USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 3 > Part 17
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53
John Adams stood fast as one of the principal opponents of this view. To the argument of Chase he replied that the number of people was simply taken by the article as an index to the wealth of the state, and not as subjects of taxation as Mr. Chase asserted. So far as the matter of taxation was concerned, it was of no consequence whether people were called freemen or slaves, for he could not see that five hundred freemen produced any more profits nor a greater surplus for taxation than an equal number of slaves. It is true that custom more often described a slave as the wealth of his master, than the free laborer as the wealth of his employer,-
.
174
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
"but as to the state both were equally its wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax."
Shortly thereafter "Mr. Payne urged the original resolution of Congress to proportion the quotas of the states to the number of souls"; and when the amendment proposed by Chase was voted upon the next day, the arguments of Massa- chusetts prevailed and the motion was rejected-seven to five. The revised articles of August 20 retained substantially un- altered Article XI of the original draft (numbered Article IX of the new draft).
ADJUSTMENT OF VOTES AND TAXES (1778)
Both matters-that is, the apportionment of taxes and equal voting-were, however, only in abeyance. When the debates on the revised articles were again undertaken in the spring and fall of 1777, numerous phases of the same questions were again discussed and passed upon.
October 7, 1777, it was moved that in determining ques- tions Rhode Island, Delaware and Georgia should have one vote, and all other states one for every fifty thousand white inhabitants. The Massachusetts delegates, Samuel Adams, John Adams and Elbridge Gerry, voted negatively, as did eight other colonies, and the motion was lost. It was then moved that each state send one delegate to Congress for every thirty thousand inhabitants, and in determining questions each dele- gate was to have one vote. To this the vote of Massachusetts was recorded negatively (although John Adams voted in favor) and the motion was again lost. After rejecting a proposal that representation be computed according to taxes levied for the public treasury, the question was put on the article as reported. Ten states approved (Samuel Adams and Elbridge Gerry supported the motion, but John Adams voted negatively) and it was accordingly resolved: "That in deter- mining questions each state shall have one vote."
The question of taxation likewise came up for further dis- cussion October 9; and on the thirteenth it was moved that the proportion of public expense to be borne by each state be ascertained by the value of all property (except household goods and wearing apparel) within each state. The motion was rejected. On the next day another amendment was pro-
175
WESTERN LAND CLAIMS
posed to make the value of land within each state the basis for tax apportionment. While Massachusetts through its delegates (Samuel Adams, John Adams, Gerry and Lovell) were unanimous in opposition, the motion carried five to four, two states (New York and Pennsylvania) being divided.
WESTERN LAND CLAIMS (1776-1781)
A third question most vitally affected Massachusetts as well as six other states. Article XVIII of the original draft gave numerous powers to the proposed Congress, among which was that of "Limiting the bounds of those colonies which, by charter or proclamation, or under any pretence, are said to extend to the south sea"; and making provision for their establishment as new colonies. Now in the early days British sovereigns had granted lands with a marvelous disre- gard for geography, and the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony of 1628 indubitably granted an extent "from sea to sea." The early colonial charters of Virginia, Connecticut, the Carolinas, and Georgia likewise contained similar provi- sions looking toward indefinite western extension.
The remaining colonies had not received such fortunate treatment. In some instances (as in Pennsylvania and Mary- land) western boundaries were, on the contrary, definitely limited by their charter provisions ; in others, western expan- sion was made impossible because of the situation of other colonies, as Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware. In New York extensive western territories were claimed on noth- ing more stable than treaties with Indian tribes not resident in the west. When all the claims were ranged in order, six colonies,-Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, North Caro- lina, South Carolina and Georgia, asserted territorial rights be- yond the mountains. But the seven others could not assert such claims.
This state of things had been a cause of disturbance before the Revolution. Suggestions made to the Albany Congress of 1754 tended to limit indefinite boundaries. The royal "proclamation line" of 1763, forbade extension beyond the Alleghanies or Appalachians. The roundly denounced Quebec Act (1774) united all the western territory north of the Ohio
176
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
with the province of Quebec. All those acts were evidences of the British attitude. . While the Revolutionary War dis- posed of some of these difficulties, it nevertheless left con- flicting grants. Massachusetts and Connecticut claimed strips of territory extending from settled territory on the sea coast indefinitely northward. The claims of both New York and Virginia overspread them in many places and similar conflicts developed in the Southwest.
