USA > North Carolina > History of North Carolina: The Federal Period 1783-1860, Volume II > Part 4
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
Unconvinced by the federalist theory of sovereignty, the anti-federalists pointed out the possibilities of oppression and tyranny. Illustrative was the power of Congress to levy di- rect taxes, which was held to be dangerous, liable to interfere with the taxing power of the states, and to bring suffering to the people. "It may happen, for instance," said Judge Spen- cer, "that if ready money cannot be immediately received from the profits of individuals from their taxes, their estates, consisting of lands, negroes, stock, and furniture, must be set up and sold at vendue. We can easily see, from the great scarcity of money at this day, that a great distress must hap- pen in the country. ** Such property will sell for one-tenth part of its value. Such a mode as this will in a few years deprive the people of their estates." In contrast he favored the system of requisition on the states by Congress, the states to make the actual levy, with authority for Con- gress to "take out of the pockets of the people at large if the states fail to pay the taxes in a convenient time." 14
Along with federal taxation might come a host of federal officers, removable only by impeachment. "These senators and members of the House of Representatives will appoint their friends to all offices," said Taylor, and "these officers will be great men, and they will have numerous deputies un-
14 Ibid, 97, 98.
39
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
der them. The receiver general of the taxes of North Caro- lina must be one of the greatest men of the country. Will he come to me for his taxes? No. He will send his deputy, who will have special instructions to oppress me. How am I to be redressed? I shall be told that I must go to Congress to have him impeached. This being the case, who am I to im- peach? A friend of the representatives of North Carolina. For, unhappily for us, these men will have too much weight for us; they will have friends in the government who will be inclined against us, and thus we may be oppressed with impunity." 15 In reply Maclaine pointed out that impeach- ment applied only to higher officers of the United States, that the courts of common law would afford redress against the corruption of minor officials. Johnston also pointed out that direct taxes would not be so burdensome as requisitions, since "if the government have it in their power to lay those taxes, we will give them credit to borrow money on that security, and for that reason it will not be necessary to lay so heavy a tax, for if the tax is sufficiently productive to pay the interest, money may always be had in consequence of that security." This argument, however, did not appeal to the financial instincts of the small farmers. "Borrowing money is detrimental and ruinous to nations," said McDowell. "The interest is lost money. We have been obliged to bor- row money to pay interest." 16
In similar vein were other criticisms of federal power. The authority of Congress over federal elections was strongly denounced. "It deprives the people of the very mode of choosing" their representatives, said Spencer. "It seems to throw the whole power of election in the hands of Congress. It strikes at the mode, time and place of choosing representatives. It puts all but the place of electing sena- tors into the hands of Congress. This supercedes the neces- sity of continuing the state legislatures." 17 According to Bloodworth, "Congress will make the time of election so long, the place so inconvenient, and the manner so oppressive,
15 Ibid, 71, 72.
16 Ibid, 193.
17 Ibid, 77.
40
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
that it will entirely destroy representation * The elections may be in such a manner that men may be ap- pointed who are not representatives of the people. * As to the place, suppose Congress should order elections to be held in the most inconvenient place, in the most incon- venient district, could every person entitled to vote attend at such a place? Suppose they order it to be laid off into so many districts and order the election to be held within each district; yet may not this power over the manner of election enable them to exclude from voting every description of men they please ?" 18
The co-operation of the President and the Senate in the appointing power and in the negotiation of treaties was held to violate the principle of the separation of powers, and doubly dangerous since the Senate, which had the power of correction through impeachment, might be particeps criminis with the President. More vigorous was the opposition to provisions for a federal judiciary. Spencer granted the de- sirability of an appellate court, but saw danger in the es- tablishment of minor federal courts. "There will be, with- out any measure of doubt," he said, "clashings and animosi- ties between the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the state courts, so that they will keep the country in hot water.
