While most individuals interested in the struggle between the North and the South during the decades prior to the War Between the States see the conflict surrounding the issue of slavery as one that is divided by the Mason-Dixon line, there also was a struggle within one southern state, Georgia. Wealthy plantation slaveholders and lawyers wielded disproportionate political power over non-slave owning whites during the early 1820s and 1830s. The issue of reforming this system by passing a state constitutional amendment caused the sharpest division between the Troup and Union parties of Georgia to form and served to keep the party members at each other’s throats for the better part of a decade.1

The issue of apportionment first came to light in the late 1820’s as the Troup party of Georgia, led by George Troup, proposed turning away from the Federal Ratio as the state’s method of allocating representatives to the lower house of the state legislature. This party is also known as the State Rights Party. Under the ideals of the Georgia Constitution of 1798, one member in the state senate, regardless of the county’s size or population, represented each county. Representation for the lower house was determined following the Federal Ratio. The Federal Ratio, also used to determine the representation of the United States House of Representatives, was based upon the three-fifths rule established by the United States Constitution.2

The Federal Ratio also was devised by writers of the Articles of Confederation as a way of determining a new base for national taxes. Later, framers of the Constitution decided to use the Federal Ratio as a uniform formula for determining representation and an amount for the direct taxes paid by a given state to the national government. Ironically, the framers of the Constitution embraced the Federal Ratio, or as it was popularly known the three-fifths clause, as a compromise to gain southern support for basing representation on population instead of on quotas of contribution. In addition, it is interesting to consider that many South Carolinians wanted all the slaves, not just three-fifth, to be counted toward federal representation.3

But, back in Georgia, under the state constitution’s definition of the three-fifths rule, all “people of color” were counted as three-fifths of a person in terms of population. Thus, a county’s representation in the federal House of Representatives and in Georgia’s lower house was decided by the population of all free whites in the county as well as those added by the three-fifths rule. Counties were guaranteed at least one representative by the state constitution. All counties with a “representative population” of at least 3,000 people were allocated two representatives while those with 7,000 people were allocated three representatives and those with more than 12,000 people were granted four representatives.4

Members of the Union party led by John Clark, John Forsyth, and Governor Wilson Lumpkin, on the other hand, defended the Federal Ratio. In Georgia, the Federal Ratio gave south Georgia counties with smaller populations a distinct political advantage in the lower house of the state legislature. For several counties who were classified as having a white population of more than 3,000, the addition of three-fifths of their Negroes earned them one more representative than those with similar white populations. The Federal Ratio also gave powerful whites in these counties “a certain line of safe succession” of power. Under the Federal Ratio, counties with large slave populations could only benefit from the system in the future as more slaves were born into bondage.5

Strangely, throughout the state the ratio of representation, as accounted for by the number of white inhabitants, varied from one representative per 600 people to one representative per 2,700 people. Historian Paul Murray has argued the issue of three-fifths rule really was not worthy of the political attention it received in Georgia. He agreed the Federal Ratio did give an extra representative to some slave counties, but argued the bigger issue lay in equalizing the disparity of the representation of large and small counties.6

For example, the 1830 Census recorded McIntosh County in the southeastern region of the state had a total population of 4,998. Of the 4,998 inhabitants, only 1,204 were free while 3,794 were enslaved. Without the addition of the county’s enslaved Negroes to its “representative population,” the county would have been granted only one representative to the lower house of the legislature. But, with the addition of three-fifths of the county’s Negroes, the county had a recorded “representative population” of 3,480 and was thus granted two representatives. In the 1820s, twenty-seven counties, regardless of economy or geography, were scattered over the state and could claim this political advantage. The counting of Negroes could boost any county’s population and representative power regardless of its geography or economy.7

In considering the appropriation of state representatives, it also is important to understand the demographics of the state of Georgia in the 1820s and 1830s. The state was still a wilderness during the early 1820s. Even the areas with significant populations were sparsely settled. Most Georgians lived in a state of relative rural isolation as travel by land and water was difficult and time consuming. Finally, Georgians divided the land encompassed by the state into counties and regions in the 1830s. 8

