USA > North Carolina > History of North Carolina: The Federal Period 1783-1860, Volume II > Part 3
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
The convention organized May 25, 1787. The impression made on one of their colleagues by the North Carolina mem- bers has been preserved in the notes of William Pierce, dele- gate from Georgia. To him Blount was a "character strongly marked for integrity and honor, plain, honest, sincere," about thirty-six years of age; Williamson, a "gentleman of educa- tion and talents" who "enters freely into public debate from his close attention to most subjects, but who is no orator," forty-eight years of age; Davie, "silent in the convention," whose "influence was always respected," age thirty; Martin, "not formed to join public debate, being no speaker," age forty.1 Of these delegates Williamson was most active in the convention, speaking more frequently and being appointed to more committees than his colleagues from North Carolina. Williamson and Spaight were present from their arrival until adjournment; Davie and Martin left before the convention rose, while Blount, although present at adjournment, was absent most of the time, attending sessions of the Continental Congress in New York.
When the convention proceeded to business, resolutions were offered by Randolph of Virginia which were revolu- tionary. Instead of revising the Articles of Confederation, they provided for three branches of government, a supreme legislature, executive, and judiciary. The legislature was to consist of two houses, the first elected by the people, the second by the first, with the right to negative laws infringing the Articles of Union and to use force against any state re- sisting its authority. The executive was to be chosen by the legislature, and with the judiciary was to act as a council of
1 Notes on the Federal Convention (Am. Hist. Review, vol. III).
26
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
revision with the power to veto acts of the legislature. The judiciary was to consist of supreme and inferior courts elected by the legislature, the judges to serve during good be- havior. These resolutions were the subject of discussion from May 29th until late in June. The paramount issue was one of nationalization advocated by the large states, especially those with undeveloped western lands, and opposed by the small states. The North Carolina delegates cast their lot with the large states; their sentiment was for nationalization. Thus when Randolph proposed that representation in the legislature be according to taxation or free population, it was moved by Hamilton, of New York, and seconded by Spaight, that "suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportional to the number of free inhabitants." It was also Spaight who first suggested the election of members of the upper house by the state legislatures, and as a result the convention rejected the election of the second house by the first as proposed in the Randolph resolutions. However the North Carolina delegates agreed with the majority that the proportion of membership in the upper should be the same as in the lower house. Regarding the executive, Williamson and Spaight favored election by the national legislature. Con- cerning the veto power, the North Carolina delegates were less nationalistic; they opposed joining the executive and the judiciary in the revision of the laws, and Williamson sug- gested as a substitute that in all legislation a two-thirds majority be required; he was especially opposed to the legis- lature having any power that would restrain the internal police power of the states.
Against the nationalizing process there was increasing discontent. The small states finally made the matter of rep- resentation in the upper house a test of strength, demanding equality of representation. In the midst of the debate Ben- jamin Franklin called attention to the fact that the sessions of the convention had not been opened with prayer and sug- gested that application be made "to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings." Quite a discussion fol- lowed; it was ended by Williamson who "observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The con-
27
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
vention had no funds."2 Finally there was a tie vote on the matter of representation, North Carolina voting against equality. A committee of one from each state was then chosen to reach an adjustment, Davie representing North Carolina. The committee reported in favor of cquality in the Senate, and of counting five negroes equal to three whites in apportioning representation in the lower house.
The ensuing debate marked the crisis of the convention. Three issues were involved. One was the equality of the states in the Senate versus proportional representation. Williamson, an exponent of the large state interests, de- clared the committee's report the most objectionable of any he had heard. Yet when its adoption was put to a vote on July 7th, North Carolina voted aye, while Vir- ginia and South Carolina were among the nays, and Georgia was divided. Williamson declared that North Carolina conceded equality in the Senate on condition that money bills should originate in the lower house, thus compromising the interests of the large states and the small states. The question of apportioning representation in the lower house was equally serious. The committee recom- mended one member for every 40,000. The commercial in- terests demanded and secured an amendment that represen- tation in the future should be according to population and wealth. To this Williamson was bitterly opposed, and he contributed to its final rejection by moving that the census by which the apportionment should be made should be limited to free and slave population. Finally, the anti-slavery in- terests were opposed to including slaves in the basis of rep- resentation, while South Carolina and Georgia demanded that the blacks be counted equal to whites. The three-fifths compromise reported by the committee was defended by Davie in strong language. "It was high time to speak out," he said. "He saw that it was meant to deprive the Southern states of any share of representation for their blacks. He was sure that N. Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least three-fifths. If the
2 Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, I, 452.
