the address and remonstrance to Congress adopted by the Georgia legislature in 1800. It is clear that the hand which wrote the document and the official body which approved it were under very strong Federalist influence. For some twent}' years succeeding the date of that address there was practically a cessation of the remonstrances from Georgia to the CVntral Government, which bad ])een so common in the later years of the eighteenth century, and which after 1828 became a fixed habit of the legislature for each succeeding session. Before the occurrence of the Presidential election of 1800 the choice of electors of the Federal Executive was again assumed by the general assembl3\' The reason for its removal from the hands of the people was that the election of State officers coming in October and the choice of Presidential electors in November the voters of the Commonwealth were too frequently called to the polls in each fourth year. In 1800, as in 1796, the electoral vote of Georgia was cast for Mr. Jefferson against Mr. Adams, but we can not estimate the relative strength of the candidates in Georgia. The Federalist party as such lived in Georgia for a decade or more after its defeat in 1796, but gradually lost strength and dwindled away. Its contentions were upheld by the Augusta Herald, l>ut after 1801 that paper gave up its extreme partisan attitude, tacitly acknowledging the dissolution of the active party in the State. But, on the other hand, that a strong- remnant of the Federalist faction was remaining in Georgia as late as I8l0 is shown l)v the fact that President Meigs, of (I Minutes of the Georgia Executive Department MSS., volume for 1798-99, p. 357. bl. e., page 4:50 of the MSS. Journal for 17i)S-99. See MSS. Index of Journals oi the House of Representatives, 1781 to 1820. p. 9, tinder " November .session." I- Augusta Herald. Nov. '\ ISOO. Historical Report, 1901.- - Phillips. Plate III /, FRANKLIN \ < /jACKSON) V^ \ \ "^ ELBERT S V [OGLETHv' \ V V'';i>v^v°^"''«>>\ ^\ y^^^\: 1 ^^^x V/'^ VjefferJ ^-^ \V»ASHI|IGT0N\ ^N \ BURKE \. )^ /^SCREVEN \ j MONTGOMERY •V^^^°«=«\h^;A "^ /~\bryaJv,cha-^V ^\/ LIBERTY \,^_j ^NV M" 1 ntoshJ J GLYNN y / CAMDEN f JULIU6 BIEN & CO LITH.N."* MAP OF GEORGIA IN 1800 showing the local preponderance of >vhites and negroes as given in the returns of the federal census, taken in that year NEGROES MAJORITV WHITES MAJORITT I-'.; .1 50 to 60 percent of the total population | | 50 to 60 percent of the total population " [:i]60„75 I 60 „ 75 1 over 75 ., „ I I over75 , „ \/^-'A equal number of whites and negroes GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. ^3 the University of Georgia, was in that year forced to resign his position chiefly on account of the friction of his Jefl'er- sonian doctrines with the Federalist tenets of the influential citizens in the neighborhood of Athens." In the early years of the new century nearly all of the political thinkers in the State were agreed in the support of the Republican party, and the so-called era of good feeling, to arrive at a later time to the nation as a whole, was pre- ceded 1)3' a similar condition of afl'airs in (icorgia. But if the era of good feeling is a misnomer in national politics, it would be much more so if applied to afl'airs in (leorgia for the period at which we now arrive. The recriminations and enmities of Yazoo times had not then died away, while Fed- eralist and Republican disputants were still to be heard; but the prominence of those former disputes was dwarfed by a new contest, the origin and ])asis of which was in the purely personal antagonisms of men in a struggle for political glory and civic authority. Although these personal enmities did not begin to attract general attention until about 1807, their origin dated from before the time of the Yazoo sale.'' While the Yazoo ques- tion Avas not a party issue with the Federalists and Repub- licans, the great majority of the Republicans were apparently against the sale, and th > Federalists were weakened b}' the charge that their party leaders had been among its supporters. The legislature which met in 1796 to rescind the sale of the lands was dominated by James Jackson, of Savannah, who resigned his seat in the United States Senate in order to return to Georgia and flght the Yazoo cabal. Though Jack- son won his battle in the legislature and before the people, he did not convince eveiyone that the sale of the lands had been utterly vicious. It was onl}^ natural that those who were attacked ))v him should actively defend themselves. We accordingTv find that for some years a part of the State was divided into Jackson and anti-Jackson factions. " W. H. Meigs, Life of Josiah Meigs, p. 51. ii An iUKinyiiious pam])lik't entitled ••Cursory remarks on men and measures in Georgia,'' I>rinted in 17SJ. states that in that year there were two factions in the State, the one made up of men eager for the extensive confiscation of loyalist property which they themselves might buy at a fraction of its value, the other composed ot honest, conserva- tive men who were, howevc-r, too passive to hold the radicals In check. This document eualiles lis to trace at least as far ))ri<-k as the close of the Revoluti(m the origin of the factions which became conspicuous at the timi' i>f the rescinding (if the Yazoo sale. 94 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, From this beginning developed the system of personal politics in Georgia. The rescinding of the Yazoo sale was the work of the conservative class of Georgians and of thi« class James Jackson was distinctly the leader. A distinguished veteran of the Revolution, he was a strong type of the old school of Georgia gentlemen in politics. Of gentleness in the usual sense he had little, for he was bold to a degree, and intolerant of all opposition. His principles were high and his convictions strong. Like many men of his temperament, he could see only one side of a question. Thinking his oppo- nents to be knaves, he was accustomed in important debates to overwhelm them with the volume of his voice and the strength of his condemnation backed by his custom of sup- porting his statements upon the field of honor when occasion arose. And yet withal Jackson was a most attractive man to those with whom he held friendly intercourse. He recog- nized as friends those only who were harmonious in all rela- tions. A political opponent could not be up6n cordial social terms with him. Jackson was a lover of learning, and was a founder of the University of Georgia. He was an aristocrat and a leader of the aristocrats of his State. And above all he was a Georgian with his whole heart. His traits of char- acter are important because from conscious imitation or from the similar iniiuence of the same environment the same traits were possessed in large degree by the successive leaders in Georgia for decades after his death. General Jackson remained in Georgia for several 3^ears after the passage of the Yazoo rescinding act, serving- as governor of the State from 1798 to 1801. In 1801 he was again sent to the United States Senate. He died at Washing- ton before the expiration of his senatorial term. It was Jackson's policy to attract to his circle of friendship the promising young men of the several sections of jSeorgia." l*rominent among those whose attachment he cultivated was William Harris Crawford, a young up-country lawyer, who had already won sufficient distinction to be chosen by the leg- islature as one of the editors of the tirst accepted compilation of Georgia laws. Upon Jackson's withdrawal from Georgia politics, Crawford became the acknowledged leader of a strong "Letter of Jackson to John Millodf,'e. Charlton's Lifi' of Jackson, p. 181. GEOEUIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 95 faction in the State, consisting of his own friends and the friends of Jackson. Opposed to this were the enemies of both, led by John Clarke and his brother, Elijah Clarke the younger. With the advent of Crawford as a prominent char- acter in politics, the inland section of Georgia came to be of greater consequence in political matters. As years passed this development continued, until the seaboard counties be- came comparatively unimportant in State politics. The great bulk of the population came to be in the interior, and a broad expanse of pine barrens hindered intercourse between the seaboard and the political center of the State. William H. Crawford has left little record of his work as a statesmen and politician w^hich will enable the student to form a well-defined conception of his true place in history. From the dearth of other material, the average American his- torian has followed the views of John Quincy Adams, who has written most fully of Crawford, but who was his most bitter and prejudiced adversary. In this way injustice has been done the man. Crawford, however, belongs to the his- tory of the United States rather than to that of Georgia, and even if the necessary evidence were at hand this would not be the proper place to rehabilitate him. We are here concerned only with his influence upon local developments, and we need only notice his personality in so far as it shows what kind of man the people of that time were most ready to follow. He was a tine specimen of physical manhood, very tall, and so dig- nilied that his critics called him haughty. Yet his manner was frank and unconventional, and his speech blunt and to the point. To his ver}^ numerous personal friends he was cordial and gracious, especialh^ so over his glass of toddy, of which, like the typical Georgian of his day, he was very fond. Craw- ford's judgment was strong, and he had the courage of his convictions when any question of personal honor was in any way involved. But his service as a statesman, if at any time he rose to that distinction, was greatly hindered by his per- sistent ambition. His greatest power lay in his faculty for organizing men in personal alignments in support of himself as their leader. There were no questions of large policy at issue between the Georgia factions. The situation was one which demanded 9() AMEKICAN HlbTUKK'AL ASSOCIATION. an uble politician and not a statesman. For the leadersliij) of a faction in sucli a condition of things Crawford as a young- man was eminent!}' fitted. A native of Virginia, his capacity for leadership placed him at the head of the Virginia element in the popiUation of (leorgia. The importance of this ele- ment in the politics of the State was largely the result of the fact that the early innnigrants from Virginia settled in one neighl)orh()od about Broad River, chiefly in Elbert County. This Virginia settlement came to have a strong self -conscious- ness, and it developed a feeling which was handed down through generations, that men of Virginian lineage should stand togethcn-. The Virginia spirit was heightened by the fact that a strong settlement from North Carolina was planted a short distance to the south of Broad River, chietiy in Wilkes County." The rivalry which sprang up came to find its chief expression in politics. Largely through the friendship of Jackson and Crawford, an alliance was formed between the Virginia faction in the uplands and the aristocratic element on the seaboard. As 3'ears passed and as pi'os}>erity came to the cotton l)elt, a new development set in for the difierentiatioh between the well-to-do folk and the people without any considerable means. Planters became distinct from farmers in the uplands as well as in the lowlands. The whole white population was embraced wnthin these two agricultural classes, for townsmen, as such, were so few as to be a negligible quantity. The Virginians had from the first considered themselves the aristo- cratic element, and their opponents could not deny their claim. The Virginians tended to attract to their faction all unconnected planters, while on the other hand the farmers who did not succeed in accunuilating wealth, i. e., lands and slaves, drifted to the alignment of the North Carolinians. The tendency, then, was for the differentiation of parties upon an economic basis. The alliance between Jackson and Crawford constituted a power which for a period of years was able to carry any con- test which it resolved to win in State politics. After the death of .Jackson (he mantle of the south (Jeorgia lcad(M'ship fell upon George iVIichael Trou]). whom .Jackson had attached to himself as one of the promising young men of the State. Tiiough "W. II. Si>arks, Mi'iiKirics (if I'Ml'ty Years, p. 'is. (i. K. (iiliiuT. (u'nryiaiis, jiassiin. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 97 Troup had been born among the Indians in the Alabama valley, he was distinctly an aristocrat. He had attended school at Savannah and at Flatbush, Long Island, and had finished with a course at Princeton College." He achieved distinction in Georgia politics by his service as a member from Chatham County in the legislature. He was acquiring some substance as a planter when he was elected a member of Congress in 1807. We ma}^ learn of his character and tem- perament from the account of his deeds which forms an inte- gral part of the history of the struggle for State rights. Crawford and Troup, then, were at the head of the Jack- son-Crawford-Troup combination in Georgia. Supported by the same adherents, Crawford was sent to the United States Senate in the same year that Troup was elected to the lower house of Congress. A few years later, Crawford's occupation with national affairs removed him from intimate contact with Georgia politics, while Troup became more and more the moving spirit of the local faction. In the North Carolina settlement in Georgia, the Clarke family had been prominent from the first.^ We have alread}'^ noticed the independent, headstrong, care-naught qualities of General Elijah Clarke of Revolutionary fame. John Clarke was the worthy son of such a father. Educated as much on the Indian warpath as in the log-cabin school, with more to fear from arrows and bullets than from the schoolmaster's rod, and perfectly fearless of either, he developed into an adroit Indian fighter, carried his rough and ready principles into politics, and so became a politician of the extreme Andrew Jackson type. He was not a very able man. Wilson Lump- kin, his strongest political colleague, has written that he sup- ported Clarke more from S3mipathy than from any appreciation of his ability. Clarke's liking for personal broils of any kind was illustrated in his quarrel with Crawford in which blood- shed on the duelling ground was a mere incident. As the leader of the Carolinians in Georgia, it was John Clarke's agreeable duty to oppose the Virginians to the full extent of his power. In the Kentuckj^ mountains such a state of things would have brought on a series of hereditary feuds. But in Georgia the hostile spirit found its outlet in the formation of hereditary political factions. a Harden, Life of Troup, p. 11. & Gilmer, Georgians, p. 198. H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 7 98 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. In the tirst decade of the centuiy, the Crawford or Troup clique was stronger than the Clarke organization, but the two factions did not embrace the whole population of the State. Neither group of leaders followed an invariable practice of nominating a full ticket for all of the offices to be tilled at each general election, and neither gave nnich attention to town and county offices. It was not until some 3^ears after the close of the war of 1812 that the factions spread over the whole State and took on more distinctly the characteristics of true political parties. It is very difficult to oljtain a trustworthy ta])le of the rela- tive strength of the two parties in the various parts of the State before 1826, because the governor (until 1825) and the Presidential electors (18(J0 to 1826, inclusive) were chosen by secret ballot of the general assembly, and it is impossible even to trace the votes of individual legislators to their respective comities and districts. Members of Congress were alwavs elected upon a general ticket, and not according to the district system. Each voter wrote on hi.s ballot the prescribed number of the names of the candidates whom he considered worthiest. The whole population of the State wanted to see (ireorgia repre- sented in the national assembly b}^ as strong a delegation as possible, and a man of recognized ability when a candidate for Congress usually had no effective opposition from the other faction. The steps in the growth of the Clarke part}' are almost completely hidden from our view until six years after the time when it succeeded in placing its leader in the office of governor of the State. We are able onl}^ to catch rare glimpses of it before 1825 from a few Congressional elections and from contests in the State legislature. On the general ticket for Congress in 1806, the names of Elijah Clarke and Georgia M. Troup are to be found with those of eight other candidates, Avhile four of the ten were to be elected. (Clarke was defeated, receivmg a higher vote than Troup in six coun- ties, an e((ual vote in two, and a smaller vote in fourteen." In 1806 fludge Murry Dooly, a follower of Clarke, ran for Congress, but carried only four counties over Troup.'' In 1810 Elijah (ylarkc again entered the contest, but defeated Troup in not a single county.' These contests were of course a Augusta Chronicle, Oct. 11, 1806, ff. i> lb., Oct. 6, 1808, ff. c ib., Oct. 13, 1810, ft. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 1)9 not di recti}' between any two of the candidates, 3'et the votes given show approximately the number of adherents of each of them. It seems that during these years the Clarke party was losing strength. Then, and for several years afterwards, John Clarke on account of his interest in military affairs, was not conspicuous in politics. From ISlO to 1816 extended a period of comparative quiet in State politics. It was a period of nmtterings of war, and of actual conflict between the United States and foreign powers. As was natural in such a case, petty disputes were at least nominally dropped for the time, to give way to an undivided support of the policy of the General Government. The whole of the South was eager for measures of retalia- tion for the indignities which England heaped upon America. Georgia was strongly in support of the non-intercouse act and the embargo, and latei* became anxious for the declaration of war. The governor expressed great enthusiasm in the Amer- ican cause, in 1812 and 1813," and without being gainsaid in the State, anathematized as traitors all who opposed the war.^ The quota of troops assigned to the State was quickly sup- plied by volunteers.'" This enthusiasm, moreover, was not of the inexpensive variety. Though Georgia anticipated little experience of actual warfare with the British, she expected trouble with the Spanish in Florida and with the Indian tribes. Then, too, the stopping of the exportation of products was a decided hardship upon the people.'^ The editor of a promi- nent newspaper advised the people during the war that, since little prospect existed that the price of cotton would ever again pay the cost of cultivation, some other product, such as wheat, must be resorted to as an export commodity.*^ It was consid- ered patriotic in that period to discourage all import of English or French goods. Upon a public occasion on Feb- ruary 22, 1809, each student of the University of Georgia, agreeably to a resolution of the student organization, appeared in a complete suit of homespun cloth./ Domestic manufac- tures of various kinds were urged upon the people,^ but the «Niles's Register, vol. 3, p. 193. & lb., vol. 5, p. 209. cGa. Journal, Jan. 8, 1812. f'Ib., Jan. 6, 1812. <■ lb., Mar. 11, 1812. /Georgia Express (Athens), Apr. 1, 1809. f/A motion prevailed in the Ga. Hou.se of Reps., Nov. 6, 1814, to authorize commission- ers to establish a lottery to raise 17,000 to enable Henry Heald and others to erect a woolen factory in the upper part of the State: Ga. House Journal, 1814, p. 60. 100 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. making of coarse cloth could alone be advanced to any .satis- factory point. At the end of the war the dearth of cotton in Europe made the price of that article so high that all energies in the cotton section were directed to the cultivation of the staple/' and with plenty of ready mone}^ the planters fell again into the habit of buying their manufactures from Europe, though from that time forward the products of the Northern States began to enter the South in increasing quantities. The Troup-Clarke antagonism did not become of engrossing interest in Georgia until after the year ISIS. The period immediatelj^ following the treaty of peace with Great Britain was too prosperous to admit of much dissension of any kind. It is probably not accidental that the gradual decline in the price of cotton from the close of 181S * coincided in time with the rise of political parties which tended to be made up, the one of the prosperous class of citizens, the other of the less prosperous class. In the hard times during the war of 1812 all classes had stood together against the foreign enemy and against the disatfection in New England. The peace which followed brought prosperity and contentment. When the price of cotton was 80 cents a pound no man was disposed to find fault with his neighbor. But when economic conditions again reached the normal, the political differences which were characteristic of the time and place again became important. Pearly in ISIO it became generally known that John Clarke woidd ])e a candidate for election as governor of Georgia. The opposing faction took this news as a challenge to combat, and replied by announcing that Troup would resign his seat in the United States Senate to oppose Clarke in the guberna- torial contest.'" In the summer of 1819 the period of quiet in local politics was fully at an end. The State rang- with discussion. Though the stump speaker did not at that time exist as an aGa. Journal, July 19, ISln. I'Avcrai/r price of cotton, 1815-1821. Ccnt.s. 181.5 21 1 «1C 29 1817 26 1818 34 Cents. 1819 24 1820 17 1821 11 ■Ga. Journal, Sept. 29, 1810. GEORGIA AND STATE KIGHTS. 101 institution, the partisan editor was very well developed. Not only did editors themselves write in support of their can- didates, but the colunuis of their papers were filled with the partisan writings of numerous contributors, always, of course, on the side with the editors of the respective journals. Farmers adjourned from the cotton fields to the crossroad stores, where opinions were exchanged and extensive arguments delivered upon the engrossing topic of Troup and Clarke. A correspondent wrote in the columns of the Georgia Journal that electioneering was running higher in the State than he had ever witnessed in any preceding year, and proceeded to deprecate the evils of the times. '^^ The excitement culminated in the election of governor by the legislature in November, which resulted in the triumph of Clarke over Troup with thirteen votes majority.'^ After the crisis had passed, politics were quiet for nearly two years. The Congressional election of 1820, like others of the time, tells us nothing. It happened that there was no strong Clarke candidate in the contest of that year. The opponents of the successful Troup candidates were of such little weight that it is even difficult to determine which faction gave them their support. But, as the time approached for the next gubernatorial contest, the State again became excited.'" The two candidates, who were the same as before, were praised or criticised in the newspapers by "Veritas,*' "Homo," "A Georgian," "A Planter," " An 'Up-Country Man," and numerous other anon3auous sci'ibblers. Clarke was accused of having shot at an effigy of General Washington and of having been a Federalist. Troup's father was said to have been a Tory. A Clarke adherent railed at "that class of electors who had become so slavishly accustomed to the triumph of the candidates put forward annually or bienni- ally by Crawford and his friends at Athens."'^ Another wrote that the Crawford party was determined to defeat Clarke because a show of strength in Georgia was essential to Crawford's election to the Presidency. As November approached it became evident that the race would be ex- ceedingly close. The unheard of practice was instituted of voting for candidates for the legislature according to their a Ga. Journal, Sept. 28, 1819. '> Harden, Life of Troup, p. 168. <-Ga. Journal, Mar. 2(!, Apr, 17, June -JO, July 27, 1821. rflb., Sept. IS, 1821. 102 AMERICAN HISTOKTOAL ASSOCIATION. known preference for one or the other of the yuheriuitorial candidates." Election day finally tirrived. The united o-eneral a.ssembly met in the hall of the lower house and the ballot for g-overnor was taken. The gallery was crowded with spectators, and many who could not gain entrance waited for news on the steps and on the grounds of the statehouse. The pervading anxiety was as great as if the freedom of the country were in suspense instead of the election of one hot-head or another as governor of Georgia, with no appreciable question of policy at stake. The result of the ballot was the election of Clarke, with only two votes majority. The defeat served only to increase the determination of the Troup party. The Clarke men were no less resolute upon winning the next contest. The campaigning for the next two years was quiet, but steady and earnest. Troup again stood for the coveted office of governor. Clarke did not try for a third election, but his party put forward Matthew Talliot as its champion. The two houses of the legislature met in joint session on November 6, 1823, to cast their ballots, and the contest was as doubtful as before. The same evidences of suspense were visible as in 1821, both in Milledgeville and in the State at large. Within the hall of assembly the partisans had wrought themselves into a state of acute tension. It so happened that when 162 ballots had been counted the tall}- stood 81 and 81, with -4 votes still in the hat. These proved to be all for Troup, and the house went wild.'^ A picturesque figure was that of Jesse Mercer, who staggered out overcome with joy, loudly praising heaven that he had lived to see the day. This old man was for many years a prominent clergyman of the Baptist Church in Georgia. He mixed politics with his gospel to such an extent that he never failed to carry his county overwhelmingly for Crawford or Troup or the candi- dates of their party, (xovernor Lumpkin lays at his door many of the votes that were cast against him in his luunerous campaigns, saying that although the Baptist Church was not aGa. Journal, Sept. 11, 1821. ftSparks, Memories of Fifty Yeiirs, i>. Vis. Cf. Harden, Life of 'Irouii, \>. 170. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 103 51 unit 111 politics, yet Mercer always carried the bulk of its members for the Troup candidates." Troup had at last won the governor's chair, but neither success nor defeat could put an end to the local strife. Be- fore the next election occurred the Clarke party, as it claimed, had succeeded in having the choice of the chief magistrate given into the hands of the people,'' and the election of gov- ernor in 1825 was the first popular one in the history of the State. For that struggle John Clarke again authorized the use of his name as a candidate, opposing his old adversary, George Troup. The fact that the election was to be in the hands of the people was not calculated to make the contest the less spirited. The candidature of hoth. men was an- nounced early in April of 1825,^ though the voting was not to occur until October 3. This was one of the hardest fought battles ever waged in State politics upon a personal question. Every doubtful voter was besieged, cozened, and probably bribed where possible, by zealous partisans. Troup's administration had been a strong one, but Clarke had also given very general satisfaction in his four years' tenure of the office. Criticisms were made upon the past official acts of both candidates, and more upon Troup's than upon Clarke's, but Troup had dealt with the more difficult questions, and his management of them found enthusiastic praise as well as strong condemnation. Election day arrived and passed and the struggle was ended, but weary days and weeks dragged past before anyone could know who had been elected.'^ At length the returns from the counties on the farthest frontier reached Milledgeville, and it was known that Troup had been elected with a majority of 683 votes. It is of interest to note that the majority in the State assembly elected on the same day was of the Clarke faction, which means that Troup would probably have been defeated if his election had depended upon the old system.' At this point we have a direct vote of the Troup and Clarke parties. By making a map showing the vote in each county, several interesting phenomena are Ijrought into view which "Wilson Lumpkin, incidents connected with the life of W. Lumpkin, vol. 1, circ, p. 670. (MSS.) ''Ga. Journal, Fob. A, 1824. <• Hardin, Life of Troup, p. 3;it. ''lb., p. 3%. «'(ia. .lournal, Dec. 27, 1S25. 104 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. would otherwise be obscure if not entirel^y hidden. It is to be remembered that in 1796 the Federalists were chiefly in the up-country and that the Republicans tended to have their heaviest majorities near tide water. The map before us now bears little resemblance to that of the former period, but it shows the connection or lack of connection between the two parties in the State at the two epochs. Governor Wilson Lumpkin, whose manuscript autobiog-raph}^ the writer has had the privilege of reading in part, states that in the second decade of the century there were a greater numl)er of men in the State holding Federalist views than was generall}' sus- pected, and that most of them had joined the ranks of the Clarke party." From such individual cases as can be traced this seems to be borne out. Yet the Federalists gradually abandoned their party alignment and again there were great numbers in the Clarke party who had- never advocated Fed- eralist doctrines, and the connection can not be depended upon as being at all vital. The map of the vote of 1825 shows that parties had become divided territorially upon a basis entirel}" different from that of the former period. It shows that Troup's stronghold coin- cided with the two centers of immigration, Avhile on the whole frontier Clarke's majority was uniform!}^ heavy; that the older and more advanced parts of the State supported Troup, and all of the liackwoods region was against him. There are two exceptions to be observed in this broad statement of the county vote, and only two. One of these occurred in the case of three of the easternmost counties of middle Georgia, which were among the very first to be settled in that region, and which contained many of the most progressive citizens of the State. Yet these three counties were carried for Clarke against the general tendency. The reason for this exception is readily discovered. Lincoln County was the home of Judge Doolv, one of the foremost leaders of the Clarke constituency, and probably the ablest politician of all Troup's opponents. Richmond County was carriinl for Clarke l)y thi^ efiorts of a small band of its citizens l)()und to iiim by ptn'sonal ties, con- spicuous among whom was W. J. Hobby, a brotiier-in-law of Clarke and the owner of the Augusta Chronicle.'' The out- spoken hostility of his paper toward Troup was probably 'I Lumpkin, Iiicidonts (MSS.), vol. 1, circ, p. 30. '-(in. .Ii.mnal, Sept. i.. l.viC. Historical Report, 1901 - Phillips. Plate IV -lUS uiEN & CO ; MAP OF GF:0RGIA IN 182 3 slio-win^ the local stron^ht of the Troup and Clarke parties as recorded mfhe returns of the gubernatorial election of that year TROT.TP MAJORITY CLARKE MAJORITY I I 50 to 60 per cent of the total vote | | 50 to 60 percent of the total vote I I 60 „ 75 „ „ „ I ] 60 „ 75 , , I I over 75 , „ , „ |. ,;. :| over 75 , jv-o>'Vrit' VI lie GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 105 responsible for the Clarke majorities in hotli Richmond and Columbia. These two and Lincoln were adjoining- counties, and were very sympathetic. It was a period of personal politics, and it is not surprising that the personal advocacy of intimate friends of the two candidates was extremely influential in deciding- the local vote. Furthermore, these counties had been settled largely by North Carolinians, who were clan- nishly disposed to rally round any one of their fellows who needed their support. The other exception was in the case of a line of counties along the Oconee and Altamaha rivers, viz, Laurens, Montgomery, and Tattnall. They were situ- ated at the junction of the semi-frontier, previously charac- terized, with the Indian border counties, and we should expect the vote in them to be in favor of Clarke; but the fact that the counties went against him is fully explained by the state- ment that they lay in Troup's home section, an argument more weighty then than now." The contrast between the old settlements and the frontier was only an evidence of the more fundamental contrast in the economic conditions of the classes of the people in the State. When the map of the election of 1825 is compared with a map drawn to illustrate the returns of the State census of 1824, a very close relation is seen to exist between the two. With the exceptions of Lincoln, Columbia and Richmond, and Laurens, Montgomery and Tattnall counties, already explained, the counties giving Troup majorities were almost identical with those having- more negroes than whites in their population. This striking similarity of the maps is highly significant, for the reason that the presence in a county of a large proportion of negroes, 99 per cent of whom were slaves, is conclusive evidence, in view of the system prevailing, that a large proportion of the white people of that county were of the well-to-do class. With this line of reasoning and illustration we reach a conclusion which strongly supports our former statement that the slave owners, who constituted the well-to-do class in Georgia, were as a rule members of the Troup party, and that the poorer whites, who tended to be the more numerous on the edges of settlement, were as a rule members of the Clarke part}'. In the eighteenth century the economic geography of '( Hanlfii, Life olTroui), )>. ;Wy. 106 AMEKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Georgia was .such as to causo a strong contrast between the seaboard and the uphmds. But the invention of the cotton gin and of other textik> niachiner} , and the extensive intro- duction of cotton culture into the red hill section of the State, brought a fundamental change in the relationship of the sec- tions. Cotton culture made slave labor distinctly profitable, and accordingly the plantation system came to thrive in the uplands as on the seaboard. After the industrial systems of the two areas had grown similar, their political and social views did not long remain in contrast. In 1825 the economic, and therefore the political and social, distinction was between the old settlements and the frontier. It was largely accidental that the first strong settlement in the uplands was made in the later cotton growing section; but it was quite natural that the older counties in the cotton belt should l)e the first in that belt to become prosperous and to develop aristocratic feeling. At a later time, when the soil of the eastern counties had liecome partly exhausted, there was a migration of planters westward; but before 1825 the tendency was for those who were gaining wealth and increas- ing their number of slaves and acres to remain in their home- steads and buy up the lands of their less prosperous neighbors, who would then remove to the fi'ontier or to the districts to the north or the south of the cotton belt, which were ill adapted to the plantation system. It is essential to remember that, although the fact w^as not frequently stated at the time, the Troup and Clarke parties were based upon a fundamental diti'erence in the economic conditions of the people. As we follow the developments in the succeeding decades, we shall see that these parties changed their names more than once, and attempted to <"hange their character, ))ut that the division of parties according to economic and social conditions and dependent upon economic geography was more powerful for continuity than were the influence of leaders or the dictates of policy wIkmi they tended t(nvai-d a disorganization of the alignment. Industrial and social conditions wove of course^ nothing more than the general basis for the division of the people into political factions. There was nothing like an invariable cus- tom that a man who had slaves should vote for Troup and a man who had no slaves should vot(^ for Clarke, nor that the Historical Report, 1901- Piiillips. Plate V CLA9KE( IMONROEV JONES \, ^-/Hj^ftSHlNGTONN SON \ gURKE N 'CRAWFORD>-^ Jrv»iGGs\ J— ^ ) ^ \^ \y^ ^ EMANUEL^ ^\X\ HOUSTON / \ LAURENS \ / \ \ ( PULASKI \ y^ 7 V \/ V ( >. y^ONTGOMERY/ t^ttNALL ^-s^RyAtJkcH^T^ \ \ /'^ ^^^ / / ^^ Vham / OOOLY /N__.^ ^V/ LIBERTY \^^ f / TELFAIR APPLING / ^-^--. f O / NV M« INTOSMy / / / IRWIN / ^A, J baker _^ / { ^^ EARLY / X_y^ GLYNN j) \ THOMAS LOWNDES WARE / 3 / CAMDEN ( Vri- ^S''"'*^ .IJS KiEN & CO. I MAP OF GEORGIA IN 182 5 shoAvini> local preponderance of whites andne^roes as ^h'cn in a state census taken in tlie Fall oi 1824 NKGROES MAJORITY Vi^HITES MAJORITY" I 50 to 60 percent of the total population ! j 50 to 60 percent of tlio total population g 60 .. 