The state judiciaries will have very little to do. It will be almost useless to keep them up."19 The absence of any guarantee of jury trial in the federal courts was also emphasized. "Can it be supposed any man of common cir- . cumstances," said McDowell, "can stand the expense and trouble of going from Georgia to Philadelphia there to have a suit tried? Can it be justly determined without the benefit of a trial by jury? These are things which have justly alarmed the people. What made the people revolt from Great Britain? The trial by jury, that great safeguard of lib- erty was taken away, and a stamp duty was placed upon them. '' 20 The question of jury trial raised and emphasized another objection, the absence of a Bill of Rights. "When
18 Ibid, 79. 80.
19 Ibid, 148.
20 Ibid, 154.
41
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
individuals enter into society," said Spencer, "they give up some rights to secure the rest. There are certain human rights that ought not to be given up, and which ought in some manner to be secured." These should be especially guaranteed, since the federal courts would operate on indi- viduals rather than states, their officers would be under oath to support the Constitution, and there was no clause in that instrument reserving to the states powers not granted.
The defense by the federalists at this point was that the purpose of the federal courts was simply to compel obedi- ence to federal laws and to secure uniformity of justice among the state courts. Moreover, the impracticability of a guarantee of jury trial was pointed out by Iredell. "The trial by jury," he said, "is different in different states. It is regulated one way in the State of North Carolina and another way in the State of Virginia. It is established a different way from either in several other states. Had it then been inserted in the Constitution that the trial by jury should be as it had been heretofore, there would have been an example, for the first time in the world, of a judiciary belonging to the same government being different in different parts of the same country." 21 The federalists also held that a Bill of Rights by its nature was not essential to a written constitution, and that the people through the Constitution "expressly declare how much power they do give and consequently retain all they do not."
The one practical issue of North Carolina politics injected into the debate was that of the currency. The anti-federal- ists claimed that the inhibition on the states to issue bills of credit would impair the value of the state currency of 1783 and 1785 and that it would prevent contracts made in paper money from being settled in specie. In reply Iredell pointed to the prohibition of ex post facto laws, but Maclaine ad- mitted that federal taxes would be levied only in specie. Fear was also expressed that the Northern states, in which the principal industry was commerce, would have a majority in Congress and cause to be adopted a currency policy which
21 Ibid, 172.
42
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
would be unsatisfactory to the South, which was agricultural. The prohibition of state laws impairing the obligation of contracts was also attacked as a possible means of forcing North Carolina to redeem paper money at face value. The probable assumption of state debts was also criticized in pro- phetic vein by Galloway. "I trust this country will never leave it to the hands of the general government to redeem the securities which they have already given. Should this be the case the consequence will be, that they will be purchased by speculators, when the citizens will part with them perhaps for a very trifling consideration. Those speculators will look at the constitution and see that they will be paid in gold and silver. They will buy them at a half crown in the pound, and get the full value for them in gold and silver." 22
Such was the trend of the debate. To the modern reader the objections of the anti-federalists are apt to seem trivial, based on a superficial knowledge of the Constitution. Un- doubtedly the federalists had a clearer and profounder under- standing of its provisions. Yet in the anti-federalist argu- ment there was something of the prophetic element, for as the years have passed the state courts have been over- shadowed in importance by the federal judiciary, too often Congress as well as the national courts has been unrespons- ive to the will of the people, and the influence of the states on the destiny of the country has become relatively less, and that of the Federal Government, relatively greater.
After six days of discussion Samuel Johnston moved that the Constitution be ratified and that amendments be proposed, a procedure adopted in other state conventions. But Willie Jones, silent during the debate, took the floor and proposed instead of the vote on ratification, the submission of amend- ments and the deferring of further action to the future. Such a policy, he maintained, would insure amendments to the Constitution, in support of which he quoted Jefferson's let- ter to Madison to the effect that rejection by four states would insure amendments. As a concession to the federalists he recommended a resolution that the legislature should levy