28
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
eastern states meant, therefore, to exclude them altogether, . the business was at an end." 3 When the final ballot on the compromise was taken, the North Carolina delegates were a unit in its favor. Their vote was decisive and even magnani- mous. Equality in the Senate was not to the interest of the large states, and North Carolina ranked third in population; hence four of the large states voted against the compromise, and Massachusetts was divided. On the other hand, the four small states, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jer- sey, were unanimously for equality. By forsaking the large states, her natural allies, North Carolina secured the com- promise and probably saved the convention from adjourn- ment without accomplishing its purpose.
Equally interesting was the feeling of the North Caro- lina delegates regarding the qualifications of senators and representatives. Williamson favored a longer residence as qualification for senators than for representatives, because "bribery and cabal are more easily practiced in the choice of the Senate which is to be made by the Legislatures composed of a few men, than of the House of Representatives who will be chosen by the people." On the other hand Davie was more optimistic; to him it seemed right to refer "the ap- pointment to Legislatures, whose agency in the general sys- tem did not appear objectionable as it did to some others." Davie also opposed proportional representation in the Senate on the ground that large membership could not "possess the activity and other qualities required in it." 4
The vote of the North Carolina delegates was also influ- ential in another compromise, the adjustment of the slave trade and navigation acts. The delegates of Virginia and cer- tain northern states desired to prohibit the importation of slaves, while the South, an agricultural section, feared the power of Congress over commerce. The matter was referred to a committee of one from each state, Williamson represent- ing North Carolina. It reported against any restriction on the importation of slaves prior to 1800, with no restriction on navigation acts. The South Carolina and Georgia dele-
3 Ibid, I, 593.
4 Ibid, I, 487, 542.
29
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
gates were not satisfied; they demanded and secured an exten- sion to 1808 of the time limit within which the slave trade should not be prohibited, and also demanded that a two-thirds vote be required for all acts of Congress regulating trade. Virginia, led by George Mason, opposed any concession to the slave trade but favored restrictions on the regulation of com- merce. The North Carolina delegates took a middle ground, placing the interests of union above those of section. Thus Williamson declared that if the slave trade were at once abolished, "the Southern States could not be members of the union and it was wrong to force anything down that was not absolutely necessary and which any state must dis- agree to."5 The matter was again referred to a committee and its report gave the slave traffic lease on life until 1808. Williamson then made his positon more clear, declaring "that both in opinion and practice he was against slavery ; but thought it more in favor of humanity from a view of all circumstances to let South Carolina and Georgia in un- der these terms than to exclude them from the union." 6 With regard to the regulation of commerce the sentiment of the North Carolina delegates was likewise liberal. Williamson favored a two-thirds majority for trade laws but did not think it vital "because if the majority of the Northern States should push their regulations too far, the S. States would build ships for themselves." Spaight likewise declared that "the South- ern States could at any time save themselves from oppression by building ships for their own use." Thus while the South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia delegates drifted toward par- ticularism, the North Carolina delegates placed union above sectional interests, and worked for compromises.
The attitude of the North Carolina delegates toward other problems of the convention was also notable. On the vexed question of the executive they favored election by the national legislature. When choice by electors was under discussion, Williamson moved that the number of electors from each state "should be regulated by their respective members in the first branch." On July 24th, four days after the electoral system
5 Ibid, II, 373.
6 Ibid, II, 415.
30
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
had been adopted, it was reconsidered on motion of Houston, seconded by Spaight, and Williamson made a lengthy criti- cism. He declared that "the proposed electors would cer- tainly not be men of the first or even of the second grade in the states. These would all prefer a seat in the Senate, or the other branch of the Legislature." Moreover, Williamson did not like the unity of the executive; he wished the executive power to be lodged in three men taken from three districts into which the states might be divided. "As the executive is to have a kind of veto on the laws and there is an essential difference in the interests between the N. and the S. States, particularly in the carrying trade, the power will be danger- ous if the executive is to be taken from part of the union, to the part from which he is not taken." 7 Ultimately the elective system was re-adopted, but on the final ballot of September 6th, North Carolina voted nay. Likewise the count of elec- toral votes in the Senate was opposed by Spaight. "If the election or the electors is to be crammed down, he would pre- fer their meeting all together and deciding finally without any reference to the Senate," and he moved "that the electors meet at the seat of General Government." 8 Williamson seconded the motion, but it received only one vote, that of the North Carolina delegation. The North Carolina delegates also favored a long term for the President and ineligibility for re-election. When the four-year term was finally adopted, the North Carolina delegation gave the only negative vote. The idea of impeachment was first suggested by Williamson, who moved, and it was seconded by Davie, that the executive be "removable on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty." It was Williamson also who fixed the majority to override the veto at two-thirds, a provision se- cured on the floor of the convention after the committee on unfinished parts of the Constitution, of which he was a mem- ber, had reported in favor of three-fourths.
