USA > Massachusetts > The history of Massachusetts, the commonwealth period. 1775-1820 v. III > Part 18
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
(172)
173
A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION PROPOSED.
it was proper that they should be remedied before they were CHAP. incurable. V.
In consonance with these views, at a quite early date a 1776. proposition was made in the General Court that a commit- tee should be appointed to prepare a form of government, and such committee was appointed ; but the business was not proceeded in, as the opinion was generally expressed that the subject should originate with the people, who were the proper source of the organic law.1 The House therefore con- tented themselves with recommending to their constituents to choose their deputies to the next General Court with Sep. 17 power to adopt a form of government for the state; and, to give greater effect to this recommendation, it was renewed 1777. May 5. more formally in the following spring.2 In this interval, a convention was held in the county of Worcester of the com- Feb. mittees of safety from a majority of the towns, who voted that it would be improper for the existing General Court to form a constitution, but that a convention of delegates from all the towns in the state should be called for that purpose.3
How far the decision of this convention influenced the action of the people does not appear ; but a majority of the towns in the state, it would seem, chose their representatives for the next annual session of the General Court with a spe-
1 Jour. H. of R. for June 4 and 6, and Sept. 4, 1776 ; J. Adams's Cor- resp. in Works, ix. 429, 442; Brad- ford, ii. 117. The committee appoint- ed consisted of Brigadier Palmer, Co- lonel Pickering, Captain Stone, Major Hawley, Hon. James Warren, Mr. Nye, Captain Stearns, Mr. Simp- son, Mr. Maynard, Mr. Mayhew, Colonel Wait, and Mr. Root.
Jour. H. of R. for Sept. 17, 1776, and May 5, 1777 ; R. T. Paine to E. Gerry, April 12, 1777, in Austin's Life of Gerry, i. 223; A Constitution and Form of Government, &c., 3-5; Brad- ford, ii. 117; Jackson's Hist. Newton, 190.
3 Bradford, ii. 118; Lincoln's Hist. Worcester, 118. The town of Con- cord, in October, 1776, on the ques- tion of giving their consent that the House of Representatives, with the Council, should enact a constitution or form of government for this state, voted in the negative, and assigned as their reasons that the supreme legis- lature, in their corporate capacity, were by no means the proper body to form and establish such a constitu- tion, and that a convention, or con- gress, specially chosen, should be in- trusted with the business. Shattuck's Concord, 127, 128.
June 6.
1
174
PROPRIETY OF THIS STEP.
CHAP. cial view, or, at least, with an implied consent, to the forma- V. tion of a constitution by that body. The citizens of Boston, 1777. and of a number of other towns, as well as the committees of safety in the county of Worcester, were opposed to this pro- ceeding, and favored the calling of a convention of delegates.1 And, without doubt, this was the proper and the best course to have taken. It has been found, in nearly all communities where the experiment has been tried, that a constitution framed by a legislative assembly is open to more objections than a constitution framed by a convention of delegates. Whether it is that the members of a legislative body are too apt to be influenced by political considerations, and to lean upon precedents wherever they can be found, or whether it is that a convention of delegates, chosen directly by the people for the sole purpose of framing a constitution, are more likely to consult the general good, and to act independently of any official ties, certain it is that, in a majority of the states,2 the settlement of the frame of government has been intrusted to such conventions in preference to legislative assemblies ; and the result has been a better and more satisfactory system than could have been otherwise obtained - one in which the peo-
1 Bradford, ii. 140. Comp. Ab- bott's Andover, 61. In the preamble to the constitution offered in 1778, it is said that the people, in accordance with the resolve of May 5, 1777, did appoint, authorize, and instruct their representatives, in one body with the Council, to form such a constitution of government as they should judge best calculated to promote the happi- ness of the state, and, when complet- ed, to cause the same to be published for their inspection and consideration. See this instrument in the pamphlet published in 1778, and in Bradford, ii. App. 350.
2 Rhode Island and South Carolina are believed to be the only exceptions. In the former state, the old charter was in force; and in the latter, the
second constitution was established by the state legislature. In New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia conventions were held as in Massachusetts. See The Con- stitutions of the several independent States of America, published by or- der of Congress, Dec. 29, 1780, and reprinted at London in 1782. At a later date, however, South Carolina adopted a new constitution, which was the work of a convention special- ly called for that purpose ; and sev- eral of the other states, in a similar manner, revised their old constitutions or framed new ones. Comp. Pitkin's U. S. ii. chap. xix. ; Hildreth's U. S. 2d series, chap. iii.
