USA > Massachusetts > History of Massachusetts, for two hundred years: from the year 1620 to 1820 > Part 42
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
Resolutions were also passed by the general court, at the same session, of the following import :- " That as the calami- ties of war were brought home to the territory of the state, the seacoast invaded or exposed to immediate danger, the people are bound in patriotism to unite in vigorous means for defence, and no party dissensions should interfere with the discharge
403
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
of this high duty: that ten thousand men be raised for one year for the defence of the state, to be organized and officered by the governor : that he be authorized to borrow a million of dollars, and the faith of the legislature pledged for the pay- ment : and that delegates be chosen by the general court, to meet other delegates from the neighboring states, to confer on the subject of their public grievances and concerns; on the best means of preserving our resources and of defence against the enemy ; and to devise and suggest for adoption of those states such measures as may be deemed expedient; and also to procure, if they should think proper, a convention of dele- gates, from all the United States, to revise the constitution, and more effectually to secure the support and attachment of the whole people, by placing all on the basis of fair representa- tion."
Before the close of this extra meeting of the general court, another report on the state of public affairs was made by the committee above-mentioned, and approved by a majority of more than two to one, in which the opinion was expressed, "that the application of the governor to the national adminis- tration, for aid and means for the defence of the state, was just and proper, and the refusal truly alarming to the people; * as it is provided by the constitution that the United States shall protect every state against invasion. To enable the United States to do this, power is given to call forth the militia 'to repel invasions,' to provide for organizing, arming, and disci- plining the militia, reserving to the respective states the ap- pointment of its officers. Before the adoption of the federal constitution, Massachusetts possessed every attribute of sovereignty : and the people would not have surrendered those relating to peace and war, to negotiation and intercourse with foreign nations and to the resources of the state founded in tax- ation, but on assurance that the powers so delegated would be used to provide for the common defence, to protect the state against invasion, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to them and their posterity. At the time, then, when a war, commenced by our national rulers, is
* The governor wrote to the secretary of war, stating the great expenses incurred by the general court in the measures for defence, as there were no regular troops of the United States ordered for protection, and requesting aid of the general government. The secretary of war replied, that no expenses of the militia would be reimbursed, but when called out in obedience to the orders of an officer of the United States. Nor did he promise either men or money for future protection. Thus the state was left to protect itself, and was obliged to provide for the expenses of its defence, while it was contri- buting largely to the national treasury .
.404
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
prosecuted to conquer a province of the enemy, and is retaliated on the seacoasts with powerful fleets to distress the people and desolate the country, the reply of the secretary of war may justly be considered as evidence of a disposition on the part of the national administration, to withhold the equal benefits of the union to which this state is entitled. By this reply it ap- pears, that the national rulers, soon after the declaration of war, anticipated danger on the seaboard; and though it was certain the Atlantic frontier would be invaded, the troops of the United States were employed for the conquest of Canada, and the only provision for defence was to divide the United States into mili- tary districts, (with a few regular troops,) under the command of an officer of high rank, with power to call for the militia as he might think proper. If this system was intended as a per- formance of the duties which the general government owes to the several states, it behooves Massachusetts to inquire, whether those measures be a fulfilment of those duties : and if not, to seek that redress, which is consistent with its duties to the union, and which its rights demand; and to ascertain the measures proper to be adopted to meet the dangers which the policy of the national rulers has produced. When the peo- ple of this commonwealth call to mind, that since the adoption of the federal constitution, $30,000,000 have been paid into the treasury of the United States from this state; when they reflect that $300,000 are now to be collected as a direct tax, that of $11,660,000 already appropriated for this year, they must pay $1,265,000, and that the proportion of this state of the $50,000,000 to be raised in 1815, will exceed $5,000- 000 ; they cannot hear without indignation, that no part of these sums are intended to be applied to defray expenses incurred by them in protecting themselves against invasion, (left as they are to their own militia for defence, ) except when the militia are called for by an officer of the United States army."
Governor Strong issued general orders in July, and again in September, 1814, similar to those given in July, 1812, in which he directed the whole militia of the state to be in readiness to repel invasion, when it should take place, or the danger of it be imminent ; and requiring the officers to inspect their regiments, brigades and divisions, and to march with such number of men as the case demanded to the places attacked or threatened. This was proof of good judgment, of a just regard for the rights of the militia, and of a disposition to provide for the defence of the commonwealth : and his consent to call out the militia when requested, and to place them under the command of the officers of the United States, as was done when invasion had taken
405
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
place, or immediately threatened,* and when the conditions required by those officers were not inconsistent with the rights of the militia, and by them expressly remonstrated against, affords evidence of his readiness to comply with the just requi- sitions of the federal rulers.