Closely allied with the veto power was the question of the judiciary and civil rights. The North Carolina delegates opposed the union of the executive and the legislature in the
7 Ibid, II, 100.
8 Ibid, II, 526.
1
31
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
revision of laws, and as a substitute Williamson suggested that every act be passed by a two-thirds majority. He was also opposed to any power of the national government which would restrain the states in the regulation of their internal police, and at the close of the convention he suggested that jury trials be guaranteed in all civil cases.
When the work of the convention was concluded, the Con- stitution was signed by Blount, Spaight, and Williamson, Davie and Martin having left the convention before its work was completed. The Constitution was submitted to Congress and by Congress to the states for ratification or rejection.
The ensuing campaigns in North Carolina were the most exciting since the early years of the Revolutionary movement. Instead of the amended Articles of Confederation, for which delegates had been sent to Philadelphia, an entirely new in- strument of government was before the people. In state pol- itics there had been for some time a marked division between radicals and conservatives. That cleavage was now accentu- ated. The radicals, who had stood for inflated currency and proscription of the loyalists, saw in the Constitution a sur- render of state sovereignty. The conservatives found in it a "supreme law of the land" which would protect property rights, stabilize the currency, and promote trade and other vital interests against particularistic policies. The latter as- sumed a party name, federalists, while the former were known as anti-federalists. First in the field with the new issue were the federalists. Before the adjournment of the Philadelphia convention, Williamson suggested the election of a conservative governor as a preliminary step, and in the state elections of August, 1787, the Constitution was an issue, although the final draft had not been completed. The rad- icals were victorious, securing a majority in both Commons and Senate. When the legislature met in November, the Con- stitution had been forwarded to the state authorities. Real- izing the importance of the issue, partisanship relaxed, Samuel Johnston, a conservative, was elected governor, a state con- vention was called to meet at Hillsboro on July 21, 1788, and copies of the Constitution were ordered to be printed for dis- tribution among the people.
JAMES IREDELL
33
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
The convention campaign was hotly contested. Among the candidates were the ablest political leaders in the state. The case for the federalists was best presented by James Ire- dell. He was the author of an "Address by the Grand Jury of the Edenton District," drawn up in November, 1787, which en- dorsed the Constitution as a remedy for the unpaid national debt, the unfulfilled Treaty of Peace, the demoralized com- merce, and other problems.9 In January 1788, under the pen name of "Marcus," he also wrote a reply to George Mason's "Objections to the New Constitution." 10 Both pamphlets were scattered far and wide, the latter having a circulation outside the state. Later, in May, 1788, Davie and Iredell jointly produced a third pamphlet supporting the Constitution.
Equally notable was the campaign of the anti-federalists. Its cue was given by Willie Jones, of Halifax, ultra-democrat in theory, aristocrat in practice, intimate with the Virginia school of individualism. "The poor were to be ruined by taxes," he declared, "and no security for freedom of con- science" was given. In the Wilmington district Timothy Bloodworth, the blacksmith politician, led the opposition, while Joseph McDowell, Thomas Person, and Joseph Winston were anti-federalist candidates in the west. The state judi- ciary, foreseeing the power to be of the federal courts, was completely anti-federalist. Important also was the attitude of the clergy politicians. David Caldwell, the most prominent Presbyterian divine and long influential in politics, was an anti-federalist candidate. So was Lemuel Burkitt, a promi- nent Baptist minister and leader. An interesting glimpse of his activity in the campaign has been left by Elkanah Wat- son, who passed through North Carolina in 1788:
"The week previous to the election, I was riding in com- pany with Major Murfee, who has been already introduced to the reader, and a Dr. Garvey, a warm hearted and ener- getic Irishman, several miles in the interior from Winton, where we noticed a paper pasted upon a tree, which read as follows: 'Notice !- On Wednesday next, at three o'clock, all persons desirous of hearing the new Constitution explained,
9 McRee. II. 181.
10 Ibid. IT, 186.
Vol. II-8
34
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
by Elder B-t, are requested to attend his church in the Woodlands, 17th March 1788.' The time appointed was only two days previous to the election.
"We felt indignant, at what we deemed an insidious at- tempt to deceive the community; and determined to be pres- ent in order to counteract his movement. On our arrival we found a horse hitched to every tree about the church, and the interior of the building crowded. We pressed our way into seats a little distance from the pulpit. B-t had been some time at his nefarious work, explaining the Constitution to suit his unhallowed purposes. He frequently cast a suspicious, disconcerting eye upon our pew. He then began to explain the object of the ten miles square, as the contemplated seat of the government. 'This, my friends,' said the preacher, 'will be walled in or fortified. Here an army of 50,000, or perhaps 100,000, will be finally embodied, and will sally forth and enslave the people, who will be gradually disarmed.' This absurd assumption set our blood in fermentation, strongly excited already in party feeling. We consulted the moment, and agreed to possess ourselves of the seat directly under the pulpit, and make an effort to discuss the subject or break up the meeting. We arose together, Garvey with the Consti- tution in his hand, supported by Murfee on his right and my- self on his left. Garvey turned towards B-t, and said, in a loud voice :
" 'Sir, as to the ten mile square, you are'-here he was interrupted by a general movement and buzz, which instantly swelled into a perfect uproar. At this crisis we were in a most critical situation, and only saved from violence by the personal popularity of Murfee, who was universally beloved. We were glad to pass out with the torrent, gain our horses, and be off. We however attained our object-the meeting was dissolved.
