Untitled - the Digital Library of Georgia

350 GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
Britain and thirty times as large as Connecticut. This system being
designed to preserve to the states their whole territory unbroken and to
prevent the erection of new states within the territory of any of them,
Georgia looked forward to when, her population being increased in some
measure proportional to her territory, she should rise in the scale and
give law to the other states, and hence we found the delegation of Geor
gia -warmly advocating the proposition of giving the states unequal
representation.''
Georgia's delegation was far-sighted, but its inability to foresee a
division of the state's imperial domain in consequence of the Yazoo
fraud litigation may have kept it from weakening upon this proposition.
Most of the members of the Constitutional Convention were agreed
as to the necessity for creating a Senate to act as a conservative check
upon the Lower House and to preserve a sort of legislative balance.
But the method of electing senators elicited some debate. Mr. Pierce,
who spoke on June 6th, thought that while members of the Lower House
should be elected by the people, members of the Senate should be elected
by the legislature—the former body to represent the states individually,
the latter collectively. Mr. Baldwin, who spoke on June 29th, favored
making the Senate representative of property interests. He, too, favored
electing senators by the states.
There was an exciting scene in the convention when the question
was put as to whether each state should have an equal vote in the
Senate. Says a well-known student of this period:* "Rhode Island
having refused to take part in the convention, and New Hampshire hav
ing no delegates present when the vote on the compromise was taken,
there were only eleven States represented. The vote of the States was
taken in this way: the delegates from each State took, a vote among them
selves to determine the State's attitude, each State having one vote. The
roll of States was then called, beginning with the oldest. Ten States had
voted and the vote stood a tie when Georgia's turn came. It was a most
critical moment. Georgia's vote was expected to be against the Connec
ticut Compromise, as Georgia had consistently voted with the States
desiring a strong national government. But one of the two Georgia dele
gates then present, Abraham Baldwin, was convinced that failure to
accept the Compromise might mean the disruption of the convention.
He therefore refused to follow "William Few in voting against the
Compromise and in this way divided the vote of Georgia."
Mr. Baldwin's attitude towards the Connecticut Compromise may be
explained, in a measure at least, by the fact that he was a native of the
Nutmeg commonwealth. Fiske, the great historian, has paid this tribute
to Mr. Baldwin: f "It was Abraham Baldwin, a native of Connecticut,
and lately a tutor in Yale College, a recent emigrant to Georgia, who
.thus divided the vote of that State and prevented a decision which would
in all probability have broken up the convention. His state was the
last to vote and the house was hushed in anxious expectation, when this
brave and wise young man yielded his private conviction to what he
'"''History of Georgia," E. P. Brooks, pp. 132-133.
t '' Critical Period of American History,'' John ~Fiske, p. 251.