USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 3 > Part 51
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
SEPARATIST CONVENTION AT PORTLAND 555
tee of both houses to bring in a bill declaring the allegiance due to Massachusetts by its inhabitants, describing acts which amounted to a renunciation of such allegiance, "and so con- structed as most effectually to secure the Commonwealth against the ill consequences of any attempt to dismember the same." The committee, however, appears to have made no report.
SEPARATIST CONVENTION AT PORTLAND
Unterrified by the threatening from Boston, a convention met in Falmouth on the first Wednesday in January. A com- mittee of nine was appointed to draw up a statement of grievances. Their report has been admirably summarized in an article, "The' Separation of Maine from Massachusetts," written by Mr. Edward Stanwood for the Massachusetts Historical Society in 1907. Mr. Stanwood says: "The grievances reported by the committee were nine in number : (1) That the interests of the two communities were different, and that Massachusetts did not understand, and therefore could not promote, those of Maine; (2 and 3) the distance of the seat of government, and the consequent inconveniences ; (4) the expense of obtaining justice, since all the records of the Supreme Court were kept in Boston; (5) the unjust and unequal operation of the regulations of trade, which depressed the price of lumber, the chief industry of Maine; (6) the denial of representation in the House of Representatives to 'a great part of the inhabitants of these counties': many citizens lived in plantations and districts which were not organized, and therefore sent no delegates to the General Court; (7, 8 and 9) an unjust system of taxation, of polls and estates, an undue burden by reason of the excise and impost acts, and the unequal incidence of the tax on deeds, on account of the smaller value of land conveyed and its more frequent conveyance."
The Convention added a recommendation that, as a full rep- resentation in the General Court was supposed to be the best way to obtain a redress of grievances, all the towns should take care to send representatives to the next session. The Con- vention directed that the report and the supplementary recom- mendation be sent to the towns and plantations; and that they be requested to choose delegates at the March election or other
556
SEPARATION OF MAINE
convenient time, to another convention to be held at Falmouth on the first Wednesday of the following September, "to con- sider the grievances the inhabitants of Maine labor under, and adopt and pursue some orderly and peaceable measures to ob- tain relief." The inhabitants were also requested to certify the number of votes cast for and against the plan of choosing delegates.
JOINT CONVENTION (1786)
The Convention did not dissolve after issuing the call, but simply adjourned to the first Wednesday in September. On that day the two conventions assembled, many delegates being members of both. The natural course would have been for the first to have dissolved as soon as the second was fairly at work; instead, the second elected the officers of the first as its own, and the two then coalesced. The united Convention declared that it believed that the grievances set forth by the first convention were real grievances except the fifth, the one relating to trade; and it appointed a committee of nine to consider the subject. The committee reported that there were other grievances which demanded the serious consideration of the Convention, but that "they could not, at that time, undertake to enumerate the multiplicity of them." Then, going beyond the authority given by their appointment, they declared that the only remedy for their distresses was separa- tion, and recommended that the Convention present a petition for separation to the General Court, and at the same time issue an address on the subject to the people of Maine. The Convention accepted the recommendation, and the papers were duly prepared.
The petition was a moderate and respectful document, stating that the people of Maine were loyal and law-abiding citizens of Massachusetts, but that owing to their separation therefrom by another State and their great distance from the seat of government, they labored under difficulties which they believed could be removed only by the establishment of a separate State, and that they considered it a duty which they owed to themselves, to their brethren in the other part of the State and to the United States, to ask the General Court "in a peaceful and dutiful manner to consent to the erection of Maine into a separate government." They also explained
A
A
A
C
R
a
C
1
T
-
THE
***
DISTRICT
OF
f
MAINE
€
-
From original
Courtesy of Harvard College Library
MAP OF MAINE
557
SEPARATION DEFEATED
that "they do not entertain an idea of throwing off the weight of the public debt,-or to prevent the other part of the Com- monwealth from having their just proportion of the unappro- priated lands; but, like friends and brethren, most ardently wish to have all matters adjusted upon the broadest basis of equity and fair dealing."