"The next day Garvey and myself planned and executed a caricature; and as it was a new exhibition among the peo- ple, we hoped it would have a good effect at the polls. A clergyman was represented at the pulpit, dressed in his bands, with a label proceeding from his mouth having this inscrip- tion :- ' And lo, he brayeth !' This we committed to some reso-
35
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
lute fellows, with instructions to post it up at the door of the courthouse, on the opening of the polls; they engaged to de- fend and protect it. Some of B-t's friends, stung to the quick by the sarcasm, attempted to pull it down. A general battle ensued. This obstructed as we desired, the voting. Candles were lighted in the courthouse; these were extin- guished in the melee and both parties in great confusion were left in the dark, literally as well as politically. I embraced the opportunity of taking French leave. B-t gained the election, to our great annoyance." 11 1357286
Much was expected from the example of other states, es- pecially Virginia, where anti-federalism was strong. Ap- parently extraneous influences did not shape the election in North Carolina. The choice of candidates was determined largely by social and economic forces. The variety of racial elements in the population made unity of action on any issue well-nigh impossible. A majority of the people were small farmers and traders, possessing little worldly goods. Hence a sense of individualism, devotion to rights and liberties al- ready won, and distrust of ideals that did not originate at home, characterized political thought. In contrast was the Constitution, which contained no bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberty, conferred on Congress the power of taxa- tion and control over the currency, and provided for a system of justice independent of the state courts. Hence when the elections occurred, the anti-federalists won by a majority of 100 delegates, a majority unequalled in any other state.
When the convention met, the anti-federalists conceded to Samuel Johnston the honor of presiding. They then proposed through Jones to vote at once on ratification without debate, adjourn, and so save the people unnecessary expense. After a plea for a discussion by Iredell, Jones yielded. An extended debate followed. The policy of the anti-federalists was to say little, to make short, incisive criticism of some clauses of the constitution, to keep silent regarding others, and to throw the burden of debate upon the federalists. Though two of the delegates to the Philadelphia convention, Davie
11 Watson, Men and Times of the Revolution, 262 ff.
WILLIE JONES
37
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
and Spaight, were present, the ablest defense of the consti- tution was made by Iredell, while Judge Spencer was the leading spokesman of the opposition. Criticism was opened by Doctor Caldwell, who proposed that the convention for- mulate certain principles of government based on the theory of compact between the people and the rulers, by which the Constitution should be judged. In reply Iredell repudiated the idea of compact. "Our government," he said, "is founded on much nobler principles. The people are known with cer- tainty to have originated it themselves. Those in power are servants and agents, and the people without their consent can remodel their government whenever they think proper, not merely because it is oppressively exercised, but because another form will be more conducive to their welfare. It is upon the footing of this very principle that we are now met to consider the constitution before us." 12 Again Iredell won his point; Caldwell's plan of formulating principles of gov- ernment was rejected, and the convention decided to con- sider the Constitution clause by clause.
The first objection raised was that of consolidation versus confederation. The words, "We the People," in the pre- amble were denounced by Taylor of Wayne as an assump- tion of power. "Had it said, 'We the States,' there would. have been a Federal intention
but, sir, it is clear that a consolidation is intended. Will any gentleman say that a consolidated government will answer this country ? * * * I am astonished that the servants of the legisla- ture of North Carolina should go to Philadelphia and instead of speaking of the State of North Carolina, should speak of the people. I wish to stop power as soon as possible, for they may carry their assumption of power to a more dan- gerous length. I wish to know where they found the power to say, We the People, and of consolidating the states." 13 The answer of the federalists, best presented by Davie, was that in the past governments purely federal had signally failed; hence it was necessary to invoke the sovereignty of
12 Elliott, Debates in the Several State Conventions, Etc., IV, 40 (Edition of 1836).
13 Ibid, 53.
38
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
the people "in order to secure the tranquility of the states and the liberty of the people." Although the foundations were laid on the people, "the state governments are the pil- lars upon which this government is extended over such an immense territory and are essential to its existence." In another connection he declared that "the State governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government by ceasing to continue the executive power," viz., by refusing to choose presidential electors. Maclaine, another federalist, declared that "this is a government for confederated states, that consequently it can never intermeddle where no power is given." Evidently the federalist argument against con- solidation was that sovereignty, according to the Constitution, is divided between the people and the states.
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.