175
REJECTION OF THE FIRST CONSTITUTION.
ple have more readily acquiesced, because better adapted to CHAP. their circumstances and wants.1 V.
At the usual time the General Court was convened ; and, a 1777. few weeks after the opening of its sessions, a committee was May 28. appointed, consisting of four members of the Council 2 and eight members of the House,3 for the purpose of preparing a constitution. Of the proceedings of this committee but little is known, as their records have not been published ; but the result of their deliberations was a draught of a constitution, Dec. which was debated at length, approved by the convention, 1778. Feb. 28. presented to the legislature, and submitted to the people, by Mar. 4. whom it was rejected.4
The objections to this instrument were, that it contained no declaration of rights, which was an essential defect ; that the principle of representation was unequal, inasmuch as even the smallest towns were allowed to have one representative, and others, unless containing three hundred polls, were confined to that number ; and that the powers and duties of the legis- lators and rulers were not clearly and accurately defined.5
1 The views of the people on this point may be gathered from the in- structions given by the town of Med- ford to their representative in May, 1779 : " That said representative use his best endeavors and influence that, if the General Court are empowered by the majority of freeholders of said state to call a convention to form said constitution of government, said con- vention may consist of no person or persons belonging to said General Court." Brooks's Medford, 154.
2 Jeremiah Powell, Thomas Cush- ing, Daniel Davis, and John Taylor. The subject was discussed previously by both Houses, and a conference was held, June 17, " on the business of formning a new constitution of govern- ment." Jour. H. of R. for 1777, 28. 3 James Warren, Robert Treat Paine, Azor Orne, Jeduthun Bliss, James Prescott, John Pickering, Geo. Partridge, and Joseph Simpson.
4 Comp. Austin's Life of Gerry, i. 266. For the draught referred to, see the pamphlet, printed by J. Gill, in 1778, and comp. Bradford, ii. App. 349-362. The vote stood, 10,000 against the constitution, to 2000 in its favor ; and 120 towns made no re- turns. The citizens of Boston voted unanimously against the constitution, and were of opinion that a matter of so much importance should not be hastily decided, but be postponed to a period of more tranquillity. The Result of the Ipswich Convention, held, by adjournment, at Ipswich, April 29, 1778, Peter Coffin, Esq., in the chair, was published, in pamphlet form, at Newburyport; and the ob- jections to the constitution were stat- ed in this document in eighteen arti- cles.
5 Bradford, ii. 158, 159; Hobart's Abington, 136.
176
A CONVENTION CALLED.
CHAP. Besides, the opinion was still current that a convention was v. the proper body to decide upon a constitution for the state, 1778. and that no other body could successfully discharge that duty.
A majority of the people, therefore, favored the calling of
1779. May. such a convention ; and, at the annual election in the follow- Feb. 20. ing year, by the advice of the General Court previously given,
the returns from the towns were so conclusive that precepts Jun. 17. were issued for the choice of delegates, to meet at Cambridge in the ensuing September.1
Sept. 1. These delegates met at the appointed time, and organized by the choice of James Bowdoin as president, and Samuel Barrett as secretary.2 A committee of twenty-six was speed- Sept. 3. ily chosen to draught a constitution ; 3 but, as the report of this committee could not be immediately made, the convention, Sept. 7. after a session of about a week, was adjourned to meet again Oct. 28. Nov.11. the last of October ; and, two weeks from that time, it was
1 Jour. Convention, 5; Jour. H. of R. for Feb. 9, 16, 17, 1779; Brad- ford, ii. 177; Cushing's Newburyport; Coffin's Newbury, 255 ; S. Lincoln's Hist. Hingham, 107. Nearly one third of the towns neglected to make returns ; but of those which were heard from, the larger portion were in favor of calling a convention.