75 [^ 60 '„ 75 . . o\'er75 ., fc"^ over75 . , „ ., above 9() ' " GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 107 possession of five slaves or more should support one candidate while the owner of four negroes or less should rally to the other. The line of separation between the classes was itself vague and varying. The great bulk of the slaveholders were slaveholders in a very small way. It was the ambition of most of these to increase the number of their servants and their acres, and it was the hope of most of the poor whites that at some day they themselves might ))ecome slave owners. Thrift and improvidence caused elevation and retrogression in the scale of wealth in many individual cases. The existence of professional men and merchants as a part of the population tended to prevent the exclusive ranking of citizens by their holdings of slaves and lands. The contrast between the extremes of wealth and poverty in the South has been exaggerated. A score of slaves was considered a large number for one family to own in the cot- ton belt in this period. This meant only a moderate degree of comfort for the family, and that only when the plantation was well managed and the price of cotton satisfactory. It is manifestly al)surd to speak of the planters as manorial lords. On the other hand the condition of the poor whites was far from the extreme of human misery. The land lottery system adopted by the State government for the distribution of the public domain either gave to each family a homestead out- right, or rendered it very easy for settlers to buy land in the frontier districts at very low prices. As a rule each farmer owned his land and his live stock. His farm produced the necessities of life, in abundance dependent upon the degree of his industry. He had such small luxuries as fruit and melons of his own raising, game of his own killing, and often liquors of his own or his neighbor's distilling. The sale of his market crop enal^led him to purchase in limited amount such commodities as he did not produce. The hardship of his remoteness from markets was not peculiar to his own lot as contrasted with that of the planter. The social system was by no means rigid in the cotton belt. Such wealth as the planters had gained was of too recent acquisition to permit of their l)eing supercilious about manual labor. The average slaveholder encouraged his negroes in the fields by following his own plow oi by leading the cotton choppers with his hoe in his hand, and not by watching them 108 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. from a stump in the shade or bv dr'nini;- them by the liourish of a whip. The hard-working poor man had the recognition and respect of the planters. It was only the slovenh' and shiftless "poor white trash'" who had the contempt of self- respecting- white men and self-respecting negroes. The political situation, far from being absolutely fixed by industrial relations, was strongly influenced by personal friendships or antipathies, and by inherited affiliations. But on the whole it is correct to say that as a very general rule the poorer class of citizens, who were chiefly on the edges of settlement, were the chief supporters of Clarke, while the sla\'eholders were usually members of the Troup party. During the existence of the Troup and Clarke parties there was no antagonism between them upon the ground of any policy followed by the State or the Central Government. The only occasion upon which the local factions took different sides on any political matter outside of the State was that of the Presidential contest of 18:^4; while that contest was one of a personal character, not involving an}" platform or policy. The candidates for the office were John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay. The Troup party in Georgia was of course very enthusiastic in support- ing Mr. Crawford, who had for years been at its head. The leaders of the Clarke party persuaded many of their followers to rally around Jackson's banner in opposition. Mr. Craw- ford's chances for election were excellent, until a short time before the date of l)alloting he was stricken with paralvsis, too severely in the opinion of many people to discharge the duties of the Presidency. His friends in Georgia, however, refused to forsake his cause, and the legislature chose Craw- ford electors with a vote of about two to one. The electoral college failing to make a choice in this instance, the United States House of Representatives elected Mi-. Adams, who was probably less acceptable to Georgians than any other one of the candidates. There was the appearance of some difference of principles in 1825, when Governor Troup had some unpleasantness with the Indian agent, Colonel Crowell, causing that official to bestir himself in an effort to prevent Troup's reelection." "Savannah Republican. .Tuni' 15, 1S'J5. Harden, Life of Troup, \>. :53f>. cf. also. Indian Affairs, vol. 2, p 580. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 109 Thus the few who were opposed to the expulsion of the Indians from the State took sides with Clarke and seemed to be in unison with his party. But the fact that the treaty which Troup succeeded in having made with the Creeks was approved by the Georgia house of representatives, with a unanimous vote," shows the real agreement of the local par- ties upon the Indian question.'' We have already noted that the legislature elected in 1825 had a majority of Clarke members.'' This assembly passed a law dividing the State into Congressional districts, providing that only one Congressman could be elected from each dis- trict, but permitting each voter to vote for one candidate in each district.'^ Some gerrymandering appears upon mapping the districts according to the act, but as the governor was known to be opposed to the majorit}^ in the assembly, the act had to be framed so as not to incur his veto. The object of the act was to give the Clarke party more chance of repre- sentation in Congress. All of the best-known men in the State lived in the eastern counties and were of the Troup party; but after the passage of the act a certain number of candidates from the west were guaranteed election, while these men were most likely to be of the Clarke party. This movement then is seen to have been merely for party advan- tage, and is no evidence of a division upon true policy. For several years after 1825 there was comparative quiet in the State, no considerable questions of polic}" arising to cause disagreement. The parties maintained their organiza- tion, and seem to have come into better understanding of their own respective composition and circumstances. In 1827 a correspondent of Clarke leanings wrote in the Augusta Chronicle, then the most influential of the Clarke journals, explaining to persons outside the State the real points of dift'erence between the two local factions.' His statements substantiate the distinctions above set forth in regard to social and economic classes, and show that some difl'erences of policy were springing into existence. But he goes further to claim democratic principles in the past as agamst the Troup aristocrats, which a more impartial critic will hardly "Savannah Republican, Nov. 22, 1825. ''lb.. July 2, 1S25. '• Georgia Journal, Doc. 27, 1835. il lb., Dec, 1825, and Jan., 1826. e Augusta Chronicle, Jan. 24, 1827. 110 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. grant in full. He claims that the Clarke partj'^ had put the election of governor and of Presidential electors into the hands of the people against Troup opposition. This is not fully cor- roborated in other material, which shows the voters on the questions to have been very generally divided between sections and parties. It was true in general that the Troup party was the more aristocratic and the Clarke party the more plebeian, but on account of the personal equation there was so much intermixture of classes in each party that any partisan state- ment beyond this must }>e accepted only with allowance for the point of view. Troup's second term expired in the fall of 1827, and both sides prepared for the coming fray, but the Clarke party was greatly dismayed by the death of their candidate, Mathew Talbot, only a few days before the election, and John Forsyth obtained the chair without opposition." At the same time as the gubernatorial election of 1827 occurred a contest for a vacant seat in Congress, which is of some interest, although no heavy vote was cast. George R. Gilmer and Thos. U. P. Charlton, both Troup men, offered themselv^es as candidates.^ Some of the Clarke leaders decided to put Charlton under obligations by supporting him in the race; but the Troup party, resolving not to permit their adversaries to have the balance of power, concentrated upon Gilmer. Thereupon the Clarke party, seeing that it could not gain its enterprise, broke ranks and let its adherents vote as they chose. Gilmer was victorious, with a heavy majority. It was generally recognized that nearly all the lawyers in Georgia were in the Troup ranks, and that the men of the bar were leaders in politics. We may reasonably suppose that the men were fi-om the ranks of the budding Clarke party who in 1810 presented to the legislature a petition begging the abolition of "the most useless pest that ever disgraced civil society — the lawyers."'' Since most of the lawyers were "Troupers," the Clarke party occasionally lacked a leader. This was the case in 1829 when two Troup men became con- testants for the executive chair. The Clarke party really possessed the balance of power in this election, and it was "Augusta Chronicle and Ga. Journal, October, 1827. '>Ga. .Journal, Savannah Republican, and Augusta Clironicle, Sept., 18*^ <■ Augusta Constitutionalist, Oct. 21, 1831. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. Ill owing to its support that Gilmer obtained a tremendous victory over his competitor, eToel Crawford/' But the schemers were finally balked in their plans, for Gilmer declined to consider himself under obligations to return anj^ favors which an opposing faction had shown him while seeking its own interests.''' Naturally this attitude on the part of the new governor was not pleasing to his quondam supporters, who accordingly resolved to defeat him at all costs should he try for reelection. '' After the close of the great gubernatorial contest in 1825 an increasing dissatisfaction was evident in the State regard- ing the personal character of the political factions into which the people were divided. There were continual complaints of this fi'om intelligent voters, and demands were made that there be a change "from men to measures'' as a basis for political difference. The comparatively quiet period from 1825 to 1832 was a suitable time for such a change to be brought about, but for some years no question of policy could be found upon which the parties could disagree. Upon Indian affairs, upon the tariff*, upon internal improvements, upon slavery, and in less degree upon the United States Bank, the leaders of each party had ideas, sometimes of decided char- acter, but in each case these ideas happened to be practically the same. A germ of party disagreement, however, was developing from the course of Indian aff'airs. The history of the friction over the Creek lands has shown us that in this period Georgia assumed a very pronounced position in the contention for State rights. It was natural that the slaveholders, courageous and masterful in their disposition, should take the lead in such a movement and should carry it forward with heightened zeal when the Federal authorities threatened to make trou])le. The aggressive and belligerent policy of Governor Troup at the head of the hotspurs brought severe criticism from without the State. After a time this had the effect within the State of showing the leaders of the Clarke party that although Troup had gained the material part of his contention against Adams, such radical action was not admissible as a general oAthenian (Athens, Ga.), Oct. 7, 1829. ''Augusta Chronicle and CJa. Journal, October, 1827. c Gilmer, Georgian.s, p. 459. 112 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. rule. This disapproval of Troup's polic,y by his local adversaries seemed to open a way for the substitution of measures for men as the chief consideration in the party alignment. Meanwhile John Clarke had withdrawn from Georgia politics by removing to Florida. The plan was sug- gested by some one that the Clarke party change its name to that of the Union party. The plan was informally approved by the rank and iile of Clarke's former colleagues, and the name of the old champion gradually lost its usage as a shibboleth. The Troup leaders were nothing loth to answer the chal- lenge. They replied by avowing State rights as their prin- ciple and using it as their slogan. Their followers assented to the change. After the lapse of a few 3'^ears, in which both sets of titles were in use by the people, the names State Rights and Union came to designate the local organizations. The process of name changing was begun in 1829 and was com- pleted in 1832, though for some years afterwards the parties continued to be spoken of occasionally by their personal titles. We shall see in a later chapter how well or how ill the poli- cies suggested by their new names were maintained by the two parties respectively. CHAPTER V.-THE STATE RIGHTS AND UNION PARTIES. The preceding chapter has prepared us to follow the history of parties and politics in Georg-ia after 1830; but it is well, before proceeding, to make another and final review of the previous decade, dealing with such matters as internal improve- ments and the protective tariff, which, in addition to Indian affairs, were instrumental in bringing about the existing com- plexion of things and made possible the course which history pursued for the following thirty years. We have already seen that from about 1798 to about 1823 there stretched a period of comparative reaction in Georgia against advanced theories of State sovereignty, or at least a period of quiescence on the subject. It may be observed that as late as December 12, 1821, there was introduced into the State senate, apropos of the controversy which had lately been waging elsewhere over the constitutionality of the United States Bank, a resolution which well expressed the attitude of the people during the quiescent period: "In the conflict between the Federal and State authorities the State of Georgia will not enlist herself on either side. She regards the Federal union of the States as the best safe- guard against intestinal discord, and the injuries of foreign powers. She is disposed to concede to the Federal and State governments, respectively, those powers which are intrusted to the former and reserved to the latter in the Federal Constitution." « The policy of a protective tariff to industries, which later aroused so much hostility in Georgia, was adopted by the Amei-ican Government as a result of certain developments during the war of 1812. At the beginning of that struggle America imported nearly all of her manufactured articles f'Niles' Register, vol. 21, j)p. 2%. H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 8 ii3 114 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. froui abroad. But when the British warships swept the Yankee trading and fishing- vessels off the seas, the attention of the New England people was turned to manufactures as a substitute occupation. At the end of the war the industries which had recently been flourishing in the enjoyment of a monopoly of the home market were sadly hurt by the revived stream of imports from Europe. The Eastern States clamored for help from Congress, and in consequence the beginning of the protective system was made. During the course of the war of 1812 the people of Geor- gia had strongly approved of domestic manufacture as a patri- otic enterprise, especially when carried on in Georgia. But, when peace had arrived, the plan for a high tariff did not find approval in the State. An editorial in the Georgia Journal in 1820 declared against protective duties and condemned domestic manufactures." The question, however, did not arouse much general interest until some years later, when the advocates of high tariff' became more successful in their cause. Many of the leading citizens of Georgia were strongl}" in favor of increasing the advantages of its people by a system of internal improvements in the shape of good roads, canals, etc. The first plan was to make these improvements at the expense of the State; but when the idea arose of national expenditures in these lines, the State mildly approved, and desired to have some of the improvements so placed that Georgia would derive advantage from them. The State rights advocates did not realize that internal improvements savored of paternalism until it became clear that that policy had become closely associated with the plan of protective duties. Governor Troup very strongly desired a complete svstem of canals or horse-power railroads throughout the State. ^ He urged the State legislature to appropriate money, and on June 29, 1824, he wrote to the President of the United States that, since Congress had seen fit to pass an act authorizing the President to procure surveys and estimates for roads and canals, he felt it his duty to urge Georgia's claims for a share of the benefit, and to suggest a canal to connect the waters of a Georgia Journal, Feb. 1, 1820 & Harden, Life of Troup, p. 181. GEORGIA ATSTD STATE RIGHTS. 115 the Savannah with those of the Tennessee, and one to connect the St. MaiTS with the Suwanee River in Florida.'^' Aside from the matter of the Creek lands, the subject of the African Colonization Society was the first to bring forth emphatic declarations from the Georgia legislature on the sovereignty of the States. At the time of its establishment the society had had the support of very many Southern people, but Avhen it adopted emtmcipation propaganda the Georgia leaders turned squarely against it. The legislature on December 27, 1827, adopted resolutions which began with gravely and firmly protesting against the right of Congress to appropriate money to aid the society, and from this start- ing point ranged into an ela)>orate exposition of the constitu- tional limitations of the General Government. They declared that it was only when the governor of Georgia, to oppose the threat of armed coercion by the President, "threw him- self upon the ramparts of the Constitution, there to sacri- fice himself in its defense, it was only then that the people of the South were roused from their fatal lethargy. It is only now that the people of the South begin deeply to feel that the preservation of their happiness and prosper- ity depend upon the preservation of that Constitution, as it came fi'om the hands of its makers — and feelingly to know that this can onl}' be eft'ected liy union among themselves, and by a firm determination and manly resistance to any attempts to merge these free and sovereign States into one grand, unlimited, consolidated government. The Federal compa(!t was a compact made between independent sovereign- ties for the general benefit and welfare of the whole, by which each, to effect that object, relinquished portions and like por- tions of its sovereign power, reserving to itself the residue, and by which all became mutual guarantees of each of the absolute and exclusive enjoyment of that residue. All the powers which could lie exercised by each in a way sufficiently beneficial and without clashing or interfering with the exer- cise of the same powers b}' the others were intended to be retained and were retained by the States in their separate capacities. It irresisti))ly follows that Congress can not, by implication, derive from that compact power to do any act which can interfere with the just and full exercise by the "Nilcs's Register, vol. 27, p. 12. 116 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. States of powers which each can within itself exercise in a way sufficiently beneficial to itself. Such are the powers of each State to make roads and canals and regulate its slave population." Congress therefore has no power to appropri- ate money for internal improvements or to aid the colonization society.* A year later, on the subject of a controversy on slavery between South Carolina and Ohio, resolutions of the Georgia legislature declared that the States had an unquestionable right, in case of a breach of the general compact, to complain, I'emonstrate, and even to refuse obedience to any measure of the General Government manifestly violative of the Consti- tution.* The work of the Northern abolition societies was already beginning to add still another reason why Georgia should battle strongly in the particularist cause.'' The colonization society soon lost its prominent position; the project of Federal aid to better avenues of internal com- munication was slowly killed by the development of railroads for steam locomotion by private capital, frequently aided by the State governments; the Creek triljes of Indians disappeared from the public view; but there remained, in addition to the general question of slavery and the controversy over the Cherokee lands, the subject of the protective tariif, which from 1824 steadily grew more important as influencing the cotton States to place stronger emphasis upon the particular- istic theory until the crisis of nullification times was reached in 1833. The tariff of 1816 had been the first one possessing note- worthy protective features; those of 1820 and 1821 were suc- cessive advances along the line of protection, while in 1827 Congress was considering a still higher rate of tariff. The report of a committee was adopted by the Georgia legislature in December, 1827, setting forth in a lengthy preamble an historical argument on the powers of the General Government and of the States. It declared in rather mild opposition to protection that ""Any law regulating commerce for its sole advantage, or for the purposes of revenue, which shall inci- dentally promote the interest of manufactures * * * [is '( Acts of Ga. Gen. Asseni., ]S27, ]>. U»l. U. S. House Kxvv. Doc. No. ]2t). I'Oth Cong., 1st sess., vol. 3. ''Doc. 20, 1828; acts of Ga. Gen. Asscni., 1828, i>. 17t. '■ ("f. resolution of Ga. Leg., Dec. 19, 1829, acts of Ga. Gen. As.sem., 1829, p. 235. GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 117 coiistitutionalj, but the moment it loses sight of either of these objects [it becomes unconstitutional]. An increase of tariff duties will and ought to be resisted by all legal and constitu- tional means so as to avert the crying injustice of such an unconstitutional measure," It concluded by directing the report to be laid before Congress and before the legislatures of the other Southern States." The Congressional Representatives of Georgia were not back- ward in voicing the opinions of their constituents. But Mr. Gilmer, then a Congressman, complained that he found a sad apathy and stupidity in the lower House when the matter arose of interpreting the Constitution.'' The sections interested in protection, disregarding the oppo- sition of the South, pushed on their policy, and in May, 1828, enacted a new tariff law increasing the duties upon wool, hemp, and manufactures. There at once arose a great agita- tion in the cotton States to secure the repeal of the measure, which was felt to be very burdensome to the South and bene- ficial only to a rival section. South Carolina had alread}^ in 1827 protested vigorously against protection, and had received some support from Georgia. From the spring of 1828 the people of Georgia took a more vivid interest in the cause. A great number of mass meetings were held throughout the State condemning the tariff;^' county grand juries made pre- sentments against it;'^ the students of the Universit}" of Georgia resolved to wear Geoi'gia homespun at the com- mencement in 1828, to show their hostility to the tariff,'' and the trustees of the institution commended their resolu- tion.-' A great meeting was held in the University chapel at Athens August 7, at which nearly all of the leading politicians of the State were present. Strong resolutions against the con- situtionality of the tariff' were adopted without opposition.''' Almost the only note of dissent to the general attitude of the State was an editorial in the Savannah Mercury protesting that since the tariff' had not had .such awful results as were "Dec. 24, 1827; acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1827, p. 203. cf. aLso Athenian (Athens, Ga.), Jan. 24. 1828. 6 Speech in Congress, Mar. 7, 1828; Athenian, .Iinio :i, 1S28. c E. g. Niles's Register, vol. 35, p. 64. rfE. g. Niles's Register, vol. 35, p. 63. <" Georgia Journal, August, 1828. /Minutes of the Univ. of Ga. trustees, Aug. 7, 1828, MSS. (/Niles's Register, vol. 36, p. 14. 118 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. predicted, all the excitement in the South hud very little justiticatiou/' Georgia was never so radical in its opposition to the tariff as was South Carolina. The message of Governor Forsyth on November 4, 1828, stated that the tariff act of 1828 had filled the whole Southern countr}^ with resentment and dismay. He noted the possibility of neutralizing the law by State ac- tion, but considered that it would be hardly wise or constitu- tional, at least until the usual method of seeking repeal had proved ineffectual.''' The legislature adopted a memorial to be sent to the States opposing the tariff, urging them to work for the repeal of the unconstitutional act, and exhorting each of these States, as a policy of self-preservation, to ward off its effects by living as far as possible upon its own products.** Many Georgians agreed with Mr. McDuffie, of South Caro- lina, that if driven to it ])y the tariff", the South could manu- facture its own articles of consuuiption. In the line of car- rying this theory into practice, the first cotton factory in Georgia was built at Athens in 1829 with local capital."' An- other larger factory was built at Athens in 1883,'' which re- mained in operation for many years. The smaller mill was burned in 1835, but was later rebuilt.' After 1828 the agitation against the tariff' died down for a few 3"ears, in Georgia. The legislature of 1829 was satisfied with directing the Georgia Congressmen to use their best efforts to o])tain the repeal of the act.f/ In 1830 the general assembly paid little attention to the tariff', but requested the Congressmen to vote against internal improvements as a sys- tem.^' It is clear that there was a period of comparative quiet in the State as regards the particularist struggle, from 1829 to the beginning of 1832.' This was largely due to che confidence of the people in Andrew Jackson, whom they ex- pected to l)e a champion of the cause. The influence of Andrew Jackson upon Georgia politics is "Niles's Register, vol. 35, p. 136. ^Athenian, Nov. 18, 1828. ■o Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem. 1828, p. 173. rfGa. Journal, Apr. 3 and Apr. 10, 1830; Athenian, Fob. 2, 1830. e Augusta Constitutioiuilist, May 17, 1833; Ga. .Umrnal, Nov. 19, 1832. /Augu.sta Constitutionali.st, Mar. 31, 1835. f/ Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 182'.), p. 241. /'Dec. 29, 1830; U. S. House Exec. Docs. No. (;0, 20tli Cong., 1st sess., vol.3, cf.also T'.S. Exee. Docs., No. 91, 22d Cong., 2d sess., vol. 2. '■ Cf. editorial in Macon Messenger, June, 1830, quoted in Niles's Register, vol. ;w, p. ;>:}/. GEORGIA AND STATP: RIGHTS. 119 worthy of attentive study. In the Presidential contest of 1820 Jackson and Crawford were the only candidates who had any following in Georgia. The local campaign, in so far as it involved any other than personal issues, was not unlike the campaign in the country' at large. It was a question of the continuance of the ''Virginia dynast}'" in the Govern- ment or the election of the popular hero who had arisen from the masses. The Troup party, aside from its personal attach- ment to Crawford, was, from its aristocratic composition, inclined to support such a man as he, who stood for the '' Cab- inet succession" to the Presidency. The local support of Jackson was not different from that in the other States in which the effort to gain control was made by the lower classes. Both Jackson and Crawford were defeated in the Presiden- tial contest. Crawford soon disappeared from the national arena. Henry Clay cast his lot with the Administration of Adams, and Adams became so distasteful to the Georgia poli- ticians that they were prepared to give the most loyal and undivided support to the opposition candidate for the election of 1828. In the popular conception Jackson fflled all possible requirements for the candidacy. As early as December, 1826, a resolution was adopted by the Georgia legislature and signed by Governor Troup, stating that the people of Geor- gia looked with confidence to the election of Andrew Jackson to the Presidency. On December 21, 1827, QS members of the State senate, out of a total of 09 voting, declaied their prefer- ence for Jackson, and only one member could be found in favor of Adams." During the next year each local part}" tried to outshine the other in its support of Jackson. Inde- pendent tickets of electors were put into the field by each party, but every candidate upon each ticket was pledged to vote for Jackson and Calhoun, as President and Vice-President. The principal issue which cauvsed the unanimity was that of the Indian lands. Upon this issue we have seen in a former chapter that Jackson as President faithfully carried out the expectations of the Georgians. So long as that issue was a vital one, both of the local parties remained steadfast in his support, notwithstanding the occurrence of disconcerting- developments in other matters. The anti-Masonic movement ti Savannah Republican, Jan. 19, 1828. 120 AMEETC'AN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. at the North in 1829 was; reg-arded in Georgia as merely an electioneering scheme in Claj'As favor, and was given no approval.'^ The tariff and internal improvements were of secondary consideration for the time being. The unpleasant- ness between eTackson and Calhoun and the withdrawal of Berrien from the Cabinet on account of the Eaton affair, caused not a waver in the steady devotion of the great major- ity of Georgians to their champion. The State senate resolved unanimously in November, 1831, that it favored the reelection of Jackson, and opposed the election of Calhoun as President or as Vice-President.^ The election of 1832 took place in a period of tension in the Cherokee controversy. Jackson was sturdily upholding the contentions of Georgia. It is not surprising that the nomination of two independent tickets pledged to his support was again a feature of the local campaign, and that hardly a voice within the State was heard to praise the candidacy of Mr. Clay. But influences were at work which were to break this accord as soon as the Cherokee question should subside. Jackson and the Georgia leaders were too autocratic in temperament to remain in perpetual harmony without complete identity of interests and points of view. The local parties were inclined to disagree wherever possible; and the disturbing develop- ments of the time were already furnishing much ground for discussion. The outcome was to be the merging, in the fol- lowing period, of the local parties respectivel}^ with the two national parties which were then beginning to differentiate. Since 1828 the Southern representatives in Congress had struggled for lower duties on imports, but had fought against overpowering numbers. General Jackson had been looked to as a leading opponent of the protective tariff"; but his message of 1830 approved of the principle and suggested the expendi- ture of the surplus revenue in internal improvements. The tariff act of July 14, 1832, gave no relief to the South, but established protection as a fixed policy of the Government. The people of Georgia felt very much injured by the act; but his loyalty to the cause of their State in the Cherokee dispute prevented their losing faith in the President. Early in 1831 the doctrine of nullification in its then uncrys- " Athenian, Sept. 1,1829. hNiles's Register, vol. 41, p. 272. GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 121 tallized form had begun to enter the view of the Georgia politicians; but the doctrine probably did not obtain serious consideration by any great number of the citizens before the beginning of the next year." From that time forth it was the subject of much thought and discussion in the State. Except by a few extremists, nullification was considered to be too radical. But the popular discontent aroused by the tariff act of July 1832, and the evident determination of South Carolina to test her power against the tariff, in the capacity of a sovereign State, led to a very thorough consideration of the existing status. The leaders of political thought in Georgia, after studying nullification in its relations to the several constitutional theories already before the country, reached in most cases a substantial agreement, and in the end, as will appear below, carried a large majorit}^ of the people with them. The doctrine of State rights had no set formula for all time; but being a method of interpreting conditions and relations, it was subject to varying exposition by different philosophers and in different epochs. The men of Georgia were not given to formulating intricate theories unless they were to serve concrete and immediate ends. In the matter of the Creek lands the chief question was of the right and power of the State to require the Central Government to carry out the terms of the bargain which it had made with the State government. In the Cherokee contro- versy the chief issue was upon the jurisdiction over the dis- puted territory. On the part of the Georgians there was a distinct wish to restrict the discussion in these cases to the immediate issue, and not to go far afield in generalizations. The sovereign rights of the State were frequently referred to, but were not expounded at length, for the reason that they were hardly in question. Even John Quincy Adams spoke as a matter of course of the authority and dignity of the sovereign States of the Union. The principle of close construction of the Constitution was held by practically all Georgians at all times from the adop- tion of the instrument. This meant simpl}' that the Consti- tution limited the Central Government and reserved to the several States all powers not expressly delegated. When "cf. Augusta Constitutionalist, Oct. 21, 1831. 