In 1830, Georgia was divided into four major regions, each with it’s own level of political influence. The pine barrens - wiregrass region was located in southeast Georgia, but excluded the coastal counties. This region had a marginal economic and political influence in the state, possibly due to its agricultural woes. The pine barrens - wiregrass region was plagued with sandy, low hills that were covered with clumps of wiregrass, thus the name of the region, wiregrass. A good portion of the land also was swampy, flat, and overly shaded by pine trees. Slaves, however, did compose about one-quarter of the region’s population although it was hardly considered a plantation belt.9

Located to the north of the pine barrens - wiregrass region was the piedmont. This region was the center of both Georgia’s population and wealth. In fact, the piedmont was home to the state capitol in Milledgeville. The piedmont, itself, also was divided into two regions: the upcountry and the low country. White yeoman farmers who lived lives of household subsistence mainly populated the upcountry. These Georgians grew and raised what they needed for survival and sold any surplus goods for cash. Most upcountry Georgians were not slaveholders, although there were several small slaveholders in the region. The low country, or Black Belt as it has come to be called, also was populated by a non-slaveholding majority, although slaveholding planters and lawyers controlled the political scene. It is important to note that leadership and votes from the low country served as the basis for every statewide political party in antebellum Georgia. 10

The most telling characteristic of the coastal region was its racially disproportionate population. Slaves outnumbered whites by a considerable margin in every coastal county in the 1830s. These coastal counties never contained more than a small fraction of Georgia’s white population. Ironically, elite merchants, wealthy planters and eminent lawyers from the coastal counties carried much more influence and wielded more power in state affairs than whites in other parts of the state. 11

The demographics of these four regions can best be seen in an analysis of a census conducted in 1830. Slightly more than seventy percent of Georgia’s population lived in the Black Belt in 1830. In comparison, about eighteen percent lived in the upcountry, seven and one-half percent in the coastal counties, and nearly four percent in the pine barrens - wiregrass region. When considering the Federal Ratio, it also is important to consider nearly half the population of the Black Belt in 1830 was enslaved. In addition, nearly three out of every four coastal Georgians were enslaved. 12

Party control over plantation counties was the issue that sparked many debates between the two parties. Twenty-seven members of the lower house of the legislature held their seats because of the addition of Negroes in the calculation of their county’s population. Fifteen of the twenty-seven came from Troup controlled counties while five members came from Union controlled counties. Seven members were from counties not specifically controlled by either party. With the counties controlled as they were, there was a possibility of the Troupites gaining a strong majority on a joint ballot even though the Union party had a standing majority in the senate. The question of senatorial majority was especially important because judges and militia officers were elected by joint ballot.13

The power of the Troup party was based in large counties, but alas the Troupites were at a disadvantage in the senate where their largest county had no more voice than the smallest county in the state. Due to this advantage it was a difficult task to obtain a majority in the senate and nearly impossible to arrange a two-thirds majority to pass a constitutional amendment to equalize representation.14

In answer to the growing power of the Troupites, members of the Union party submitted a proposal to cut the size of both the senate and the House of Representatives in an effort to increase the efficiency of government and to aid the economy. At the time of the proposal, the legislature was composed of 77 senators and 159 representatives. As an obvious response to the proposal, members of the Troup party strongly opposed the proposal unless it was to be considered in a greater context, a reform of the entire system of representation. In the party’s definition of reforming the system of representation, not only did they want to abandon the Federal Ratio, but also wanted a system that would provide more equitable representation in the senate.15

Neither party commanded the two-thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment. The Unionists advocated holding a constitutional convention. The Troup controlled legislature of 1829 advocated giving Georgia’s voters an opportunity to voice their opinions on the issue of the number of officials elected to serve their interests.16

The Unionists, on the other hand, saw the Troupites’ call for voters’ opinions as the party opposing a constitutional convention. Members of the Union party argued that the voters would be in favor of a reduction in the number of representatives in the state legislature. They compromised and allowed voters to cast their ballots on the issue, but if two-thirds of the voters wanted the reduction to take place and wanted it to be done by a constitutional amendment, it would be done by the action of two successive legislatures and not by the vote of a constitutional convention. When voters went to the polls in1830, they were met with the opportunity to vote for either “reduction” or “no reduction” of the state legislature.17