2 Jour. of the Convention, 7; Title Page of the Const. published by or- der, and ibid. 51, 53; Bradford, ii. 177.
3 This committee consisted of the Hon. James Bowdoin, Hon. John Ad- ams, and John Lowell, Esq., from Suffolk ; Theophilus Parsons, Esq., Jonathan Jackson, and Samuel Phil- lips, Jun., from Essex ; Hon. James Sullivan, Nathaniel Gorham, Esq., and Hon. Eleazar Brooks, from Middle- sex ; Hon. Noah Goodman, Major Hezekiah Smith, and Mr. John Bil- lings, from Hampshire; John Cotton, Esq., and Rev. Gad Hitchcock, from Plymouth ; Enoch Hallett, Esq., from Barnstable; Hon. R. T. Paine and Rev. Samuel West, from Bristol ;
Hon. Benjamin Chadbourn and Hon. David Sewall, from York ; Hon. Jed- ediah Foster, Joseph Dorr, Esq., and Israel Nichols, Esq., from Worcester ; Hon. Samuell Small, from Cumber- land; and James Harris, Esq., and Captain William Walker, from Berk- shire. Jour. of the Convention, 26-29. " Well might it be said," observes Mr. Winthrop, " that to this conven- tion were returned, from all parts of the commonwealth, as great a num- ber of men of learning, talents, and patriotism as had ever been assem- bled here at any earlier period." Here were " Samuel Adams and John Ad- ams, Hancock, the elder John Lowell, Theophilus Parsons, the elder John Pickering, George Cabot, Nathaniel Gorham, James Sullivan, the elder Levi Lincoln, Robert Treat Paine, Jonathan Jackson, Henry Higginson, Nathaniel Tracy, Samuel Osgood, William Cushing, and Caleb Strong;" and Maine was " represented, among others, by David Sewall and Benja min Chadbourne." Winthrop's Ad- dresses and Speeches, 110.
177
A CONSTITUTION DRAUGHTED.
adjourned to the following January.1 In the mean time, the CHAP. subject was discussed in the papers and by different public V. bodies, to prepare the people for definite action ; and sugges- 1779. tions of the highest importance were made touching the form of government which it would be wisest to adopt.2
At the reassembling of the convention, the draught, which 1780. had been revised, was presented, and, after considerable dis- Jan. 5. cussion, was adopted ; and eighteen hundred copies were Mar. 2. ordered to be printed, and distributed in the towns and plan- tations in the state.3 The votes of the people, for or against this constitution, were directed to be returned on the first Wednesday in June; and at that date it appeared that more than two thirds of the votes were in its favor, and the conven- tion was dissolved.4 The vote of Boston was in the affirma- Jun. 16. tive ; but alterations were proposed, and the delegates from May 12. the town were instructed to present them. These alterations related to the third article of the bill of rights, which provides for religious instruction ; to the preservation of liberty of . speech and the freedom of the press ; to the provision respect- ing the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus ; and to em- powering the governor, without leave of the legislature, to. order the militia to an adjoining state in case of danger.5 On
1 Jour. Convention, 34, 49; Brad- ford, ii. 177. Samuel Adams, John Pickering, Caleb Strong, and William Cushing had been previously appoint- ed to draught a constitution and dec- laration of rights. Jour. Convention, 30.
2 Boston Gazette for 1779 and 1780, passim.
3 A Constitution, &c., pub. by Benj. Edes and Sons, 1780, 52 ; Jour. Con- vention, 192-216, 222-249; Boston Gazette for Jan. 31 and Apr. 17, 1780; Sparks's Corresp. of the Rev. ii. 430. The Address, in Journal, &c., 216- 222, sent out with the constitution by the convention, was printed by White and Adams, in a pamphlet of eighteen VOL. III. 12
pages. The committee on this ad- dress consisted of Hon. James Sulli- van, Hon. Samuel Adams, John Low- ell, Esq., Rev. Mr. West, and Mr. Gray. Jour. Convention, 130. This was approved Feb. 22, and Colonel Thompson and Mr. Parsons were added.
4 Boston Gazette for June 19, 1780. On the 2d of March, the convention adjourned to the 7th of June, then to receive the returns from the towns ; and, after reassembling on that day, it continued in session until the 16th, when it was dissolved. Jour. Conven- tion, 168, 170, 185.
5 Boston Gazette for May 12 and 22, 1780; Bradford, ii. 186.
178
OBJECTIONS TO THIS INSTRUMENT.