122 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION". exigencies arose in which more radical theories would be use- ful there was no difficulty in formulating them and securing their local adoption. Conservative particularism was univer- sal in Georgia. The advance to radical particularism was a matter of expediency and not of principle. As long as the South could make any effective opposition in Congress to the protective tariff the ballot box was trusted to secure the observance of the fundamental law. But as soon as the majority showed its determination to override the Southern opposition and disregard Southern interests, the cry of unconstitutionality was raised. The wording of the Con- stitution made it necessary for the argument showing the unconstitutionality of protective duties to be of such extreme nicety that to sustain the contention the party of protest was driven from conservative ground. The condition of expe- diency having arisen, none of the local politicians and few of the rank and file balked at the advance from moderate to rad- ical particularism — from the advocacy of State rights to that of State sovereignty. Whert^as the doctrine of State rights emphasized the powers reserved to the States in the terms of the Federal Constitution as the fundamental law, the theory of State sovereignty laid heaviest stress upon the independence and the sovereign char- acter of the original States before they formed the Union or adopted the Constitution, and upon their continued sovereignty as members of the Union or Federation. The pivotal question was no longer as to what interpretation the Constitution was to receive, but as to where lay the proper authority to give to the instrument its official and final construction. From the premise of the sovereignty of the States meeting in conven- tion in 1787 and establishing a Federal Government in 1789, it was argued that the States created the Central Government as their agent for the performance of certain specified func- tions and with certain delegated powers; that the agent, being- subordinate to the sovereignties which created it, had no power to enlarge its own authority, and in the event of an attempt to assert such power it might })e checked by the sovereign States or any of them. A conservative wing of the State sovereignty theorists con- ceded to the Central Government the rights of sovereignty in its own sphere, which should not interfere with the soveignty GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 128 of the States in their own spheres. In the event of a conflict of authority, the power of deciding as to the limitation of the spheres did not lie either in the State governments or in the Central Government; but unless the difliculty could be settled l\v mutual concession, recourse must be had to constitutional amendment. This doctrine did not of necessity rest upon a theory of divided sovereignty. The argument was, of course, that the people of the States were sovereign, and the people alone; that the people had delegated certain powers of sov- ereignt}" to the Central Governinent, and had continued the State governments in the exercise of other powers of sov- ereignty which were the residue of those powers with which these governments had been intrusted at a former time. The latter oi' moderate State sovereignty doctrine was some- what the moi-e popular one in Georgia where the tariff issue had led the people to abandon distinctl}" conservative ground. But the difference between the moderate and the advanced doctrines of State sovereignty was so slight that all but the most acute and consistent thinkers were likely to shift from one to the other unconsciously. Nullification was simply the radical doctrine of State sover- eignty plus a formula for its specific application. The nulli- tiers had set to work to find an eflScient means of overthrowing the protective tarifl'. They reasoned out the sovereignty of the States and the subordinate character of the Central Gov- ernment. With this preparation for the concrete question at hand, they declared, as did all State sovereignty adherents, that Congress had exceeded its powers, and that the United States Supreme Court, being a part of the Central Govern- ment, which was itself nothing more than an agent, had no authority whatever to judge of the powers of the agent, but that the only authority for such judgment lay in the sover- eign States. The nullifiers then proceeded to show how this authority could ])e exercised. The machinery as described by Calhoun was not complex. A State by virtue of its sovereignty could declare the nullity of an unconstitutional act of Congress and prohibit its exe- cution within the limits of that State. This prohibition was of absolute finalty as against any further power of the Central government acting in isolation. But Congress had one last recourse. It might submit to the States a constitutional amend- 124 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. raent expressly justifying its own view of its powers. If the amendment should fail of adoption, Congress must concede that its interpretation of its authority was not according to the will of the sovereign and nuist repeal the act in question. In the event of the ratification of the amendment by three- fourths of the States and its incorporation into the Constitu- tion itself, the protesting State would be overruled and would have to submit or withdraw from the Union" South Carolina adopted and applied the expedient of nulli- fication. Concerning the measures taken by the South Caro- lina convention and legislature, most of the Georgia leaders thought their underlying principle to be sound, but considered the interposition of the sovereignty of the State to be inex- pedient without further remonstrance and without joint action by all of the aggrieved States. To study the internal history of nullification in Georgia and its effect upon local politics, we must return to the begin- ning of the year 1831, when the doctrine first began to be taken seriously in the State. Before that time the idea of a State veto had been entirely theoretical, and nullification had been a hazy conception without any distinguished champion. It was in March, 1831, that the editor of the Georgia Journal discovered that Mr. Calhoun was at the head of the nullification movement, which was in the line of his own views as a Troup or State Rights partisan. The discovery bade fair to disarrange existing alignments. Crawford and others opposed to Calhoun, it was thought, must change to the Clarke or Union ahgnment. This would bring on an exten- sive reorganization. The conclusion of the editor was: "We reckon we had l^etter wipe all out and begin afresh."^ The iinticipations of the editor were not fully realized. Crawford had lost his position of consequence in the State. Andrew Jackson was in complete control of Georgia politics. The new doctrine was not to obtain speedy acceptance, nor at once to disconcert parties very seriously. The guliernatorial contest of 1831 was of distinct interest as regards practical workings and as regards political theories. The earliest candidates to be announced were George R. Gil- mer and Thomas Haynes, both of whom were members of the " ('ollection of documents on nnllilicution in Calhoun's Works, vol. 6. /'Ga. Journal, Mar. 17, 1831. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 125 State Rights party. This promised the Clarke or Union leaders a chance to profit by the division of support. The opponents of Troup and his successors had for some years been without a prominent leader, and without efficient organization. In 1S30 an opportunity was given them to develop a party machine. The University of Georgia was in need of funds with which to rebuild a burned dormitory and to erect additional buildings. The board of trustees was filled with conspicuous Tioup men, and could obtain no appro- priations from the Clarke majority in the legislature. The problem was solved by doubling the number of the trustees by the addition of a group of Clarke leaders. The legislature was at once amenable and made adequate appropriations to the University. The trustees of the university had formerly acted as the executive committee of the Troup party. After 1830 it com- prised the executive conmiittee of each party. At the time of each meeting of the board, there would be held in Athens two caucuses, made up of the partisans on the board together with other visiting members of the respective cliques. The first caucus of the Union party was held at Athens in May, 1831. The result of its deliberations was the announcement of Wilson Lumpkin as a candidate for the governors chair." The principles and attitude of Mr. Lumpkin, who was thus put forward by the Union party to oppose Gilmer and Haynes in 1831, illustrate the unsettled and transitional condition of politics in the State. Lumpkin in his own memoirs giv^es evidence of his having been at the time of his candidacy a State rights man, and yet an advocate of moderate Union principles; an opponent of nullification (though not at that time pronounced, as contemporary material shows) and yet a friend and in other matters a political ally of Calhoun. When Lumpkin first entered politics in 1812 he received support from the Clarke party, and always thereafter kept faith with his colleagues in that organization. He was while in Con- gress a member of the opposition to Crawford at the time of the attempt to nominate him over Monroe in 1810; and as a member of the State legislature in 1821, he influenced most of the Clarke representatives to vote for Jackson as opposed to Crawford in the Presidential contest. But for the five 3^ears "Augusta Constitutionalist, June 24, 1831. 126 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. preceding' 1831 Lumpkin liad been in Congre.ss uphiolding the contentions of Georgia, in a way satisfactory to all his constituents, while State politics had been so temperate that the Troup party, forgetting his past opposition and knowing- his State rights inclinations,^' claimed him as an adherent. Lumpkin's candidacy was at first a puzzle to the partisan editors. The State Rights papers thought him a third candi- date of their own party and deplored the threatening disrup- tion of the organization.* After a time it was made clear that he would be supported by the former adherents of Clarke. Then the uncertainty of his attitude toward nullification formed a topic for discussion, but the general opinion was that that doctrine had not grown to be of fundamental impor- tance. In August, 1831, it became evident that the Union party was solid for Lumpkin and that tlie State Rights party was divided between Gilmer and Haynes. At the University commencement in that month the State Rights caucus tried to bring down either Gilmer or Haynes from the candidacy.^ Persuaded by the part}" press, Haynes withdrew in Septem- ber,'^' and the contest lay between Gilmer and Lumpkin, the rival champions. The supporters of Gilmer were anxious to have it believed that their candidate was more certain than any other one to defend the rights of the State. At a Fourth of Jn\y dinner held by them at Milledgeville, Troup and Gilmer and Andrew Jackson were toasted, and Clay and the tariii' condemned. Governor Gilmer responded in a spirited toast to the rights of the States and declared his own devotion to the cause." The friends of Lumpkin asserted that their candidate was as loyal as anyone to the legitimate rights of the State. They sought to damage Gilmer's popularit}^ by a reference to his opposition to distributing the lands in the gold-mining dis- trict among the citizens of the State by the land lottery, thence arguing that he had not the interests of the common people at a Savannah Republican, Jan. 10, 1828; see for public letter of Lumpkin stating his conservative support of State rights. ''Ibid., May 31, 1831; Athenian, .June 11, 1831. "•Augusta Constiuitionalist, Aug. 12, 1831. rf Ibid., Sept. 13, 1831. «' Savannah Republican, .luly 12, 1831. Historical Report, 1901- Phillips Plate VI MAP OF GE O RGI A I N 1 8 3 1 showing local majorilies in thevote cast in the gubernatorial election of that year GEORGE K.GILMKR. MAJORITY WILSON LUMPKIN . MA J ORl'lT THE CANDIDATKOFTHKTHOUPPAI-JTY THK GiKNDIDATE OF THE CLARKE PvUlT' [t:;^ 50 to t>0 per cent of tlie total vote | | 50 to 60 percent of the total vote ^p 60 „ 75 CU ^'^'^ ■■ "5 Ill over 75 , „ I I ovei-75 „ „ „ „ ■■■ above 90 GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 127 heart." The outcome of the contest was the election of Lump- kin as governor, but in the legislature elected at the same time the State Rights party secured the greater number of seats. The location of majorities in 1831, as shown by a map made according to the returns of the gubernatorial election, was strikingly like that in 1825. No conspicuous change occurred anywhere. As for the newly settled area, most of it went for Lumpkin, as might have been expected; })ut where the land was particularly fertile or the population decidedl}^ high toned, Gilmer carried the county.^ Corroboration of this lies in the comparatively large number of slaves in the Gilmer counties of the west, and in contemporary agricultural criti- cisms.^' This similarity, we may almost say identity, of local situation demonstrates that the lines of cleavage continued to depend upon economic and social conditions, and had little connection with questions of public policy. In fact, the partj^ leaders, innnediatoly after the contest, underestimating the importance of nidlitication and its developments, prophesied that the only points of difierence between the local parties for the next few years would lie regarding the choice of the next Vice-President and of a successor to President Jackson at the expiration of his second term, a contingency then five years in the future.'' The editor of Niles's Register, in noting political events in Georgia from 1819 as far as 1833, hardly ever failed to protest at the conclusion of each article that it was impossible to understand Georgia yiolitics and he could make no pretense of doing so. The editor was wise in his resolution to refrain from the attempt at exposition, for hardly anyone but a mem- ber of one of the Georgia cliques could have explained the anomalous conditions in the State. The parties in Georgia had a certain intangibility resulting from the obscurity in their manipulations. Each was con- trolled by a ring which transacted business in caucuses and kept no minutes. The responsibility for any single measure could rarel}" be traced to any single originator or champion. "Augusta Constitutionalist, Sept. 27, 1831. ''Of. ibid., Sept. 12, 1835. <■ Ibid., Feb. 3, 1835. cf. also Chappell's Mi.scelliinie.s of Georgia, vol. 2, p. 22. See also map herewith sliowing products of counties. '' .■Vugusta Chronicle, Feb. 1, 1832. 128 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. The party newspapers as a rule did not adopt any one line of argument for a campaign and consistently" hammer away at it, but they supplemented their meager editorials b}^ opening their columns to their political friends who would contribute articles over pseudonyms. If attacks were made in these articles upon the policy or political reputation of an opposing candidate, it was not customary for the candidate to make personal reply, but he or his friends would write anonymous articles in defense or in counter attack and publish them in the organs of their own party. Thus the personal element in the situation is largel}^ concealed from the historical student, while the evidence remains that personal influence was a very essential factor in the progress of events. The local parties themselves were not fully conscious of their complete dependence upon economic, social, and per- sonal aflinities and diflerences. The adoption of the names State Rights and Union was a manifestation of their desire to establish points of difference of a distinctly political character. It was not until after much argument and important develop- ments that genuine opposing policies of any kind were adopted by the parties as units. The unanimity of the people upon external questions before them in 1831 was indicated by the unanimous adoption by the State senate in November of resolutions expressing its wish for General Jackson's reelection. The resolutions admitted that "recent events [e. g., those in Tassel's case] have been hailed in some of our sister States as a proof of the triumph here of J. C. Calhoun and his principles over the President, his friends, and his principles," but declared, "the great body of the people of this State have no feeling in common with the pretentions or with many of the principles of Mr. Calhoun, and especially those contained in his late address to the people of the United States on the subject of nullification."^' Within the next year the unanimity disappeared. The heated debate in Congress upon the revi^sion of the tariff brought on an agitation in Georgia which failed of being super- heated at an early stage only l)ecause everyone at first thought very nearly alike and no local dispute could l)e aroused. The Georgia Congressmen fought with might and main against the tariff. When they were ovc^rpowered by the final vote in July "Niles's Register, vol. II, p. 272. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 129 one or two of them accepted the finality of the result with only a mild protest. The others did not give up the battle, but shifted the scene of their activity to the popular forum. The people welcomed their returning- representatives at the close of the session as heroes who had made a good tight in a worthy cause. The politicians in attendance upon the University of Georgia commencement, in August, arranged a public meeting for the consideration of the tariff and the grievances which it brought. The result was the adoption by the meeting of recommendations to the several counties of the State for the election of delegates to a convention to be held at Milledgeville in November. The purpose of the conv'en- tion was to decide upon the course which Georgia should fol- low to secure the preservation of her rights. Mr. John M, Berrien and Judge A. S. (Clayton were the leading spirits in the meeting and were appointed as the leading members of a standing conunittee of correspondence for the furtherance of the anti-tariff cause." Within the same month a great pul)lic dinner was arranged by the citizens of Oglethorpe Gounty in honor of the Stat(> Rights congressmen from Georgia. In the political speech- making which followed the dinner, Mr. Berrien pleaded for the organization of the people against the tariff'. He made a ringing appeal for the defense of the sovereign and inalienable rights of the States, and for the ol)servance of the pledge containecl in the protest of the Georgia legislature of 182S. Judge Clayton had recently distinguisht^d himself as a nulli- tier in Congress. He now declared that the last hope of mitigation from the oppressors of the South was extinguished; that self-redress was the only recourse remaining: that the time was come to strike for liberty.'' The listeners gave their heartiest applause to the most radical sentiments. They unanimously declared that the}^ would not submit to the tariff", and that the}' would help to defend any State against coercion by the central government. And yet a resolution was adopted, with only a few dissenting voices, W'hich averred unshaken confidence in the patriotism of Andrew Jackson. The meeting appointed a committee of as. F. Miller, Bench and Bar of Georgia, vol. 2, p. 29. ''N'iles's Register, vol. 43, p. 9. H. Doc. 702, pt. 2- 130 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. correspondence, and seconded the call of the Athens meeting for the convention at Milledgeville. Meeting's were held in nearly every county to consider the problems before the country. A very poor cotton and corn crop increased the sense of hardship. The meetings were largely controlled by the radical element. Most of them chose delegates for the convention at Milledgeville, and instructed them of the wish of the county for radical action or for conservatism, as the case might be. The convention met in the capitol on November 13, 183:2. Of the eighty counties in the State, sixty-one were represented by a hundred and thirty-four delegates. Ex-Governor Gil- mer was -made president of the convention. At an early stage in the sessions Ex-Governor Forsyth moved the appointment of a committee on credentials. An acrimonious debate ensued, in which Messrj^. Berrien and Clayton opposed Mr. Forsyth, who was the leader of the conservatives. Upon the rejection of his motion, Mr. Forsyth led a secession of fifty-three con- servatives from the hall, and presented a protest denying the legitimacy of the convention. After the withdrawal of the dissentients the convention adopted a long series of resolu- tions, the doctrinal points in which approached very near to nuUitieation. It declared the determined opposition of the people of Georgia to the protective tariff, and stated their resolution to resist the principle by the exercise of all their rights as one of the sovereign States of the confederacy and by concert with such other States as had kindred interests. The convention resolved that definite resistance should be postponed in order that Congress and the manufacturing- States might have time to reconsider their oppressive polic3% and it made arrangements for calling a convention of the Southern States, provided the action of the convention should be approved by the ballots of the people of Georgia. '^ The convention adjourned on November 17. That all of the proceedings of the convention did not lind undivided approval in the State Avas quickly shown by the action of the legislature. On November 20 a set of resolu- tions was introduced into the house of representatives as a conservative measure to counteract the radical propaganda of the convention. It expressed discontent with the tariff i- Georgia .lournal, Nov. and Dec, 1832. Niles's Register, vol. 4:5, pp. 220 and 230. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 181 law, but disapproved of the resolutions adopted b}- the late convention, which it said was composed of delegates of a minority of the people, and stated it to be the duty of the legislature to tranquilize the public mind. It embodied a scheme for calling a Southern convention, in the event of the approval of the plan l)y a majority of the citizens of the State at the time of the election of county officers in January.*^ These resolutions were adopted in the house by a vote of 97 to 57 and in the senate b}' 48 to 28. An additional resolution was adopted with a similar majority, which expressly repu- diated the doctrine of nullification as being neither a peaceful nor a constitutional remedy, and warned the people of Georgia against adopting South Carolina's mischievous policy.'' The legislature seems to have had an afterthought that its resolutions were too pacitic and submissive. On Deceml)er 24 it resolved "That this general assembly does expressly^ declare that the Government of the United States does not possess the power under the Gonstitution to carry on a system of internal improvement within the several States oi- to appropriate mone}' to be expended upon such improvement."' By the tenor of this resolution the legislature did not pretend to be a court with final authority of interpretation, but it mereh^ saw fit to express its positive opinion as a })ody which had as much right as any other existing oiie to interpret the Consti- tution, This was in accordance with the moderate doctrine of State sovereignty, which was the doctrine at this time ac- cepted by the majority of the people of Georgia. The moderate State sovereignty doctrine necessarily de- pended upon a federal constitutional convention as the final resort in embarrassing circumstances. The Georgia legis- lature accoi-dingly, in December, 1832, applied to Congress for the call of a federal convention to amend the Constitution in numerous details: To define more distinctly the powers of the General Government and those reserved to the States: to define the power in the General Government of coercion over the States, and in the States to resist an unconstitutional act: to settle the principle of the protective tariff; to establish a system of taxation which would bear equally upon all sections: to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; to establish oNiles's Register, vol. 43, p. 279. ft Dec. 14, 1832; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1832, p. 245, Niles's Register, vol. 43, p. 280. c-Dec. 24, 1832; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1832, p. 261. 18^ AMERICAN HISTURICAL ASSOCIATION. a tril)unal of last resort in disputes between the States and the General Govei-nment; to decide upon the constitutionality of the United States Bank and of internal improvements; to direct the disposition of the surplus revenue and of the public lands; to secure the election of President and Vice-President in all cases to the people and to limit their tenure of ofiice to one term; and to settle the question of the rights of the Indians/' Such a convention was never called, and the desired amend- ments were never made. Having- applied for the calling- of a convention, the majority of the people of Georgia considered that they had done all that was required by the circumstances; and the legislature passed few more resolutions upon federal relations before 1850, The compromise tariff of 1833 closed the contest over the single issue of protection, but the threat of Jackson to coerce South Carolina roused antagonism in the South, and was more powerful than Calhoun's arguments in fostering nullitication in Georgia: se\ eral 3'ears more were required for the dispute to die awa}-. The result of the agitation in the fall of 1832 and of the conflicting action of the convention and the legislature in November and December was a complication in local politics. A segment of the State Rights part}^ adopted nullitication, and was joined by bolters from the Union part3^* Another sec- tion of the State Rights party, numbering about 5,000 of the 30,000 voters in the party at the last election, deserted their confreres to join the Union party. The names of Troup and Clarke were revived to distinguish between the two divisions of the new Union party. The remainder of the State Rights party, all of the nuUitiers, and a few bolters from the Union party united for practical purposes under the banner of State Rights.^ For the next four or five years Nullitication, State Rights, Troup Union, and Clarke Union factions constituted the political alignment, the two former and the two latter groups voting respectively in combination, but struggling to obtain the nominations in their respective parties for men of their own coterie.'^' Nullitication, first conspicuous in 1831, possessed consider- able strength in Georgia at the end of 1832, and continued to "Dec. 22. 1832; acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1832, p. 2-J9. U. S. House Ex. Doc. No. 92, 22d Cong., 2d sess., vol. 2. ''Augusta Chronicle, Aug. 2o, 1832. '■ Georgia Journal, Aug. 21, 1833. rflbid., Sept. 17, 1834. GEORGIA AND STA PE RIGHTS. 138 gain supporters until 1834, after which it rapidly declined. Apparentl}" it could at no time muster a majority of the State Rights part}^, which itself during- these years was outnum- bered by the Union party; so the nullifiers were never able to count a fourth of the voting population of Georgia. The doctrine had numerous supporters of a violent type, making more noise than comported with their number. Their efforts were strenuous but unavailing to bring the mass of the people or the most trusted leaders to approve the practice according to Calhoun's formula. Judge A. S. Clayton was the only Georgian of decided prominence who was an outright nullifier. Judge Clayton did not differ from the typical Georgia hotspur except in the radical degree to which he carried his doctrines. He was thoroughly convinced of the righteousness of extreme partic- ularism, and showed his consistency and his devotion to the cause by his defiance of the federal Supreme Court in Worcester's case"^' and by his bold attacks upon the bank and the tariff" in Congress, as well as by his energy as a popular agitator for nullitication. He was the chief owner in 1832 of the only cotton factory in Georgia; but he declared in Congress that, so far from leading him to favor protection, the knowledge of his own surprising pi'otits from manufacturing served to clear his vision to the enormity of the tariff's oppres- sion upon the planters/' Mr. Berrien was an advocate of the advanced doctrine of State sovereignty, but he did not openly declare for nullifi- cation. As expressing the will of his State, he had delivered in the United States Senate in 1829 a striking!}^ eloquent defense of State sovereignty^ in his attack upon the constitu- tionality of the tariff'.^ As a member of Jackson's Cabinet from 1829 to 1831 he had been in harmony with the Admin- istration, and was content to await developments. But the tariff' act of 1832, following his resignation from the Cabinet in 1831, caused him to take up the cudgels again for extreme State sovereignt3^ The name of nullification had an unpleas- ant sound to man}^ of the common people who did not study constitutional theories. His knowledge of the unpopularity " Infra, p. 80. b June 14, 1832; Niles's Register, vol. 42, p. 325. Register of Debates, 1831-32, p. 3850. '• Register of Debates in Congress, 1828-29, p. 22. 134 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. of this term was probably responsible for Mr. Berrien's failure to champion Calhoun's plan of a State veto. We shall have occasion in another chapter to observe that in the following- decade Mr. Berrien, as a member of the V\'^hio- i:)arty, veered in his policy so far as to advocate a moderate protective tariff. His very great ability as a constitutional lawyer and his force as an orator made him a powerful chariipion of any cause which he adopted. Mr. Gilmer was an advocate of State sovereig-ntj^, but was not a nullitier. In the anti-tariff' convention he had moved the omission of one of the resolutions which contained a statement of doctrine very similar to nullification." Upon the failure of his amendment, he gave his approval to the whole set of resolutions adopted by the convention, of which he was presi- dent. The strength of his State sovereignty convictions may be gathered from his executive policy toward the Cherokees, as set forth in the preceding chapter. Mr. Forsyth was strongly opposed to any agitation on the ground of State sovereigiit}". He was in close touch with the President, and believed that matters would right themselves if time were given. Mr. Forsyth had been a leader of the Troup party in former years, but his distinct Union senti- ments caused his separation from his former colleagues after 1832. His engrossing concern with international affairs led to his alienation from local politics. As Secretary of State from 1834 to his death in 1841, he remained in steady support of Jackson and Van Buren, while the State Rights party in Georgia drifted into the Whig party at large. Mr. W. H. Crawford was habitually opposed to anything which Mr. Calhoun favored. He advised the calling of a constitutional convention as preferable to nullitication or secession, either of which he thought would bring on war. If separation must be the ffnal resort, he said, it would be well to learn how strong a Southern confederacy could be formed. On the whole it would be better to submit to the tariff' than to form a dependent connection with any foreign state.'' Mr. Trou}), upon being questioned, expounded State sover- eignty as being above and having nothing to do with the Con- stitution. The United States Government being a mere agent, (iNiles's Register, vol. 43, p. 222. '' Letter of Crawford. Sept. 13, 18.32, Niles's Register, vol. 43, p. 185. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 135 he held that South Carolina had a rig-ht to do what she had done. Yet he blamed that State for not acting- in concert with the other Southern States, and expressed his belief that if she had done so, ''a certain and complete triumph of the Constitution [i. e., as limiting- the Central Government] would have been the result."'* Governor Lumpkin's position was not different from that of Mr. Troup. Referring- to the tariff in his annual message of 1832, he said: '^ Intolera])le assumptions and usurpations * * * must be checked b}^ some means; and the power to accomplish this end must unquestionably lie in the respective sovereignties."" Yet he went on to say that it would have been at least the part of courtesy for South Carolina to have waited for joint action by the aggrieved States, and expressed his opinion that by conservative measures the existing un- pleasant status might have been avoided.* Within the next year, Lumpkin expressed an increasing disrelish of nullifica- tion; but he did not hint at forsaking the doctrine of the sovereignty of the States. The substantial agreement of Troup and Gilmer with Lumpkin upon doctrinal points shows that there was no ade- quate justification for the use of the names State Rights and Union by the respective parties. The Clarke or Union ma- jority in the legislature of 1830 had stood squarely with Gov- ernor Gilmer when he refused to submit to the interference of the United States Supreme Court in Tassel's case. In the cases of Worcester and Butler and Graves. Governor Lump- kin continued Mr. Gilmer's policy without any noticeable modification. The State Rights party in 1832 did not allow the nullifiers to control it, and though its leaders, of course, approved the principle of the right of secession by a sover- eign State, they did not advocate secession as a remedy for their existing wrongs. On the other hand, the Union party angrily resented the sobriquet of '""submissionists" which their opponents sought to attach to them. Finally, it was the Unionist Lumpkin who, with the approval of both local par- ties, but in contravention of all precedent and in defiance of the dictum of the Supreme Court, declared the unceded Cherokee lands to be open for settlement. ' a Letter of Troup, Sept. 25, 1834, Harden's Life of Troup, p. rv2'2, and letter of Troup Feb. 10, 1833, ibid., appendix p. 1. ?>Niles's Register, vol. 43, p. 207. 13(5 AMERICAN HISTORI(!AL ASSiKU ATION. During' 18?>8 an effort was made with some success to brin^ the Union party to adopt a distinct!}- union policy. The meeting' of a State constitutional convention in May afforded the occasion for a conference of Union party men from all sections. The conference adopted resolutions approving the Virginia resolutions of 1T1>0 as detining the powers of the Government, condemning the doctrine of nullification, pro- testing against protective duties, and approving the adminis- tration of Andrew Jackson." Two days later the members of the State Rights party in the convention held a meeting. They adojjted no formal resolutions, but nominated Joel Crawford to oppose Wilson Lumpkin in the gubernatorial contest.'' Lumpkin was then an avowed enemy of nullification, while Crawford refused to commit himself.' The presence of the luillifiers within the State Rights party tended rather to weaken that party than to strengthen it. A large number of vot«M's in the old Troup party feared the influ- ence of the radical doctrine to such an extent that they left their usual alignment simply to oppose what they thought to )>e political heresy.'' Lumpkin obtained a decisive victory in the large majority, as then considered, of abov(^ 2.0i)() votes. '^ The returns for the northwestern part of the State in 1833 are interesting in that they show for several of the newh' organized and partially settled counties a Troup or State Rights majority. This affords strong evidenc(> that the men of the oldest sections of the State were no less eager than the frontiersmen to obtain the Cherokee lands. The lands in the eastern part of (Tcorgiawore largely worn out l)v tiie exhaust- ing system of cultivation in practice at the time. Cotton and corn were the only conunodities produced in large (|uantities, while both of these were '•clean" crops, exposing the soil to the weather and diminishing its fertility. Coimuercial fertilizers were unknown, and the planter's only recourse was to al)an- don his fields, at least temporarily, after some years of culti- A'ation.' For these reasons several of the older counties in middle Georgia lost nearly half their popidation through the I' Niles's Register, vol. -J4, ]>. 2o.S. ''Ibid., vol.44, p. 224. '■ Augusta Chronit'le, ,Tuly IH, 1833. dGa. .lournal, Aug. 21, 1833. <■ Augusta Constitutionalist, Oct. IS, 1833. /M. B. Haniniond, The Cotton Tnrtnstry, i>. 81. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 137 removals to Cherokee Georgia. " A short period of residence in the northwestern district, however, led the immigrants from middle Georgia to realize that their new lands were as a rule unsuited to the system of cultivation by slave lalior, and l)rought many of them to shift their party allegiance so as to oppose the aristocratic planters with whom they had formerly been in concert. Several other features in the vote of 1833 deserve attention. The Clarke stronghold in Ijincoln and Wilkes counties was carried by the enemy for the time lieing. on account of the popularity of the State Rights doctrine in that locality. Rich- mond County gave a majority of Union votes, though in 1831 it had been carried hy Gilmer. This State Rights loss may be accounted for somewhat paradoxically 1)y o))serving the existence in the county of the strongest imllitictition paper in the State. The Augusta Chronicle, formerly the Clarke organ, but at this time noisily in favor of nullification, in- sisted that the whole State Rights party believed in the most radical doctrine though it would not acknowledge its belief.'' Such argument caused many State Rights men to vote the Union ticket in order to be certain that they were not uphold- ing nullification.' The counties near Savannah changed from Troup to Union, partly upon pi'inciple and partly because of jealousv which arose between the eastern and the southern sections ,of the State seaboard. Reflection by the State Rights party leaders upon the prin- ciples of the ''force biir' and upon Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina led, after some months, to the ado])- tion of a distinct platform for their party. This was done at an important State Rights meeting, lield in Milledgeville on November 18, 1833, at which nearly all of the prominent men of the party were present. The meeting adopted a preamble stating the need of forming an association for counteracting the designs of those persons in Georgia and in the country at (I Macon Telegraph, Aug. 10, 1833. An institution of importance in making all the peo- ple wish to drive away the Indians was the land lottery. By the provisions of the lot- tery law a per.son was not required to go and dwell upon the homestead, but was given the privilege of selling his section of land. The governmental distribution of the lottery tickets to every family in the State gave to every Georgian a contingent interest in the lands, and made the clas.ses vie with each other in the effort to have the lands thrown open for distribution and .settlement, cf. Southern Recorder, May 1. 1835. & Augusta Chronicle, Apr. 17, 1832. ■ Ga. .Tournal, Aug. 21, 1833. 