22 Ibid, 194.
43
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
an impost duty similar to that adopted by Congress, the pro- ceeds of which should be paid to Congress. After strenuous objection by Johnston, Iredell, and Davie, Jones' proposal was adopted. A Declaration of Rights in twelve clauses and also twenty-six amendments were thereupon recommended. These were identical with the Bill of Rights and amendments submitted by Virginia except six of the amendments, which forbade Congress to declare a state in rebellion without the consent of a two-thirds vote in both Senate and House, to confer special privileges on any company of merchants, to ratify treaties that interfered with federal laws, to levy taxes on coastwise ships in transit, to interfere with redemption of state currency and its liquidation, or to introduce foreign troops in the United States without the vote of two-thirds of both houses. Then the convention, having been in session for eleven days, adjourned on August 4, 1788.
The federalists were undaunted by defeat in the conven- tion. In fact the trend of events elsewhere gave them cour- age. Virginia had ratified the Constitution in June, over a month before the Hillsboro convention had convened, and New York ratified shortly after it adjourned, leaving Rhode Island and North Carolina the only states not in the Union. Earnest efforts were made to win the state elections, which occurred in August. Again the anti-federalists won. After the legislature met, a bill for a second state convention was rejected in the House of Commons, a joint resolution for a second federal convention was adopted, and five delegates were elected. However, the federalists were busy among their constituents, and soon a flood of petitions for a recon- sideration of the Constitution poured in. At last the radicals yielded, and a second convention was called to meet at Fay- etteville. The date fixed was November 16, 1789, by which time the new government would be fully organized and its policy towards amendments would be tested. Thus an issue, that of amendments, was kept open, which might possibly be used against ratification. But the federalists in the first Con- gress, under the leadership of Madison, conceded the need of further guarantees of liberty and in May, 1789, brought for- ward the matter of amendments. The result was the first
44
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
ten amendments which met the principal objections raised in the Hillsboro convention, and removed the last arguments against ratification. Hence the Fayetteville convention rati- fied the Constitution on November 22, 1789, the seventh day of the session, by a majority of 118. Believing that all dan- gers of the federalist system had not been eliminated, the con- vention also recommended eight amendments; that Congress
CONVENTION HALL, FAYETTEVILLE, IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED
should not interfere with federal elections except when the states failed to provide adequately for them, that no state should be interfered with in the liquidation of its debts, that Congressmen should not hold federal office during their term of service, that the journals of the Senate and House be pub- lished once a year, that accounts of federal income and ex- penditure also be published annually, that no navigation or commerce law be passed without a majority of two-thirds, that no soldier be enlisted for a longer period than four years
45
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
in time of peace, and that some tribunal other than the Sen- ate be provided for the impeachment of senators.
The belated ratification of the Constitution raises two questions. First is the wisdom of the course adopted. Con- .cerning this there have been two views. One regards the action of the Hillsboro convention as a victory of provincial- ism and prejudice over the forces of progress from which the state gained nothing. The other view is that the refusal to ratify in 1788 was an act of sacrifice in the interest of principles which ultimately triumphed in the first ten amend- ments, and that the timely submission of those amendments was hastened by the action of the Hillsboro convention. The case for either interpretation rests on too slight evidence to be convincing. Moreover those disposed to criticize the policy pursued have almost uniformly eulogized Johnston, Iredell, and Davie, and found nothing to praise in Willie Jones. Like- wise those who seek to justify the delay in ratification are prone to exalt Jones and to disparage his opponents. Thus has the historical literature of the state perpetuated the early prejudices of the federalists and anti-federalists. How- ever, a few facts loom more prominent with the passing of years. The Constitution proposed a radical change in the nature and structure of government; consequently there was bitter opposition in practically every state. In North Caro- lina there was never the slightest insinuation of political log rolling or corrupt influence at work in favor of ratification; the will of the people was plain and it was unobstructed. Yet the Hillsboro convention, while undoubtedly registering the popular will, did not reject the new form of government, but by offering amendments and adjourning, left open the way for later ratification.
