Andrew Bashuk

03/25/04

Georgia’s Constitutional Debate

To form a new nation, a set of laws and rules must be established. After the close of the Revolutionary War, the leaders of this nation knew that they could not continue to function under the Articles of Confederation. In 1785, following four years of living under the Articles of Confederation, power blocks within the country were becoming dissatisfied with the apparent weaknesses of the Federal Government’s authority. Everyone was looking out for their own interests and had their own specific reason for wanting and needing a new form of government to become the overriding law of the land. Owners of the nation’s securities wanted a more fiscally stable nation to pay debts as well as help control the financial markets. The moderates in the nation wanted a system that would control the political radicals at both ends of the Colonial ideological spectrum. The merchants and manufacturers wanted the government to negotiate more favorable international trade treaties with other nations so that their goods and services would have a more abundant and ready-made marketplace. The frontiersmen and land speculators were looking for the government to be more capable of dealing with the Native Americans out west and to do a better job of protecting national boundaries.[1] A new document governing the land had to be drafted, and it needed to be practical in its application. The Framers of the Constitution needed to draft a document that covered everything; nothing could be left out because this was going to be the blueprint for a new nation, and no detail would be too small. They also had to be sure to sidestep the evils from the Articles of Confederation, while making sure to still preserve those ideas and actions that it got right. The mistakes included a decentralized government with no power at all, and too many places where people could find loopholes to get around the national laws. Because the task was so immense, it was natural that factions would emerge, many of which were so set in making sure they got what they wanted that there would be bitter disputes, one after another, as the document was being put together by all of the interested parties. This created an unprecedented situation with people forming a government while trying to scratch the backs of their colleagues and friends at the exact same time. Lawmakers in large states were looking for things to be decided by population, while those in the smaller states believed that the thirteen colonies should be viewed as equal and all on the same footing. Not to mention the various groups of citizens who all had their own self-interests and personal favors to call in from associates and colleagues throughout the nation. This led to many raucous and lively debates at the Constitutional Convention over the role states would play in this new federal government. States rights were also guaranteed to be a hot-button issue as they wanted to make sure they were given whatever rights they deemed necessary without having to use up too much political capital in the process. The thirteen states had won a war, which granted them freedom from an omnipresent Monarchy in Great Britain, and they were not interested in starting up an American version of the Monarchy.[2] It would be very important for the states to be able to retain some rights so that they did not feel a too powerful President was bottling them up while living the life of a king. It was imperative that the federal government not give too much power to any one person because too many people were concerned that it would simply recreate the problems from the British Monarchy, to the point where there might one day be an American King, Queen, or Royal Family.

As these debates raged on in Philadelphia, on a national scale, there were many more localized and centralized debates going on as well. They were taking place in the state legislatures around the newly formed United States as well as in the backrooms and barrooms of cities throughout the country. People were talking about how the new Constitution and the new measures would affect them, their families, and their businesses. In Georgia, the situation was no different than it was anywhere in else in America. People wanted to know what was going on with the new nation, how Georgia would be dealt with, and whether or not it would be fair to all citizens. Which states would be key in forming the new government was always on people’s mind, as they hoped their states best interests would be looked out for at all times. Georgia, being the southernmost of all the states that were forming the new nation had unique and specific concerns that were not representative, necessarily of the entire nation at-large. Because of this, it was important the Georgia’s representatives in the Constitutional Conventions be looking for the state and its citizens. With foreign land to the south, an ocean to the east and Indian Territory and other foreign lands to the west, Georgia was developing as a somewhat isolationist state down south all on it own. It had needs that were so unique to its little corner of America that there was major concern about getting left out of the discussions that were taking place up north.