188 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, large who were inculcating the doctrine of consolidation and nationalism, and especiall}^ for systematically opposing the President's proclamation and the force bill, which had aimed a deadl}' blow at State rights. The preamble was followed by resolutions providing for the organization of a formal associ- ation to be known as the "State Rights party of Georgia," the creed of which was to be the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions as triumphantly acted upon by Georgia in her dealings with the Indians. They declared that laws infracting the rights of the States were null and void and would be resisted by the State Rights party. The resolutions repeated the condemnation of the force bill, and requested the Georgia Senators and Congressmen to demand its immediate repeal." From these resolutions, unanimously adopted by the meet- ing, it is clear that a rift had begun to appear between Andrew Jackson and the State Rights part}' of Georgia. The Union party in Georgia a])proved the force ))ill as one of the meas- ures taken b}' the infallible Jackson. The State Rights lead- ers condemned the force bill, and necessarih'^ criticised the President. It was not long before they were in outright opposition to Jackson and all that was Jacksonian. Henry Clay had ingratiated himself with a large number of Southerners b}' proposing the compromise tariif of 1833. The common opposition of Clay and Calhoun and Berrien and Troup and Gilmer to Andrew Jackson, led in time to a coali- tion of all of them against .lackson and his friends. The breach of the State Rights party with Jackson had l)ecome complete in July, 1834, when Mr. Troup in a semi-public let- ter denounced the Administration as vicious and corrupt.* A further lapse of time was necessary, however, before the force of coumion enmity to a common foe could completeh' reconcile and combine the extreme anti-tariff men of the South with the champions of the "American system" elsewhere. As the autumn of 1836 approached, the question of a suc- cessor to President Jackson became of engrossing interest. The Union party in Georgia had become an integral part of the "Jacksonian Democracy," and of course approved the candidacy of Van Buren. The State Rights leaders still claimed that their organization was a part of the true Demo- «S. F. Miller, Bench and Bar of Georgia, vol. 1, p. 27. (■Niles's Register, vol. 46, p. 417. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 189 cratic party, but they were thoroughh^ at loggerheads with Jackson and Van Buren. They followed a partly independent course in the campaign by supporting Hugh L. White, of Tennessee. The result of the contest in Georgia was a majority of some three thousand votes for Judge White over Mr. Van Buren. Within the next year the Union party made a rally to re- trieve its defeat in the Presidential campaign, but when the choice of governor was made in 1837 (rilmer, as the champion of State Rights, proved too strong for Schley/' who tried to obtain reelection. The election was very quiet, however, and the majority not a large one. The years 1837 and 1838 were almost devoid of political in- terest, but were distinguished as a period of great financial depression. The chief matter of interest in the beginning of 1839 was the assembling of a State convention to reduce the excessive number of representatives in the legislature.^ A similar convention had been held in 1833, but its recommenda- tions had been rejected by the popular vote. The Union party had a majority in the convention of 1839, and used its power to some extent in arrangmg representation in a way to serve its own interests.^ During the same year occurred a great agitation for temperance,"' in the lead of which was Joseph Henry Lumpkin, who was made chief justice of the State upon the estal>lishment of the supreme court some years later. In the gubernatorial election of 1839 the Union party was victorious, gaining for McDonald a victory over Dougherty.' From 1837 to 1840 there was dragging a controversy be- tween the State governments of Georgia and Maine. The governor of Georgia, according to resolutions of the legisla- ture, demanded of the governor of Maine that two men at that time in the latter State should be given up to the authorities of Georgia to stand trial upon the charge of stealing slaves in Savannah. Maine refused the demand, and when Georgia's "Augusta Chronicle, Nov. 9, 1837. In the election of 1835 William Schley, the Union candidate, had defeated Charles Dougherty by 2.571 majority; Savannah Georgian, Oct 30, 1835. ^Southern Banner (Athens), May 31, 1839. clbid., June 7, 1839. dibid., Aug. 16, 1839. elbid., Oct. 19, 1839. 140 AMERICAN HISTORICAI ASrtOCIATlOJST. Congressmon decided that it would not be wise to push the matter at Washington the whole matter was dropped. " In the Presidential campaign of 1840 the local parties in Georgia, following the indications which had been apparent for several years, became identified with the two national parties, and were known no more by the names of State Rights and Union. To summarize the decade from 1830 to 1840, we have observed first a change working in response to the call "not men but measures," a change whicli culminated about 1833, but which at no time brought about a serious question of downright principle between the parties as actually con- stituted; then a retrograde tendency toward the former stage of personal politics, and finall}^ a movement for the con- solidation of the local with the national political parties, re- spectively. We noticed the strong power of economic and social differentiation and of personal habit and prejudice in keeping up the party organization on either side. At only one time was there any consideraV)le bolting; a reorganization occurred in 1832-33, but the new parties retained, with slight changes, the constituencies of the parties which they had replaced. The county majorities in 1840 were b\' no means identical with those of 1825, but on the whole the relative situation of parties throughout the State in 1840 was very similar to that of fifteen years earlier. The eastern section of the State continued its allegiance to the Troup party after it claimed the name State Rights, and indeed after it became part and parcel of the national Whig- organization; while the whole of the mountainous north, much of the backwoods west, and most of the ])arren south main- tained in the Union party the political opposition to the planter class. Large sections of western and southwestern Georgia were found to be fertile, and soon had a considerable proportion of aristocrats and State Rights voters in their population; but counties which contained lands not held in high esteem proved slow in yielding to the tendency to adopt State Rights principles. Slaver^', as may be seen from any State or Federal census of the period, had spread to the west- ward, and also tended to increase in the southwest, but avoided the middle south. aSouthorn ]iiunuM-, Ai>r. 24, 18-10. Historical Report, 190!.- Phillips Plate VII C0T1 UalKErL, MURRAY CORN CASS PAULDING COTTON CATTLE CARROLL , TROUP GRAINS CORN (HEAT RABUN, eAcco FRANKLIN. '^ottonI ^ELBERT VGWINNCTT/ WALTON ■ /wiLKESV'*^° \WARREN') PIKE IMONROEN JONES cotton \JEFFER{ TwASHlNGTOm ^'^ COTTON HARRIS talbotN?''*^''°''5> \COTTON \wilkin SON /tOTTON\ eRfl||.j yTWIGGs\ . C.R COTTON \MUSCOGEE LAURENS SUGAR EMANUEL STOCK ^STOCK BULLOCH COTTON RANDOLPH GRAINS EARLY SOGAR ' COTTON SUGAR PULASKI SUGAR •'MONTGOMERY/ TATTNALL /RtC£\ JHAT HAM SEA-ISLAND) COTTON LEE DOOLY ■CORN CORN BAKER COTTON DECATUR THOMAS GRAINS LOWNDES SUGAR APPLING LIVE-STOCK M' IN TOSH/ St A IS. COTTON^ ' sea-is\Rige) MAP OF Crp]ORGIA IN 183 5 .showng the chief products of the Counties. according to statistics ill the Augusta constitulionahsL,Feb.3, 1835 Kortli Geordia | ] Th(> Cotton Belt Pine Banvns [ ] Coast Lands GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 141 The old semi-frontier still strikes the attention in the later maps. A description of the section, written by a traveler through it in 1831," reminds one sti'ongly of Irving's Sleepy Hollow. The people were poor, unenterprising, and unen- lightened, but contented in their lowly circumstances. The pine woods stretched for scores of miles unbroken save by an occasional corn or cotton patch. The wire-grass beneath the pines, and here and there a few wild oats, furnished sustenance for ill-kept cattle. Few wagon roads existed, l)ut bridle paths led from cabin to cabin. The State of North Carolina was dubbed the Rip Van Winkle of the South, but Emanuel and Tattnall counties and their neighborhood in Georgia could easily surpass an v other section in sleeping ability. The peo- ple did not struggle against the enervating influence of their climate and surroundings. Without ambition or stimulus of any kind the life history of each generation Avas a repetition of that of the preceding one. Emanuel and Bullock counties of course continued to vote as of old, while Tattnall and Mont- gomery could not forget that Troup had honored them with his residence. During the period from 1825 to 18-10 there was unusual progress in Georgia in economic lines, chiefly regarding trans- portation. The great spur to enterprise was the need of better means of carrying cotton to market. In 1810 a steamljoat began to ply from Milledgeville to Darien. Two years earlier the first ocean steamer to cross the Atlantic had sailed from the port of Savannah under the ownership of Savannah citizens. There was much agitation concerning a system of canals for the State; but the first one of the proposed sj'stems, dug to connect the Altamaha and Ogeechee rivers, proved a failure and damped the popular ardor for that kind of comnmnica- tiou. Attention was then turned to railways as a better means of transportation. Wilson Lumpkin in 18:26 surveyed a route from Milledgeville to Chattanooga for a railroad to be oper- ated with mule power.* Steam locomotion on railways was accepted as feasible a few 3"ears later, and in 1836 and 1837 the work of building the '■"Central of Georgia" and the "Georgia" railroads was actually begun. The one was built northwestward from Savannah, the other westw^ard from o Augusta Constitutionalist, Oct. 18. 1831. '>W. Lumpkin, Incidents (MSS.). 142 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, Aug-usta, the main object of both being to connect the uplands of Georgia with the seaports/' In 1S43 these two roads with their branches aggregated a total length of 4()(> miles, Avhich was probabl}^ a greater mileage than was possessed b}^ any other State at the time.* Aside from the acquisition of new lands and the connection of her productive fields with the market, Georgia showed far too little enterprise in the period. Her railroads were not utilized in fostering an}^ other industry than agriculture, and her resources did not increase as rapidly as did those of the Northern States. The belief was firm that cotton was king, that slavery was essential to its cultivation, and that it was not feasible to improve existing conditions. On the whole, the State was too nnich like its sleepy hollow; it preferred to go in well-worn ruts and to ])laze no new paths. The attempt to introduce manufactures was only half-hearted, while in matters of statecraft the voting population was too willing not to worry itself with really important issues and to drop back into personal politics, with an occasional malediction upon the abolitionists, the protectionists, and the consolida- tion ists in the North. Yet Georgia was quite as progressive as any of her neighbors, and no criticism can be laid upon hei" which must not be applied to the whole group of the South(M-n States. "When completed, these roads reached a common terminus at the point from whioli the State of Georgia had already begun to build the Western and Atlantic Railroad to Chattanooga. At the point of junction a village was founded, which rapidly grew into the city of Atlanta. To this system was added a road leading through La Grange to Montgomery and the southwest. These radiating roads made Atlanta the strategic cen- ter of the whole South at the time of the civil war. hNiles's Register, vol. 65, p. 272. CHAPTER VI -THE WHIGS AND THE. DEMOCRATS: SLAVERY. The Whig party, as a national organization, originated in a coalition of .several smaller parties which in the beginning- were not sympathetic with each other except in their antag- onism to Andrew «Tackson as President. The nucleus of the part}^ existed as a faction hostile to Jackson in the all-com- prehending Republican or Democratic-Republican paily be- fore 1832. During his second term of office Jackson's dictatorial proceedings alienated a number of his supporters, who in several groups joined the opposition. The most general reason for the defection was that the President m as striving to exaggerate his prerogative beyond its natural and constitutional limits at the expense of the legislative branch of the Central Government. The one act of the President which excited most of the hostility against him was the destruction of the Bank of the United States by his executive edict. But the State Rights party in Georgia was led to reverse its friendly attitude to Jackson through its resen^tment of his threat to coerce South Carolina in 1832-33. Although Mr. Clay was at the head of the combined anti-Jackson factions, it was Calhoun who was chiefly responsible for the course of action of the Georgia contingent. The crisis of the nullifica- tion struggle was reached early in 1833. In that year the attempt in Georgia to adopt political principles as dift'eren- tiating the parties reached its nearest approach to success. The nuUifiers approved of all of Calhoun's doctrines; the moderate State Rights faction sympathized with the nullitiers in their martyrdom to Federal tyranny. These two factions comprised the State Rights party of Georgia, which as a whole repudiated Jackson, and thereafter sought to defeat him and his followers. The assistance which the President had rendered Georgia in ridding her of the Indians was seen to have been rather from hostility to the red men than from 148 144 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. friendship to the rights of the State. The toast which he uttered in contrast to a sentiment on the rights of the States, "The Federal Union, it must be preserved," proved distaste- ful to State rights advocates, who, when they thought on the subject at all, took it as a matter of course that any State might secede from the Union at its pleasure. Preparations were begun in Georgia as early as 1834 to defeat the wishes of Jackson in the choice of his successor in office. The arbitrary treatment of the bank in 1835 and 1836 added another count upon which its (xeorgia critics censured the Administration. But the breach had already been made; it could only be widened by this and later developments. Martin Van Buren had never been held in very high esteem by the people of Georgia. The recent antagonism to the "American system" disqualified its champion, Henry Clay, as a candidate in the local field. But Hugh L. White was a \'ery popular man in the State. The progress of opinion, then, l)rought it a])out that the State Rights party in Georgia should join the anti-Jackson or Whig party at large for the contest of 1836, and that Judge White, as its candidate, should receive the electoral vote of the State instead of Mr. Van Buren. The fact that the local party acted with the AVhigs at large in 1S36 did not necessitate a permanent amalgamation with them, though it n;iturally had a tenden(;y in that direction. The Whigs in 1836 stood upon no platform but that of oppo- sition to Jackson, and did not even concentrate upon a candi- date.-' That there was no sympathy between the different divisions of the Whig party at the time of its birth, beyond that of opposition to a common adversary', is shown by the union within its ranks of the extreme high-tarift' advocates in the East with the nuUifiers, wdio were the extremists in the opposite direction, in the South. The years of Van Buren's Administration were at the begin- ning of a period of reaction from political excitement in Georgia. The issues which had formerly been considered as crucial gradually lost their position of vital importance. The governor's message of 1839 stated that the Indian contro- versy was settled, that the high tarifi' and the exercise of doubt- ful powers had been abandoned by the Central Government, and that the spirit of fanaticism about slavery was being f'cf. Stanwoort. History of Prosicloiitial Elections, p. lt-1. GEORGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 145 overcome b}^ reason.* But the peace and quiet did not strengthen the President. The financial stringency' of 1837, which crippled all of the local banks, was laid at the door of Jackson and his right-hand man, Van Buren. The perversion of the executive patronage found many critics. The hard times not only continued for several vears, but grew worse after a temporary improvement. Van Buren's strength in Georgia steadily grew less as the time approached for the election of 181:0. Throughout the interval from 1836 to 1840 the opposition at large was busy organizing its forces and consolidating its various factions into the Whig party, gradually approaching the adoption of positive political doctrines. The doctrines which its gi eater division favored were not entirely in accord with those of the State Rights party in Georgia, and that party was for the time placed in a position of indecision. The cardinal Whig plank was declared to be the checking of exec- utive tyranny by strengthening Congress. With this the State Rights party agreed, though it held that a better check upon the President or upon Congress lay in the strict observance of the rights of the States.^ Other items in the Whig creed were not so agreeable. It advocated the United States Bank, internal improvements, and a protective tariff. The issue of internal improvements, however, was deprived of importance by the development of railroads; the popular hostility to the bank had been greatly lessened by a counter hostility to Jack- son's method of opposing it; while regarding the tariff, there was only a choice of evils — the Whigs were in favor of pro- tection, and the Democrats had failed to live up to their promise against it. It was evident, too, that the Whig party stood in such need of assistance in the South that none of its doctrines would be pushed so far as to alienate the section. Both parties assumed practically the same position, for the time being, in regard to the slavery question in its various phases. Other considerations than party platforms had weight in bringing the State Rights leaders to their decision. The Whigs nearlv everywhere were the aristocrats, and so were congenial to the State Rights party in Georgia; the Union a Niles's Register, vol. 57, p. 215. 'iff. Governor Gilmer's me.«sage o, p. LSI. H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 10 146 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. party bad already chosen the Democratic alignment, and it was beyond the reasonable that their local opponents should admit their superior wisdom in the choice of sides upon national issues. The weight of the argument appearing to rest with the Whigs, the majority of the State Rights party decided to cast its lot with that organization. The strongest statesmen of the nation were at that time in the Whig ranks, viz, Webster, Clay, and. temporarih'. Calhoun: and in Georgia, Toombs, Stephens. Berrien, and Jenkins were the equals or superiors of any others in the new generation of political leaders in the State. As was to be expected, there was some disagreement in each of the local parties when they made their choice of align- ment with the national parties. Early in 1840 it became apparent that a good deal of confusion existed in State Rights and Union ranks/' The leaders of the State Rights party failed to agree upon supporting Harrison, and there were three Congressmen in particular — Messrs. Black, Colquitt, and Cooper — who openly supported Van Buren and entered the Democratic ranks with a considerable number of State Rights voters. These men were of course gladly i-eceived by their new associates; they were at once returned to Congress, and were later supported for other high offices bv the Democratic party.* Ex-Governor Troup published a letter in June, 1840, ap- proving of Van Buren's sub-treasury plan and showing that some of the State Rights leaders would have preferred to remain neutral in the Presidential contest.'' Many members of their partv, whose sentiments were voiced by Alexander H. Stephens, wished Troup hiiuself to allow the use of his name as a candidate:'' but almost the whole i)arty tinally agreed upon Harrison. While Troup had become the prophet and honored adviser of the State Rights party, ^^'ilson Lumpkin held a similar place among the Union voters. Lumpkin wrote several open letters to the I'nion rank and tile, declaring that Southern people should not join the Whig party, ^vhose Northern wing- was for abolition, and urging the candidacy of Van Buren as o Southern Banner, June 26, 1840. ftlbid., July 10 and 17, 1840. Jan. -Jl, ISU. -.ma Oct. is, ^Hi■2. t-Uiid., June 12. 1840. ''R. M. John.ston and W. H. Browne, Life of Alexander 11. Stephens, i>. 140. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 147 against that of Harrison." There was no bolting- aniong- the prominent Union leaders. ])ut nuinyvoters for the time broke their connection >vith the party. Larg-e districts of the back- woods were carried for Harrison in the "log cabin and hard eider"" campaign, which usually voted with the l^nion part}', and the Whigs carried the State with the very large majority of 8.840 votes. The strenuous labor of the Whig leaders in the State was partly responsible for the victory, but the dis- like for Van Buren and the popularity of "Tii)pecanoe and Tyler too'' must account for its usual size. The short period of the Whig party's strength, shown in Harrison's triumph of 1840, came to an end before the autumn of 1841. when McDonald of the Democrats defeated Dawson of the Whigs in the gubernatorial race with about. 4, 000 ma- jorit}'. There was a good deal of excitement during the year over the proposed "relief hiAvs," according to which the State Avas to borrow large sums of money, which were then to ])e loaned to such of the farmers as were in straitened circum- stances from the low i)rice of cotton and the failure of crops. Owing mainly to the demonstration l)y Robert Toombs that the proposed laws were based upon faulty i)rincii)les of finance they were defeated in the legislature, though most of the Democrats advocated their passage.^ The project was a pop- ular one with the voters, and its defeat by the Whig leaders tended to hurt their partv. The ascendancy of the Democi'ats continued through 1842, when their nominees foi" Congress were elected over the Whig candidates with an average ma- jority of 2,000 \otes. That election was the last one in which Congressmen were chosen upon the system of the general ticket, for that system was superseded within the next two years by the method of election l)y districts, as now in use. When George W^ Crawford, a Whig, was elected over Mark A. Cooper in the gubernatorial contest of 1843 with a majority of above 3,000 votes, it was evident that the Demo- crats had in turn lost strength. The loss was explained, prob- ably with reason, by the statement that when the party had received into its ranks that section of the State Rights party which had refused to join the Whigs, the newcomers were so tnigerly welcomed that nothing was considered too great for ('Southern Banner, May 22 and Sept. 11, 1840. l> P. H. Stovall, Life of Robert Toombs, pp. 34 to 37. 148 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. their reward; but when so many of the ''State Rights Demo- crats" had so often been given support for office by the l^nion or "old line Democrats," the latter had grown luke- warm and the party had become weakened. The fact was pointed out that the candidate of the Democrats who had just been heavily defeated was himself one of the three Congress- men who had entered the paily in 1840, and had constantlv since then received that support which should in equity have been given to the older and more legitimate leaders of the party. '^ The policy of showering all their gifts upon the new- comers was then discarded by the Democrats, and its abandon- ment was probably one cause of their success in the next 3'ear. During Tyler's Administration, from 1840 to 1844, the Whigs l(^st much of their strength in the South* because of the President's unusual deportment, and because the nationalist policy and the anti-slavery inclinations of the Northern wing of the party became more manifest. It became quite apparent that in joining the Whigs the State Rights party had in large measure abandoned its struggle for the particularist cause. The ])reparations for the Presidential campaign of 1844 were begun almost as soon as the contest of 1840 had ended. The section of the State Rights party which had gone over to the Democrats in 1840 soon found itself again in harmony with Calhoun, and indeed urged his nomination for the Presi- dential contest of 1844;^ for Calhoun had left the Whig ranks upon being convinced that he could not succeed in inducing the party to look upon the Federal Constitution from the point of view of State sovereignty. Many State Rights men who remained with the Whigs only decided to do so after nmch hesitation. The Whigs seemed almost declared enemies, and the Democrats were thought to have proved treacherous friends. The decision was finally made by such men as Stephens and Toombs to go with the Whigs, with the half- conceived intention of dominating the party and forcing it to act in a wa}^ suitable to the South(M-n interest. By this division of the South between the two national parties the section, which was in a decided minority, still controlled the legislation of the country for twenty years longer. It was a a Southern Banner, Oct. 12, 1843. bLumpkin to Calhoun, Nov. 15, 1841, CuUioun's Lciicrs, p. 83'J cSoiithcni BinnKT; Mav I'J anil .Tunc 111. isi:!. GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 141' wise course of iictiou for the time being, but not so in view of the irrepressible character of the conflict then lowering. The Whig leaders in Gergia were politicians of umch adroit- ness. The}' realized the difficulty of their position and made the best they could of it. Their problem was, on the one hand, to keep the whole Whig party united, and. on the other, as far as possible to make the party recognize and uphold the principal claims of the South. To gain the confidence and full alliance of the Northern Whigs it was necessary to make ostensible concessions. To this end the Georgia Whig lead- ers made a show of supporting the plan of a protective tarifl'. We accordingly find Mr. Berrien addressing the United States Senate upon the subject on April 9, 184-i. He said that he objected to the agitation in favor of lower duties. The United States should be industrially independent. The American workman should be protected from the competition of the pauper labor of Europe, The tariff of 1842, a revenue tariff with protective features, he considered not hurtful to any section. On the contrary, the whole country had been improved by the system of moderate protection, and that system ought to be continued. On the next day Mr. Colquitt, a Democratic Senator from Georgia, replied to Mr. Berrien. He showed the contrast between Berrien's position in 1831 and his position in 1841, and went on to answer his recent arguments before the Senate by advancing the doctrine and arguments of the State Rights party in 1831. Protection to industries, he thought, was now no less odious and unconsti- tutional than formerly, and the tariff of 1842, the work of the Whigs, was in his opinion the worst yet enacted. He con- cluded by censuring the Whigs for keeping the tariff in the background in the presidential campaign. On Ma}^ 7 Mr. Stephens expressed sentiments in the House quite similar to those voiced by Mr. Berrien in the Senate." It is to be noted that these Georgia Whigs did not advocate an outright protective tariff. A very high tariff in which the revenue feature was distinctly secondary would not have been supported anywhere in the South. Such a tariff' was not in contemplation in the Whig period. Berrien and Stephens and a Speech of Berrien, Congressional Globe, Appendix, 1st sess. 28th Cong., pp. 492 ff. Speech of Colquitt, ibid., pp. 4ttS f. Speech of Stephens, ibid., p. 582. 150 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. Toombs" (lid not sacritice a principle which was at that tiuu^ important. Their policy was that of conciliation and ingrati- ation, and their concession upon the tariff was simply a means to an end in practical politics. The Whig convention of 184-1: nominated Henry Clay for the Presidency. Mr. Clay had many ardent admirers among influential (Tcorgians, ])ut he had destroyed his prospects of carrying any considei-able portion of the South by committing himself against the annexation of Texas. The Southern Dem- ocrats were able to secure the nomination in their party for James K. Polk, who was known to be strongly in favor of annexing Texas.'^ Most of the local Whig leaders, however, stood firm in their loyalty to Clay. The strong organiza- tion of the Whig party and the personal popularity of its candidate, notwithstanding the Texas question, were exhibited by the comparatively small majority of 2,000 votes which Polk obtained in Georgia. The composition and the development of the Whig party had not been quite rational from the beginning, and the elements composing the Democratic organization were but little more congruous. About 1845, the dissatisfaction of the populace of Georgia with the trend of national politics became quite manifest. The Whigs were successful in the State for the next four or five years, chiefly because of the strength and magnetism of their leaders and the popularity of the candidates put forward ])y them. The local leaders had tact enough to avoid national issues and to emphasize the personal reasons for supporting the candidates of their party.'' Taylor and Fillmore carried Georgia in 1S48, because many of the Democrats feared that Cass was not sufticiently pro- slavery."' It was a matter of general note that the Southern wings of both parties had grown out of sympathy with the Northern divisions, especially in the case of the Whigs. It is remark- al)le that most of the Whig leaders in Georgia did not fol- low the lead of Calhoun in going over to the Democrats; but in truth the parties were not antagonistic upon the important 1 For the position of Toombs in regard to the tariff, see Stovairs Toombs, p. 31. '' For anxiety of tlie Southern Democrats on tlie subject, see Southern Banner, MayJo, c Southern Banner, Sept. 4, 1845. '(Federal Union (Milledgcville, Ga.),Dee. 20, 184S. Historical Report, 1901- Phillips. Plate VIII ATYPICAJ. WHIG AND ])fc:MOCR\T CONTEST IN GEORGIA MAP OF GEORGIA IN 1848 jhowino the local majorities in the presidential election ofthaLyear ZACHARY TAYLOR, MAJORITY LEWIS CASS MAJORITY OF THE WHIGS OFTHE DKMOCRATS ^ 50 to eoper centof the total vote CH 50 lo 60 percent of the total vote 1^ 60 „ 75 „ , CD GO .. 75 „ „ , MB over 7 5 , „ „ j~;2]over/5 riEORGIA AND STATE RIOHTS. 151 issue of the epoch, i. e., slavery, and as a i-nlc they stood as units only upon minor questions,^ The Southern wing of each party tried long and strenu- ously to control the actions and polic}" of its respective party as a whole, but toward 1850 the representatives from the North in Congress grew very restless under the domination, and issues at Washington assumed an alarming appearance. Dis- ruption of the Union seemed imminent, but the disaster was still postponed for a decade ])y the last of Clay's great com- promises. The fundamental question of the perpetuity of slavery in America, which had for so many years been persistently held in the background by Southern statesmen, iinally asserted itself during Polk's administration, as a crucial issue which could not thereaftin- be made to down until the arbitrament of civil war brought about its aljsolute settlement. It is here advisable to make an investigation of the status of slavery in Georgia with its hardships and its mitigations, to study the sentiment of the people regarding the institution, and to notice the progress of opinion in other parts of the countr3\ The colony of Georgia was established by Oglethorpe on a plan which was truly Utopian. It was to be a refuge for honest people suffering from oppression, a land where every man should earn his bread by the sweat of his brow and live contented in honorable poverty, where there should be no envy, no harshness, and no riotous living. But the plans laid out for the colony were no more applicable than were the fundamental constitutions which John Locke formulated for Carolina. They disregarded human nature, the spirit of the times, and the climate and soil of the country to be settled. The cultivation of silk and grapes proved impracticable; the deprivation of alcoholic liquors would not be borne by the col- onists; the subjugation of the rich swamp land near the coast was decla-red impossible except by slaves from Africa, who would not be affected by the miasma. The colony of Georgia remained a flat failure until the restrictions differentiating it from the typical English colony were removed. From that time the success and prosperit}^ of Georgia were assured. The tradition of the hard times when slaves w^ere forbidden tended to make later generations in Georgia the more doubtful of the aFederal Union, Oct. fi, 1S50. 152 AMEKirAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. possibility of prosperiiio- without the Ix'iietits of the poculiar institution. As reg'ards the lot of the negn) slave, it was neither t^etter nor worse than in the average American colony or slave State. The police regulations, as they aj)}ieared upon the statute books, were very harsh in scAeral respects, but their rigor was considerably diminished as the years passed and as mas- ters and slaves came the better to understand each the nature and disposition of the other. The iirst (niactment regulating the status of slaves in Georgia was approved by the Crown, March 7, 1755, to be in force for three years. It was reen- acted in 1759 to extend to 1764. It was continued with some moditications by a law of 1765 and was further changed in some details in 1770. Upon the achievement of independence the somewhat lightened system of slave law was continued by State authority.^' The following regulations were in force during the whole or a part of the period in which slavery existed in colonial Georgia. All negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes, and other per- sons of color, except Indians in amity with the colony, were presumed to be slaves unless the contrary could be estab- lished. A slave must not be absent from the town or planta- tion where he belonged without a ticket from his master or overseer. When found violating this law a slave might be punished by an}' white person. In case the slave should strike the white person, he might lawfully be killed. Patrols were organized throughout the province, with the duty of riding at least one night in each fortnight to visit the several plan- tations in each district, and to whip ever}' slave found abroad without a ticket. Slaves might not buy or sell provisions or similar articles without a ticket.'' The following offenses were capital crimes when committed by a slave: Burning stacks of rice or stores of tar, or destroy- ing similar valuable commodities; insurrection, or the attempt to excite it; enticing away slaves, or the attempt; poisoning, or the attempt; rape, or the attempt on a white female; as- sault on a white person Avith a dangerous weapon; maiming a white person; burglary; arson; murder of a slave or free a Colonial acts of Georgia (Wormsloe Print), pp. 73 to 99, and p. 1G4. Jlarbiiry and Crawford, Compilation of the Laws of Georgia, pp. 419 and 424. Watkins's Compilation of Georgia Laws, p. 163. Lamar's Digest of the Laws of Georgia, p. 804. ''For patrol law.s in a later period, .see Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1853-54, p. KM. OEORdIA AND STATE RItlHTS. 158 negro. A slnxv iiiioht be tried for a eapital otfense by two justices of the peace and three freeholders, or for an otiense not capital b}^ one justice and two freeholders. Free negToes were included under most of the slave regulations. The earliest law was positively barbarous in some of its provisions, such as the offer of rewards for the scalps of slaves escaped beyond the Florida boundary, and the fixing of the limit of the legal working day for slaves at sixteen hours. The harshest provisions of the first laws were not continued longer than 1765. In order to prevent the attempt of owners to conceal the crimes of their sla\es. there was for a long time a provision of the law that slaves legalh' executed should be appraised and their value paid to the master by the province or kState.'^' There was perpetual fear of slave insurrection, though in the early decades of the nineteenth century there was less uneasiness than in the preceding or the succeeding period. The law" required a white man to live constantly on each plan- tation, and it prohibited more than seven negro men from traveling on a road together without a white man in their company.'' The institution of domestic servitude was con- sidered to require that the slave remain without literary education. The acts of 1755 and 1770 forbade anyone to teach a slave to write.'' In 1829 it was enacted that any negro or white person teaching a negro to read or write should be whipped, fined, or imprisoned.'' A law of the same year prohibited, under a small fine, the employment of any negro in the setting of type in any printing office/ A frontiers- man, more fearful than persons who lived in the black l)elt, urged that negroes should not be allowed to assemble to themselves because they were known to study their hymn books and so evade the law against negro education.' Man}' of these laws stood unenforced, except on very rare occasions. In most cases the master rendered informal justice on his own plantation, except in verj^ serious matters. The " Law of ]7r)5 (limit of £50); Colonial Acts of Georgia, p. 73. Law of 1770 (limit of £40); Watkin's Compilation of the Laws of Georgia, p. 163. Marbury and Crawford, p. 424. Repealed in 1793; Watkins, p. 530. Marbury and Crawford, p. 4-40. ft Law cf 17-55, supra. Law of 1770, supra. c The penalty was fixed at a fine of £10 in 1770. Watkin's Compilation, p. 163. d Dawson, Compilation of the Laws of Georgia, p. 413. e Acts of Georgia General A.ssembly, 1829, p. 175. /Article signed " Frontier," Georgia Journal, Dee. 12, 1831. 