The second question always raised by the state's policy is one of political science. What was the status of North Carolina between the organization of the new government in March, 1789, and ratification the following November? For this the answer is clear and unmistakable; in the light of actions by Congress and by the state, North Carolina was a sovereign and independent power. Tariff laws were en- acted which treated North Carolina as a foreign country,
46
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
goods imported from its ports into those of the states in the Union being subject to the same duties as goods im- ported from Europe. Nor was the judiciary act to operate within North Carolina. In diplomacy the record also re- veals independence, for Hugh Williamson, representing the interests of the state at the seat of the national government, protested against the tariff law and urged such a division of the national debt that North Carolina might assume its quota. Communications were also opened with the Spanish Minister in regard to the Indians west of the mountains. Evidently North Carolina was exercising sovereign powers when ratification placed limitations on its role as an inde- pendent state. Next to the last member to join the Union, it was also next to the last to undertake secession in 1861.
CHAPTER III FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS, 1790-1815
PARTY ISSUES-THE POLITICAL REVOLUTION OF 1800-THE WAR OF 1812
In the election for the first Congress the federalists were successful. Both the senators chosen by the legislature, Samuel Johnston and Benjamin Hawkins, were federalists. Three of the representatives, Williamson, John Steele, and John Sevier, were also federalists, while their opponents succeeded in electing only two, John B. Ashe and Timothy Bloodworth.
Political interest centered around the financial program of Alexander Hamilton, which appealed to the commercial and financial rather than to the agricultural sections of the country. The assumption of state debts was condemned in resolutions of the legislature which declared that assump- tion without the consent of the states would be "an infringe- ment of the sovereignty of this state, and prove eventually injurious and oppressive."1 The senators and representa- tives were directed to prevent the evil operations of such acts in any future assumption. Senator Johnston favored the funding of the national debt, but desired that distinction should be made between original purchasers and specula- tors. In the meantime the congressmen did not arrive at New York until after the funding of the national debt was provided for, but their vote did prevent temporarily the as- sumption of the state debts. The objections of North Caro- lina to this measure were well stated by Williamson; that it would increase the burden of taxation, that North Carolina
1 S. R. XX, 1055.
47
48
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
had already imposed taxes to meet its Revolutionary debt, that one of the amendments to the Constitution recommended at the Hillsboro convention was that no state should be interfered with in the redemption of its paper currency or the liquidation of its securities, that no settlement should be made by the Federal Government until the accounts of each state in the United States should be settled, and that if any debt were assumed it should consist of the amount due from the Federal Government to the states. In the end there was a compromise, the national capital being located in the South in return for sufficient votes to carry the assumption bill. However the North Carolina delegation unanimously voted against assumption, and the legislature filed the following protest :
Resolved, That the assumption of state debts by the Con- gress of the United States, without their particular consent, is an infringement on the sovereignty of this state, and may prove eventually injurious and oppressive to the same, dan- gerous to its interests, and senators and representatives are directed to prevent evil operation of such acts in future as- sumptions.2
No less unanimous was the opposition of North Carolina to the excise. Resolutions were adopted by the legislature instructing its senators to oppose the measure. Distant mar- kets made money scarce and prices high; hence the surplus grain crop was distilled into whiskey and was peddled by the farmers on their way to market, thus becoming an important money product. John Steele, federalist, declared "a more exceptional mode of taxation could not be devised than the excise. A direct or poll tax would not be so odious. Such was the aversion of the people to it that they would prefer almost any alternative."3 In order to equalize the burden, Williamson suggested that taxes should also be levied on beer and cider, and on the final vote Steele and Williamson, as well as Ashe and Bloodworth, were in the opposition. Re- sistance to the excise was threatened in the western counties, but the following year the law was revised, exempting the
2 Ibid.
3 Annals, First Cong., II, 1848.
49
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
smaller stills from the tax, and so relieving most of the North Carolina farmers from its operation.
On the bank bill there was a division among the North Carolina representatives, Sevier and Steele favoring, and Ashe, