The first serious political division in Georgia after the Revolution had
a very curious beginning. There is always, of course, a division among
the people on great public questions as they arise. But the War of the
Revolution had so solidified public sentiment that nothing occurred to
jar it until the Yazoo Fraud created some division. Even then public
sentiment was so overwhelmingly opposed to the sale of the lands to
the speculators, that the few who favored it were not numerous nor
respectable enough to be called a party.
On the 24th of February, 1806, Mr. Josiah Glass, having come all the way
from North Carolina in search of a Mr. Robert Clary, went to the town of
Sparta with a warrant which he requested Judge Charles Tait to indorse.
This Judge Tait did in due form. The warrant was for negro stealing,
and was directed against Mr. Robert Clary. Mr. Clary was arrested by
Mr. Josiah Glass in Washington County, and was carried to Greene County
Superior Court. On the first day of the court, Mr. Josiah Glass wrote
a letter to Judge Tait, and requested him to attend, and take the
examination of a man then in his custody, who would make confessions
highly interesting to the State and the United States. Judge Tait,
accompanied by Squire Oliver Skinner, attended that night, and took
a part of the confessions of Mr. Robert Clary, and completed them the
following night. Then he gave Mr. Josiah Glass a certified copy of the
same to take with him to North Carolina, to which State he was taking
Mr. Robert Clary, on a warrant charging him with negro stealing.
Now, it seems that the warrant against Clary was merely intended as
a scheme to get him to North Carolina to testify against a man named
Collins. History has suppressed the confessions made by Mr. Robert
Clary; but it is certain that they contained a most offensive charge
against General John Clarke, whose patriotic services in behalf of the
people during the Revolution gave him great fame and popularity. No
sooner did John Clarke hear of this affair than he proceeded to act with
his usual promptness. When he learned the particulars about the taking
of the affidavit at night, he at once jumped to the conclusion that
he had been made the victim of a conspiracy. There had been some
disagreement between him and Hon. William H. Crawford; and as Judge
Tait had been the partner of Mr. Crawford, and was his firm friend,--for
Crawford was a man great enough to command and deserve friends,--General
Clarke suspected that Clary and Glass had been made tools of to damage
his reputation. General Clarke acted at once. He presented a memorial to
the Legislature, making certain charges against Judge Tait with respect
to the taking of the "dark-lantern affidavits," as they were called by
his friends. The Legislature found, as it ought to have done, that the
charges made in the memorial of General Clarke were unsupported by fact
or evidence. In the very nature of things, it could not be shown that
an honorable judge of the Superior Court of Georgia, in certifying to an
affidavit containing the confession of a mere adventurer, was engaged
in a conspiracy; but the question with which General Clarke had to
deal was, how did the offensive and malicious matter, contained in
an affidavit taken by a judge and one witness at night, become public
property? If General Clarke had been a more thoroughgoing politician, he
would have found a better way to confound his enemies than that which he
adopted; but he was deeply wounded by a foul charge made at night, and
put in circulation by means of nods and winks and whispers. His first
recourse was to the Legislature, consequently it had the effect of
strengthening both his friends and his enemies. His friends were
indignant at the action of the Legislature. His enemies professed to
be astonished that arrogance should fly so high as to bring before the
Legislature unfounded charges against a judge of the superior courts.
The legislative record is not as full as it might be. There was
something behind the Clary business that does not appear on the records
of the House and Senate. General Clarke wrote a pamphlet entitled "A
Legacy for My Children," in which, according to Judge Garnett Andrews
(see "Reminiscences of an Old Georgia Lawyer"), the matter of his
memorial to the Legislature is differently stated. According to Judge
Andrews, who bases his authority on General Clarke's pamphlet and on the
testimony of those who were familiar with the facts, Clary was arrested
and carried before Judge Tait on a charge of stealing horses. Clary
charged General Clarke with complicity. Mr. Crawford was the prosecuting
attorney. General Clarke accused Judge Tait and Mr. Crawford with
instigating Clary to make the charge.
The truth seems to be, that Clary, knowing the differences that existed
between these distinguished men, sought to help his own case by making
the charge against General Clarke, and that the latter was quite ready
to believe that his two opponents had originated the charges for the
purpose of doing him a mortal injury. Feeling assured of the justice
of his cause, he appealed to the Legislature. This failing, he took the
matter into his own hands. He challenged Mr. Crawford, shot him through
the wrist, and then challenged him again. A little later, cantering
along a street in Milledgeville on his fine sorrel horse, General Clarke
saw Judge Tait before him in a sulky. He spurred his horse forward, and
laid his whip across the judge's shoulders two or three times.
[Illustration: General Clarke whips Judge Tait 237]
These events created great excitement throughout the State. There had
already been controversy and division caused by the duel between Mr.
Crawford and Van Allen, a cousin of President Van Buren, and at that
time attorney-general of the State. Van Allen was killed; and there was
a great controversy in Georgia, in consequence, as to who was right
and who was wrong. This excitement became furious in the course of the
contest between Clarke and Crawford. Crawford was fortunately lifted out
of it by being made a United States senator in 1807. His distinguished
career afterwards is well known. He was minister to France, secretary of
the treasury, Vice-President of the United States, and would have been
elected President but for reports circulated throughout the country that
he had been stricken down with a fatal illness. But the contest between
the Clarke and Crawford parties continued to rage. Whatever issue the
Clarke men were favorable to, the Crawford men opposed. Whatever scheme
the Clarke men suggested, the Crawford men fought. There was nothing
polite about the contest. People who wore gloves pulled them off.
In cold weather the voters were warm, and in hot weather they were
steaming. The contest went on before elections, and was kept up with
just as much energy after elections. No vote could settle it, and no
success could quiet it. It was in the nature of a political squabble,
covering the whole State, dividing districts, counties, cities, towns,
villages, settlements, beats, crossroads groceries, and families. It
was a knock-down-and-drag-out fight, in which hair pulling, gouging, and
biting were allowed.
While Crawford was advancing step by step in national politics, his
party in Georgia took up George M. Troup, one of the most brilliant and
aggressive men in the State. The contest had been going on for twenty
years when Troup came upon the scene, in 1830, as a candidate
for governor. He had been a member of the State Legislature, a
representative in Congress, and a United States senator: therefore in
1820, when he was nominated for governor by the Crawford party, he was
ripe in experience. He was forty years old, and full of the fire and
energy that marked his whole career. The Crawford party now became the
Troup party, and the contests that followed were the most exciting
that ever took place in the State before, or that have ever taken place
since.
At that time the General Assembly elected the governor, the people
selecting members favorable to the candidates they preferred. As the
result of the first campaign between the Clarke and Troup parties,
General John Clarke was elected by a majority of thirteen legislative
votes. When Governor Clarke's term expired, he was again opposed by
Troup, and was again elected, but this time by a majority of only two
legislative votes. In 1823, Matthew Talbot represented the Clarke party,
but was defeated by Troup. In 1825, General Clarke again entered the
contest. The election was no longer in the hands of the Legislature, but
was by popular vote. Governor Troup's treatment of the Indian question,
and the firm stand he had taken in favor of the rights of the State, had
materially increased his influence, and he was elected over Clarke by a
majority of 683 votes.
Curious to relate, the old Clarke party became the Union party, and
in 1840 was the Democratic party. The Crawford party became the States
Rights party, and in 1840 was the Whig party. Such was the evolution of
parties in Georgia.