154 AMEKTCAN^ HTSTORirAL Af^SOCTATlON. prot('cti()ti as well as the pmii.shniciit of the slav(! was largely in the master's hands. But the law provided that in case of murder or malicious killing of a slave the trial and punish- ment should be the same as if the victim had been a white person." A like regidation was made in regard to beating a slave without just cause.'' Slavery was distinctly a patriarchal institution. Except in the seacoast swamps and a few other malarial regions, the master lived throughout the year in the ""big house'' on his plantation, with the negro cabins grouped in '"quarters ''only a few yards away. The field hands were usually under their owner's personal supervision, while the house servants were directed by their mistress. The slaves were go\'erned by harsh overseers only in ver}- rare cases. Great ninnbers of slaveholders owned a verv small number of slaves, and labored with them in the fields. The ca])ins of the negroes were fre- quently as gi>od as those of the poorer whites. The fact that they were not always clean ^vas due to the hal)its of their occupants. It was, of course, to the interest of the master that his slaves should remain in the l)est possible condition. The Southern gentleman was widely known for his generosity and his innate kindness. The children of the two races were brought up as playmates, the mother of the pickaninnies fre- quently being the "mammy' of the master's children; and friendships enduring through life were contracted in early youth 1)etweon the master and his hereditary servants. To illustrate the consideration which owners frequently felt for their slaves, we may cite an advertisement stating that several negroes were to l)e sold "'for no fault, but merely on account of their unwillingness to leave tlu> country with their master."'' The law did not recognize family relations among slaves, l)ut public opinion condenmed the separation of husband and wife or parent and child. Where such separation occurred through the division of estates or otherwise it was not unusual for one of th(> owners to bu}^ th(^ membei-s of the family which he did not already possess.'' These considerations which indicate the existence of a softer nLaw of 1799; Marbury and Crawford, p. 443. Ji Law of 1805; Clayton, Compilation, p. 269. (•Augusta Herald, Dec. 25, 1799. do. g. Sale by A. H. Stephens of a family of slaves to Mr. Scott, \vli AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOC [ATION. E^•el•y free pc^r.soii of color in Georuiii was required to have a guardian who was responsible for his oood l)ehavioi-, and whose permission must he obtained before the neg-ro could have liberty to do certain things. Moreover, all free negroes must register annually with the county officials and l)e able to give a good account of themselves. No such persons were allowed to own or to carry firearms of any description." The ill esteem in which free negroes were generally held led to the policy of discouraging manumission. In 1801 all deeds of emancipation were made illegal except l)y act of the legislature. This Avas so far repealed in 1815 as to permit an owner to free his slave l)v will and testament. An act of 1818 rendered void all subsequent manumission by testament. This was later repealed, and was reenacted in 1859.^' A prominent Georgia editor wrote, in 1829, that slavery was bad enough, but manumission in a slave State, without export- ingthe negroes, was dreadful. *' Experience proves,'' he wrote, "that there is no condition of humanity which begets more wretchedness, more vice, more premature disease and mor- tality than that of emancipated negroes who remain without political rights in the midst of a free white population."'" It was well known by those who took pains to inform them- selves that, as compared with the free blacks in New England, the slaves in Georgia were frequently the better clothed, bet- ter fed, better taught, and better treated by their superiors. '^^ Although manumission was discouraged by law, it was by no means completely stopped as a custom. Special acts were passed nearly every year to give freedom to specified slaves whose masters wished to manumit them, usually on the ground of good service. In at least one case the legislature appro- priated money to purchase a negro in order to set him free in reward for a praiseworthy deed.'' During the period before the abolition agitation, the lead- ing thinkers in Georgia, and probably the l)ulk of the people. n Prince, Digestof 1837, p. 808. Lamar, Digest, p. 811 (partially repealed in 1819). I'rince, Digest of 1837, p. 808. ''Clayton, Compilation, p. '27. Lamar. C(in.i>ilati(>n, pji. sol ami MI. .Vets of Ga. (ien. AHsem., IS.'iO, ]k 68. (•Athenian, .\ng. 2n, 1829, referring to an article in the Baltimore American. ('Athenian, Feb. 9, LSI^O, referring to an article of the same tenor in the Genius of Uni- versal Emancipation. < Negro named Sam set free at cost to the State of SI, 600, as a reward for extinguishing fire on the State House, ^[e.ssage of Governor Lumpkin. l.'<34: Ga. Senate .Tournal, IKU, p. 2b. GEORGIA AND STATP: RIGHTS. 157 considered .slaveiy an evil. While no way of abandoning the system was seen to be practicable at the time, it Avas hoped that some feasible means would in the future be found to accomplish that object. Meanwhile the introduction of great lumibers of slaves M^as considered undesirable. We have seen in a former chapter that the delegates from Georgia in the Federal convention of 1787 insisted on legal- izing the slave trade. But that the State authorities did not long hold the position of its delegates in 1787 is. shown by the act of the legislature in 1798, which prohibited the importa- tion of Africans from abroad after July 1 of that year." In the same year, 1798, a law was enacted against the inter- state slave trade. This law was reenacted in 1817, repealed in 1824, reenacted in 1829, modified in 1836, repealed in 1842, and reenacted with alterations in 1851.^ The general tenor of the law throughout the period was that a citizen of Geor- gia might introduce slaves into the State for his own service, or an immigrant might bring his slave property when settling in Georgia; but no one could bring in slaves for the specula- tive purposes of selling or hiring them. We have noticed that these statutes were not alwaj^s in force. It is further true that they were openly \-iolated with extreme frequency. The grand jury of Putman County presented as a grievance in 1817, that 20,000 slaves had been illegally brought into Georgia within the past year.*^ The laws against the foreign slave trade were also some- times violated. There were several conspicuous instances of this between 1816 and 1825.'^^ The violations, however, were usually punished by the State authorities.' Gen. D. B. Mitch- ell, who had resigned the office of governor of Georgia to be- come United States agent to the Creeks, was concerned in the illegal introduction of Africans in 1819. General Clarke, then governor of the State, charged Mitchell with the offense and caused the President to dismiss him from the agencv.'^ « Dawson, Compilation, p. 673. 6 Augusta Chr nicle, Sept. 26, 1817. Dawson, Compilation, pp. 411 and 073. Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1829, p. 169. Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1836, p. 2.i4. Acts of Ga. Gen. Assam., 1842. Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1S.51, p. 86."). '• Augusta Chronicle, October 11, 1817. (iSpccial message of Governor Rabun, Nov. 11, 1818, Xiles's Register, vol. 15, p. 359. Petition of R. H. Wilde, 1827, Niles's Register, vol. 32, p. 349. e Lamar, compilation, p. 808. Georgia .Journal. Aug. 16, 1818. Kiles's Register vol 17 p. 221. /Niles's Register, vol IS, j.. 118, and vol. l'o, p. iitj. 158 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. The better enforceuient of the law was secured in g-eneral by the offer of a reward by the State to piM'sons seizing slaves illegally introduced." The invention of the cotton gin is usually said to have been very intiuential in prolonging the existence of slavery in America. This is quite true; but, on the other hand, negro labor was never considered absolutely essential in the cultiva- tion of the short-staple cotton,* while in the district which produced rice and sugar and sea-island cotton it was almost fatal for white men to do agricultural labor. There was ap- parently a steady advance of sentiment in Georgia against the justice of slavery from the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution until Garrison began his raging; no reaction is dis- cernible as resulting from the extension of cotton production. Gradual emancipation was thought to be the only practi- cable method of ridding the country of slavery; but the idea coidd not be borne of having the land tilled with free negroes. The plan of colonizing the blacks in Africa was welcomed as a solution of the problem. The tirst colonization society in the United States was established in 1817.'" The societ}" soon became national. Numerous branches of it were established in Georgia, and considerable sums of money were subscri])ed for the furtherance of its objects. A number of Africans who had been illegally introduced w^ere, by a legislative act, directed to be turned over to the colonization society '^ instead of being sold to the highest bidder, as was usualh' the custom. The influence of the colonization society brought about a small wave of humanitarian feeling which was quite notice- able in Georgia.'' One of the rej^resentatives of the State declared in Congress that he was desirous of seeing the negroes set free, though he condemned the plan of clothing them with American citizenship.'' An editorial in the Georgia Journal, probably at that time the strongest new^spaper in the State, "Ga. Journal, Dfc. 22, IHIS. ''Of. Niles's Register, vol. 18, p. 47 (Mar. 18, 1820). "■For the hi.. 2.^). ./A. H. ytoi)hens. War between (lie States, vol. 2, p. 11:'.. .Vunuls of Cimgress, Kith Cong., 1st sess., p. 102.5. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 159 published as its conviction, '"There is not a single editor in these States who dares advocate slavery as a principle."" But the Southern people were not thoroughgoing in their desire to be rid of slavery. The movement in the North soon progressed further than the bulk of the Southerners were inclined to go. At once the South became sensitive and re- sentful of intermeddling with its institutions. Apropos of a resolution oli'ered in Congress by Mr. King of New York that the proceeds of the sale of the public lands be applied to the })urchase of the freedom of the slaves, and in anger at certain reputed remarks of the United States Attorney-General criti- cising slavery, Governor Troup sent a fiery message to the Georgia legislature in 1825. "'Temporize no longer," said he. '"Make known your resolution that this subject shall not be touched by them but at their peril. * * * x entreat you most earnestly, now that it is not too late, to step forward, and having exhausted the argument, to stand by your arms." '^ The leading organ of the Troup party applauded the gov- ernor's message, but the legislature was not disposed to adopt his extreme position at that time, though in 1828 it adopted resolutions which were as strong as Troup coidd have desired on the subject.'' As soon as the difference of opinion becauje apparent be- tween the North and the South as to the feasibility of rapid emancipation, the colonization society was seen to be ineffi- cient for the contingency. The South thought it too radical, the North considered it as a half-hearted project at best. The Georgia legislature roundly condemned the society in 1827, declaring in most positive terms that the General Govern- ment had no constitutional right to appropriate money for its assistance."' The South always became extremely sensitive when any criticism on the moral rectitude of slavery was made by Northern writers. A Southern editor might obtain the atten- tive and e\en the approving notice of his readers when he demonstrated the evil of slavery and advocated its gradual abolition, but the same readers would feel outraged by attacks "Georgia Journal, Jan. 9, 1821. l> May 23, 1825. Niles's Register, vol. 28, p. 238. e Acts of Ua. Gen. Assem., 1828, p. 174. rfActs of Ga. Gen. A.ssem. 1827, p. 109. 1()0 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. upon the institution which came from the North; and the very same editor would cry out to the South that its liberties and its constitutional rights were threatened with dreadful nivasion from the determined enemies of the section." The circulation of seditious pamphlets among the slaves was espe- cially feared, and the penalty of death was set for anyone convicted of distributing them.^' The better to prevent the success of such literature, the laws against negro education were made more sweeping. The publication of violent abolition propaganda began to he noticed and resented ])y Georgia about 1828. Special atten- tion was paid William Lloyd Garrison in 1831. An editor explained his actions on the ground of insanity, but urged the State executi\ e to demand his rendition by the governor of Massachusetts, as an oti'ender against the laws of Georgia.'' The legislature adopted a dilierent plan; it offered a reward of $5,000 for the apprehension and conviction in the Georgia courts of any of the editors or printers of the Liberator. '' Of course this was not expected to lead to the capture and trial of Garrison, but was simply a manifesto showing the attitude of the State government toward the abolitionists. The Southern leaders knew^ that the abolitionists were a small though nois}" faction, and. that their violent doctrines were condemned by all reasonable people at the North. Nevertheless the rai)id increase in the numbers and impor- tance of the agitators soon caused general alarm in the South.'' The governor of Georgia in 1835 considered the abolitionists feW' and contemptible, but prophesied the dangerous results, and advised precautionary measures on the part of the South.-^' The legislature reviewed the whole range of the slavery ques- tions and declared its convictions upon each. It stated that it was the duty of the North to crush the abolitionists; that Congress should r(\oulate the postal laws to prevent the circu- lation of inflanunatory matter; that Congress could not con- stitutionally interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia or in the Territories. The sixth article of the resolutions is "Athenian, Jan. 25, 1828, Feb. 6, lS2f., and May 10, 1831. '>Law of 1829. Dawson, Compilation, p. 113. f Athenian, Nov. 1, 1831. c^Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem. 1831, p. 25.'). « Georgia .lournal, June 30, 1835. /Message of Governor Schley, Nov. 1, l,s35; Xilcs's Register, vol. ^9. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 161 important in that it pointed the way to the position reached ])y the South some twenty years later, that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional in its principle. The article reads : '"'' Reaolve.d^ That the District of Columbia and the several Territories of the United States are the common propert}^ of the people of these States; that the rii^ht of exclusive legisla- tion in the former, and the power to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the latter, which are vested in the Congress of the United States, are derived from the Constitution, which recognizes and guarantees the rights resulting from domestic slavery; and that any interference by that body with those rights will be unauthorized b}" and contrary to the spirit of tliat sacred charter of American liberty. ''« The contention for the legality of slaver}^ in all of the Ter- ritories had not previously been made, because it had not been seen to be necessary in preserving the equihbrium between the slave and free States. It was not taken up by the Southern statesmen for the next hfteen years, because their attention was directed to the annexation of Texas as a better means of attaining the same object. The slave owners were anxious to increase the area of slaveholding not because of any anticipated benefits to the territory secured, but in order to gain more I'epresentative strength for the slave interest, so as to prevent the possibility of the overthrow of the institution by the powerful North against the opposition of the Southern minority. The free States had long controlled the lower House of Congress, but with great eifort the South was able to keep the balance in the Senate. The West w^as seen to be rapidly developing; several of the organized Territories north of the line of 36*^ 30' were ready for statehood, while the available area for the erection of new slaveholding States w^as very restricted. Antislavery senti- ment had become very powerful in the North, showing itself in abolition petitions, in the obstructions to the capture of fugitive slaves, and in eJQForts to restrict the area of slavery. The South was obliged to take more radical ground if it did not wish the defeat of its contentions. a Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1835, p. 299. H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 11 162 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. ^Mien they considered it necessary for the welfare of the section, the Southern leaders did not hesitate to advocate measures which were dangerous to the integrity of the Union. Ex-Governor Ijumpkin, in 1847, advocated the organization of the South to resist the aggression of the North. He expressed great love for the Union, but preferred its dissolution to the oppression and destruction which he foretold as a consequence of the Wilmot proviso. He saw the great struggle between free and slave States rapidl}' approaching, and lamented that the South was not united under resolute leadership." A complex of disputed measures presented themselves before Congress in 181:9, the amicable solution of which promised to tax the powers of the pacificators. The unsettled question of the western boundary of Texas and the assumption of its State debt were made issues between the slave and free States; a recent decision of the Supreme Court denying the obligation of State officials to enforce the laws of the United States necessitated some new legislation for the rendition of fugitive slaves; the application of California for statehood without slavery was an encroachment upon the territory which the South considered as in a measure pledged to slaverj^; and the attack upon the slave trade in the District of Columl)ia, at this time becoming ver}" vigorous, was feared by the South as an opening wedge for the overthrow of the sj'stem. Upon all of these questions the two national parties were split into pieces. The turbulence of the Congressional ses- sion of 1849-50 was introduced b}" a bitter struggle over the election of the Speaker of the lower House. The Georgia Whigs were anxious for the Southern wings of both parties to unite and elect a Southern man by the ^'otes chiefl}" of Southern Representatives, but their plan was not followed. Scores of ballots were taken without a majority being cast for an}^ candidate. The Whigs and the Democrats voted for members of their own parties, but the Northern and Southern wings of either failed to concentrate upon anyone man, while the small delegation of the new Free Soil party added to the confusion. At length the proposition was made to choose a Speaker by a mere plurality vote. Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, protested vigorousl}^ and violentlj' against the scheme, but in vain.^ The decisive ballot was at length reached. Howell "Calhoun's Letters, pp. 1102 and II80. ''Stephens's War between the States, vdI. 2, pi>. liil to 19.3. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 163 Cobb, of Georgia, was elected by a pluralit}^ vote from the Democrats, while the Georgia Whigs connived at the result by throwing away their votes on a member who was not a candidate for the chair." The several vexed issues on slavery were introduced into each House and heated debates arose over them. Some of the bills were to the advantage of the South, while others were against the slave interest. The altercation became violent, but Mr. Clay rose to the occasion and brought in the last of his great compromise measures, in the shape of a bill includ- ing all of the bills connected with slaver}- which were then before Congress. This omnibus bill was on the whole of decided advantage to the South. Among the most conspicu- ous supporters of the compromise were Toombs and Stephens, of Georgia, who foretold disunion and threatened dire calam- ities if it should fail of passage. Mr. Calhoun, speaking almost from his deathbed, warned the Senate against the con- sequences of intolerance, while Mr. Webster in his famous 7th of March speech, in advocacy of prudence and moderation, urged tolerance on the part of the North for the contentions of the South. The omnibus bill itself was destroyed bj^ amendments; but at length all of the measures contained in it were adopted by Congress. Restricted limits were fixed for Texas, but a large indemnity was given the State. Cali- fornia w-as admitted without slavery. New Mexico and Utah were erected as Territories with nothing said as to slavery. The slave trade was abolished for the District of Columbia, and a fugitive slave law was enacted w^hich gave promise of being efficient. In the fall of 1850 the people of Georgia, through a partial misunderstanding of the compromise, were plainh' opposed to it.'^ Earlier in the year the governor and the legislature had provided for the meeting of a State convention which should decide upon the course of action which Georgia should pursue. The attitude of those calling the convention had been one of alarm at the developments and tendencies in Congress and of anxiety for the adoption by the South of some policj- for the defense of the section. The Representatives of Georgia had considered the emergency extremely dangerous to the inter- ests of the South, and their speeches in Congress had been « Congressional Globe, Dec. 22, 1849. ^ Federal Union, Oct. 6, 1850. 164 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASHOCIATION. highly threatening and inflammatory; l)ut these speeches had been made with the object of controlling the North by fear of disruption, so as to make it possible for the South to remain in the Union." The people of Georgia, however, had not been shown the underlying intention of their Representatives, and taking their tire-eating speeches and their awful prophes3'ings in dead earnest had grown so much excited as to be almost ready for immediate secession.^ For more than a year the people had l)een wrought up over the probable passage of the Wilmot Proviso, the object of which was to exclude slaver}- from the Southwestern Territories. Although that measure had l)een defeated, certain other contentions had been won by the Free States, and the passage of the compromise did not put an end to the agitation. Mass meetings of the citizens in the sununer of 1850 listened with approval to speeches on the infractions of Southern rights and the advisabilit}- of seces- sion from Rhett of South Carolina, McDonald of Georgia, and Yancey of Alabama.'' But the Georgia Congressmen returned from Washington in September, and the triumvirate — Toombs, Stephens, and Howell Cobb — set about demonstrating to the populace that the South had won a great victory b\' the compromise, and that by far the best course of action under the circumstances was to accept it as the basis for continuit\' of the Union. The trio took the stump in Georgia with great energy, and speedily reversed the tide of public opinion in the causing of which they had been so largely responsible. As the result of their efforts, the delegates to the convention, who were electe'd in November, w^ere Union men in iuniKMisc majorit}', whereas before the arrival of the Congressmen in the State many voices had demanded of the coming convention open resolu- tions of resistance to the North, and e\en the moderates wanted the l)ody simply to meet and adjourn Avithout action.'' Toombs, Stephens, and Cobb seized upon the convention as a great opportunity for good to their cause. By bringing about the election of Union delegates and defeating the resist- a Johnston and Browne, Life of Stephens, p. 245. Federal Union, Oct. 15, 1850. Cf. J. F. Rhodes' History of the United States, vol. 1. p. 134. Also Coleman, Life of Crittenden, vol. 1, p. 3t)5, and Stovall, Life of Toombs, pp. 76 to 80. b Federal Union, Oct. 8, 1850. c.h C. Bntlcr, Historical Record of Macon, Ga.. p. 194. ^Federal Union, Oct. 15 and Dec. 3, 1850. Stovall, Life of Ttwmbs, p. 04. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 165 ance men, they prepared the way for the adoption, b}' the supposedly resistance gathering, of the pacific policy embodied in the celebrated Georgia Platform/' The platform set forth that, though the State was not entirely content with the com- promise just reached by Congress, still upon the ground of its provisions Georgia was willing and anxious to remain in the United States; but that in case of the slightest further encroachment by the North, the attitude of Georgia would at once be reversed and disruption would most probabl}^ ensue. The platform was adopted by the convention with the sur- prising vote of 287 to 19.'^ By the action of their delegates the people of Georgia, bringing to a halt the progress of resistance doctrines, caused puldic opinion throughout the South to set in the opposite direction, and l^egan the revival of the conviction that the necessity for preserving the Union overbalanced the wrongs which the South had suffered up to that time.*^ The work of the Georgia convention of 1850 was not the result of the efforts of either of the political parties, but of a coalition comprised of nearly all the Whigs in Georgia and a strong section of the Democrats, led by Howell Gobi) and located chiefly in the northern counties of the State. The local opposition to the acceptance of the compromise came almost entirely from Democrats. It is apparent, then, that each party had in large measure reversed its position regard- ing the rights of the States since the nullification controversy. Yet the contentions of the friends and the opponents of the Georgia platform in 1850 were not radically different. Pi-ac- tically all Georgians believed that the rights of the South had been invaded. The point of difference was whether the en- croachments made forcible resistance advisable. Although the platform was adopted in the convention by an overwhelming majority, it was realized that there existed strong popular disapproval of any semblance of a sacrifice of Southern rights. The necessity was felt for an organization which would firmly uphold the principles of the compromise. There was therefore held on the night of December 12, 1850, "Gilmer, Georgians, p. 576. ^Journal of the State Convention of ISfjO. Johnston and Browne, Life of Stepliens. p 259. t'Von Hoist, Constitntional History of the United States, vol. I, p. 0. 1()6 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. between the sessions of the convention, a meeting of tlie prominent members of that body, at which it was resolved that party alignments as then existing were illogical and hurt- ful to the country and should be destroyed." At that meeting a new political party was organized for (jeorgia, with Toombs and Stephens responsible for its exist- ence. All friends of the Union were invited to join the Constitutional Union Party, which laid down as the guide for its actions the platform adopted by the Georgia convention, and which nominated Howell Cobb as its candidate for governor in 1851. Cobb, as a Democrat, had always before been opposed by Toombs and Stephens, but of course they were the strongest of his supporters in the newly formed party. The organization in favor of "Constitutional Union'' was opposed by another for "Southern Rights," whose conten- tion wasH^at the compromise involved too much sacrifice on the part of Itm^outh, and whose candidate for the governor's chair was ex-Governor McDonald, a former Democratic col- league of Cobb. As was shown by the results of the contest, the Southern Rights party had alone as its constituency the major part of the Democrats. Cobb was elected by the very great majority of 18,000 votes.'' All of the Whigs entered the Constitutional Union party, and were joined in it Iw the mass of the population in the mountainous northern counties, who were accustomed to follow Cobb's leadership, and who were glad of an opportunity to support a party which favored the perpetuation of the Government of the United States and to antagonize one which seemed inclined to destroy it, A few weeks after the gubernatorial contest the legislature was called upon to elect a United States Senator to succeed Judge J. M. Berrien, the old Whig champion, and at that time the ablest constitutional lawyer in Congress. ]\Ir. Berrien did not approve of the Georgia platform, and, in view of the fact that his party had established the platform, was not a candidate for reelection. Mr. Toombs was placed in nomination, but was opposed by a determined group of Berrien's friends.'" Owing to the high esteem in which the a Stephens, War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 176. Federal Union, Jan. 21, 1851. Sonth- ern Recorder, Feb. 24, 1853, and Dec. 24, 1850. ?) Federal Union, Dec. 17, 1850. Stovall, Life of Toonib.s, i)i.. 97 to 102; Southern Recorder, Nov. 11, 1851. Savannah Kcpublican, Oct. 24, 1851. c Stovall, Life of Toombs, p. 95. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 167 platform was held, as much as to Toombs's own popularity, the opposition was readily overthrown by the friends of the platform. Mr. Berrien was the last of the older school of Georgia statesmen to retire from the field of politics. Troup, Gilmer, and Wilson Lumpkin had long been in private life. Each of them saw and dreaded the clouds mounting above the horizon, and none of them had great confidence in the ability of the younger school to meet the coming emergen- cies." Mr. Lumpkin alone of the four lived through the war which he declared inevitable, to witness the defeat which he dreaded. The Southern secession movement of 1850 had been de- feated by the resolution of the Georgia people, and a desii'e for peace spread throughout the section. The Constitutional Union party had been organized to meet an emergencj", and had met it most successfully. Failing in their contentions, the secessionists ranged themselves under the Georgia plat- form, as a declaration setting forth the limit of what they would concede.'' For several years after 1850 Georgia was strongly in favor of maintaining the Union; but, as there was no special need of a party with such a platform, a tendency set in toward the former arrangement of parties. For the Presidential contest of 1852 both the Whigs and the Democrats in the nation planted themselves upon the com- promise of 1850, and, as far as platform was concerned, there was little ground for choice by Southern voters; but the north- ern wing of the Whigs was more antagonistic to slavery" than that of the Democrats, and General Scott, who was nominated by the Whigs for the Presidency, was quite unacceptable to the bulk of the Southern people. The situation of factions in Georgia during the contest of 1852 was complex. A large portion of the Whig party, led by Toombs and Stephens, decided that it could not sup- port General Scott, and held a convention to nominate Daniel Webster and Charles J. Jenkins as President and Vice-Presi- dent.'" Furthermore, the supporters of the Democratic can- didate were divided into two sections. The bod}' of the Dem- ocrats in the State who had composed the Southern Rights party of the previous year declared in favor of Franklin " Wilson Lumpkin to J. ('. Calhoun, Nov. 18, 1847, Calhoun's Letters, p. 1135. ('J. W. DuBose, Life of \V. L. Yancey, p. 295. ■•Federal Union, July 20 and Sept. 21, 1852. 168 AMERICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. Pieivo, with a ticket of electors from their own ranks, but most of the Union Democrats who had voted for Cobb in 1851 followed his lead in nominating- an independent electoral ticket, which was also pledged to vote for Pierce. There was little excitement, howev^er, in the race. Webster died just before the time of the election, but most of those who had decided to vote for him cast their ballots for him, notwith- standing- his death. An effort was made to reconcile and com- bine the two factions supporting Pierce, but it only resulted in failure. The vote cast in Georgia was as follows: For Pierce on the regular Democratic ticket, 33,84:3; for Pierce on the Union ticket, 5,773; for Scott, 15,779; for Webster, 5,289; for Troup and Quitman, on a Southern Rights ticket, 119." The Democratic vote for Pierce was decidedl}" larger than that for all the other tickets combined. The local vote is inter- esting. The Whig vote was cast in its usual localities, and was much smallei' than customary. In sections especially under the influence of Toombs, Stephens, or Ti-oup, the Whig vote was in favor of Webster, and the Webster ticket obtained pluralities in several counties. The Union vote for Pierce was also concentrated, and was conlined to the north- ern counties, in several of which the ticket received actual majorities. The supporters of Scott were so widely scat- tered over the State that while he received a considerable vote in every section he obtained hardh^ any county pluralities. The Democratic ticket received the majority of all votes cast in every section, except in the northern counties and in the neighborhood of Toombs, Stephens, or Troup. In the quiet period after 1851 the parties in Georgia fell back into their old alignments,^ for when there was nothing to disturb the usual course of affairs men preferred to vote as thej^ had been accustomed. For the gubernatorial contest of 1853, the part}^ of Stephens and Toombs, calling its5. Federal fiiion June 12, 1855. « Federal Union, Nov. G, 1855. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 175 second was by the application of ttie squatter sovereignty doctrine before the Territor}^ was read}" for statehood. The Northern or Douglas Democrats condemned the first method, but approved of squatter sovereignt3\ The newly organized Republican party, in its various elements, favored almost any means which would secure the restriction and the weakening of the institution of slavery. A large portion of the Southern delegates to the Demo- cratic convention at Cincinnati were instructed to vote for no candidate for the nomination who would not unequivocally avow himself to be opposed to either form of restricting slav- ery. « In his letter of acceptance Mr. Buchanan seemed to say what the South demanded, but there was some vagueness in his language. An emergency was required before his ex- act policy would be revealed. In June, 1857, he sent Robert J. Walker to Kansas as Territorial governor. Walker deliv- ered an inaugural address in which he expressed his opinion that Kansas must become a free State, and showed an inclina- tion to interfere with the recent acts of the legislature in pre- scribing the method of ratification of the constitution which was about to be formulated. The attitude of Walker was objectionable to the Southern interest. The convention of the Democratic party in Geor- gia, June 2-1, resolved that Walker's inaugural address was a presumptuous interference in matters over which he had no legitimate control; that it was a gross departure from the principle of non-intervention established b}- the Kansas bill; and that it was the President's duty to remove Walker at once. These resolutions were too mild to suit some of the Georgia Democrats,* while b}" others they were thought to be radical and out of place. This led to a division of the Demo- crats of Georgia into "National" and "Southern" factions.^ The whole matter was simplified for the local politicians by the decision of the United States Supreme Court rendered in March, 1857, in the Dred Scott case; but for the country at large the dictum of the court had the etfect of aggravating the dispute which it was expected to settle. The circumstances of the famous case of Dred Scott v. n T. W. DuBose, Life of Yancey, p. 320. b r. W. Thomas, in Southern Recorder, Nov. 7, 1857. See also Federal Union, June 30 1«57. ' (•Southern Recorder, Sept. 8, 1857. 176 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Sandford are too well known to make a review advisable in this connection. The dcci.