CHAP. the first of these points, though they expressed themselves V. satisfied of the importance of religious teachers to the welfare 1780. of society and the morals of the people, they wished for a perfect toleration, so far as it could be secured, and for no degree of compulsion in religious sentiments or worship. Liberty of conscience, they apprehended, would be infringed by any other course ; and, though they did not object to the idea that all should be taxed for the support of religion, they suggested that the amount assessed upon those not connected with any organized society should be appropriated to the poor or to some other purpose of public utility.1 With regard to the writ of Habeas Corpus, they wished that its privileges should be more accurately defined and more liberally granted, so that citizens should not be subject to confinement on mere suspicion.2 And they were in favor of authorizing the gov- ernor, without leave of the legislature, to order the militia to an adjoining state for the suppression of rebellions, and for such other purposes as might be required.3
Nor was it only in Boston that objections were made to the provisions of the new constitution. Throughout the state, the subject was discussed ; and the third article, in particular, of the bill of rights called forth a number of elaborate essays, which were published in the papers of the day.4 Without doubt, it was intended, by the framers of this article, that lib- erty of conscience should be enjoyed by every citizen ; nor was it supposed that any really religious persons would se- riously object to the assessment of a tax for the support of public worship, since cach one had the privilege of joining
1 Bradford, ii. 186. Comp. Frank- lin's Works, viii. 505, 506, and the pamphlet entitled Political Sketches, inscribed to his Excellency John Ad- ams, &c., Lond. 1787, 86 et seq.
2 Bradford, ii. 186.
3 Bradford, ii. 186; Brooks's Med- ford, 155.
4 Boston Gazette for June 12, July 3, 10, 24, 31, Aug. 14, 21, Oct. 23, and Dec. 18, 1780. Comp. W. Lin- colu's Hist. Worcester, 123, and S. Lincoln's Hist. of Hingham, 108, 109.
179
DISCUSSION ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
what society and supporting what teacher he pleased. It was CHAP. expressly provided, also, that no one should be molested on V. account of his religious opinions, and that no one denomina- 1780. tion should have any exclusive or peculiar privileges. Yet it was well known that there were sects in existence inferior in numbers, as well as in wealth, to that which had hitherto been principally supported ; and the members of these sects were opposed to a course which seemed, even by implication, to discourage their existence, or to limit their resources. The Baptists, in particular, who had become quite numerous, were inclined to complain, inasmuch as individuals who wished to ally with them, and who were connected with other societies, could not do so without applying for a special license - an arrangement which was conceived to be peculiarly oppressive, as well as inconsistent with their natural rights.1 But the article was retained, and continued to be a part of the consti- tution until 1834, when it was abolished, and the " voluntary system," as it is commonly called, was adopted, which left. each citizen at liberty to pay or not for the support of public worship, though every society, corporate or unincorporate, was authorized to tax its members, or the pewholders in its meeting house, for the support of public worship, by a majority vote of the members present at a meeting duly warned.2 Whether this change has, on the whole, been a benefit or an injury to the cause of religion, is not clearly settled ; and a difference of opinion now, as in former times, prevails as to the expe- liency of sanctioning the idea that religion, as a matter of public utility, like the education of the young, should be sup- ported by a general assessment on the people. Directly or ndirectly, it admits of no doubt that the benefits of religion
1 Boston Gazette for Mar. 13, 1780 ; Bradford, ii. 187.
2 Senate Doc. No. 3, for 1834; icts and Resolves of Mass. for 1834. 'his amendment was proposed in 832, agreed to by a majority of the
senators and two thirds of the House for that year and the next, submitted to the people, approved by them, and ratified and confirmed by the General Court in 1834.
180
ELECTION OF STATE OFFICERS.
CHAP. are enjoyed by all, in the security of law, the protection of .V. property, and the prevention of crime ; and if such benefits 1780. are common, it is asked, why should not all be required, in some way, to contribute to the support of religion, as well as to the support of schools or of government? This is not the place, however, to discuss this subject, or to express an opinion which might be dissented from by more than would approve it. The decision of the question rests with the people.1
As the constitution was adopted by the popular vote, and was henceforth to be the law of the state, notice of the same was officially given by the convention to the General Court, Oct. 25. and the last Wednesday of October was assigned as the day for the organization of the government.2 The election of Sept. 4. governor, lieutenant governor, and senators took place in Sep- Oct. 9. tember ; and the representatives were chosen in October, ten days, at least, previously to the last Wednesday in the month.3 For the office of chief magistrate John Hancock was chosen - a gentleman who deserved well of the people for his sacri- fices on their behalf, and who had already respectably filled a number of responsible stations.4 No person had a majority of the votes for lieutenant governor, and the General Court elected James Bowdoin to the office ; but he declined it
1 For the debates on the rejection of the third article of the bill of rights, see the newspapers of the day.
2 Boston Gazette for June 19, 1780; Jour. Convention, 186; Brad- ford, ii. 188.
3 Jour. Convention, 186; Bradford, ii. 188; Jackson's Hist. Newton, 195; S. Lincoln's Hist. Hingham, 110. The election in some of the towns took place in August. Sec Shattuck's Con- cord, 129.