The address to, the people was a sterner document, some of the language used being ultrademocratic, if not, in the circumstances of the time, revolutionary.
SEPARATION DEFEATED (1787)
The difference in tone and spirit between the petition and the address was probably due, in part at least, to very serious differences in the Convention itself. The movement for sepa- ration was originally moderate and conservative. Stephen Longfellow, the secretary of the Falmouth conventions, was afterwards a Hartford-Convention Federalist. Yet the "Democrats"-looked upon as the Populists of their day, were showing themselves extremely zealous for the division of the State. It was the time of Shays's rebellion in Massa- chusetts proper, and the moderate wing of the Maine Conven- tion was unwilling to further embarrass the government, and succeeded in passing a vote "that as there has been a number of respectable towns in the counties of York, Cumberland and Lincoln, that have not yet certified to this convention their determination of a separate State, and as the Common- wealth in general is at this time in a perplexed state, and this convention being unwilling to do anything that shall seem to lay a greater burthen on the General Court, therefore it is the opinion of this convention to postpone petitioning for a separation at present."
The radicals considered such forbearance mere foolishness, the throwing away of a golden opportunity to wring from the fears of the General Court what they might be unable to obtain from its calm judgment; and they induced the Conven- tion, after "a long and acrimonious debate" and by a majority of two only, to reconsider. The radicals, however, were not able to secure a direct vote for presentation ; hence the petition was left in the hands of a committee with authority to present it when they should see fit, and they did not do so for more
558
SEPARATION OF MAINE
than two years ; meanwhile both convention and agitation had passed away, and the House of Representatives quietly tabled the petition.
MAINE AND THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION
The movement for separation at first diverted attention from the work being done by the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia. But when the towns in Massachusetts were called on to send delegates to a special convention at Boston to accept or reject the new plan of a national constitution, the voters in Maine were aroused and the contest became very sharp. Thirty-one Maine towns refused even to elect dele- gates to the State convention and thereby played into the hands of the Federalists, as the friends of the Constitution were called, for this obstinacy cost the Antifederalists votes which might have been of great importance. It is practically certain that every one of the unrepresented towns was opposed to rati- fication. The Constitution was adopted by a majority of nine- teen only ; had all the absentee Maine towns sent delegates and no more of the Massachusetts towns, and had all the addi- tional Maine delegates resisted arguments and blandishments, the Constitution would have been defeated; but seven conver- sions would have saved the day for the Federalists.
In the Convention the voice of Maine was loud against rati- fication of the Constitution but her vote was for it. Eight Maine delegates spoke. Five of them earnestly opposed ratification. Of the five, three, Nasson of Sanford, Brigadier General Samuel Thompson of Brunswick and William Widg- ery of New Gloucester may be regarded as leaders of the opposition. None were educated men and their language at times was more fitted to move laughter than conviction. A reporter of the debates says that "the general broke out in the following pathetic apostrophe: 'Oh, my Country, never give up your annual elections! Young men, never give up your choicest jewell'." Mr. Nasson out-Thompsoned Thomp- son, by begging leave to make a short apostrophe to Liberty and dropping a tear on the peril to which that jewel, worth ten thousand worlds, was exposed. It is probable that this speech, though delivered and therefore sponsored by Nasson, was witten for him by Doctor Charles Jarvis of Boston. But
MAINE AND NATIONAL CONSTITUTION 559
these men were more than mere windbags; if not statesmen, they were at least clever politicians and debaters. Widgery, as a number of the Massachusetts legislature, had attempted to refer the ratification of the Constitution to the people instead of to a convention, which would have secured its defeat. His principal argument was that the poorer towns could not afford to be represented in a convention, but his opponents countered by passing an order that the delegates should be paid from the State treasury. In the convention Nasson attempted to cut short the arguments in defense of the Constitution and was supported by Widgery, who said that members were short of money.
The Federalists had much to say of the importance of union. General Thompson replied that four States might refuse to enter the new union. "Take care we don't disunite the states. By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall." When a clerical delegate said that he believed that the men chosen to administer the government would usually be good men, Thompson retorted with the doctrine of human depravity so frequently proclaimed by the clergy, announced his own belief in it and referred to the failings of the man after God's own heart and the wisest of men, David and Solomon.
Widgery, Thompson and Nasson strongly objected to bien- nial instead of annual elections and to giving Congress a right to fix the places and times of choosing Representatives. It was urged that Congress might require the elections to be held at Great Barrington or Machias or in Boston in the middle of winter. Objection was also made to allowing Congress to levy direct taxes, lest it discriminate against the poor and in favor of the rich by laying poll taxes.
A higher note was struck in the opposition to the clause allowing Congress to permit the slave trade for twenty years. This was reprobated in language which anticipates that of Phillips and Garrison. General Thompson exclaimed, "Mr. President, shall it be said that after we have established our own independence and freedom, we make slaves of others. Oh! Washington what a name he has had! How he has immortalized himself ! But he holds those in slavery who has as' good a right to be free as he has. He is still for self; and in my opinion his character has sunk fifty per cent."
560
SEPARATION OF MAINE
In the calm language of high and steadfast purpose, a Quaker member, Mr. Neal of Kittery, said that his religion obliged him to bear witness against anything that should favor making merchandise of the bodies and souls of men, and that unless his objection were removed, he could not put his hand to the Constitution.
In these criticisms the Maine delegates were in harmony with their radical brethren of Massachusetts. There were also special reasons for opposition in Maine of which its delegates said little or nothing publicly. Many of the separationists fought the Constitution because they believed that it would be an obstacle to the carrying out of their plans. This was stated to have been a chief cause of Widgery's opposition. Many residents of Maine were squatters-that is, settlers on land which did not belong to them-and a correspondent of Madison told him that they feared that they would be brought to account if the Constitution were adopted. It is difficult to see any special ground for this, but there was a widespread belief that the Constitution would put the wealthier class in control of affairs, and the absentee landowners were rich men.
Nathaniel Burrell of York had come to the Convention opposed to ratification, but in the course of the debate many of his objections to the Constitution had been removed. He told the Convention of his change of view and said that he would like an adjournment to give opportunity for amend- ments and to allow him to explain to his constituents the reasons for his partial conversion. Burrell stated, however, that if these concessions could not be obtained he was almost ready to vote for ratification, and when the decisive moment came he did so.
Two Maine delegates spoke unequivocally in favor of the Constitution. One, Perley of Livermore, briefly defended the provision allowing Congress to keep part of its proceedings secret. The other, Captain Isaac Snow of Topsham, boldly met the opponents of the Constitution on one of their favorite issues, the considerable power given to the central government. Captain Snow declared that power was necessary to enable Congress to save the country. He said that he had had com- merce with six different countries and that he had learned from good authority that America was regarded in Europe much as a well-behaved negro was in a gentleman's family.
SECOND MOVEMENT FOR SEPARATION 561
To enforce the argument of the necessity of giving discretion- ary power to Congress, Captain Snow told how a commercial voyage might be ruined because the captain was bound by too rigid instructions.
There is little doubt that at the assembling of the Convention a majority of the Maine delegates were opposed to the Con- stitution, but some were won over, and on the vote on ratifica- tion the representatives of the District stood twenty-five to twenty-one in its favor. Moreover, the question once decided, Widgery and Nasson (though not Thompson) promised to give the Constitution their ungrudging support.
SECOND MOVEMENT FOR SEPARATION (1814 - 1815)
Between the adoption of the Constitution and the War of 1812 there were various attempts at separation, but they were wholly unsuccessful. The war, however, and the Hartford Convention proved a stimulus to separation. The movement was controlled by able men; these architects of separation, these bosses of over a century ago, composed a ruling junto, which was only held together loosely and had its internal quar- rels. The principal figures were five: John Chandler, John Holmes, William King, Albion Keith Parris, and William Pitt Preble. Holmes was a graduate of Brown, Parris of Dartmouth, and Preble of Harvard. All except Parris were combative men, but Chandler seemed meant by nature for mili- tary rather than for civil life. As a boy he served in the Revolutionary Army. He was a major general of the Maine militia, and also a brigadier of United States troops in the War of 1812. Unlike Holmes and King, who began political life as Federalists, won as Democrats, and died Whigs, Chand- ler was always a Democrat of the straightest sect. The Mas- sachusetts Democrats seemed hardly orthodox to this eager Maine politician. On one occasion he wrote that not only did the Republicans (Democrats) of Boston act like the devil, but that in old Massachusetts they were not the equals in full party principle of their brethren of Maine. General Chandler was a great admirer of Andrew Jackson, who twice made him col- lector of customs at Portland.
John Holmes was born in Kingston, Massachusetts, March 28, 1773, was admitted to the bar in 1799, and moved to Al-
562
SEPARATION OF MAINE
fred, York County, Maine. In the prevailing disputes over titles to land, Holmes was employed by the great proprietors, and obtained considerable knowledge of land law, besides lib- eral fees. Holmes enrolled himself under the Federalist ban- ner, where he waged a vigorous and grossly personal warfare against the Democrats. In 1811 he suddenly became a Demo- crat, perhaps because no Federalist could be elected to office in his district. In 1813, Holmes was sent to the State Senate of Massachusetts, and there took a leading part in support of the national administration. In 1815, President Madison made him the American representative on the joint commission to determine the ownership of the Passamaquoddy Islands. He was employed in the Dartmouth College case for the "University," but did little to distinguish himself.
Holmes, though a man of national reputation, was a clever politician and advocate, rather than a statesman or a jurist. His chief characteristic was his ready wit. Like many lawyers of his day, Holmes was intemperate, and he bore the marks of his excesses. A correspondent of the Argus called him "the Knight of the Carbuncle Face." In the latter part of his life, he took an active part in the temperance movement. He was a domineering man, and it is probable that his nick- name, the "Duke of Summersetts," referred to his arrogance as well as to his political changes. He was said to have declared that he could manage York County as easily as he could swing a cat by the tail.
William King was born at Scarborough, Maine, February 9, 1768. He was a member of one of the leading families of Maine, a younger half-brother of the eminent Federalist, Rufus King. He was an able man of great force of character. By his own exertions he became one of the greatest shipowners in the United States, a large exporter, and an extensive land owner. He was also a banker and a lawyer. In 1800, he moved to Bath, represented it in the Legislature for many years, and was termed the "Sultan of Bath." William King began as a Federalist, became a Republican, and died a Whig. He was a keen judge of human nature and a devoted lover of the game of politics, which he played skilfully and ruth- lessly. Political opponents said that he violated the embargo, to which he was strongly opposed; and the War of 1812 shook his democracy more than the public knew. The latter
SECOND MOVEMENT FOR SEPARATION 563
part of King's life was unfortunate. In 1835 he was defeated as the Whig candidate for Governor, his great land holdings proved a burden rather than an asset, his' mind failed, and he died at the age of eighty-four, an adjudged non compos, leaving an estate insufficient to meet its liabilities.
The fourth member of this junto, Albion Keith Parris, was born at Hebron on January 19, 1788. After graduation from Brown, he went into politics, and was an office-holder nearly all his life. In 1816 he was elected a Representative in Con- gress, and in 1818 was appointed United States judge for the district of Maine. In 1822, he became governor of Maine, and, in 1827, a United States Senator. He exchanged the Senatorship for a seat on the Maine Supreme Bench. This place he also resigned to serve as second comptroller of the United States Treasury. Suave, conciliatory, unwilling to assume or acknowledge responsibility, his pleasing manners made him liked by all who knew him-particularly, his con- stituents. He was reported to have had more babies named after him than any other man in Maine.
William Pitt Preble was born in 1783, at York, Maine, of an old Maine family, and was a relative of Commodore Preble. He was by nature a fighter, but if he shot fast and hard he knew where to aim. Not overscrupulous in public contests, he was yet no "politician." He appeared to wish to offend men. His power of invective was almost fearful. Such a man could win respect for his ability, but was not adapted to win popular favor or a large "clientage." The Kennebec Journal said of him in 1827: "He is indeed the Van Buren of Maine, and though with far less talents and still less popularity, he is a powerful agent in directing the wheels, though he dare not seem to touch them himself."