-^ion of the court Avas entirely in accord with the extreme Southern view on slaverj' extension. The chief question before the c-ourt was whether Dred Scott was constitutionally a citizen with an}' rightful standing in the courts of the United States. The court decided that he, a negro and the descendant of slave parents, was not a citizen of an}' State or of the United States, and therefore could not be a party to any suit in the courts; and that, further, the residence of his master in Illinois and Minnesota did not change the negro's status as a slave. The court then proceeded to pro- nounce its opinion on a matter which w'as not necessarily involved in any degree in the case before it. It stated that, slaves being regarded as property and not as persons by the Constitution, Congress had no right to legislate slavery out of any territory of the United States, and therefore the legis- lation of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, was unconstitutional. " Though the infallibility of the Supreme Court had in former times been questioned by the people of Georgia, the universal opinion in the State was that for the Dred Scott case the court had had a remarkably clear insight into revealed law.* The Northern Democrats also accepted the decision. Mr. Douglas in some way reconciled the opinions of the court with the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and joined in the general Democratic rejoicing. But the anti-slavery men were far from acquiescing* in any such settlement. Developments connected with Kansas soon afterwards dis- tur))ed the harmony in the only remaining national paity. The Lecompton convention, for which arrangements had been made by the pro-slavery legislature before the inauguration of Walker as governor, drew up a constitution Avhich placed numerous safeguards around the institution of slavery, and refused to submit most of these articles for popular ratitica- tion. Before the close of 1857 it was clear that the majority of settlers in Kansas were anti-slavery men. Mr. Douglas refused to abandon the principle of popular sovereignty. He was therefore driven to act with the Repub- licans in their hostility to the Lecompton constitution. The a For report of the case see Howard, U. S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 19, p 293. bCf. Federal Union, Mar. 31, 1857. GEORGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. l77 Southern Democrats then read him out of the Democratic party, branding- him with treason to the South and to the Democrac3^" The South wished to secure the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, hut when conditions in the Terri- tory had been used as a text for numerous tirades against slavery in general, the section grew anxious to put an end by any feasible means to the agitation over '"bleeding Kansas." The Republicans were accused of being so eager to keep open the irritating question that the}^ were ready to oppose the admission of the State even with an anti-slaver}^ constitution.* The whole matter was finally closed by the submission of the Lecompton constitution to a popular vote in Kansas, and its rejection ])v the majority on August 2, 1858. It was thus decided that slavery should not exist in Kansas. But this settlement was not reached until the rift in the Democratic ranks had become so serious as to render the Repul>lican triumph almost inevitable in 1860. At this period the whole American people expected a crisis to arrive at the end of Buchanan's administration; and the conviction grew the stronger as the Presidential election drew nearer. In Georgia there was considerable diflerence of opinion as to the best course of action for the State to pursue in the dreaded emergency of a Republican accession to power. To appreciate the positions of the respective leaders in Geor- gia, we must take a short review to cover the more recent developments in State politics. The first rumor of the existence of the xlmerican or Know- nothing organization reached Georgia in May or June, 1854. Shortly afterwards the first lodges were established in Geor- gia. By the end of the year the American Party had become an important factor in Georgia politics.'^ A large portion of the Whig part}^ at the North had gone openl}' into the anti- slaver}^ camp after 1852. Another portion entered the Amer- ican party with the object, professedly, of causing America to be ruled by Americans and not by foreign immigrants or by Catholics. The ends of the organization were to be secured thiough the work of secret lodges spread over the country. n Federal Union, Apr. 6,1858. 6 Ibid., Mar. 30, 1858. '•Ibid., Sept. 12, Dec. 2G, 1854, and Mar. 13, 1855. H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 12 178 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. Most Oi. the Georgia Whio-s joined the order, not because the}^ considered nativism to be a pressing issue, but because by so doing they could best oppose their old enemies, the Democrats. The Know-nothing movement was popular with the raidc and file of the Georgia Whigs, but most of the prominent men in the party declined to join it. Toombs voted with the Democrats throughout the Congres.-iional session of 1858-54, and in 1855 he condemned the Know-nothings, urging the whole South to unite for the safety of Southern rights and to support the ])and of patriotic Democrats at the North who were lighting for the observence of the Constitution. Ste- phens was prevented by his extreme regard for consistency from al)andoning his Whig colleagues quite so readily. In May, 1855, he announced that since so many of his former sup- porters had entered the Know-nothing organization, of which he could not approve, he would not be a candidate for reelection to C'Ongress. But shortly afterwards, having decided to defy the Know-nothings, he declared himself a candidate indepen- dent of all parties. He showed that one of the pledges of Know-nothingism was to uphold the Union, while nothing was said about the Constitution; therefore it was against the Georgia platform and supportive of abolitionism.^' Stephens, like Toombs, was welcomed liy the Democrats, whose ranks he entered, and was at once returned to Congress. For the gubernatorial race of 1855 three candidates entered the field. The Democrats nominated Herschel V. Johnson for a second term; the Know-nothings selected Garnett Andrews as their champion, and the Temperance part}" sup- ported B. H. Overby, a Methodist preacher who had been a fire-eating Whig. All three candidates stumped the State, but there was never any doubt of flohnson's election. The vote as cast in October was, for Johnson 53, -178, for Andrews 43,222, for Over])y 6,284.^ It soon became evident that the Northern and Southern wings of the American party were out of S3nnpathy. The Georgia Know-nothings seem not to have been distressed over the fact, for their State convention declared in its plat- form in December, "The Territories of the United States we regard as the common property of all the States as coequal "Cleveland, Life of Stephens, p. 472. Federal Union, May 22, June 5, and July 17, 1855. h Federal Union, July 31, Mar. 13, and Oct. 16, 1855. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 179 sovereignties, and as such open to settlement by the citizens of the several States with their property as matter of right. We repudiate, therefore, the doctrine commonly called squat- ter sovereignty."" This resolution was clearl}^ a l^ait to catch local support, for all of the leaders knew that the Northern wing of the party could never be brought to approve it. The national convention of the Know-nothings which met at Philadelphia in March, 1856, nominated Fillmore and Don- elson as its candidates, and adopted a platform containing nothing but platitudes. The nomination was not a popular one at the South, but caused numerous desertions from the party.* E. A. Nisbet, a leader of the Know-nothings, and C. J. Jenkins, an anti-Know-nothing Whig, decided to vote for Buchanan, because Fillmore had no chance of election, while in order to preserve the rights of the South/' it was necessary to defeat Fremont, the candidate of the newly formed Repub- lican party. The death of J. M. Berrien, on January 1, left the brilliant young orator, Benjamin H. Hill, as the only note- worthy leader of the Fillmore party in Georgia.'^ He, noth- ing daunted by his isolation, vigorously stumped the State for his candidate, occasionally having a brush with Toombs or Stephens, both of whom he accused of base desertion from the Whig party. The result of the contest in Georgia was a victory for Buchanan of 14,000 votes. The only counties carried by Fill- more were in those parts of middle Georgia where the Whigs had formerly been especially strong. The veterans Troup and Lumpkin l)oth wrote public letters from their retirement in support of the Democratic party.' The men who voted for Fillmore did so in order merely to prevent their party from falling to pieces, and because there was no urgent reason to the contraiy. In many parts of the North the American party abandoned its own candidate, preferring to assist in the advancement of the anti-slavery cause by joining the Repu))li- can party .'^ Fillmore accordingly received the electoral vote of the State of Maryland alone. a Federal Union, Dec. 25, 1855. b Ibid., Mar. 11 and July 8, 1856. «Ibid., Sept. 9 and 16, 1856. d Fielder, Life of Brown, p. 81. Federal Union, Aug. 5, 1.S56. e Federal Union, July 31, 1855, and Apr. 29, 1856. /Speech of Toombs, Federal Union, Oct. 4, 1859. 18U AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. The crushing' defeat of 1856 came near dostroyino- the Georgia Know-nothing party, but during the spring of 1857 its leaders and its editors urged that the organization be not abandoned/' Accordingly, a convention of the party met in July to prepare for the gubernatorial contest. It adopted a platform opposing squatter sovereignty, upholding the Georgia platform, condemning further agitation upon the right of property in slaves, and declaring that the Dred Scott decision was but a judicial indorsement of the position theretofore held by the American party of Georgia. As its candidate for the governorship the convention nominated B. H. Hill by acclama- tion.^ The platform abl^^ expressed the popular sentiments of the time. The candidate was by far the strongest man in the party, but the KnoAV-nothings knew from the tirst that they had no chance of success, because the Democrats had lived up to all that they themselves could promise, and furthermore because nearly all the strong politicians in the State were among their opponents. The Democratic State convention, meeting on June 21, adopted the two-thirds rule for nominations. The drafting of a platform was not necessary, for the past record of the party showed where it stood on all vital issues. The promi- nent men in the party were so numerous that a choice was very difficult. Nineteen ballots were cast without a majority for any candidate. A large committee was then appointed to report some method of harmonious action by the convention. The committee reported the name of Joseph E. Brown for the nomination; the naines of all other candidates were with- drawn, and Brow^n was given a unanimous vote.*" The personality of the Democratic candidate is important, in that it throws strong light upon the attitude of the poorer class of white citizens in the State. Pirown was born in Pickens District, S. G, in 1821, but in early youth nioved with his parents to Union Gounty, Ga., to a valley shut in by the ranges of the Blue Ridge, remote from all centers of cul- ture, and out of touch with the current of politics. The slender resources of the family rendered it necessary for the future governor and senator to help his father and brothers n Southern Recorder, April, May, and June, 1857. Mbid., July 14, 1857. Ft'deral Union, Tuly 14, 1857. c Avery, History of Georgia, p. 37. Federal Union, June 30, 1S57 GEOKGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 181 in the farm work. At iin early age he began to plow behind oxen, which were then and are now the chief motive power in the mountain region. With onlj^ the rudiments of educa- tion, 3^oung Brown set out at the age of 19 for Dr. Waddell's well-known school in South Carolina, carrying with him a yoke of steers to pay in part for tuition and board. Proving himself an excellent student, he afterwards was able to bor- row money to take a course in law at Yale College. He then returned, in 1846, to enter the practice of law in Cherokee County, in another part of the mountain district of Georgia. Joseph E. Brown always remained a representative of a hornj-handed constituency. Born and raised without the personal service of slaves, he was, like man}^ others in the same circumstances, strong in support of the institution and iirm in the belief that the non-slaveholding Southerners de- rived much benefit from the existence of slavery in their coun- try. His sojourn in Connecticut not changing these views, he soon had occasion to express them in part, as a member of the Georgia legislature. Speaking on February 1, 18.50, upon the subject of the legislation upon slaver}- then in contempla- tion b}^ Congress, he defended the justice of slavery, showing that its hardships had been greatly lightened since the colonial period, when the system was in existence throughout the col- onies. He declared that the Constitution gave Congress no right to a])olisli slavery in the Territories, and stated that in his opinion the South had surrendered valuable rights when the Missouri Compromise line was established. He was in favor of calling a State convention in order that firm ground might be taken for the protection of the rights of the South. '^' For some years before 1857, Brown held the office of judge of the superior court in the northern district, at the same time managing his farm near Canton, Ga. There is a tradi- tion that the committee sent to inform him of his nomination for the g'overnorship found the judge hard at work in the field gathering his crop of wheat. The nomination of such a man b}^ the Democratic party, and his subsequent election as governor with a large majority of votes, '^ was in its moral effect similar to the accession of Andrew Jackson to the Presidency in 1828. A shock to the a Federal Union, July 14, 1857. (>The vote east was, for Brown, 57,ufJ8; for Hill, 46,826; Federal Union, Oct. 20, 1857. 182 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. aristocratic regime in Georgia/' it placed at the helm of the State a man who was in the closest touch with the sturdy yeomen, and it added to the group of official leaders a strong- thinker, with a new point of view and with valuable fresh ideas. By his arguments in the campaign and his subsequent able discharge of his executive duties, Governor Brown quickly gained for his utterances such attention throughout the State as was accorded ver3' few other politicians. The inaugural address of the new governor showed what might be expected of him in case any attack should be made upon slavery during his term of office. He stated his convic- tion that the State of Georgia would not remain in the Union if the Constitution were tampered with, and he declared his unalterable determination to maintain her rights and vindicate her honor at every hazard and with every means in his power.* The year 1858 was devoid of excitement in Georgia. It was a period of reflection; and reflection brought determination. While there was diflerence of opinion in unimportant matters, the people were of only one mind on the vital issues of slavery and State rights. If there were more than one side to either question the people of Georgia could not appreciate the fact. The great slavery issue was of course one which concerned the sections of the countr}^ rather than the individual States, and it had chiefly been so considered down to the time when the comparative weakness of the South in Congress became manifest. Aftei- that point had been reached, and after the abolitionists began their agitation, more and more emphasis came to be placed by the Southern people upon the limita- tions which the Constitution had laid upon the central Govern- ment in regard to slaver3^ The flrst direct and conscious connection between slaver}^ and State rights b}- a prominent Georgian was probably in the inaugural address of Governor Gilmer, delivered in November 18P>7. In it he said that on account of slavery and its products, "our true position is to stand by the powers of the States and the people as the surest safeguards of our rights, of liberty, and of property."*^ Among the people this conviction grew stronger year b}^ year. The slavery question was acknowledged to be a sec- a Avery, History of Georgia, p. 47. '> Fedcnil Union, Nov. 10, 1867. tNiles's Regi.ster, vol. .W, p. isi. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 183 tional one, but the section had no constitutional standing" or rights, as did the States which composed it. The sectional feeling grew very strong. The antagonism between the North and the South was partially smothered by the compromise of 1.S.50, but flared out afresh when the Kan- sas question arose, and was thereafter steadil}' aggravated by the course of events. The enactment of laws by certain Northern States to prevent the operation of the f ngitive-slave law led to the unanimous adoption by a convention of the Democratic party of Georgia, in 1855, of resolutions request- ing the legislature to pass efficient retaliatory measures." Senator Toombs gave his support to the plan, advising the levy by each Southern State of an ad valorem tax on all articles offered for sale which had come from other States. This would foster home production and direct importation from abroad, and at the same time it would hurt New Eng- land.^ The plan was kept under popular consideration for some time, and though the contemplated laws were not en- acted, the citizens were guided in many cases by the principle involved. The purchase of commodities from the North, and even the subscription to the Northern newspapers came to be condemned by many as a form of paying tribute to the North at the expense of the South. ^ A business depression in New England in 1858 was partly accounted for by the stopping of orders by Southern merchants. Some of the Bostonians thought of retaliation in kind upon the South, but came to realize that the section had a monopoly upon all of its export products, and therefore could not be hurt by nonintercourse. '^ The development of the Free Soil organization into the more powerful Repul>lican party and the strengthening of the anti- slavery cause had the effect in the South of making radical policies the more popular. Even conservative Southerners did not condemn Mr. Brooks for chastising Mr. Sumner. They regretted that the Senate Chamber had been selected as the place of punishment, but the general sentiment was that " while Massachusetts chooses to be represented in the United "Federal Union, Juno 12, 1855. b Letter of Toombs, Federal Union, Dec. 23, 185C. See also editorial in Federal Union, Apr. 13, 1858. c Federal Union, Feb. 9, 1858. '/Editorial of Boston Herald, reprinted in Federal Union, Sei)t. 21, 1858. 18 J: AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOOIATIOIN'. States Senate by l:»lacko-uards, she ought not to complain if the}' receive a bhickg-uard's reward."" From the Southern standpoint the institution of domestic servitude was more firmh' established in 1858 than ever be- fore. The sugo-estion that slavery was not ethically right was frowned down and denied utterance.^ The number of slaves in Georgia was almost equal to the number of white persons, and their value as property w^as considerably greater than that of all the land in the State, with town and citv property in- cluded/ The market value of slaves increased rapidly in the years just preceding secession. Throughout the preceding decade or two the rule for pricing slaves had been to multiply the price of a pound of cotton by 10,000 — e. g. , if cotton sold at 12 cents, an able-bodied negro would be worth $1,200, But that rule was now abandoned. The price of slaves rose 25 per cent in three years. '^^ Well-grown negro boys were sold in Milledgeville in 1860 for $2,000 each.' ^ The project of emancipation, even with compensation to the masters, found very little favor in Georgia.-^" Several plans were ])ronght f orwiird to strengthen the local support of the in- stitution which might have been adopted had they been thought necessary for the purpose. One of these was that one slave should be included in the homestead legally exempt from lev}^ or sale, in order to encourage every family to have one slave. ^ But even without such legislation the poorer whites were rightly thought to be, in thousands of cases, as sturdy de- fenders of the institution as those who owned slaves.''' A few individuals favored the reopening of the slave trade;' but, as a Georgia editor very apth^ said, "the Southern people have no more idea of reviving the slave trade than they have of admitting their slav(^s to the rights and privileges of citizen- ship. "•'■ "Editorial in Federal Union, June 3, 1850. f' Federal Union, Aug. 1-1, 18ob. ("Georgia tax returns, 1856: Total value of slaves, S210,5H8,(i:!l; loial value of land, 1157,899,600; Federal Union, Feb. 17, ls.".7. fi Federal Union, Jan. 17, 1800. '■Ibid., June 12, 1800. /Ibid., Feb. 1, 18.59. !/Ibid., Dec. 30, 185C. ''Editorial, Federal Union, Aug. 28, 1800. Speech of Senator Tverson, Federal Union, July 26, 1859, Letter of Governor Brown, Federal Union, Dec. 11, 1S05. ''Messageof Governor Adam.s to legislature of South Carolina, Federal Union, De<'. 2, 1856. Letters of Dr. Lee, of Athens, Ga., Federal Union, Mar. 1, 18.59. j Federal Union, Dec. 2, 1856. GEORGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 185 The people of the South of course realized that a veiy strong cauipaig-n was being made against slavery, but they were convinced that it could nev^er be peacefully successful. A work on slavery, showing much thought and research, was published by T. R. R. Cobb, in 1858, which may be taken as authoritative upon the Southern side. His conclusion as to emancipation was that, "until the white race is exterminated or driven off, it can never be forcibly etfected. Amalgama- tion to any great extent is a moral impossibility. Coloniza- tion on the coast of Africa could l)e effected only at immense cost, and at the sacrifice of the lives of at least one-fourth of the emigrants. So long as climate and disease and the profitable planting of cotton, rice, tobacco, and cane make the negro the only laborer inhabiting safely our Southern savannas and prairies, just so long will he be a slave to the white man. Whenever the white laborer can successfull}^ compete with him in these productions and occupy this soil, the negro will either be driven through the Isthmus to become amalgamated with the races of South America, or ho will fall a victim to disease and neglect, begging bread at the white man's door."^' Mr. Cobb's attempt to foretell the future of the negro was, as he himself said, only a conjecture. He could not foresee the abolition of slavery within the next decade, but from his study of the characteristics and the con- dition of the race he could have assured the North that sweeping emancipation would rather complicate than sim- plify the negro question. The period of quiet which preceded the storm extended beyond the middle of the year 1859. Mr. Stephens, in a speech to his constituents on July 2, called attention to the lack of political agitation and to the general prosperity of the State and of the whole countrj^, and stated that he was no longer a candidate for Congressional honors.'' Mr. Stephens, however, appreciated the numerous indications which foreboded the early arrival of evil times, and his con- viction of his own inability to avert them was so strong as to be the true cause of his retirement from Congress.'' The first renewed rumbling of the coming storm burst upon Georgia in a speech of Senator Alfred Iverson, at Griftin, " Cobb on Slavery, p. CCXXI. b Cleveland, Life of Stephens, p. 637. Federal Union, July 19, 1859. e Letter of Stephens to Dr. Z. P. Landrum; Cleveland, Life of Stephens, p. (ids. 186 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Ga., on Jul}' 1-i, 1859. He proclaimed the powerlessness of the Northern Democracy, and the extreme probability of the election of a free-soil President in 1860, declaring that in such an emergency he would favor an independent confederacy of the Southern States. He urged the South at once to repudiate all compromises, and to hurl square defiance at the aboli- tionists in every possible way.^ This speech caused great controversy in the State, which lasted through several months. The prevailing opinion seemed to be that Mr. Iverson had exaggerated the evils, but the news of John Brown's raid led to a very general acceptance of the truth of what he had said. A slave insurrection was the one thing most dreaded by the Southern people. The improbability of its occurrence did not lessen its theoretical horrors. Information concerning plots which were sometimes unearthed was spread abroad as carefully as possible, so as to encourage vigilance without arousing' excitement. The newspapers generally avoided the subject, but occasionally referred to it in order to prevent the complete decay of the patrol system,* toward which there was a very strong tendency, due to the indulgent and easy- going disposition of the Southern people. The details of John Brown's exploit were quickly made known to everyone in Georgia by the electric telegraph, the local press, and word of mouth. The news was of an intensely exciting character, but it was necessary to avoid all manifes- tations of frenzy. As soon as the insane folly of Brown's scheme became apparent, as well as its hideously criminal character, the tierce hatred in the South toward its perpetra- tors and abettors gave place to a widespread and more reso- lute hatred than had existed before toward all antislavery men at the North. It was recognized by conservative men that the whole of the North was by no means abolitionist, but the numerous demonstrations on the day of Brown's execution and the popular canonization of the fanatic criminal over- shadowed in the Southern vision the Union meetings which were held in the chief Northern cities.' A substantial result of the John Brown incident was the strengthening of the conviction that the South must achieve "Avery, History of Georgia, p. 104. Federal Union, .Inly 2Ci, isri'.i. ^Federal Union, Dec. 23,18,56. pibid., Dec. 27, 1869. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 187 unity. It" the non-slaveholders in Georoia had at any former time been lukewarm in support of slavery, their strenuous hos- tilit}' to forcible abolition was no longer a matter of doubt. The non-slaveholding class continued to repose their chief trust in Joseph E. Brown, who, from the ability shown in his discharge of the executive duties, had won great popularity with all people who appreciated efficient government.'* As the Democratic nominee for reelection in 1859 he was opposed by a candidate put forth by the traditional enemies of the Demo- cratic party, but was elected governor by a very large major- it}^ of votes. In his inaugural address for the second term he took much the same position that Senator Iverson had adopted in his speech of four months previous. He voiced the opinion, which had then become very gen- eral, that the great contest of 1860, which might decide the fate of the Union of the States, would be fought between "the Black Republican and the National Democratic parties." He regarded the Democratic party as the last hope of the Union. Should it be broken down, the rights of the South denied, and her equality in the Union destroyed, he declared his con- viction that the section should strike for independence.^ As mere words this address was nothing unusual. What gave it importance was the well-known character of the governor as a man absolutely serious and determined in any policy once undertaken. His annual message, also delivered in Novem- ber, 18.59, was squarely in line with the inaugural address. In former messages Brown, like his predecessors, had advised the legislature to take steps to improve the State militia,^ Imt the legislature had paid no attention to the mat- ter. The militia in Georgia, as in other Southern States, had fallen sadly into neglect. The old-fashioned public drills and musters had so long been discontinued as to be known from the tales of the old citizens only as a farcical and valueless relic of colonial and revolutionary times.'' The governor now advised a tax upon all citizens not members of military companies, the proceeds of the tax to be devoted to the erec- tion of a foundry for arms, so that Georgia would be inde- " Southern Recorder, July 12, 1859. 6 Federal Union, Nov. 8, 1859. c Federal Union, Nov. 6, 1855 (Governor Johnson). Federal Union, Nov. 9, 18.58 (Governor Brown), f? Fielder, Life of Brown, p. 103. 188 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. pendent should an emergency arise/' The le^'islature was still not ready to act upon all of the governor's advice, l)ut Brown was able through his influence to develop much enthu- siasm in the State for the military service, and to prepare the people for swift action when the crisis should arrive. The general outlines of the Presidential contest of 18()0 were as follows: The Democratic national convention met at Charleston April '20, 1860. Its connnittee on platform made two reports, the one of the maiority declaring that the United States Oovernment was l)ound to protect in the Territories all the property of every citizen immigi'ating from any State of the Union, and that slavery must legally exist in every terri- tory until the organization of a State government. The minority report set forth that, whereas differences existed in the Democratic party as to the powers and duties of Congress ovei" slavery in the Territories, resolved, that the party would stand by the Supreme Court in the matter. The Northei'n delegations secured the adoption of the minority report, whereupon most of the Southerners, in vic^v of the disagree- ment in th<> party, and with the determination to establish the principle of the Dred Scot decision, followed William L. Yancey and tln^ Alabama delegation in a secession from the conventio)!. Soon afterwards the remaining delegates, failing to nominate a candidate, adjourned to meet again at Balti- more. In the adjourned session Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, was nominat(ul for the Pr(\sidency, and, Mr. P'itzpatrick declining, Mr. II. V. Johnson of Georgia was selected as his compan- ion on the tick(>t. A second secession of Southern delegations occurred at l>altimore, leading to the nomination by the com- bined secedcrs in their conventions at Baltimoi'e and at Rich- mond of J. C Breckenridge, of Kentucky, and Joseph I^ane, of Oregon as President and Vice-President. ]M(^anwhil(^ the R(^})ublican convention had nominated Lin- coln and Ilandin, and had declared not only that slavery did not exist in the Territories, but that Congress could not legal- ize it in them. Still a fourth ticket, bearing the names of Bell and Everett, was put in the field by the "Constitutional Union "" party. Avith the Federal Constitution as tln^ oidy plank in its platfc^rm. The split in the Democratic party was deeply regretted in "Fodcral Union, Nov. S, 1859; FielckT, Life of Brown, p. 101. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 189 Georgia, but the responsibility for it was I:iid at the door of the Doug-las Democrats. All of the local leaders were inter- rogated for their approval or disapproval of the bolting of the Georgia delegation at Charleston and for advice to the party in its dilemma. Their replies were published for the guidance of the people." Mr. Stephens, lamenting the disruption of the convention, thought that the South had done wrong in abandoning its former position favoring non-intervention with slavery in the Territories. He relied upon sober second thought to deter- mine whether Georgia should be represented at Baltimore and what course of action the delegation should follow. Mr. Herschel V. Johnson wrote that though the Union was not an object to be idolized, it should be preserved as long as the interests of the South did not distinctly re([uire its aban- donment. Since the overthrow of the Democratic party would be a long stride toward dissolution, that contingency should be avoided. 1'he South should therefore adhere to its policy favoring non-intervention, for insistence in its new demand would bring no special advant{H,^e. Init would antago- nize many Northern D(^nlocrats. He urged that delegates be sent to Baltimore instructed to preserve the integrity of the party. '^ Governor Brown was of the opinion that the masses North and South were willing to have mutual justice done, and he hoped for harmony at Baltimore. He held that the people of the South htid the right to demand of Congress the enactment of laws for the protection of slave property in the Territories, l)ut the expediency of such a demand was questionable. He advised that Georgia send delegates to Baltimore, where it still might be possible to agree upon a compromise plank and an acceptable candidate. Mr. Howell Cobb explained that there were two points of ditierence at Charleston— the platfoiin and the candidate. The fifteen Southern States, together with the two Democratic States on the Pacific coast, agreed upon a platform which recognized the equality of the Southern States, claiming for their citizens with their property the same protection which the laws of the land extended to the citizens of the non- o Most of these letters were printed in the Federal Union May 2-2, 1860. h Federal Union, May 29, 1800. l90 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. slave-holding- States and their property; the remaining sixteen States, with their superior numbers in the convention, refuse'd to recognize these principles, but adopted an ambiguous plat- form with the intention of nominating a candidate know^n to be hostile to the Southern contention. The letter of Mr. Toombs was the most radical of the series. He said that the proceedings of the convention had been very interesting, but had caused him no apprehension. In the developments at Charleston he saw positive evidence of the advance of sound constitutional principles; it might not have been prudent to present so iiuich truth on the slavery issue as was contained in the majority platform, but since it had been so presented it ought to be firmly supported. While he approved the secession of the Georgia delegation, he thought that, in view of the overtures of the New York delegation, the State should be represented at Baltimore. Such action would involve no sacrifice of principle, since the convention of seceders could still ])e held at Richmond. Mr. Toombs was not frightened at the prospect of disunion. '* Our greatest danger to-da}^" he wrote in conclusion, "is that the Union will sur- vive the Constitution." The State Democratic convention, which met at Milledge- ville on June 4, approved the Charleston secession l)}^ a vote of two-thirds, and reappointed the original Georgia delega- tion to attend the session at Baltimore, with instructions to secede if the adjourned convention should refuse to protect slavery in the Territories. But Ex-Governor Johnson led a body of bolters from the Milledgeville convention, which appointed a difi'erent delegation to Baltimore with more mod- erate instructions.^' The Baltimore convention resolved to recognize both delegations from Georgia, giving to each one- half of the full vote of the State. The regular delegation refused to accept this, and withdrew to join the conventions of the bolters in Baltimore and in Richmond.'' The Johnson delegation accordingly cast the full vote of Georgia in the regular convention at Baltimore. The remnant in Georgia of the American part\', calling itself the Constitutional Union party, held its convention in Milledgeville on May 2 to select and instruct a delegation to " Butler, History of Maeon, Ga., p. 228. ''Letter of the regular Georgia delegation, Federal I'liion, July U), 1800. GEOKGTA AND STATE EIGHTS. 191 the general convention of their party at Baltimore. Resolu- tions were adopted for the guidance of the delegates, or more probably for local effect, which declared the right of propcrt}^ in slaves, the obligation on the part of the Federal Govern- ment to protect slave property in the Territories, and the un- constitutionality of any State legislation against the fugitive slave law." The general convention refused to adopt a vigorous plat- form of any kind, but hoped by the example of its own placid- ness to relieve the country from the turbulence and strain of the times. Bell and Everett were very suitable candidates to make the campaign upon the spiritless platfoi-m of the party. Of course, Lincoln received no support whatever in Georgia. He was considered a negligible factor in the local campaign. The strongest argument in favor of any one of the other candi- dates was that he was the most likeh^ to defeat the Republican party. Aside from Yancey, of Alabama, the favorite cam- paign orators of the South were Toombs in support of Breck- inridge, Stephens for Douglas, and Benjamin H. Hill for Bell.'' All of the hotspur leaders in the State were strongly in favor of Breckinridge because of his outspoken platform. Very many were so irritated by the long-continued uncertaintv that they were determined to have a satisfactory President or dis- solve the Union forthwith. The Douglas and the Bell partisans were very much akin in their policies. Anxious to preserve the rights of the South in the Union, and to remove slavery from politics, each faction struggled on independently, hoping against hope that the Republicans would be defeated. Several efforts were made to fuse the two parties in Georgia without entire success, though many Douglas men probably decided at the eleventh hour to vote for the Bell electors.'' Early in October it became known to be practically certain that Lincoln would be elected. '^ From that time began the agitation, led at first by Breckinridge men, looking to the secession of Georgia at an early date. The popular vote cast in Georgia was for Breckinridge 51,893, for Bell 12,855, for Douglas 11,580. The result of the contest at large became known very quickly after the ballot boxes were closed. The "Federal Union, May 15, 1S60. <• Federal Union, Oct. 30, ISGO- bDu Bose, Life of Yancy, p. 512. dibid., Oct. 2, 1860. 