It is questionable how much the general voting population really cared or understood about the disparity in representation. Few possessed the mathematical skills relating to fractions needed to truly understand the issue. In addition, white men excluded their children, white women and free blacks from voting. This gave only ten percent of the population the right to vote. More importantly, a political party could garner a majority by carrying the votes of only a tiny bit more than five percent of the entire population of Georgia.18

With only a handful of eligible voters, the Black Belt became the foundation for Georgia’s political parties’ attention. Counties included in the Black Belt cast more than two-thirds of the state vote during the 1830s. With the combination of massive slaveholding wealth and a large population of eligible voters, no political party could be successful without the support of the Black Belt.19

A census was conducted in 1830, as was done in Georgia every seven years. The census found 516,823 people living in the state of Georgia. Nearly three-fifths of the population were free whites while the other two-fifths were enslaved Negroes. Only 2,486 Negroes were recorded as being free. The census also brought complications to the fight over representation. The House of Representatives gained two seats due to Georgia’s growing population. Following publication of results of the census, Governor Gilmer addressed the state legislature and firmly pointed out that under the existing system, the Federal ratio, one-third of Georgia’s citizens had the same political power as the other two-thirds of the state’s population.20

The state legislature continued on with pressing business following the election of 1830 and again revisited the issue of reforming representation in 1832. Meetings were held within the Troup party to consider the issue, among others of grave concern. Committees were appointed and charged with the task of considering the issues at hand and of bringing the issues to the forefront of the political battlefield.21

A group of Troup members met in Hancock County in March of 1832 and prepared an address to be delivered to the people of Georgia concerning the issue of calling a convention to revise the state constitution. In the address, the men put special emphasis on the inefficiency of the legislature because of its size and the inequality of representation. The men also put forth the argument that citizens of small counties in South Georgia had ten times the political power of citizens living in the more populated counties of middle Georgia. Two months later, leaders of the Troup party called a meeting in Milledgeville on May 7, 1832 to make preparations for a convention.22

Members of the Union party strongly encouraged the citizens of Georgia’s smaller counties to send delegates to the planning meeting in Milledgeville to ensure the small counties would be fairly represented at the convention. When it came time for the meeting to begin, the counties who had been granted only one representative by the state constitution were left without representation at the meeting. However, the counties that were represented in the meeting were representative of more than half the population of the state. Twenty-six counties were represented in all. Strangely, or perhaps as according to a Troupite plan, the meeting ended up being little more than a simple caucus of the Troup party. Only one man, John Basil Lamar of Bibb County, was present as a powerful representative of the Union party.23

An address was delivered in Milledgeville, the state capitol, that identified yet another disparity in the Federal Ratio system of representation in Georgia, the payment of taxes. Troupite Samuel Rockwell presented figures to show that several south Georgia counties only paid between one-nineteenth and one-eighth the amount of taxes that their representatives in the legislature received from the state. As a result, other counties were paying more taxes and making up for the difference.24

Rockwell also pointed out that the representative population of Chatham County was 11,800, while the representative population of Wayne County was 818. In truth, Chatham County was composed of 4,649 free whites and 9,478 Negro slaves. Wayne County, on the other hand, was composed of 678 free whites and 276 Negro slaves. In terms of senatorial representation, one free man in Wayne County had significantly more power than any one free man in Chatham County, but in terms of representation in the legislature’s lower house, the man in Chatham County had a clear advantage.25

A new statement of purpose regarding the issue of representation was born at the Milledgeville meeting. Troupites declared they were fighting to remove “three great evils” from the existing system of representation: the exorbitant expense of government, the unequal distribution of power in the senate, and the inequality of taxation in proportion to representation. Unfortunately, for the Troupites, all plans for a convention fell between the cracks for one year as the party’s attention shifted to congressional races and elections.26