Plans were made for enlarging the Eastern Argus and increasing its circulation, in order both to influence elections generally and to further the cause of separation. In the winter of 1815 petitions for separation were sent to the legislature, and its supporters found the Federalists apparent- ly ready to give the request benevolent consideration. Mark L. Hill, then a member of the Massachusetts senate and later a Representative in Congress, wrote to his friend and political ally, William King: "The Federalists in the Senate are
564
SEPARATION OF MAINE
remarkably polite. They appear extremely anxious to know what the exertions are toward a separation, and if we may judge from appearances, Mr. Otis and others are willing to get rid of us."
There were several reasons for this complacent, yet uncom- plimentary, conduct. Massachusetts proper was, and had been, Federalist, while the District of Maine was Republican. Maine had indeed at times returned a majority of Federalist Congressmen, but for many years she had steadily supported a Republican for governor; and the majority of her repre- sentatives in the General Court had also been Republican. The existence of a strong Republican minority made it necessary for the Federalists to pursue a more moderate course than some, at least, of their leaders desired. The situation, from a Federalist point of view, was growing worse instead of better. The population of Maine was increasing faster than that of Massachusetts, and the Federalists feared that in time "the unprincipled majority in Maine, effecting a junction with their natural allies in Massachusetts proper, will finally endanger, if not overthrow, the literary, religious, and political institu- tions of the State."
FEDERALIST SENTIMENT (1815)
Later in the separation struggle, a letter to the Boston Daily Advertiser said: "It has been apprehended that there would be such an increase of the population of the District as that the question would be, according to the current phrase, not whether we should set them off, but whether they would set us off-and that possibly the seat of government might be removed to some place in the District." In an earlier discus- sion of separation a friend of the measure said that, were it carried, the capital of Massachusetts probably would be moved from Boston to the more centrally located Worcester, a change which would be for the benefit of the people as a whole.
Equally unreasonable fears had been expressed by the friends of separation. The Argus of April 25, 1806, pub- lished a letter from a correspondent signing himself "Fal- mouth" who declared that "As Federal Massachusetts would gladly be divorced from Republican Maine, a Boston represen-
565
FEDERALIST SENTIMENT
tative may cause us to be separated at any moment, without a cent of the million and a half of money in the treasury, with- out any consideration for our expense in building the State House, and State prison, or without an acre of the Eastern land at our disposal."
There was a feeling in Massachusetts toward Maine like that with which a guardian of a rough, troublesome youngster regards the ward who shows little gratitude for the pains taken for his welfare. The correspondent of the Boston Advertiser quoted above said :
"The District has been considered as a sort of nursling, whose support cost more than its services were worth. The. peculiar situation of that country has been such as to give us a great deal of trouble, and to compel us in some instances to make general laws such as would never have been thought expedient or just had we legislated only for Massachusetts proper. The citizens of this Commonwealth generally have felt a sort of pique occasioned by the clamor for separation in the District, and have said, 'if these people think they are oppressed, and are so anxious to get away from us, we can do very well without them; let them take their own course, run and be glorified.' "
February 26, 1814, resolutions for a popular vote in Maine on the question of separation were offered in the senate by Albion K. Parris of Oxford County. February 26, the senate, by a party vote of seventeen Federalists to ten Repub- licans, accepted the report of a committee that it was not expedient to pass the resolves. Why had the Federalists returned to their old policy of retaining the District? Partly from a natural reluctance to dismember the State, but more because the balance of population had shifted. The "Ohio fever" was raging in Maine, and many of her citizens were seeking better farms in the West; the people of Massachusetts were increasing in number; and there seemed little danger that "the wise and good" would be deprived of their rightful authority by the backwoodsmen of Maine. Moreover, were the District to become a separate State, the Republican majority in the United States Senate already large, would be still further increased.
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.