192 AMEKICAN HISTOEICAL ASSOCIATION. news that their worst feur.s were realized caused depression for a time in Georgia, but dread quickl}^ g-av^e way to defiance, and hesitation was replaced by resohition/' Georgians of every faction had the fellow feeling of a common defeat, and they determined to waste their strength no more in fruitless dissensions, but to work, and if need be fight, together in the patriotic cause/' The hearts of thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children were thrilled with the motto, "Georgia expects all of her sons to do their duty." a Fielder, Life of Brown, p. 171. ''Federal Union, Nov. 13, 1860, ff. CHAPTER VIII -THE SECESSION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA. The idea of .secession from the Union of the States is prac- tically as old as the Federal Constitution itself. It was occasionally alluded to as a possibility in the early years under the present frame of o-overnment; but the first occasion upon which the question of the advisabilit}' of secession was seriously discussed by any important body was the meeting of the Hartford convention, composed of delegates from the New England States, at the close of 1814. Secession as a remedy for the ills of the South was first mooted in Georgia about the 3'ear 1849. The compromise of 1850 tended to check the discussion, but the theoretical priv- ilege of secession was one of the contentions of the local Southern Rights party in 1851. Earl}^ in 1854 Gen. James N. Bethune established the "Corner Stone" at Columbus, Ga., which for some length of time had the distinction of being the only newspaper in the South which advised the immediate dissolution of the Union. '^^ From the beginning of the Kansas struggle, secession as a last resort for the protection of Southern rights was never completely out of the contempla- tion of Southern statesmen. Hiram Warner, in accepting a Democratic nomination to Congress in 1855, expressed his approbation of withdrawal from the Union should it become necessary in defending the rights of the State of Georgia.* Herschel V. Johnson, while governor of Georgia, wrote in 1856 that the election of Fremont as President would drive the Southern States to dissolve the Union, while Howell Cobb, in discussing the same contingency, declared that he would hasten home, in the event, to take the stump for immediate secession.^ William L. Yancey, of Alabama, was first and last the most a Federal Union, Feb. 8, 1854. & Federal Union, July 3, 1855. cDuBose, Life of Yancey, p. 333. H. Doc. 702, pt. 2 13 193 194 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. determined advocate of secession, and was of great impor- tance in directing sentiment in Georgia. He was in the lead of the radical movement in 1850, and was among the last to be reconciled to the Georgia platform. In the following years he laid aside his secession arguments to join in the struggle for Southern rights in the Union, yet he continued to look to a refuge in ease of tyranny on the part of the North, and we find him in 1858 organizing the "League of United Southern- ers,'' the memliers of which, while keeping up their old part}' relations on all other questions, were to hold the Southern issue paramount.'' The rapid growth of the Republican party led all Southern- ers to become familiar with the idea of secession as a last recourse in case the antislavery party should ever gain con- trol of the Government. We have alread}^ seen that for sev- eral years the Presidential contest of 1860 was expected to bring on a crisis which would necessitate heroic measures. Immediately after Lincoln's election preparations were set on foot to meet the emergency. The chief magistrate of Georgia was in the very forefront of the aggressively defensive Southern movement. On November 7, 1860, Governor Brown sent a special message to the legislature advising against the projected conven- tion of the slaveholding States on the ground that very few States would be represented in it, 1iut urging ettective measures on the part of Georgia without the delaj' Avhich a Southern conference would make necessary. He condemned the duplic- ity of the Northern people in bringing the slaves to America and afterwards demanding that the Southern people liberate them, make them citizens, and intermarry with them. He stated that the Constitution was a compact, and that one of the conditions of its adoption had been the agreement by each State to deliver up fugitive slaves. Showing the breach of this agreement, he advised that the governor be empowered to use the military in making reprisals on the public or pri- vate property of the offending States, and furth(U', that the citizens of such States be excluded from the protection of the laws of Georgia. He recommended the calling of a conven- tion of the State and the appropriation of |1, 000,000 as a military fund for the ensuing year, to l)e used in putting the a Letter of W. L. Yancey to James Slaughter, June 15, 1858; Federal Union, Aug. 3, 1858. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 195 State in a defensive condition as swiftly as it could be done/' While deliberating- upon the advice in the governor's special message, the legislature requested several of the most distin- guished men of the State to speak before the assembly upon the condition of the Republic. Accordingly, on the night of November 13, Mr. Toombs made a very powerful address before the two houses in favor of immediate secession.'^ On the following night Mr. Stephens replied to Mr. Toombs in a speech which, on account of the very great respect in which the people of every section held the speaker, as well as for the merits of the address itself, attracted great attention throughout the country,'" In beginning his address, Mr. Stephens expressed his opin- ion that the South as well as the North was to be blamed for the existing state of the Union. Discussing the actual pre- dicament, he said that the election of no man, however hostile to the South, would justify the disruption of the Republic, since the constitutional checks upon the President must pre- vent his doing any great mischief. If there should be any distinct attempt to carry out the Republican policy of exclud- ing slave property by act of Congress from the Territories, and so to destroy the perfect equality of all the States, Mr. Stephens declared he would be second to no one in advocacy of resistance to the last extremity; but meanwhile he urged sober deliberation and solemn remonstrance, followed w^here necessary by reprisals against the States which had broken the fugitive-slave compact. He therefore advised the sum- mons of a convention of the people of Georgia and a con- ference with the neighboring States to secure conservative action on the part of the whole South. If these means should fail to check and remedy the evils of the South, then, and only then, should a united appeal be made to the god of bat- tles. "My position, then, in conclusion," he said, "is for the maintenance of the honor, the rights, the equality, the security, and the glory of my native State in the Union, if possible; but if these can not be maintained in the Union, then I am for their maintenance at all hazards out of it. « Federal Union, Nov. 13, 1860. 6 A. H. Stephens, Constitutional View of the War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 234. e Rhodes, History of the United States, vol. 3, p. 210. For correspondence between Lincoln and Stephens arising from this speech, see Cleveland, Life of Stephens, pp. 151 to 155. 196 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Next to the honor and glory of Georgia, the land of my birth, 1 hold the honor and glory of our common country."^' The convictions of the most conservative Southerners were ably expressed in this speech, but it failed to sway the multi- tude because the most favorable result from the pursuance of the policy outlined would probably be the continuance of the unsettled and objectionable state of affairs. Every outspoken man in Georgia was in favor of resistance,^ and most of them thought the sooner it was made the better it would be for the interests of the South. Toombs, Brown, and the two Cobbs were the spokesmen for the policy which was clearly destined to carry the State. Farmers prepared to plant larger grain crops than usual in the spring because of the warlike outlook.'' Homespun clothing was worn at social gatherings to show a patriotic independence of the manufacturing States."^^ A wave of militar}^ ardor led to the spontaneous organization of infantry and cavalry companies in all sections of Georgia. The legislature was far from lukewarm. Its members were gratified at the tenor of the governor's special message; they listened with enthusiasm to the arguments of Toombs, T. R. R. Cobb, H. R. Harris, and others for immediate secession, and they applauded to the echo the declaration of Mr. Stephens that any policy which the sovereign people of the State should adopt in the emergency would conmiand his own hearty support. The most important of the recommendations of the special message were speedil}' embodied in legislative enactments. A million dollars was appropriated to be used by the governor in the preparation of the State for defense, the outlay to be met by the issue of bonds to run for twenty years, at 6 per cent.* After listening, on November 17, to an address from Hon. W. L. Harris, who, as commissioner from the State' of Mississippi, appealed to the State rights actions in the history of Georgia and asked that the State should join his own in taking efficient measures for the safety of the South, the legislature directed the call of a convention of the sovereign people of Georgia, since the right was theirs to determine the "Stephens, War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 279. Cleveland, Life of Stephens, p. 694. l> Southern Recorder, Dec. 4, 1860. (■Federal Union, Dec. 11, 1860. dibid., Jan. 1, 1860. e Approved Nov. 16, 1860; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, p. 49. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 197 mode, measure, and time of the resistance which in the general opinion had manifestly become necessary/' The act required the governor to order the election on January 2, 1861, of delegates, who should assemble on January 16 in the State capitol. Each county entitled to two members in the house of representatives should elect three delegates to the conven- tion, and each count}' entitled to one member should send two delegates. Full powers w^ere given the convention to redress all the grievances of the State as a member of the Union. In order to insure the presence in the convention of the ablest men of the State, a subsequent act ordered the adjournment, during its deliberations, of all the State courts.^ A further defensive measure authorized the governor to accept the services of not more than 10,000 troops of the three arms, and to equip and discipline them for service as infantry, cav- alry, and artillery, and also to furnish arms to volunteer companies in the State and to encourage their formation.'^ A set of resolutions approved December 19 described the state of things which was responsible for the steps already taken })y the legislature and for those expected to be taken by the convention. A large portion of the non-slaveholding States, they declared, had for many years shown a fanatical spirit bitterly hostile to the Southern States, and had finally organized a political party for the avowed purjwse of destro^^- ing the institution of slavery, and consequently spreading ruin and desolation in ever}^ portion of the country where it existed. This spirit of fanaticism had ])ecome allied with a long-harl)orcd design to wield the taxing power of the Gov- ernment in a way to protect the interests of the North, and also to appropriate the common Territories of the United States to the exclusive use of Northern inmiigration, so as to render the power of the section irresistible. These designs had attained such ascendency as to combine a large majority of the Northern people in a sectional party, which had just elected to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency candidates pledged in the most solemn manner to wield all the power and influence of the Government to accomplish its purposes. In order that these reprehensible designs might be counter- a Approved Nov. 21, 18G0; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, p. 26. 6 Approved Dee. 19, 1860; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, p. 240. c Approved Dec. 18, 1860; Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, pp. W, 52. 198 AMP^RICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. acted to the best efi'ect, the legislature advised that should any or all of the Southern States withdraw from the Union and resume their sovereignt\", such States should form a con- federacy and adopt as a frame of government the Constitu- tion of the United States so altered and amended as to suit the new state of affairs/' The spirit of the messages of Governor Brown was exactly that with which most Georgians agreed. After the call of a convention had been enjoined upon the executive, the personal opinions of the governor were requested by a group of citi- zens. The letter of advice to electors of delegates, which accordingly appeared on December 7, was considered to be a complete reply to Mr. Stephens's speech of November 14. In Mr. Brown's view, Mr. Lincoln was a mere instrument in the hands of the great fanatical abolitionist party, under the control of which the whole Government would soon be brought. He said that the triumph of the Northern section upon a platform of avowed hostility to Southern rights afforded ample justification for withdrawal; submission to the inauguration of Lincoln he firmly believed would result in the total abolition of slavery and the utter ruin of the South within twenty-five years. Branching into a special plea to the poorer class of whites, he prophesied that the abolition of slavery would effect their complete misery and degradation. Emancipation would necessarily be accomplished by the pur- chase of the slaves by the (Tovernment. The cost of the four and a half million slaves in the South would amount to two and a quarter l)illion dollars, to raise which the taxation must be extremely severe. The colonization of the free negroes would also l)e enormously expensive, but if the}^ were to remain in the South the condition of the poor white would be dreadful. The former slaveow^ners would soon acquire possession of all the land; the poor white nmst become a tenant or a day laborer, and, in competition with the negro, must descend to the lowest standard of living; there would be legal, economic, and social equality of the races, with the prospect of intermarriage. The people of the mountains also, the governor continued, had a vital interest in the question. Thousands of freed negroes would remove from the seacoast, and would soon be plundering and stealing in a Acts of Ga. Gen. Assem., 1860, p. 238. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS, 199 North Georgia as elsewhere. Probably one-fourth of the negro population would have to be kept in jail all the time. Returning to the general issue, Mr. Brown continued: "My honest convictions are that we can never again live in peace with the Northern abolitionists, unless we can have new con- stitutional guaranties, which I do not believe the people of the Northern States will ever give while we remain together in the Union. Their opinion is that the cotton States will always compromise away their rights, and submit for the sake of peace." The secession of the cotton States before Lin- coln's inauguration might lead to Northern concessions and to reunion. Secession would probably not bring on a war, he concluded, for President Buchanan had recently declared that the General Government had no power to coerce a seceding State. On the other hand, the submission to wrongs might necessitate a war to redress those wrongs in the future. "■ Another document which had influence in the cause of inde- pendence was a letter of Mr. Howell Cobb, dated at Washing- ton, December 6. It reached the people of Georgia, together with the news of Mr. Cobb's resignation from Buchanan's Cabinet, soon after the publication of Mr. Brown's letter of advice. It proclaimed that the Union established by the fathers, which was one of equality, justice, and fraternity, would be supplanted on the 4th of March by a Union of sec- tionalism and hatred — the one worthy of the support and devotion of freemen, the other only possible at the cost of Southern honor, safety, and independence.'' Mr. Cobb soon afterwards arrived in person to stump the northeastern part of the State for secession. In order to rally the opposition party, Mr. Stephens arranged a meeting of the members of the general assembly, liftj'-two in number, who were opposed to immediate secession. Resolutions were adopted asking for a convention of the Southern States, and advising voters to require pledges from the candidates for the Georgia convention that they would oppose secession unless all other measures of safety should have failed. These " cooperationists " proceeded to make a campaign for a demand on the part of the united South for a guarantee of its rights, which failing, would be followed with "Federal Union, Dec. 11, 18G0. ''S. Boykin, Memorial Volume of Howell Cobb, p. 31, referring to New York Tribune, Dec. 21, I860. 200 AMERICAN HISTOKTCAL ASSOCIATION. a formal dissolution of the Union and a division of th(^ common property/' Mr. Stephens saw that his following was of considerable strength, but felt that the odds were against him.^ The cur- rent against which he fought was further strengthened by a letter addressed b}^ the Southern Congressmen to their con- stituents, stating that all hope of saving the Union by legisla- tion was gone and that the honor, safet}^ and independence of the Southern people required the organization of a Southern Confederacy after the separate withdrawal of the States from the Union.'' Even more powerful was a ringing dispatch of Senator Toombs, who had returned to Washington after making his plea for immediate secession at Milledgeville on November 13. The anxiety which Congress showed at the recent startling- events had led him to write a public letter to the effect that there was still a possibility of an agreement between the sec- tions, and therefore inunediate secession was not imperative. '^^ But he quickly reverted to his former position. On Decem- ber 23 he telegraphed to the Savannah Morning News a dis- patch to the people of Georgia. Giving a brief account of the refusal of the Republicans in the Senate committee of thirteen to agree to Crittenden's resolutions or to an}^ others of a similar kind, he proclaimed as if from a rostrum within the hearing of every citizen of the State: "I tell you upon the faith of a true man that all further looking to the North for security for your constitutional rights in the Union ought to be instantly abandoned. It is fraught with nothing but ruin to yourselves and to posterity. Secession b}^ the Ith of March next should be thundered from the ballot box by the unanimous voice of Georgia on the 2d of Januar}^ next. Such a voice will be your best guaranty for liberty, securitj^, tranquillity, and glory."'' Veterans in statecraft and novices in the political arena added their persuasions to swell the triumph of the sectional cause. T. R. R. Cobb," in his maiden political speech, pleaded with the legislature to carry the State out of the Union with- rt Southern Recorder. Dec. 25, 1860. b Letter of Stephen.s to G. T. Curtis, Nov. 30, 1800; ClevclaiHl, T>ifc of Stcidicus, p. 1,^9. f Federal Union, Dec. 25, 1860. ''Letter of Toombs, dated Dee. 13, 1800; Southern Recorder, Dee. 25, 1860. e Federal Union, Jan. 1, 1S61. GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 201 out waiting for a convention ;^^ Wilson Lumpkin wrote from hi.s retirement advising separate State secession and the forma- tion of a Southern Confederacy. "The idea of forcing a State back in the Union," he said, "is cpiite too preposterous to merit refutation."'^ When the second day of January arrived, the voters of Georgia had been fully instructed as to the emergency. In most of the counties there were two sets of candidates — the one in favor of immediate secession, the other opposed to immediate secession. The opposition was further divided into those who favored secession after the failure of a last united effort for Southern rights in the Union — the " coopera- tionists" — and those wdio did not consider secession at any time to be the best remedy for the grievances felt. There were practically none who denied the right of the State to secede if it should see tit to do so. In every county the foremost citizens stood as candidates for the convention, and among the candidates those who were held in greatest esteem for strength of judgment were, as a rule, elected, for the people knew that party lines were at last destro3"ed, and in many cases they thought it better to delegate a strong man, without requiring pledges, than to rely upon their own weaker judgments without the benefit of the debates in the convention. After the middle of December the secession of all the cotton States was held as certain. On the first of January Mr. Toombs telegraphed from Washington that the vacancies in Buchanan's Cabinet, resulting from the withdrawal of the Southern members, had been filled by the appointment of enemies of the South, which meant that the policy of coercion was already adopted by the Administration. He warned the State that Fort Pulaski, at the ruouth of the Savannah River, would very soon be fully manned by Federal troops.^ On the very next day Governor Brown issued orders to the colonel of the First Regiment of Georgia Volunteers, directing him to descend the river from Savannah, to occupy the fort, and hold it until the convention should decide con- cerning its disposal. Accordingly, on Januar}^ 3, Colonel Lawton took possession of Fort Pulaski in the name of the a Butler, History of Macon, Ga., p. 235. !) Federal Union, Jan. 1, 1861. c Savannah Morning News, Jan. 3, 1861. 202 AMEEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. State of Georgia." There may have been some Georgians who disapproved of this proceeding, but the citizens of Savannah considered the seizure of the fort so necessary that the failure of prompt action by the governor would have l)een remedied by a spontaneous movement of the people.'^ The United States arsenal at Augusta was not seized before the actual secession of the State, because although, unlike Fort Pulaski, it had a garrison, it was not in ready access from the North, but must continue to be at the mercy of the State forces. The convention of the people of Georgia was called to order on January 16, 1861, in accordance with the governor's proc- lamation of November 21. With the exception of one man, who was then on his deathbed, every delegate was in attend- ance. It was without doubt the most distinguished body of men which had ever assembled in Georgia. Every Georgian of political prominence was a member, with the exception of ffos. E. Brown, Howell Cobb, and C. J. Jenkins, while these gentlemen were invited to seats on the floor of the convention. Of the 297 delegates, there were not four whose names were not of pure English, Scotch, or Irish origin. It would not have been possible to assemble in one hall, by an}" method of selection, a more truh^ representative bod}^ of the best intelligence of Georgia. The tirst two da3's were devoted to the organization of the convention and to the reading of communications from the already independent States of South Carolina and Alabama. In a secret session of January 18 Mr. Nisbet oflered the following resolutions as a test in the matter of secession: "1. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention it is the right and dut}' of Georgia to secede from the present Union, and to cooperate with such of the other States as have or shall do the same, for the purpose of forming a South- ern Confederacy upon the basis of the Constitution of the United States. 2. Resolved, That a committee of be appointed by the Chair to report an ordinance to assert the right and fulfill the obligation of the State of Georgia to secede from the Union. "^ « Fielder, Life of Brown, p. 178. ''Savannah Morning News, Jan. 3, 1M61. o Journal of the Convention of the People of Georgia held in 1861, p. \b. Fielder, I^ifc of Brown, p. 177. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 203 Mr. H. V. Johnson offered as a substitute a resolution stating the affection of Georgia for the Union and her desire to preserve it if possible without injury to her own rights and safety, and an ordinance calling a convention of delegates from the States south of Pennsylvania and from the inde- pendent republics of South Carolina, Florida, Alaljama. and Mississippi, to meet on February 16 to consider the existing state of affairs, and declaring that if the efforts of such con- vention should fail to secure the rights of the South in the Union the State of Georgia would secede and unite with the other Southern States.'^' After an elaborate discussion, in which Messrs. Nisbet, H. V. Johnson, T. R. R. Cobb, A. H. Stephens, Toombs, Means, Reese, B. H. Hill, and F. S. Bartow participated, a call was made for the previous question, which brought the convention to a direct vote on Nisbet's resolution to secede. The vote, taken by yeas and nays, showed the adoption of the resolution l)y a majorit}^ of 1<)6 to 130. On the following day Mr. Nisbet, as chairman of the com- mittee, reported an ordinance for secession, in the form of a repeal and abrogation of the ordinance adopted by the people of Georgia in convention on January 2, 1788, ratifying the Constitution of the United States, and the several acts of the general assembly adopting amendments to that instrument, together with a declaration of the resumption l)y the State of Georgia of the full exercise of all rights of sovereignty which l)elong to a free and independent State.'' Benjamin H. Hill at once moved the adoption of Mr. John- son's resolution of the day before as a substitute for the seces- sion ordinance. His motion was lost })y a vote of 183 yeas to 161: nays. This vote and the one of the day before were con- sidered as the definite test. The delegates who subsequently voted against secession did so with the object of recording their firm opposition to the precipitate measure. The ordi- nance was soon afterwards adopted by a vote of 208 to 89, and thereupon the president of the convention declared that it was his pleasure to announce that Georgia was a State, free, sov- ereign, and independent.'^ (I Journal of the Convention, pp. 15 to 20. Stephens, War.Between the States, vol. 2, p. 301. ('Ibid., p. 31. dbid., p. 39. 204 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Just before the linal vote on the ordinance Mr. N. M. Craw- ford rose to explain the grounds of his preceding votes against secession and of his intended vote on the pending motion. He said that he had consistent!}' voted against the proposition to secede, but in view of the question having been settled by the test votes, he considered it his dutv to acquiesce in the declared policy of the State and had decided to strengthen the moral effect of the State's action by voting for the ordinance." Forty-three delegates adopted the same plan to show a similar attitude. In order to establish complete harmony, the con- vention ordained that, whereas the lack of unanimity on seces- sion was due not so much to difference of opinion on the rights of Georgia and her wrongs as to the remedy and its applica- tion before a resort to other means of redress, resolved that all who voted against the ordinance, as well as those who sup- ported it, would sign the document in order to show unani- mous determination to sustain the State in her chosen remedy. All of the delegates signed the ordinance but six, who pro- tested against the immediate secession of Georgia, but who pledged their lives, if necessary, to defend the State from hos- tile invasion from any source whatever.''^ It is to be regretted that, owing to the exclusion of report- ers, the speeches made in the convention, except that of Mr. Stephens,^ were never put into a durable form; but they were probably little more than i-epetitions of what had already been said or written. Mr. A. H. Stephens records that the most powerful argument in the whole campaign was that of Mr. T. R. R. Co])b, " We can make better terms out of the Union than in it." Mr. Stephens says, probably with much truth, that two-thirds of those who voted for the ordinance of secession did so expecting a subsequent re-formation of the Union with constitutional guaranties for slaver}- on the general line of those set forth in the substitute resolutions of Mr. Johnson.'' After the decision upon the main question before the conven- tion there were ninnerous matters which denianded and re- ceived attention. A unanimous vote of thanks was tendered the governor for his prompt action in seizing Fort Pulaski. "Southern Recorder, Jan. 22, 1S61. ''Journal of the Convention, p. 51. <■ For which see Stephens, War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 305 ff. d Stephens, War Between the States, vol. 2, p. 381. Historical Report, 1901 - Phillips. Plate IX WHITFIELD/ WALKER k ^URRAY CILMER FAN N I N ^ Ntqujwc/' ^ ^ \uN10n\ 7 RABUN chattoooaJ ooroon Fl-OYO CASS (piCKEN3 CHEROKEE /Lumpkin) Jhabersham — —Vhau C^**"** \ ■■'" r hart VIILTOI ulton' JACKSON GWlNNErT/\;^R^E 4LT0N JVIADISON fceUTHORPE/ (wlLKES I CABROLL kCAMPBEU fcLAY-l \ NEWTONV/ .„. . A C^'v,, - gAHKOLL L___L_fTONj V /""'"'''N \ GREENE VaUA>V tcOWETA (FAY- ETTE^ Jhenry SE^^ JASPER (puTNAM f > . „ , HANCOCK \^^'J''^ h^"'" ( PIKE . , X ■ TROUP )weTHEr( MONROE I JONES V*'-"*"" , ■^WASHINGTON , UPSON \ WILKINSON HARRIS frALBOT^>^R^„F0R^"'"" , , .^^—/rwiGGsX ^XliPHNSON -| TAYLOR HOUSTON \ ^^\ LAURENS JEFFER-1 SON BURKE EMANUEL BCHLE I STEWART I ]~ \ 000 LY (kEBSTER SUMTER N^u^lt Sranooiph iCLAY fERRELL] LEE PULASKI SCREVEN BULLOCH \epf,ng\ HAM MONTGOMERY/ ALHOUN IDOUGHERTY] EARLY BAKER WORTH MILLER /MITCHELL COLQUITT BERRIEN COFFEE 1 CLINCH LI BERTY DECATUR L„o„^s /brooks, CHARLTON /CAMDEN LOWNDES^ 1 ECHOLS -lUS BfEN A CO-1 MAP OF GEORGIA IN I860 showing local pluralities in the presidential chM-tion oTthat year BELL . PLURALITT H RP^CKINIUDCI-: .PLL'RALITV OFTHK CONSTITirnON/U. UNION PAiriY OFTHK SOtmiERN DliMOCH.VrS I I 5010 60per cent ol'tlie totiil vote [' | 50 to 60 percent of the total vote |~^ I 60 „ 75 , „ nZ] 60 ., 75 I I over 75 , „ , „ W^ Over75 noi'Gi^\s,pix'UALi'n' OI'TllK NATIONAL nKMOCHA'l'S ^^ 50 lo GO percent of t)u> total VDto GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 205 All Federal civil officers in Georgia were instructed to con- tinue in the discharge of their duties until otherwise ordered by the convention. Provision was made for the equipment of a small armv and navy for the temporary defense of Geor- gia and the neighboring States. Commissioners were sent to those Southern States which had not yet decided to secede, and delegates were appointed to attend the convention of the seceded States, which was expected to establish a Southern Confederacy. An ordinance was unanimously adopted by the convention on January 23 establishing in full force for Georgia all laws of the United States in reference to the African slave trade, except the fifth section of the act of May 10, 1800, and with a modification of the act of May 10, 1820, so that instead of being piracy the slave trade should be punishable by con- finement in the penitentiary for from five to twent}^ years. On January 29 a report by Mr. Toombs was adopted as being suitable for publication to accompany the ordinance of secession and to justify it in the popular mind, « after which the convention adjourned to meet again in Savannah at the call of the president. It convened, accordingly, on March 7, adopted the constitution of the Confederate States by a unanimous vote, directed the governor to turn over the military and naval forces to the Confederate Government, formulated and adopted a new constitution for the State of Georgia, and finally adjourned on the 23d of March. The record of the yeas and nays upon every important measure taken by the convention renders easy the task of tracing the votes of each delegate to the count}^ which he represented. When the vote upon the question to secede is plotted in this way upon the map of the State, several inter- esting comparisons may be instituted regarding the attitude of different localities toward secession and toward the former political parties, and concerning the local distribution of slaves. The local vote in the Presidential election of 1860 was not essentially different from the usual party votes in the preced- ing years. On the eastern edge of the State most of the Democratic votes, together with a number of Whig votes, were cast for Douglas, but elsewhere the Democrats voted for a Journal of the Convention, p. 104. 206 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Breckinridge. The support of the Constitutional Union can- didates came from the old Whig sections, though there was some diminution from the usual Whig vote on the seaboard, with a counterbalancing gain in the mountains. We have said that all the hot-heads were for Breckinridge, but it must be noted that just at this time there were very few radical hot-heads in the State. Everyone was awed by the impend- ing calamity. In the general consideration it mattered little whether Bell, Breckinridge, or Douglas carried Georgia. If Lincoln were not elected by the Electoral College, the choice would fall to the United States House of Representatives, where all of Lincoln's enemies would unite in support of one of his opponents. The light vote which was cast in Georgia showed the popular indifference to the result within the State. The strongholds of the Democratic party in Georgia, in a typical contest with the old Whig party, coincided, as a rule, with the districts in which the white people were more numer- ous than the slaves. In the contest of 1860 this was still true, except on the seaboard, and with the proviso that the supporters of Douglas be not classed with the Georgia Dem- ocrats. Regarding the vote for secession, no such generali- zation can be made. In fact, party lines were not in any wav preserved in the convention of 1861. The only general tendency to be stated is that delegates sent by the Whig or Constitutional Union counties Avere inclined to v^ote for seces- sion, and those from counties which had given Breckinridge majorities tended to vote against immediate secession. This was exactly the reverse of what might have been ex- pected if Georgia politics had been quite logical in the pre- ceding period. As a rule, the Whigs in the South were the moderates, opposing the Democratic tire eaters, and in (jeor- gia the case in all appearances was not an exception; but an historical development had been temporarily reversed in 1840, when the Georgia State Rights part}' had joined the Whigs, and an anomalous state of things had resulted. There had been no great disruption of parties in 1840, because the existing economic and social bonds were stronger than those of strictly political character. The State Rights men l)ccame moderate Unionists in the Whig party and the members of the Union party, as Democrats, took up the advocacy of State rights. This double somersault decided the policy which each party was to advocate for the next twenty years. The Historical Report, 1901 - Phillips. Plate X Rome AtlaVa *usta\ -Macon r MAP OF GEORGIA I N I860 showing the local preponderance of whites and negroes as^iven in the U. S. census of that year. NEGROES MAJORTTT \\"HITES MAJORITIT [~~] 50 to 60 percent of llie total population | | 50 to 60 percent of the total population I 1 60 ,75 cm 60 .. 75 , . . , . I I over 75 . „ „ „ „ „ WS^ Over75 ...... nl)ov<' 9() - . ■ • - [•;\;y;| equal niuiihei- of whiles nnd neSroes A^oCe.- N^o county in w/)ii jopiosent Ml 1.. v(,U- lipn- ,llnst,-nted was th.