Great expenses were probably prevented by the system which was adopted by the governor, and the rights of the mili- tia were preserved, which many believed would have been violated by a compliance with the plan of the national adminis- tration, and the orders of its military officers, which would have required the same service of them as of regular troops. Adju- tant General Brooks, under whose immediate direction the orders respecting the militia were issued, and who had the entire confidence of Governor Strong, both for his bravery and prudence, probably arranged the details of the system ; but the principles which were adopted, and which guided the measures for the defence of the state, must have been approved, and, no doubt, were suggested by the governor himself.
A distinction was made, at a subsequent period, between the services rendered by the militia, in the counties of Plymouth, Barnstable, and Bristol, belonging to the fifth division, and those performed by the citizens in other parts of the state. It was asserted, that the services of the former were more patriot- ic, having been entirely voluntary and spontaneous, and there- fore entitled to a remuneration by the general government. But there was no just foundation for this distinction. In all places, the militia turned out readily, though not without orders from the governor, their constitutional commander-in-chief. His orders, originally, and afterwards, were to officers of the militia of all ranks to call out their men, when necessary for defence. And it was in compliance with these orders, that they were called into service by their respective officers. The major general of the fifth division, in his several orders, calling on the militia to march to particular places for the protection of the people, referred to the general order of the governor, directing him to have his men in constant readiness, and to
* In August, 1812, when there appeared to be danger of an attack at Eastport, several companies of militia were ordered to that place, and put under the command of an officer of the United States. When Captain Brainbridge asked for the militia to protect the Navy Yard in Charlestown, they were ordered out for the purpose. When General Cushing, in June, 1814, requested the militia for the protection of Boston and vicinity, it was agreed to call out the number he desired, and put them under his command. And when General Dearborn, in July, 1814. requested the militia to be in readiness, orders were issued by the governor accordingly ; and eleven hun- dred were stationed at Forts Independence and Warren for sometime, under such officers as General Dearborn desired, and subject to his command.
50
406
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
march them to the scene of danger and of alarm, without wait- ing for particular commands from him in every case. In a public letter, in 1817, the commanding officer of that division says, " that the governor was pleased to devolve on me the responsibility of directing the militia in this division, if there should be an invasion, or imminent danger of it." To various places within that division, the militia were accordingly called out, in greater or less numbers, and for a longer or shorter pe- riod, as the circumstances required. But the same was done in and about Boston ; at Portland, and at Wiscasset ; where General Sewall's and General King's divisions furnished large numbers, in times of alarm and danger.
0
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Hartford Convention -- Its Proceedings-Approved by the General Court of Massachusetts-Objects of the Convention-Act of Congress to authorize a State to employ the Militia for Defence-Intelligence of Peace-Con- troversy touching the right to call out the Militia-Governor's Speech on the subject-Mr. Gore's Opinion on State Rights-Terms of Peace --- Manufactures-Mr. Strong again Governor, in 1815.
DURING the session of the legislature in October, 1814, in compliance with a resolution adopted by a large majority of the representatives, twelve citizens, distinguished for their political experience, public services, and sound judgment,* were selected to attend a convention of delegates or committees from the New England States, to consult for the defence and welfare of that part of the country, in the critical and exposed situation in which it was placed by the war. The convention was held at Hart- ford, in Connecticut, on the 15th of December following. Delegates attended also from Connecticut and Rhode Island; and several counties in New Hampshire were represented ; but the legislature of that state declined choosing a committee for the purpose.
The convention separated early in January ; and the dele- gates from Massachusetts made a report of their proceedings to the general court, which met a few days after they returned. The doings of the convention were approved by a large major- ity of the general court; and a vote of thanks was passed to the delegates, who were citizens of the state. The governor
* They were George Cabot, (who was president of the convention) Na- than Dane, William Prescott, H. G. Otis, Joshua Thomas, Hodijah Bay- lies, Timothy Bigelow, George Bliss. Joseph Lyman, Daniel Waldo, S. 'S. Wilde, and Stephen Longfellow. That these men were truly patriotic. and acted from pure motives, the candid of their political opponents did nol dis- pute. That they were fallible, their friends did not deny. Yet their views were much misrepresented, for party purposes.