LAND CLAUSE IN THE ARTICLES (1776-1777)
When Article XVIII of the Articles of Confederation was first under discussion (August 2, 1776), an extensive con- troversy was opened up. Chase of Maryland denied that any colony had "a right to go to the South Sea." Benjamin Har- rison from Virginia stated bluntly that his state obtained its land by charter just as Maryland did, although the charter had gone out of effect in 1624. Samuel Huntington of Con- necticut added that "A man's right does not cease to be a right, because it is large." Even Jefferson protested against the power of Congress to decide upon the right of Virginia.
The result was that in the revised draft of the Articles the disputed provision was left out. But when the debates were resumed in the fall, it was moved that in order to render the proposed union "firm and perpetual" it was essential that the limits of each colony be ascertained. It was recommended, therefore, that every state lay before Congress a description of its territorial lands. But the motion was definitely lost, all of the Massachusetts delegates voting against it.
It was next moved that the United States "have the sole and exclusive right and power to ascertain and fix the west- ern boundary of such states as claim to the South Sea." This form of statement was rejected, but the proposition was amended to read : to "fix the western boundary of such states as claim to the Mississippi, or South Sea, and to lay out the land beyond the boundary so ascertained into separate and independent states." This was overwhelmingly rejected, Maryland alone supporting the motion, while all the Massa- chusetts delegates were on the negative side. November 15, 1777, the final draft of the Articles was agreed to. It con-
177
PROTESTS ON LAND CLAUSE
tained no provision covering the question of western lands except that Article IX, in providing for settling disputes be- tween states, required "that no state shall be deprived of ter- ritory for the benefit of the United States."
MASSACHUSETTS PROTESTS ON LAND CLAUSE (1778)
In the spring of 1778 accessions to the Articles began to ar- rive in Congress. North Carolina announced her acceptance May 18, 1778. On June 22, an important message was re- ceived from Maryland. While proposing minor matters of amendment, the communication concluded with the proposal that after the words "shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States", in Article IX, there should be inserted the words: "the United States in Congress assembled shall have the power to appoint commissioners, who shall be fully authorized and empowered to ascertain and restrict the boundaries of such of the confederated states which claim to extend to the river Mississippi or South Sea."
But the answer was no. Five states supported this propo- sition; one (New York) was divided; but all the Massachu- setts members (Hancock, Samuel Adams, Gerry, Dana, Lov- ell and Holten) united in a negative vote.
On the same day the main issue came up in new form. The Massachusetts delegates submitted "sundry objections," transmitted to them by their "constituents," and thereupon moved the reconsideration of several articles relating to the lands. The first suggested that the rule of apportionment provided in Article VIII, basing national taxes on land values in the several states, be amended to vary this rule from time to time "until experience shall have showed what rule of ap- portionment will be most equal." The second was a demand for reconsidering the fifth section of Article IX, providing that each state's quota of troops be based on the number of white inhabitants in such state. The third was aimed against the sixth section of Article IX requiring the assent of nine states to exercise certain designated powers at Congress. Each proposition was voted down; but two of them (the first and third) were destined in time to set up stumbling blocks in the Union.
178
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
THE MARYLAND LAND AMENDMENT (1778)
One by one the objections of the various states to the Ar- ticles of Confederation were considered. On June 26, 1778, the committee appointed to prepare the form of ratification on the Articles reported the final draft. June 27, the engrossed copy (with the form of ratification) was laid before Congress, and the delegates of the respective states were requested to file their powers of ratification with the secretary. By July 9, eight states had signed, and by the following May (1779) all except Maryland had ratified the Articles.
As submitted, the principal objections of the smaller states related to the question of the western lands; but Maryland alone held out for an adjustment of the problem. May 21, 1779, that state filed a document with Congress that deserves to be recorded among the most important in our history. It was in the form of instructions to her delegates, who were to lay it before Congress and have it entered in its journals.
It asked the very pertinent question: "Is it possible that those states who are ambitiously grasping at territories, to which in our judgment they have not the least shadow of ex- clusive right, will use with greater moderation the increase of wealth and power derived from these territories, when ac- quired, than what they have displayed in their endeavors to acquire them?" The answer bluntly given was: "We think not." After outlining the evil results that might develop from certain states having such a preponderance of territory, the conclusion was expressed that land wrested from the common enemy should properly be considered common property, and instructions were issued to the delegates not to agree to con- federation unless an article was inserted to conform with this declaration.
LAND CESSIONS BY THE STATES (1780-1802)
Apparently only one course was open; the union could not be completed without the voluntary relinquishment of at least a part of the western claims. Therefore (September, 1780) Congress urged "a liberal surrender of a portion of their territorial claims, since they cannot be preserved entire with- out endangering the stability of the general confederacy." New York (whose claims based on Indian treaties with the
179
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Iroquois were flimsy) had led the way the preceding Feb- ruary. Within the next decade all of the states except Georgia, whose action was delayed until 1802, followed this example. In April, 1785, the delegates from Massachusetts (Samuel Holten and Rufus King) executed a deed of ces- sion of all claims west of New York, and the Congress re- solved "in behalf of the United States. .. . to accept all the right, title, interest, jurisdiction and claim of the state of Massachusetts, to certain western lands described in the form of a deed of cession, in the words following it, to wit:" --- and here was described the long disputed territory.
In 1786 Massachusetts, partly through the aid of Congress and partly through its own agents, came to an agreement with New York, ceding jurisdiction, but retaining ownership over certain lands in western New York. Thereupon, claims to all the residue formerly held were relinquished. The retained lands were sold in 1787, and brought the state treasury one million dollars; and in the same year the bound- ary line between Massachusetts and New York was finally adjusted.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAMS, HERBERT BAXTER .- Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States (Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science, Third Series, Vol. I, Balto., Murray, 1885)-The best brief account of the transfer of western lands claimed by Massachusetts under charter grant.
ADAMS, JAMES TRUSLOW .- New England in the Republic (Boston, Little, Brown, 1926)-Summarizes various aspects of the period under dis- cussion ; see especially chapter II, dealing with the economic effects of the war in Massachusetts.
ADAMS, JOHN, and ADAMS, ABIGAIL .- Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams during the Revolution (N. Y., Hurd and Houghton, 1876)-Edited by C. F. Adams. Fascinating reading ; most valuable material for a study of the period.
ADAMS, JOHN .- The Works of John Adams (10 vols., Boston, Little, Brown, 1850-1856)-Edited by C. F. Adams. This collection con- tains a life of Adams (Vol. I) ; his diary with passages from his autobiography (Vols. II-III), his controversial papers on the Revolu- tion (Vol. IV), his works on government (Vols. V-VI) and a col- lection of his official letters, messages and public papers (Vols. VII- X). A complete index in Volume X.
ADAMS, SAMUEL .- The Writings of Samuel Adams (3 vols., N. Y., Put- nam's, 1904-1907)-Edited by H. A. Cushing. The collection in- cludes letters, resolutions, instructions, articles, etc., arranged chrono- logically (1764-1777).
180
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
BARRY, JOHN STETSON .- The History of Massachusetts (3 vols., Boston, Phillips, Samson, 1855-1857)-Still very useful to a student of the period. Volume II contains a discussion of the preliminaries of the Revolution. In Volume III, chapters I to v cover in a general way the events included in this outline.
BRADFORD, ALDEN .- History of Massachusetts for Two Hundred Years: from the year 1620 to 1820 (Boston, Hilliard, Gray, 1835). A century old, but useful as a guide to the political developments of the period. Volume II on 1775-1789.
BURNETT, EDMUND CODY .- Letters of Members of the Continental Con- gress (3 vols., Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1921-1926)-A col- lection of letters and other writings of the members of the Conti- nental Congress designed to supplement the journals.
CUSHING, HARRY ALONZO .- History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government in Massachusetts (Columbia Studies, N. Y., 1896)-Perhaps the best single account of the political changes in Massachusetts during the period from the Provincial Con- gress through the adoption of the constitution of 1780.
FORD, WORTHINGTON CHAUNCEY .- "Bibliography of the Massachusetts House Journals 1715-1776" (Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Pub- lications, Vol. IV, pp. 201-289, Boston, 1910)-A complete bibliography of the House of Representatives of the period of the Province.
HARLOW, RALPH VOLNEY .- "Economic conditions in Massachusetts During the American Revolution" (Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Publications, Vol. XX, pp. 163-190, Boston, 1918)-Particularly use- ful as a study of currency inflation and its effect on commodity prices.
LOWELL, EDWARD JACKSON .- "The United States of America, 1775-1782. Their Political Struggles and Relations with Europe" (In JUSTIN WINSOR, Narrative and Critical History of America, 8 vols., Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1888-1889)-See Vol. VII, pp. 1-88. A general account of the foreign affairs of the United States during this period.
MCLAUGHLIN, ANDREW CUNNINGHAM .- The Confederation and the Con- stitution (New York, Harper, 1905)-See especially chapter III, "The Problem of Imperial Organization (1775-1787)"; also the critical and bibliographical final chapter.
MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH : Provincial Congress .- Journals of each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774 and 1775, and of the Committee of Safety, with an Appendix containing the Proceedings of the County Conferences-Narratives of the Events of the Nine- teenth of April, 1775-and Other Documents (2 vols., Boston, 1838)- Edited by William Lincoln. Published by authority of the General Court of Massachusetts. Includes proceedings of the numerous county conventions of the period (including the Suffolk Resolves), and narratives of the events during the outbreak of the Revolution.
SMALL, ALBION WOODBURY .- The Beginnings of American Nationality; the Constitutional Relations between the Continental Congress and the Colonies and from 1774 to 1789 (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1890)-A survey of the personnel, composition, powers and work of the First and Second Continental Congresses, with the constitutional relations with the colonies and states from 1774 to 1789.
STARK, JAMES HENRY .- The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American Revolution (Privately printed, Boston, 1910) - An account of the treatment of the British sympathizers in Massa- chusetts. Especially Chapters v, VI, and VIII. Part II contains bio- graphical material on leading loyalists.
181
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
SUMNER, WILLIAM GRAHAM .- The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution (2 vols., N. Y., Dodd, Mead, 1891)-A biog- raphy of Robert Morris and a financial history of the period of the American Revolution with a discussion of paper-currency.
TYLER, MOSES COIT .- The Literary History of the American Revolution, 1763-1783 (2 vols., N. Y., Putnam's, 1897)-The controversialists of the period tell their own stories in their works. Political aspects are subordinated. See for James Otis, Vol. I, ch. II; John Adams, Vol. I, ch. v; Mercy Warren, Vol. I, ch. xvi, Vol. II, ch. xxxix; Samuel Adams, Vol. II, ch. xxiv; Thomas Hutchinson, Vol. II, ch. xxxix, etc.
UNITED STATES : Continental Congress .- Journals, 1774-1789-(25 vols., Washington, 1904-1922)-Edited by W. C. Ford and Gaillard Hunt. The best edition of the Journals, edited by eminent scholars from the original records. Carefully indexed, numerous plates representing important congressional documents, extensive bibliographical notes. Volume III (pp. 471-504) and Volume VI (pp. 1071-1106) contain the notes of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on the debates pertaining to the Articles of Confederation.
UNITED STATES : Continental Congress .- Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings, from the first Meeting thereof to the Dissolution of the Confederation, by the Adoption of the Constitution of the United States (4 vols., Boston, Wait, 1820-1821)-Materials, not contained in the published journals, May 10, 1775 to 1788. Legislative history of the "Articles of Confederation," with copies of Franklin's draft, Dickinson's draft, and the revised draft of August 20, 1776, as well as many valuable state documents are contained therein. Its com- pactness makes it more convenient for some purposes than the new edition of the Journals cited above.
UNITED STATES : Congress .- American State Papers. Documents Legisla- tive and Executive of the Congress of the United States. Class VIII, Public Lands, July 31, 1790-Feb. 28, 1837 (8 vols., Washington, 1832)-Much important material relating to the disposition of the public lands ceded by the original states.
WELLING, JAMES CLARKE .- "The State's-Rights Conflict Over the Public Lands" (American Historical Association, Papers, Vol. III, pp. 411- 432, N. Y., Putnam's, 1889)-An excellent account of the whole ques- tion of western lands as it was handled during the years 1776 to 1782; as well, of the disputes involving their disposition during the period of the Confederation.