The people of Georgia had concerns about the new Constitution on many levels and everyone wanted to make sure their concerns were heard, and handled. Some of the concerns started with the feeling that the people who would be framing the new Constitution would either represent a very large state, such as Virginia, or a smaller one, such as Rhode Island. It is funny when one thinks back on the national scale of the Constitutional Debate, because the most talked-about confrontation is that between the large states and the small ones. However, left out of the equations are the “medium-sized” states, the ones who do not want the government to be aligned to one extreme or another. Not every state found itself in one of these two camps, with the extremely big states, or the very little ones. The states that were somewhere in the middle, Georgia as an example, were terribly concerned that they were going to be left out of the equation when it came to making the laws because they did not belong to either of the extremes that were drawing the most attention. There was a concern that the middlemen, as they were called, were going to have their thoughts and concerns ushered out because of the tug-of-war that was taking place at the opposite extremes of the spectrum. The people of Georgia were then charged with the duty of finding themselves a representative or representatives that would be willing to look out for them and their needs while representing the state when up north with the framers. This was an immense responsibility for whomever was charged with this duty because he would be fighting a battle that was uphill from the start, and one that would largely be forgotten by history books due to the average nature of Georgia’s size and stature. The debate raged on throughout the nation as well as in Georgia as people were wanting information, and wanting to find out what was going on with the new nation. People discussed the merits of all the different possibilities and systems to no end. It is amazing to sit back and think about what an important job this was, the idea of framing a nation from scratch, and the idea that there would be debate seems natural now. However, there were those who felt that it was not our duty to question leaders, and that there was no reason at all to question what the framers were doing in the north. Despite that sentiment, the debate raged on, and for one of the first times in the history of the world, intelligent people sat down and debated how a new nation should be formed. They were looking out for there own self-interests, of course, but they also were trying to what was best for the new nation that just in its infantry. Georgia was certainly a part of these debates, as it served as the model, many said, for the average state. Georgia’s role in the process would be important, but it would be very swift. It was a process that did not take as long than many of the other states and the amount of back fighting was kept to a minimum. While historians look back at the vicious and tensioned fights in the bigger states, especially New York, Virginia, and Delaware, little ole Georgia went about its business, ratifying quickly and swiftly. While the other states were fighting amongst themselves and holding back the process, the localized government in Georgia was ready to move into a new era of American Government.

With so many people dissatisfied with the government under the Articles of Confederation many citizens began holding a series of meetings to discuss what could be don, the final of which took place in Philadelphia, in May of 1787. The group met with the announced goal of “Tendering the Constitution (the Articles of Confederation) of the Federal Government to draw the exigencies of the union.” However, briefly into this meeting, the citizens whom were meeting disposed of this ideal and decided to draw up a completely new constitution. When the task was complete, the men reassembled in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and addressed the United States Congress. The Congress went ahead and decided to approve the following two things: That delegates would be elected in each state and it would be up to tem to accept or reject the new document. The Congress then said that when nine of the thirteen states ratified, the new document would then replace the Articles of Confederation and become the new Constitution of the United States.[3]

Georgia’s involvement in the process formally began on February 10, 1787. This was exactly eleven days before the Congress of the Articles of Confederation endorsed the proposed meeting in Philadelphia to consider ways of altering the Articles. The Georgia general assembly selected six people to attend what became the Constitutional Convention. They were William Pierce, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, George Walton, William Houston and Nathaniel Pendleton.[4] Georgia’s representatives however played a very minor role at the convention. Pendleton and Walton did not even attend for one day and Abraham Baldwin was the sole representative from Georgia to attend for the duration of the meetings. When Georgia’s delegates were at the meeting they usually worked together behind the scenes in accordance with the State Assembly’s directive to support the establishment of a central government that was powerful enough to be efficient, but nothing more. It was their desire not to have a centralized government with too much power that seemed to be running wild on the people of Georgia. Instead, the delegates were instructed to make sure that the central government simply had enough power so that it could govern efficiently without hindrance.[5] The Georgia delegation did such few things that were not behind the scenes that only Abraham Baldwin and William Few stuck around to even sign the document on September 17, 1787. [6] However, all members of the delegation commented that if given the opportunity they most likely would have signed the document.

In early October, William Pierce arrived back home with a copy of the proposed document in hand and ready to show to the citizens of Georgia. Both of Georgia’s main newspapers printed the document for the public to see and being to form their opinions, as well as to help sell newspapers. The Gazette of the State of Georgia in Savannah printed the new proposed Constitution in its paper on October 11, 1787. Two days later on October 13, the Georgia State Gazette in Augusta made the document available in its publication. Five days after that, then Governor Georgia Matthews officially submitted the Constitution of the United States to the Georgia General assembly for their approval. [7] Shortly after receiving the document, the General Assembly decided that each of the eleven counties would each send three delegates to “adopt or reject any part or the whole,” of the document.[8] Georgia’s own miniature version of the Constitutional Convention met on Christmas Day and elected John Wereat President of them. There was little, if any, opposition to ratifying the new document, and four days later the committee unanimously ratified the Constitution, having Georgia become on the fourth state in the Union to ratify. The ratification was cause for great celebration in Georgia because many believed that this document was the best that they were going to be able to do in forming a new government and scrapping the Articles of Confederation. It had been debated, checked, and approved by the people of Georgia who proudly sent it back to the federal government with one more states approval. While it may not have been the most perfect solution, it most certainly was a solution and an ample one at that. Due to this fact most Georgians were pleased that the state government had opted to ratify, but just as important, many said, was how swiftly the state government ratified, and what an almost completely painless process it was with a nearly unanimous vote and little, if any, dissention. The state government was commended for the work that they did and rightly so. The state had done a tremendous job of being presented with such a large-scale and unique challenge, in ratifying the Constitution, and it was able to get it done quickly and with a relatively small amount of fighting and confusion. Georgia then acquired the legacy of being the fourth state in the Union to ratify the new Constitution of the United States of America.