408
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
also spoke of their proceedings, as proof of great moderation. The measures proposed by the convention were, " that appli- cation should be made to congress, for its consent to an arrange- ment, by which the states represented in the convention, sepa- rately, or unitedly, might assume the defence of their territory, at the national expense ; and that certain amendments to the constitution of the United States be proposed to the several states, for their consent and adoption." The amendments pro- posed were, that congress should not have power to make war unless two thirds of the members of both branches should be in favor of it : that no law should be passed laying an embargo, for a longer period than sixty days, at once : that no law sus- pending commercial intercourse with foreign nations should be enacted, unless two thirds of the members of congress should consent and approve : that no person should be eligible for president of the United States a second time : and that the representation in congress should be according to the free pop- ulation of the states. It was also recommended by the conven- tion, that a request be made to congress for aid to defend the state, exposed as it was to invasion, in consequence of war, declared by the general government, which had the control of all the revenue of the nation. And when the general court passed resolutions, approving of the conduct of their delegates to the convention, they voted to send agents to the federal gov- ernment, " to represent the exposure of the state, and the feel- ings and apprehensions of the people ; the great expenses to which the state had already been subjected ; and to solicit of congress and the administration the means of future protection, as well as a reimbursement in part of what the commonwealth had already advanced, for the defence of the country. This measure was considered necessary to satisfy the people : for if the war should be continued, and no means of defence furnished by the general government, the great body of the people would probably be called into service, as militia, to protect the inhab- itants from the depredations of the enemy. Three eminent citizens * were appointed for this object, who proceeded to the seat of the national government, in February, soon after they were commissioned. About the time of their arrival, the intel- ligence of peace was received, and no application was made to congress, as had been proposed.
The| convention at Hartford, held by recommendation of Massachusetts, was, for many years, condemned by a large por- tion of the people through the United States. But its design
* H. G. Otis, T. H. Perkins, and William Sullivan.
409
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
was probably not fully understood, or not candidly and fairly represented. The people of Massachusetts, and of the other states on the seacoasts, had suffered exceedingly, for more than two years, by a war which they could not perceive to be neces- sary, and which, instead of being for defence, as pretended, had been made one of conquest, by the invasion of Canada. And when the regular forces of the nation were ordered away, and the militia called for to defend the country, the requisition and the system proposed were such, that the militia complained and remonstrated, and the experienced statesmen of Massachu- setts and some other parts of the union, believed them to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. The militia, therefore, were not called out in all cases, as requested by the officer of the United States. But whenever there were attacks, or invasion immediately threatened, the militia were called into service: and the public debt, in consequence, had become very great. Still the general government had all the revenue in its own hands : and when requested to reimburse the expenses incur- red, only in part, or to furnish means of protection, the admin- istration refused to do either. In this state of things, and a prospect of the continuance of the war, the plan was suggested for a conventiou of delegates from the New England States, to devise means for protection, and to propose a remedy for the evils under which they suffered, and to which they were ex- posed, in future.
Such was the cause, and such were the designs of the con- vention at Hartford. It was charged with plotting against the union ; but there was nothing in the first proposition, nor in the resolves preparatory to the convention, nor in their proceed- ings,* nor report, which was in favor of a separation of the New England States from the union; nor which could be fairly construed, as implying or intimating such a measure. The minds of the people were so agitated, that some steps were necessary on the part of their representatives to shew that every just and constitutional means would be adopted to obtain relief. The measure adopted was to consult with citizens of neighboring states, and to apply to congress for protection, or the means of protection. And thus the people were kept from violent acts against the laws, and induced to wait with patience
* The journal of the Hartford Convention was put into the hands of the writer of this history, then secretary of the commonwealth, by the presi- dent, who made the declaration and certificate, as a man of honor, that it contained all the resolutions passed, and all the motions formally made in the convention ; and the declaration of George Cabot did not need an oatlı to give it full credence.
410
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
for a remedy from the national government. It is a remarkable fact, too, that soon after the convention at Hartford, and before the news of peace reached the country, an act was passed by congress, providing for the defence of the several states, at the expense of the federal government.
The act authorized the president to receive into the service of the United States any corps, raised, organized, and officered by a state, and to employ them in the state where they were raised, or an adjoining state, and not elsewhere, except by con- sent of the executive of the state; but while in service to be subject to the common rules of war.
In the dispute which arose between the governor of Massa- chusetts and the executive of the United States, respecting the services of the militia and the constitutional power to direct and control them, was involved the doctrine of state rights, which has been matter of controversy ever since the existence of the federal government. The constitution gives congress the power to call out the militia for three purposes, one of which is " to repel invasion." In 1812, congress pro- vided by law, in terms, for calling out the militia by the presi- dent of the United States " to repel invasion." The very day war was declared, an officer of the United States being previously directed by the president, made a requisition for a large number of the militia of Massachusetts, simply because war had been declared ; not stating, for indeed he could not with truth, that there was an invasion, or immediate danger thereof. The governor did not comply with the requisition. Another call was soon after made ; but there was no pretence of an immediate invasion ; on the contrary, the few regular' troops of the United States were ordered to the borders of Canada, for offensive operations. And, that the whole sea- coast, including the forts of the United States, might not be left wholly destitute, which would have shown, in a most glaring manner, the improvidence of the national rulers, the militia were called for, to be placed at certain stations, to supply the place of regular forces, and to wait, probably for many months, for the approach of an enemy.