WINSOR, JUSTIN, and CHANNING, EDWARD .- "Territorial Acquisitions and Divisions" (JUSTIN WINSOR, editor, Narrative and Critical History of America, 8 vols., Boston, Houghton, Mifflin, 1888-1889)-See Vol. VII, Appendix I. Contains extensive bibliographical material as well as numerous maps pertaining to the cession of western lands.
CHAPTER VII THE STATE CONSTITUTION (1777-1780)
BY GASPAR G. BACON President of the Massachusetts Senate
PRELIMINARY STEPS (1774-1777)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the last of the original thirteen states to adopt a written constitution. Virginia was the first, in May, 1776. Closely following Vir- ginia came other states. In Rhode Island and Connecticut, the legislatures continued in effect for several years the gov- ernments established under their royal charters. Nevertheless, nearly two years before the action of Virginia, Massachusetts took steps in establishing a government of her own. June 17, 1774, came the critical step when the House of Assembly, as described in the previous volume of this series, provided for a provincial house of representatives to take the place of the General Court, which was never again convened under the provisions of the royal charter.
This provincial Assembly and a Committee of Safety guided the affairs of the Commonwealth during the following critical year. May 16, 1775, at the suggestion of General Warren, the Assembly requested the advice of the Congress at Philadel- phia upon the best method of exercising the powers of civil government. June 9, the Congress advised the colony to elect a new Council and clothe it with the executive power "until a Governor of His Majesty's appointment would consent to govern according to its charter." June 19, a call was issued for the election of a provincial assembly, and July 19, only thirty days later, it convened at Watertown. It proceeded at once to elect a new Council, endowed it with both legislative and executive powers, and chose James Bowdoin as its presi- dent. This was the government under which the affairs of
182
183
THE LEGISLATIVE CONVENTION
the colony were directed and controlled until the first consti- tution went into effect October 25, 1780.
The demand for a new State constitution originated in Berkshire County, "which, on account of its poverty and re- moteness, was more alive to the defects of the Provincial system than any other section of the state." It was led by the Reverend Thomas Allen of Pittsfield, a fighting parson who himself fired the first shot of the Battle of Bennington. May 29, 1776, the town of Pittsfield sent a memorial to the General Court, insisting that the old charter and compacts were dissolved by war, and requesting the General Court to frame "a fundamental constitution as the basis and frame- work of legislation," and refer it to the people for their approbation.
The House requested the towns to vote (September 17, 1776), whether or not they wished it to go into convention with the Council to frame a constitution, and whether they wished it made public for the "inspection and perusal of the inhabitants before the ratification thereof by the Assembly." Less than half the towns voted. A majority of those voting were willing that the General Court should frame a constitu- tion; but considerable sentiment, notably from the towns of Concord and Acton, favored the principle that a constitution should be framed not by the legislature but by a convention of delegates elected for that purpose alone. For instance, at a meeting of the Inhabitants of the Town of Concord, Octo- ber 22, 1776, it was resolved, as herewith reproduced, that "the Supreme Legislature, either in their Proper Capacity, or in Joint Committee, are by no means a Body proper to form and establish a Constitution or form of Government."
THE LEGISLATIVE CONVENTION (1777 - 1778)
It was further resolved that "A Convention or Congress be immediately chosen to form and establish a Constitution, that when the Convention or Congress have formed a Constitu- tion they adjourn for a short time, and publish their pro- posed Constitution for the inspection and remarks of the inhabitants of this State, and that the Honorable house of assembly be desired to recommend it to the inhabitants of
184
THE STATE CONSTITUTION
the state to proceed to choose a Convention or Congress for the purpose aforesaid as soon as possible."
Accordingly, by a resolve of May 5, 1777, the General Court made a second request to the towns, this time that they definitely instruct their representatives to the next General Court to form with the Council a Constitutional Convention. Some of the towns, and Boston in particular, refused to grant this request. The General Court, however, ignored these pro- tests, resolved itself into a Constitutional Convention on June 17, 1777, and appointed a committee to draft a Constitution. The committee reported in December. In January, 1778, the House and Council went into convention again to discuss the committee's report, and on February 28, approved and ac- cepted the draft presented. It was forthwith submitted to the people as a whole, adoption to take effect only by a two-thirds majority. This was the first American State Constitution to be formally submitted for popular approval.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.