It becomes fascinating to look at the way Georgia’s two main newspapers at the time helped mold the debate within Georgia on whether or not the state would go ahead and ratify. The Georgia State Gazette in Augusta, printed by John E. Smith was adamantly in favor of ratification of the new document. Over time, the Georgia State Gazette printed 29 pieces in favor of ratification while only putting out four that were not in favor of ratification. The most fascinating entry that endorsed ratification was by an anonymous author who wrote that his was concerned about the lack of the ability for the government that functions under the Articles of Confederation act. It told a story of what would happen if another state was invaded by an enemy, and could not receive help from the weak federal government because the localized state governments would spend too much time fighting amongst themselves on whether or not to appropriate the funds for such a mission. Smith’s paper would go on to say that it was of utmost importance for the Constitution to be ratified because a strong centralized government was important for the well-being of all its people. In fact, when looking back on it, one could say that the amount and the relevance of the information in the Georgia State Gazette was so overwhelming for ratification, that there never really was any sort of debate that took place in the paper.[9] The Gazette of the State of Georgia in Savannah, however, was a completely different story when compared to its counterpart to the north. The Savannah paper presented a thorough debate between the federalists who were in favor of the new document, and a larger federal government; as well as the anti-federalists who were against the new Constitution and the larger, more centralized federal government. For the entire time that the issue was on the front burner, both federalist and anti-federalist sentiments were apparent in the paper. People were able to get information from both sides of the issue, and were being well informed. The citizens in Savannah, it would turn out were much more informed and better equipped to understand the complex issues brought by the Constitution due to the fact that they were less disillusioned. Some of the Federalist arguments were strikingly similar to those in the Augusta paper, some, in fact were nearly identical. Those ideas included proposing that more power be given to the Federal Government and that it be easier for the government to dispense it powers; that there should not be a thorough series of obstacles in their way. The federalists in the Savannah paper also proposed that states should be forced to pay down a portion of the federal debt. They concluded that it was the responsibilities of many of the states to help shoulder the brunt of the debt and to help pay for it for the national good.

The anti-federalists rhetoric in the Gazette of the State of Georgia was very pronounced and made some good points, even if they knew that they were fighting an uphill battle. The heart of the anti-federalist sentiment centered around two lengthy editorials that appeared in newspapers up and down the United States including in the Georgia State Gazette. They stated that the proposal to have three branches of government was a terrible idea and that it should be avoided at all costs. The editorial also proposed that there be a unicameral legislature, stating that the bicameral did not work because it forced the government to become too bogged down in its own inner-working to govern effectively. The editorial stated that the three-branch model was too cumbersome and too methodical. There also were fears that this would create too strong of a centralized government, taking away too much power from the respective states. When trying to prove their point, these particular anti federalists pointed to the state government of Pennsylvania to say that it was the most efficient and citizen-friendly state government, and that they used the unicameral legislature that provided the most maneuverability for its governing. While saying that the legislature of Massachusetts with its bicameral legislature and three branches of government was never able to get anything done due to the fact that they were always having political fights amongst the different factions of the government, and that therefore their political system just did not work. [10]

In the end, the state ratified the Constitution fourth out of thirteen, and it turned out that it would take many years until the last of the holdouts, tiny Rhode Island, would ratify to get all of the thirteen colonies at least “on-board” with the idea of this new document. The Constitution is such a historical document that it makes one wonder what really went on in the backhouses and bar rooms of the late 18^th century when people were discussing the merits of the bicameral legislature, and of three branches of government. But the debate was a great one as it helped direct a nation that badly needed direction. Under the Articles of Confederation, the people of this country were compared to those of nomads simply wondering through the desert without any true rule of law. The Articles of Confederation did an adequate job of helping hold the government together, just barely, like an “interim constitution.” But the truth is that this nation never would have been able to sustain for as long as it has under that document. Luckily, people were able to realize this fact before it was too late and they did something about it. In Georgia, the document was met at first with some skepticism. While the fight over the Constitution and its ratification was not bitter, it did become quite heated at times and there we most definitely people on both sides of the issue. Once the matter made it to the committee whose lone job was to look over and make a decision for the Governor, the matter was nearly settled. Very few documents and records from those brief meetings still exist, but we do know that in that room on those cold December days, intelligent men sat and discussed the future of this country, and made a decision that they were going to help fix it for the better. They decided to stand up and in a unified voice, endorse the new document, the new Constitution of the United States, and declare that the new America was open for business.