Governor Strong chose to construe the constitution very strictly, and to judge of the rightful power of the president and his officers by the provisions of that instrument. He did this, not wantonly, nor from caprice, nor party feelings ; for he was superior to such considerations ; but from a regard to the rights of the state and the militia of the state over which he presided. He knew there was no invasion, and no immediate danger of invasion ; and he was not disposed to encroach on
411
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
the rights of the militia, which he was bound to protect, to comply with a request of the executive of the United States, calling for the militia, when, in his opinion, the case did not exist which would justify the requisition. He argued, that he was not blindly to obey any and every requisition of the president ; but only such as the constitution gave him a right to make; requests made without clear constitutional ground, he contended he had a perfect right to disregard; and that it was his duty to do so, where the rights of the people, com- mitted to his care, would be violated by his compliance.
The views of Governor Strong, touching the right and the power of a state, when they come in collision with the author- ity of the federal government, will in a great measure appear, from the reference already made to his public speeches and addresses ; but his opinion, on the subject, was further expressed in his speech to the general court in January, 1815, in which he said,-" We have heard it observed, that the state legisla- tures have no right to express their opinions concerning the measures of the federal government. But this doctrine is repugnant to the first principles of liberty ; and the remark could not have been made by any one who had well consid- ered the organization of our government, or the arguments used by the advocates of the federal constitution, when that system was adopted. The government of the United States is founded on the state governments, and must be supported by them. The legislatures of the several states either elect the members of the executive and legislative branches of the general government, or prescribe the manner of their election. It would be strange indeed, if they were denied a right, which the meanest citizen of every state enjoys. In the arrange- ment of the different powers, the state governments are, to many purposes, interposed between the government of the United States and the people. If the latter think they are oppressed, they will complain to their immediate represen- tatives ; and the remonstrance of a state legislature on their behalf will not often be slighted by a wise and just adminis- tration.
" The powers of the federal government are limited by the constitution, which points out the extent of those powers, and the manner in which they are to be exercised. But the con- stitution will be of little value unless it is religiously observed. If at any time the national administration should disregard its authority, either by violating its express provisions, or by the assumption of powers not delegated to it, its commands would be unjust, and it would be chargeable with a dangerous abuse
412
HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
of confidence. The state legislatures are the guardians, not only of individuals, but of the sovereignty of their respective states ; and while they are bound to support the general gov- ernment in the exercise of its constitutional powers, it is their duty to protect the rights of the states and of their constitu- ents ; and to guard the constitution itself, as well against silent and slow attacks, as against more open and daring violations. The security thus afforded to the people would be lost, if the state legislature were implicitly devoted to the views of the national government, or were deprived of their right to inquire into its measures."
On this highly important subject, which was differently viewed by individuals and parties during the war of 1812, the sentiments of Christopher Gore, then a senator in congress from Massachusetts, and who had also been governor in 1809, were fully expressed in the following paragraphs. They are taken from a speech delivered in the federal senate in Janua- ry, 1815.
"A question has sometimes been suggested, whether the government of a state has a right to judge, if the requisition for the militia be within the provisions of the constitution. A little reflection on the nature of the government of the United States and of a state, and of the relation in which the supreme executive of the latter stands to the United States and to the citizens of his particular state, will show that he is obliged to examine, whether the case for which the requisition is made be within the provisions of the constitution ; and if the purpo- ses, for which it is declared, are clearly not within the powers delegated by that instrument, to withhold a compliance. The federal government can exercise no powers not granted by the constitution ; but so far as it can support such as it claims on this charter it is sovereign, and has no other control than its own discretion. The government of each state is equally sove- reign with respect to every power of an independent state, which it has not delegated to the general government, or which is not prohibited to the several states by the constitution. It is the duty of the government of each state to preserve unimpaired every right and authority retained by the state. Whether the militia, (the peculiar force of the several states, and that which is to protect and defend every right and power they possess,) is called forth by the federal government agreeably to the pro- visions which the states made, in delegating power to this gov- ernment, must be a question between two sovereign and inde- pendent governments ; and on which there is no tribunal au- thorized to judge between them. And if the governors, who
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.