4 " I want to hear of the elec- tions," wrote John Adams to Jona- than Jackson, Oct. 2, 1780, Corresp. in Works, ix. 511. " If these are made with as much gravity, wisdom, and integrity as were discovered in
the convention and among the peo ple, in the whole course of this grea work, posterity will be happy and prosperous. The first citizen will be one of two whom we know. Which ever it may be, I wish him suppor and success. It is no light trust However ambitious any may be of it whoever obtains this distinction, if he does his duty, will find it a heavy bur den. There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, cach arranged under its leader, and concerting meas- ures in opposition to each other. This in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as -the greatest political evil under our constitution."
181
VIEWS OF THE STATESMEN OF MASSACHUSETTS.
James Warren was then chosen ; but he also declined. After- CHAP. wards Thomas Cushing was chosen, and he saw fit to accept V. 1780. the post.1
It is evident that the new constitution was not adopted without opposition ; nor were there wanting individuals of considerable intelligence who doubted the permanence of the government to be established under it. Yet the statesmen of Massachusetts, whose knowledge of political science was the result of a long and painful experience, were not de- sirous, in the progress of the institutions which they were called upon to frame, to make startling innovations in fa- miliar forms; nor was it necessary, or even expedient, that they should reject as worthless views which had been proved to be sound, and measures which were sanctioned by their obvious utility. So far, indeed, as changes were necessary for the interests of the community, they were unhesitatingly made, and in most cases with great unanimity. Beyond this, how- ever, the spirit of innovation was rigidly restrained. They . had no intention of embarking in schemes whose chief recom- mendation was their novelty, and which might prove worse than those which had been tried. Hence deference was paid. to the forms of the past ; and the dignity, and in some degree the ceremonial, of the royal government may be distinctly traced in the architecture of the new constitution. The titles given to the two first executive magistrates, and to councillors and senators, in the eyes of some savored of an inclination to imitate the governments of the old world. But the objections to these titles, though they have since been renewed,2 were not seriously urged ; nor, indeed, did they affect any principle of vital importance.3
1 Boston Gazette for Oct. 30, 1780 ; Sparks's Corresp. of the Rev. iii. 148; Bradford, ii. 198. Mr. Bowdoin was at the same time elected a senator for the county of Suffolk ; but he saw fit to decline this office, as well as that of
lieutenant governor. Winthrop's Ad- dresses and Speeches, 110.
See the Proceedings of the Con- vention to revise the Constitution, held in 1853, i. 986.
3 Austin's Life of Gerry, i. 355, 356.
182
INCORPORATION OF THE ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES.
CHAP. V. The position of Governor Hancock was somewhat peculiar. For several months there had been a misunderstanding be- 1780. tween him and the delegates from Massachusetts to the Gen- eral Congress, originating, among other things, in the suspicion that his conduct, as the favorite of the people, was too much guided by his love of popularity. They had, therefore, thrown the weight of their influence in favor of Mr. Bowdoin, a member of that party to some of whom Mr. Hancock had given the sobriquet of "the Essex junto ; " and the success of Mr. Hancock was not particularly gratifying to them, or in unison with their wishes.1 The opposition, however, was not of such virulence as to embarrass the action of the govern- ment ; and, though party feeling ran high at the time, and continued for many years to influence the conduct of even well-meaning patriots, no serious evils resulted, though occa- sionally there were manifestations of individual resentment and of intemperate zeal.
In the midst of this excitement of political concerns, the interests of science were not overlooked ; and the incorpora- May 4. tion of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, consisting of about fifty members, distinguished for their literary researches and attainments, is evidence of attention to intellectual improve- ment. Of this society, James Bowdoin, its principal patron, was the first president; throughout his life he was its pride and its ornament; and at his death, he bequeathed to it a hundred pounds and his valuable library of twelve hundred volumes. Joseph Willard, of Cambridge, the president of Harvard College, was chosen vice president and correspond- ing secretary of the society.2
1 Austin's Life of Gerry, i. 353. See also S. Adams's Letter to Gerry, of Nov. 27, 1780, in ibid. 362. On the personal appearance of Hancock in 1782, see Loring's Hundred Ora- tors, 105.
Mems. Am. Acad. i. Pref. p. 1;
Bowdoin's Disc. before Am. Acad. 1780; Boston Gazette for May 22, 1780; Bradford, ii. 191; Austin's Life of Gerry, i. 363; Quincy's Hist. H. Coll. An academy was estab- lished at Andover in 1778, which was incorporated in 1780, for the in-
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.