Attention shifted yet again to the issue of representation in 1833 following debates over federal tariffs and nullification. In January of 1833, Governor Lumpkin called for an election of delegates to a state constitutional convention. Troup party leaders were active in the election and were confident they would control the convention. Conversely, the convention convened on May 6 and former Troup party leader James M. Wayne accepted the nomination of the Union party for president of the convention. He was later elected convention president by a vote of 151 to 88.27

Wayne appointed a committee, mostly composed of Unionists, to prepare a plan of action for the debate on representation. The committee of twenty-seven later devised a plan and reported it to the convention delegates. The plan called for a reduction in the senate to thirty-six members elected from districts created by the General Assembly. The plan also called for a reduction of the lower house to 144 members. According to the plan, the fifteen counties with the largest total population would each elect three members each while the next twenty-five counties in size would elect two members each and the remaining counties would elect one member each.28

The Unionists’ majority held and the committee’s plan was passed 152 to 80 after amendments were made to the provisions for the senate. The amended plan called for the convention itself to designate forty-five one-member districts of two counties each for senatorial representation. This constitutional amendment cut the size of the senate in half although the basis for representation was not altered. Representation in the lower house also was reformed. According to the plan, the fifteen counties with the largest white populations would be granted three representatives each, the next largest twenty-five counties would be granted two representatives each, and the smallest forty-nine counties would be granted one representative each. To prevent an increase in the size of the lower house in the event of the formation of new counties, the plan stated one representative would be taken from the smallest population of the largest twenty-five counties and be given to the new county.29

In May, the convention also proposed leaving the Federal Ratio system of apportionment and adopting a system that used the number of white Georgians as the basis for representation in the House of Representatives. Delegates from the whitest regions, the upcountry and the pine barrens - wiregrass regions, supported the proposal. Interestingly, two-thirds of the Black Belt Clarkite counties favored the proposal. Those voting against the proposal held fast to the argument that overturning the Federal Ratio in Georgia would encourage Northerners to attack the three-fifths clause to the Constitution, also known as the “rock on which is based the glory and independence of the slaveholding states.” They further argued that the superiority of white men in Georgia would not be secure unless the entire South retained the power to protect slavery. The proposal for reapportionment was defeated by a 122 to 126 vote.30

After a decade of hostile debates, long and tedious meetings, and several elections, the issues of representation that caused possibly the largest division between the Georgia Troupites and Unionists were settled by a state Constitutional Convention. Only time would display the results of the changes made to the system of representation for the two parties and the residents of Georgia.

1. Paul Murray, The Whig Party in Georgia, 1825-1853 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1948), 38.

2. Murray, 38, Anthony Gene Carey, “E Pluribus Unum: Georgia Politics and the Dynamics of the Jacksonian Party System, 1840-1844” Georgia Historical Quarterly, Volume 79, Issue 4 (1995) 811.

3. Howard A. Ohline, “Republicanism and Slavery: Origins of the Three-Fifths Clause in the United States Constitution” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Volume 28, Issue 4 (Oct. 1971), 563, 564, 570,571, 577, 578.

4. Murray, 38.

5. Murray, 40, The Federal Union, Aug 14, 1830, E Pluribus Unum, 811.

6. Murray, 39.

7. Abstract of Returns: Fifth Census (Washington, D.C.: Duff Green 1832), Murray, 40.

8. Anthony Gene Carey, Parties, Slavery, and the Union in Antebellum Georgia (Athens: University of Georgia Press 1997), 1.

9. Carey, 6.

10. Carey, 5, 6.

11. Carey, 1.

12. Carey, 2.

13. Murray, 40.

14. Murray, 39.

15. Murray, 40.

16. Murray, 40.

17. Murray, 40-42.

18. Murray, 39, Carey, 7.

19. Carey, 109. 1830 Census, M

20. Murray, 41, Carey 121.

21. Murray, 42.

22. Murray, 42, 43, The Macon Advertiser, March 13, 1832.

23. Murray, 43.

24. Murray, 44.

25. Murray, 44, Fifth Census.

26. Murray, 44.

27. Murray, 50.

28. Murray, 50.

29. Murray, 50.

30. Carey, 124.