> test volo.takcn on Jan 18,and not uie liual voLcon the adoption ofthe ordinance of secession. /h)fn tJi.eirivspective seciiorus o/'the ^-tnte. GEOEGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 209 maintenance. Slaves were capital, and capital is always con- servative in its tendenc}' . Moreover, slaver}^ was generally on the defensive against attack, and thus in a conservative position. It was a long-established institution, and for that reason its maintenance was conservative. Secession was advocated by its supporters as a means to the more certain preservation of slaver}', and in that light the policy seems itself to have been conservative. But, on the other hand, the opposition to secession in Geor- gia was not opposition to the principle but to the advisability of appl3dng the drastic remed}^ without first taking milder measures which might render it unnecessary. Secession appears from this point of view to have been radical. When we consider, however, that from the practical certainty of the refusal of the North to yield the constitutional guaranties which were demanded for the permanent advantage of slaver}', the only result from a Southern convention would probably have been a concerted secession at a later period. The question as to conservatism is again unsettled. The plot of the vote in the secession convention, when traced to the counties, shows that there was a general, though by no means universal, tendency in favor of secession among delegates from the sections where slaves were numerous, and an opposite, but no more universal, tendency from the dis- tricts where the whites preponderated. The personal influ- ence of Stephens, Johnson, and Hill carried their home sections against immediate secession; while Brown, Toombs, Nisbet, Bartow, and the two Cobbs were powerful in their districts for withdrawal from the Union. It is interesting to note that every countv in which a city or large town was located had in 1860 a comparatively small slave population. Yet ever}' delegate from such counties voted for secession when the test question was upon its passage. We see, then, that the progressive townspeople as well as the great conservative slaveholders, of whom Howell Cobb was a type, were strong in the advocacy of immediate seces- sion; and that the people of the mountains and of the barren parts of the southern pine region, who were so conservative as to be almost retrogressive, tended to combine in opposition to immediate withdrawal; but that all Georgians wei-e agreed in the opinion that their State had a constitutional right to H. Doc. 7U2, pt. 2 14 210 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. secede whenever its sovereign people should see fit to exercise that right. It has been our object in large part in the preceding pages to set forth the histor}^ of the doctrine of State rights in Georgia. AVe have noted the influence of such matters as Indian afl'airs and the protective tarifl' in developing opposi- tion to a highly centralized government, and we have explained the cumulative efiect of the slavery struggle in bringing about actual secession. In our pursuit of historical truth we have at length reached the culmination of the whole movement in the adoption of an ordinance by the people of Georgia to secede from the United States and to resume on the part of the com- monwealth all rights of sovereignty which had been dele- gated to the Federal government. We have not attempted to settle constitutional questions which were involved, but have usually confined ourselves in such matters to the state- ment of the interpretations of history and the Constitution which were advanced by prominent Georgians. It only remains to state that after so many years of political disagree- ment between the various successive parties, the people of Georgia at length achieved unanimity, when each citizen excelled his neighbor in the support of the ordinance by which Georgia had declared herself again sovereign and in the defense of Southern rights and Southern independence.'* a Cf. Editorial in Southern Recorder, Jan. 29, IStil. BIBLIOGRAPHY. HISTOKIES OF GEORCilA. Arthur, T. S., and Carpenter, W. H. History of Georgia from its earliest settlement to the present time. Philadelphia, 1882. Of little value as an authoritative work. Avery, I. W. History of the State of Georgia from 1850 to 1881. New York, 1881. Notwithstanding his extravagance in the use of atljectives, the facts stated by Mr. Avery are reliable. The work is in large part a biography and eulogy of Joseph E. Brown. Evans, Lawton B. A student's history of Georgia. New York, 1898. An excellent school history. Indeed, though meager, it is the fullest in detail of any work covering the whole field of the history of the State. Jones, C. C, Jr. History of Georgia. 2 vols. Boston, 1883. One of the very best of American colonial histories. The work as published only reaches the end of the American Revolution. The author did not carry out his design of covering the history of Georgia as a State in later volumes. M'Call, Hugh. History of Georgia. 2 vols. Savannah, 1811-1816. The contents of the first volume are taken almost bodily from Hewitt's Histori- cal Collections of South Carolina. The second volume contains valuable mate- rial relating to Georgia in the Revolutionary war. Mitchell, Frances L. Georgia land and people. Atlanta, 1900. Considerable research is shown, but little constructive ability. This work, in common with nearly all others on Georgia history, has the fault of giving no references to sources of information. Smith, Charles H. A school history of Georgia. Boston, 1896. In addition to an outline of the history of Georgia to 1893, this little book con- tains chapters upon social and political institutions in ante-bellum Georgia, which are worthy of note as being written by one who has lived ob.sf rvingly in the period of which he writes. Smith, G, G. Story of Georgia and the Georgia people. 1732 to 1860. Macon, 1900. Contains noteworthy material upon the process of settlement. For the general history of the State the author relies mainly upon secondary authorities. County histories fill a large part of the volume. Stevens, W. B. History of Georgia to 1798. 2 vols. A very satisfactory history of colonial Georgia. The treatment of the period after the Revolution is somewhat fragmentary. White, George. Historical Collections of Georgia. New York, 1854. Contains much valuable material in the shape of original documents, biograph- ical sketches, and local nistory. According to a statement of Governor Wilson Lumpkin, White's account of Cherokee affairs is faulty. 211 212 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. White, George. .Statistics of Georgia, its natural, civil, and ecclesiastical history, descrijition of each county, accounts of the aboriginees. Savannah, 1849. Most of the valuable material lii this volume, which itself is (luite good, is iucorporated in the later work by the same author — Historical Collections of Georgia. LOCAL AND SPECIAL HISTORIES. Butler, J. C. Historical record of Macon and central Georgia. Macon, 1879. The best local history in the Georgia field. BowEN, Eliza A. Story of Wilkes County. Washington, Ga., circ, 1882. Chappell^ Absalom H. Miscellanies of Georgia, historical, biographical, descriptive, etc. Columbus, Ga., 1874. Contains sketches of Alexander McGillivray, Elijah Clarke, Benjamin Hawkins, James Jackson, of the Georgia land lottery, and of the Yazoo fraud. Possesses value for the general reader; it deals too much in eulogies and generalities to have great value as an authority. Dutcher, Salem (and Jones, C. C'., Jr.). Memorial history of Augusta, Georgia . . . Syracuse, N. Y., 1890. Georgia Historical Society Collections. Savannah, vol. 1, 1840; a^oI. 2, 1842; vol. 3, 1873; vol. 4, 1878. Contains valuable material, largely in the shape of reprints of documents for the colonial period. "A Sketch of the Creek Country in 1798 and 1799" was printed in 1848 as part of vol. 3, but was never published. In addition to its "collections," the society has published a considerable num- ber of pamphlets, devoted chiefly to the annual addresses before the eociety. Some of these are of considerable value. Haskins, Charles H. The Yazoo Land Companies. 1891. Keprinted from American Historical Association Papers, vol. 4, No. 4. This excellent little monograph was printed as a doctor's dissertation at Johns Hopkins University. It is the final authority in its field. Fully equipped with references. Jones, C. C. The Dead Towns of Georgia. Savannah, 1878. In explaining the reasons for the decay of such towns as Fredcrica and Ebeu- ezer the author throws light upon the economic history of Georgia. This was also published as vol. 4 of Georgia Historical Society Collections. Lee, F. D., and Agnew, J. L. Historical record of the city of Savannah. Savannah, 1869. Me.moirs o» Georgia, containing historical accounts of the State's civil, military, industrial and professional interests and personal sketches of many of its peoi)le. 2 vols. Atlanta, 1895. Pickett, Albert J. History of Alabama, and incidentally of Georgia and Mississippi, from the earliest period. Third edition. Charleston, 1851. This excellent history of Alabama contains much authoritative iiniterial on Georgia history. It concludes its view with the year 1819. Reed, Wallace P., editor. History of Atlanta, Georgia. Syracuse, N. Y., 1889. GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. 213 ScoMP, H. A. King alcohol in the realm of king cotton, or a history of of the liquor traffic and of the prohibition movement in Georgia from 1733 to 1887. 1888. Incidentally to the main theme, the history of Georgia receives some treat- ment in its political, economic, and social aspects. Strobel, p. a. The Salzburgers and their descendants, Baltimore, 1855. In relating- the history of the German colony at Ebenezer, near Savannah, the author describes to some extent the economic and social conditions in Georgia as a colony and as a young State. Sherwood, Adiel. A gazeteer of the State of Georgia. Charleston, 1827. Second edition, Philadelphia, 1829. Third edition, enlarged, Wash- ington, 1837. Fourth edition, 1860. Of some value as containing data showing the condition of the State at the various dates of publication. The later editions have maps of indifYerent quality. The issue of 1860 gives a list of the literary productions of Georgia to that date. Stacy, James. History of Midway Church, Liberty County, Ga. New- nan, Ga., 1899. The history of the community at Midway, which included a large number of leading Georgia men and families, is an important contribution to Georgia history. Vedder, O. F., and Weldon, Frank (and Jones, C. C, Jr.). History of Savannah . . . Syracuse, N. Y., 1890. Wilson, Adelaide. Historic and picturesque Savannah. Boston, 1889. WooLLEY, E. C. The Reconstruction of Georgia. New York, 1901. A painstaking monograph in a field for which there is little material generally accessible. Full bibliographical apparatus. BIOGRAPHIES AND MEMOIRS. Andrews, Garnet. Reminiscences of an old Georgia lawyer. Atlanta, 1870. Boykin, S. Memorial volume of Howell Cobb. Atlanta, 1870. Contains a biographical sketch by W. H. Browne. Calhoun, John C. The correspondence of J. C. Calhoun, edited by J. F. Jameson. Printed in the Report of the American Historical Associ- ation for 1899, vol. 2, Washington, 1901. Contains much material of great value for Southern history. The letters to and from Wilson Lumpkin are to be noted as relating to Georgia. Charlton, Thos. U. P. The life of Maj. Gen. James Jackson. Augusta, 1809. Reprinted, Atlanta, no date. The reprint contains accounts of Jackson by several writers, and also contains a valuable set of letters from Jackson to John Milledgo and others. Cleveland, H. Alexander H. Stephens in public and private. Phila- delphia, 1866. The collection of letters and speeches is valuable. Crawford, W. H. Correspondence. MSS. A small collection is in private possession in Athens, Ga. There are also a few letters of Crawford in the library of the Department of State at Washington, in the New York Public Library, and in the Boston Public Library. Scattering let- ters of Crawford are to be found in the printed correspondence of Clay and of Gallatin. On the whole, very few Crawford letters have been preserved. 214 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Draper, Lyman C. Collection of MSS. in the Wisconsin Historical Society Library. The volume of documents relating to Georgia is chiefly concerned with Elijah Clarke. DiT BosE, J. W. Life and times of W. L. Yancey. Birmingham, Ala., 1892. A painstaking work, which is useful in the study of the secession movement. Fielder, H. Life, times, and speeches of Joseph E. Brown. Springfield, Mass., 1883. The shortcomings of the biography are offset by the collection of documents and the sketches of Brown's contemporaries. Gilmer, George K. Sketches of some of the first settlers of upper Geor- gia, of the Cherokees, and of the author. New York, 1855. A noteworthy book of remarkable frankness; contains biographical and genea- logical sketches of the Gilmers and the neighboring families, an account of the settlement of upper Georgia, and an autobiography, including documents chiefly concerning the Cherokees. . The literary progress of Georgia. The semi-centennial address of the University of Georgia. Athens, Ga., 185L pm. A rambling discussion of conditions in early Georgia. Little attention given to the literary progress. Much of the material was afterwards used by the author in writing the work listed above. Harden, E. J. Life of George M. Troup. Savannah, 1840. A satisfactory work. Numerous documents are given in connection with the account of the Creek controversy. HiLLiARD, Henry W. Politics and pen pictures at home and abroad. New York, 1892. Valuable chiefly for its authoritative account of Southern and national politics. Contains notices of Georgia history prior to 1860. Jones, C. C, Jr. Biographical sketches of the delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress. New York, 1891. All of Colonel Jones's work is of an accurate and valuable character. In addi- tion to his works listed herein, he wrote a large number of pamphlets, addresses, etc. In a brief memorial of his father (Augusta, Ga., 1893), Mr. C. E. Jones gives a bibliography of eighty titles, mostly relating to Georgia history. Hawkins, Benjamin. Journals and papers. MSS. There are ten small MSS. volumes of the Hawkins papers in the library of the Georgia Historical Society at Savannah. The society has printed the most valu- able of these, "A sketch of the Creek country in the years 1798 and 1799," as an extra part to the third volume of its "collections." The remaining Hawkins papers are journals of routine work among the Creeks and correspondence which is of a kind useful only in very minute research in Creek aflfairs. Johnston, R. M., and Browne, W. H. Life of Alexander H. Stephens. Philadelphia, 1878. A most excellent biography, giving a good view of political history and con- taining a full and well-selected collection of letters and the shorter speeches. Lumpkin, Wilson. Incidents connected with the life of. 2 vols. MSS. A valuable autobiography covering the period of the author's active politi- cal life from about 1810 to about 18J0. It contains a large number of letters, speeches, and executive messages dealing largely with internal improvements and Cherokee Indian affairs. The manuscript, if printed, would fill some 1,500 octavo pages. It is now in private possession in Athens, Ga. Mayes, Edward. Lucius Q. C. Lamar: his life, times, and speeches, 1825- 1893. Nashville, 1896. The early chapters contain some treatment of conditions in Georgia in Lamar's youth. GEOEGIA A"ND STATE RIGHTS. 215 Miller, S. F. Bench and bar of Georgia : memoirs and sketches. Phila- delphia, 1858. 2 vols. A collection of mediocre biographical sketches. Contains valuable documents and some other material of value which is not readily accessible elsewhere. The sketches of J. M. Berrien and A. S. Clayton are the most valuable in the collection. Meigs, W. H. Life of Josiah Meigs. Philadelphia, 1887. Josiah Meigs was president of the University of Georgia from 1801 to 1811. This short biography gives some account of the primitive conditions in upper Georgia at that time. Stovall, p. a. Robert Toombs: statesman, speaker, soldier, sage. New- York, 1892. One of the best biographies in the Georgia field. It gives a good view of politi- cal affairs in the lifetime of Toombs. Sparks, W. H. The memories of fifty years. Philadelphia, 1870. While not reliable for strict accuracy, this volume of reminiscence contains in its early chapters good accounts of men and conditions in Georgia in the first decades of the nineteenth century. Waddell, James D. Biographical sketch of Linton Stephens. Atlanta, 1877. Linton Stephens was the younger brother of A. H. Stephens. This work has little value except as simple biography. THE LAWS OF GEORGIA. Georgia General Assembly, acts passed by, from 1778 to the present time, except 1777-1799, 1805-1810, etc. MSS. in the office of the sec- retary of state, Atlanta. The text or substance of all laws of general application may be found in the compilations and digests. The acts and resolutions of each session were printed from about 1812. Georgia Colonial Assembly. Acts passed by the Georgia assembly, 1755-1774. Wormsloe, 1881. Contains such colonial acts of Georgia as are not to be found in the regular compilations of laws. Privately printed. The edition was limited to 49 copies. Marbury, H., and Crawford, W. H. A compilation of the laws of Georgia from 1755 to 1800. Containing also the constitutions of Georgia of 1777, 1789, and 1798. Savannah, 1802. Watkins, George. A compilation of the laws of Georgia. 1802. This compilation failed to obtain recognition by the State authorities, because it contained the Yazoo act which had been ordered e.xpunged from the records. Clayton, AS. A compilation of the laws of Georgia passed between 1800 and 1810. Augusta, 1813. Prince, O. H. Digest of the laws of Georgia enacted jirevioua to 1820. MilledgeviUe, 1822. Dawson, VV. C. A compilation of the laws of Georgia passed between 1819 and 1829. MilledgeviUe, 1831. Foster, Arthur. A digest of the laws of Georgia passed between 1820 and 1829. Philadelphia, 1831. Prince, 0. H. Digest of the laws oi Georgia enacted previous to 1837. Athens, 1837. 216 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. HoTCHKiss, W. A. Codification of the statute law of Georgia. Savannah, 1845. Cobb, T. R. R. Digest of the statute laws of Georgia in force prior to 1851. 2 vols. Athens, 1851. Clark, R. H., Cobb, T. R. R., and Irwin, D. Code of Georgia. Atlanta, 1861. GEORGIA PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. Georgia executive council. Journals for 1783-84 and 1789-1792. MSS. in the office of the secretary of state, Atlanta. Continued in the senate journal. Georgia senate. Journal from 1790 to the present time, except 1792-1799, 1805-1810, etc. MSS. in the office of the secretary of state, Atlanta. The journals of the senate were printed from about 1808. Georgia house of representatives. Journal from 1781 to the present time, except 1789-1795, 1798-1800, 1801-2, 1805, 1811, etc. MSS. in the office of the secretary of state, Atlanta. The journals of the house were printed from about 1808. Convention of 1839. Journal of the convention to reduce and equalize the representation of the general assembly of Georgia. Milledgeville, 1839. Convention op 1850. Journal of the Georgia convention held in Milledge- ville in 1850. Milledgeville, 1850. Convention op 1861. Journal of the public and secret proceedings of the convention of the people of Georgia, held in Milledgeville and Savan- nah in 1861. Milledgeville, 1861. Delegates of Georgia in the Continental Congress. Observations upon the effects of late political suggestions. Wormsloe, 1847. See infra, p. 26. Legislature of Georgia. Address and remns. The volume on slaves as property was never piiblished. Kemble, Frances A. Journal of a residence on a Georgia plantation in 1838-39. N. Y., 1863. A dark picture of conditions in the sea-island district of Georgia, where the evils of slavery existed in intensified form. The bad features are over-empha. sized, and the inference is made that everywhere else slavery was worse than where the author saw it. Mallard, R. Q. Plantation life before emancipation. Richmond, 1897. A description of the status of slaves in Liberty County, Georgia, by a former slaveholder. Shows the ameliorations, which the author of Kemble's Journal could not appreciate. Olmsted, F. L. A journey in the seaboard slave States, with remarks on their economy. N. Y., 1856. Hardly so prejudiced as the account of slavery given by Miss Kemble (Mrs. Butler). REPRINT OF C-AMPBEI 218 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. HISTORY OF THE INDIANS. RoYCE, C. C. The Cherokee Nation of Indians: A narrative of their official relations with the Colonial and Federal governments. In report of the United States Bureau of Ethnology. 1833-84, pp. 121-378. Wash- ington, 1887. A meritorious work, with excellent maps of the Cherokee lands. Weil, Robert. Legal status of the Indian. N. Y., 1888. Doctor's dissertation at Columbia College. MAPS OF GEORGIA. 1750. "Anew and accurate map of the province of Georgia in Nortli America." (British Museum.) 1780. Sketch of the northern frontiers of Georgia, extending from the mouth of the river Savannah to the town of Augusta, by Archibald Campbell. Engraved by Wm. Faden, Charing Cross, 1780. Shows plantations, fortifications, roads, forests, and swamps between Savan- nah and Augusta. Nearly all the farms and plantations above Savannah front upon the river, while the highroad is a mile or two distant from the river. Fre- quent plantation roads branch off the highroad. Mills and taverns are very few. The names of many planters are laid down. The map is apparently accurate and certainly valuable. Reprinted herewith. 1781. The seaboard region of Georgia, in the "Atlantic Neptune," vol. 2, parts, plate 9. (British Museum.) An excellent map. 1794. "A new and general map of the Southern dominions belonging to the United States of America." (British Museum. ) 1818. Early, Eleazer. Map of the State of Georgia, prepared from actual surveys and other documents. A fine large wall map, of which numerous copies are extant. 1826. Map of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, showing an extensive scheme of proposed canals. ( British Museum. ) 1827. Tanner, H.S. Map of Georgia and Alabama. Phila., 1827. (Brit- ish Museum. ) 1830. Map of the State of Georgia, drawn by Carlton Wellborn and Orange Green. Savannah, 1830, fold 12mo. (Georgia Historical Society. ) 1835. Tanner, H. S. Map of Georgia and Alabama. Phila., 1835. 1835. Mitchell, S. A. Map of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Phila., 1835. (British Maseum.) Gives stage routes and their schedules. 1846. Tanner, H. S. Map of Georgia and Alabama. Shows railroads and highways. 1861. Bonner, W. G. Map of Georgia by direction of the general assem- bly. Published at Milledgeville. A large wall map. 1864. Lloyd, J. T. Topographical map of Georgia. N. Y., 1864. A large map. Accurate in details. GEOEGIA AND STATE EIGHTS. 219 ATLASES CONTAINING MAPS OF GEORGIA. 1796. Reid, John. The American Atlas. N. Y., 1796. To accompany Winterbotham's History. (Congressional Library.) 1823. Carey, H. C, and Lea, I. Atlas. Phila., 1823. 1830. Finley, Anthony. Atlas. Phila., 1830. 1853. Thomas, Copperthwaite & Co. Atlas. Phila., 1853. 1861. Colton. General Atlas, N. Y., 1861. 1862. Mitchell. New General Atlas. Phila., 1862. GEORGIA NEWSPAPERS, ANTE BELLUM. Files in the University of Georgia Libranj, Athens, Ga. Athens: Georgia Express, 1808 to 1813. Athens Gazette, 1814 to 1817. Athenian, 1827 to 1833. Southern Banner, 1833 to 1846. Augusta: Augusta Chronicle, 1786 to 1841, except 1793 and 1800 to 1804. Augusta Herald, 1799 to 1806, 1812, 1815, 1817-18, 1821. Columbian Sentinel, 1807. Augusta Courier, 1827-28. Constitutionalist, 1825 to 1841. Columbus: Columbus Enquirer, 1832 to 1841. Sentinel and Herald, 1838. Macon: Georgia Messenger, 1831 fo 1841. Macon Telegraph, 1832 to 1835. Milledgeville: Georgia Journal, 1810 to 1837. Southern Recorder, 1820 to 1836. Savannah: Georgia Gazette, 1798 to 1802. Columbian Museum, 1804 and 1813-14. Savannah Republican, 1802 and 1833, except 1816 and 1831. Georgian, 1819 to 1823, and 1829 to 1841. Files in the library of the Georgia Historical Society, Savannah, Ga. Savannah: Georgia Gazette, 1774, 1775, 1783 to 1802, 1817 to 1820. Columbian Museum, 1796 to 1802, 1804, 1806 to 1808. Patriot, 1806-7. Public Intelligencer, 1807-8. Savannah Republican, 1807 to 1813. Georgian, 1819, 1822 to 1850. Savannah Journal, 1852, 1853, 1855. Augusta: Augusta Chronicle, 1790 to 1800. Southern Centinel, 1793 to 1799. Milledgeville: Southern Recorder, 1829 to 1840, 1845 to 1847. Cassville: Standard, 1855. Files in the Congressional Library, Washington. Athens: Southern Whig, 1849. Augusta: Augusta Chronicle, 1819 to 1830, 1849 to 1854, 1858 to 1860. Constitutionalist, 1856, 1858 to 1860. Columbus: Columbus Enquirer, 1841 to 1847. Columbus Times, 1845 to 1849. Milledgeville: Georgia Journal, 1819 to 1828, 1830, 1841 to 1843, 1845. Patriot, 1823-4. Southern Recorder, 1822 to 1825, 1843, 1851, 1852. Statesman, 1826. Standard of Union, 1841. Federal Union, 1843 to 1845, 1847 to 1849. 220 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Savannah: Georgia Gazette, 1775, 1779 to 1799 fragmentary. Georgian, 1823 to 1826, 1829-30, 1833 to 1841, 1846 to 1849, 1832 to 1856. Georgia Republican and State Intelligencer, 1803 to 1805. Savannah Repub- lican, 1807 to 1812, 1814 to 1872. Files in the Library of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Wis. Ew Echota: Cherokee Phoenix, 1828 to 1834. Also fragmentary files of other Georgia newspapers. Files in tlte office of the Union and Recorder, MiUedgeviUe, Ga. Milledgeville: Statesman and Patriot, 1826-7. Southern Recorder, 1836 to 1847, 1857 to 1860. Federal Union, 1830 to 1874. Union and Recorder, 1874 to the present. Augusta: Courier, 1827-8. File hi private possession, MiUedgeviUe, Ga. Milledgeville: Southern Recorder, 1820 to 1868. Files in the office of the Savannah Morning News, Savannah, Ga. Savannah: Georgia Gazette, 1794 to 1796. Columbian Museum, 1803. Savannah Morning News, 1850 to the present. File in the office of the Augusta Cltronicle, Augusta, Ga. Augusta: Augusta Chronicle, 1800 to the present. Also a partial file before 1800. Files in tlie office of the Macon Telegraph, Macon, Ga. Milledgeville: Georgia Journal, 1819 to 1825, 1826-7, 1829 to 1835, 1837 to 1841, 1843 to 1845, 1847 to 1849. Penfield: Christian Index, 1850-51, 1856-7, 1859. Macon: Georgia Messenger, 1825, 1829, 1833 to 1842, 1845 to 1847. Journal and Messenger, 1851 to 1857, 1860-61. Georgia Telegraph, 1847 to 1853. Telegraph and Messenger, continued as Macon Telegraph, 1863 to the present. File in the office of the Columhns Enquirer, Columbus, Ga. Columbus: Enquirer, 182S to the present. Files in the State Capitol, the Carnegie Librarj/, and the office of the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Ga. None antedating 1861. INDEX TO GEORGIA AND STATE RIGHTS. Adams, John, 92. Adams, J. Q., 58, 62, 71, 92. Agriculture in Georgia, 130. Alien and sedition laws 1797, 92. Altamaha River, 48. American party (Know-nothing), 177-LsO. American Revolution, 1.5, 39. Andrews, Garnett, 178. Andrews, T. P., 57. Annapolis convention, 16, 17. Anti-Masonry, 119. Antitariff convention 1832, 130. Athens, Ga., 101, 118. Atlanta, 142. Augusta, 155, 202. Augusta Chronicle, 104, 137. Augusta Herald, 92. Baldwin, Abraham, 17, 19, 20. Bank of the United States, 113, 143, 145. Baptist Church, 102. Bartow, Francis S., 203. Bell, John, 188, 191, 206, 208. Benton, T. H., 05. Berrien, John McPher.son, 120, 129, 130, 133, 134, 140, 149, 106, 167, 179. Boudinot, Elias, 85. Breckinridge, J. C, 188, 206, 207. Briggs, Isaac, 21. Brooks, Preston S., 183. Brown, John, 186. Brown, Joseph E., 180, x81, 187, 189, 194, 198, 208. Brown, Nathan, 21. Buchanan, James, 179, 199. Buford, Major, 173. Bulloch County, 141. Burke County, 21. Butler, Elizur, 80, 83. C Calhoun, J. C, 86, 119, 120, 123, 128, 132, 143, 146, 148, 150, 103. California, 162, 103. Camden County, Ga., 21, 44. Campbell, Duncan G., 55, 56, 59, 69. Canals, 114, 141. Cass, Lewis, 150. Central of Georgia Railroad, 141. Cession of Georgia's western lands, 34. Charleston convention 1860, 188. Charlton, Thomas, U. P., 110. Chattahoochee River, 44, 48. Cherokee Indians, 40, 66-86. lands of, 66. early cessions, 66. peaceable disposition, 68. treaty of 1817, 68. treaty of 1819, 69. refusal to cede more lands, 69. chiefs, 70. progress in civilization, 71. gold mines, 72. aggressions of Georgia, 73. Tassel's case, 75. ease of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 76. the missionaries, 79. Graves's case, 84. factions in the tribe, 85. treaty of New Echota 1835, 86. removal west of the Mi.ssi.ssippi, 80. Cherokee Nation r. Georgia, case of, 76. Cherokee Phoenix, 79. Chickamauga, settlement of Cherokees at, 60, 67. Chickasaw Indians, 39. Chisolm V. Georgia, case of, 24, 25, 26, 28. Christmas, Robert, 21. Choctaw Indians, 39. Clarke, Elijah, 47, 48, 06. Clarke, Elijah, the younger, 95, 98. Clarke, John, 53, 95, 97, 100-105, 112. Clarke party, 98-112, 125. Clarke County, 74. Clay, Henry, 80, 108, 143, 146, 150, 163. Clayton, Augustin S., 74, 129, 130, 133. Cobb, Howell, 163-166, 189, 193, 199, 202, 207, 208, 209. Cobb, Thomas R. R., 185, 196, 200, 203, 204. Coleraine, treaty of, 45. Colonization society, African, 115, 158, 159. Colony of Georgia, 151. Color, free persons of, 155, 156. Colquitt, Walter T., 146. Columbia County, 31, 105. Compromise of 1850, 163. Confederacy, Southern, 205. Constitution of Georgia 1789, 22, 23. 221 222 INDEX. Constitutional Union party of 1851, 166. Constitutional Union party 1860, 188, 191, 206. Cooper, Mark A., 146, 147. Cornells, Alexander, 50. Cotton, 142. cotton belt, 107. crop, 130. culture, 106, 158. factories in Georgia, 118, 133. gin, 106. prices, 1815-1821, 100. Crackers, Georgia, 89. Crawford, George W., 147. Crawford, Joel, 111, 136. Crawford, Nathaniel M., 203. Crawford, William Harris, 31, 94, 101, 108, 119, 124, 125, 134. Crawford party, 98. Creek Indians, 30, 39-65. lands, 39. early treaties, 39. depredations, 39. treaty of Augusta, 1783, 40. treaty of Galphinton, 40. treaty of Shoulderbone, 41. hostilities, 41. treaty of New York, 42. treaty of Coleraine, 45, 46. treaty of Fort Wilkinson, 48. progress toward civilization, 60. conspiracy, 50. Creek war of 1813-14,51. treaty of Fort Jackson, 51. cession of 1818, 52. refuse further cessions, 55. the Red Sticks, 55, 57. treaty of Indian Spring, 1825, 66, 59. treaty of Washington, 1826, 69. cession of remaining lands, 65. Crowell, T. Y., 56, 108. D. Darien, Ga., 87. Davis, Jenkin, 21. Dawson, W. C, 147. Democratic party, 138, 143-151, 162-192. Democrats, 35, 172-176. De wit's Corner, treaty of 1777, 66. Dooly, Murry, 98, 104. Douglas, Stephen A., 171, 172, 176, 188, 191, 206. Dred Scott case, 175, 176. E. Ebenezer, Ga., settlement, 87. Effingham County, 96. Eleventh amendment to United States Con- stitution, 28. Elliott, John, 21. I*;mancipation, 115, 156, 158. Emanuel County, 141. Emigrant aid societies, 173. Federal convention, 1787, Georgia delegates in, 17-20. Federalist party, 90, 91, 93, 104. Few, William, 17. Fillmore, Millard, 150, 179. Fletcher v. Peck, case of, 36, 38. Flint River, 44. Forsyth, John, 72, 110, 118, 130, 134. Frederica, Ga., settlement, 87. Fremont, J. C, 179. Frontier, The, 49, 89, 104, 141, 153. G. Gaines, Edmund P., 57, 58. Galphinton, treaty of, 40, 42, 45, 46. Garrison. William Lloyd, 158, 160. Georgia Gazette, 18, 20, 21. Georgia Journal, 101, 124. Georgia platform, 1850, 165, 172. Georgia Railroad, 141. Georgia State constitution, 1789, 22, 23. Georgia, University of, 93, 94, 99, 117, 125, 129. German settlers in Georgia, 87. Gilmer, George R., 73, 75, 79, 86, 110, 124-127, 134, 135, 139, 182. Glynn County, 21, 44. Gold, discovery of, in Georgia, 72. Graves, James, case of, 84. Greene County, 21. Gwinnett County, 80. H. Habersham, Richard W., 61, 62. Hall County, 75. Handley, George, 21. Hard times 1815, 100. Harris, H. R., 196. Harris, W. L., 196. Harrison, William Henry, 146. Hawkins, Benjamin, 49, 52. Haynes, Thomas, 124, 125, 126. Hill, Benjamin H., 179, 180, 191, 203, 208. Hillery, Charles, 21. Hobby, W. J.,104. Homespun clothing, 99, 196. Houston, William, 17. Howell, Caleb, 21. I, Indians, 16, 30, 39-86. Cherokees, 40, 66-86. Chickasaws, 39. Choctaws, 39. Creeks, 30, 39-66. status of, 43. title to lands, 29, 35, 37. Indian Spring, treaty of 1821, 53. treaty of 1825, 56, 59, 60. Internal improvements, 114. Irish -settlers in Georgia, 87. Iverson, Alfred, 185. INDEX. 223 J. Jackson, Andrew, 51, 68, 73, 75, 79, 82, 84, 108, 119, 120, 124; 128, 129, 132, 138, 143, 114. Jackson, James, 31, 42, 91, 93, 94. Jefferson, Thomas, 35, 68, 92. Jenkins, Charles J., 146, 167, 168, 179, 202, 208. Jolm Brown's raid, 185. Johnson, Herschel V., 168, 178, 188, 189, 190 193, 203, 207. K. Kansas, 171, 174, 176, 177. Kansas-Nebraska act, J 74. Kansas-Nebraska bill, 171, 172, 173. Kemble, Frances, 155. Kentucky resolutions, 91. Know-nothing: party, 177-180. JL.. Land lottery, 107. Land speculation, 30. Laurens County, 105. Lawton, A. R., 201. Liberty County, 21. Lincoln, Abraham, 188, 191, 198, 206. Lincoln County, 104, 137. Locke, John, 151. Lumpkin, Joseph Henry, 139. Lumpkin, Wilson, 80-84, 97, 102, 125-127, 135, 136, 141, 146, 162, 167 179, 201. McDonald, Charles J., 147, 164, 166. McDuffie, George, 118. McGillioray, 41, 42, 45. Mcintosh, William, 56, 57. Manufactures, domestic, 99, 114. Manumission, 156. Marshall, John, 36, 74, 77, 31, 83. Martin, Luther, 18. Matthews, George, 21, 45, 47. Maxwell, James, 21. Mercer, Je.sse, 102. Meigs, Josiah, 92. Merriwether, James, 55, 56, 59, 69. Militia of Georgia, 187. Milledgeville, Ga., 102, 103, 126, 130, 137, 141, 190. Milton, John, 21. Missionaries to the Cherokee Indians, 79. Mississippi territory, 33. Missouri compromise, 171, 174, 176. Mitchell, David B., 50, 157. Monroe, James, .52, 69, 70. Montgomery County, 105, 141. isr. Nebraska, 171. Negro colonization, 158. Negroes, 105. Negroes, free, 155, 156. New Echota, 79. treaty of 1835, 86. New England, 114, 183, 193. New York, treaty of 1790, 42, 43, 45, 47. Newspapers, Georgia, 1831, 128. Niles' Register, editor of, 127. Nisbet, E. A., 179, 208. North Carolina, immigrants from, 96. Nullification, 121, 123, 128, 132, 133. O. Ocomulgee River, 44, 45, 48. Oconee River, 30, 40, 45, 47, 48. Oglethorpe, James, 87, 151. Oglethorpe County, 129. Olmsted, Frederick L., 155. Osborne, Henry, 21. Overby, B. H., 178. Paris, treaty of 1783, 29. Pendleton, Nathaniel, 17. Persons of color, free, 155, 156. Pierce, Franklin, 168. Pierce, William, 17, 19. Pinckney, C. C, 46. Polk, James K., 150. Poor whites, 96, 108. Powell, James, 21. Presidential election 1796, 91. 1800, 92. 1800 to 1828, 98. 1836, 139. 1840, 140, 145. 1841, 150. 1848, 150. 1852, 167. 1856, 175. 1860, 188, 205, 206. Pulaski, Fort, 201. Q. Quitman, John A., 168. R. Railroad, Georgia, 141. Central of Georgia, 141. Western and Atlantic, 142. Atlanta and West Point, 142. Randolph, John, 24, 35, 37. Relief laws 1841, 147. Republican (anti- Federal) party, 90, 91, 93. Republican party 18.56-1861, 175, 177, 187, 188. Richmond County, 21, 104, 109. Ridge, John, 85. Ridge, Major, 85. Ross, John, 85, 86. S. St. Marys, Ga., settlement, 87. Sanford, J. W. A., 79. Savannah, 87, 137, 155. 224 IJS^DEX. Savannah River, 39. Scotch settlers in Georgia, 87. Scott, Winfield, 86, 167. Seagrave, James, 21. Seagrove, James, 45. Secession convention of Georgia, 200-205, 209. Secession, question of its radicalism, 207, 209. theory of, 193. Seminole Indians, 39. Sequoyah (George Guess), 71. Settlement of upland Georgia, 88. Sherman, W. T., 92. Shoulderbone, treaty of, 41, 45, 46. Slave insurrection, fear of, 153, 186. Slave regulations, 152-154. police, 152. criminal law, 152. against education, 153. unenforced, 153. Slave trade, 20, 157, 205. interstate, 157. Slaveholders, 107, 111, 209. Slavery, 34, 116, 142, 151-161, 184, 185. in United States Territoritics, 174. Slaves, 105, 107, 139. family relations of. 154. price of, 184. South Carolina. 15, 19, 20, 117, li:0. Southern Rights party, 1851, 166. State rights, 37, 41, 121. State Rights party, 112-142. State sovereignty, 31, 122, 123. Steamboats, 141. Stephens, Alexander H., 146, 148, 164, 168- 170, 172, 178, 179, 185, 191, 195, 203, 204, 207. Sullivan, Florence, 21. Sumner, Charles, 183. 'X\ Talbot, Matthew, 102, 110. Tallassee district, the, 35, 42, 48. Tariff, the, 116, 120, 122, 128, 129, 133, 149. Tattnall County, 105, 111. Taylor, Zachary, 160. Tecumseh, 49. Telfair, Edward, 21, 26, 44, 45. Texas, 150; 162, 163. Tobacco culture, 88. Toombs, Robert, 146-148, 162, 164, 166-170, 178, 179, 183, 190, 191, 195, 200, 201, 203, 205, 207. Tories in Georgia, 89. Trott, James, 80. Troup, George M., 55, 57, 58, 60-64, 70, 71, 96, 98, 100-105, 112, 114, 119, 134, 138, 146. Troup party, 98, 101-112, 119, 125. Twiggs, General, 44. Tyler, John, 148. XJ. Union party, 112-142, 206. United States Bank, 113, 143, 145. University of Georgia, 93, 94, 99, 117, 125, 129. Van Buren, Martin, 86, 144-147. Virginia resolutions, 91. Virginia, immigrants from, 9(). Waddell, Moses, 181. Walker, Robert J., 175. Walton, George, 17, 21, 48. War of 1812, 38, 100. Warner, Hiram, 193. Washington, George, 31, 44, 46, 47, .59. Washington, treaty of, 1826, 59. Webster, Daniel, 86, 146, 103, 167, 168. Weed, Jacob, 21. Wereat, John, 21. Western and Atlantic Railroad, 142, 173. Western lands, cession, 1802, ,'?4. Whig party, 134, 143-151, 162-170, 172, 178. White, Hugh L., 139, 144. Wilkes County, 21, 47, 96, 137. Wilkinson, Fort, treaty of, 48. Wilmot proviso, 164, 169. Wire-grass region, 141. Wirt, William, 75, 77, 81. Worcester, S. A., 79, 80, 83. Wright, James, 83. Y. Yancey, William Lowndes, 164, 188, 191, 193. Yazoo land sale, 29-32, 35, 48. controversy, 91, 93.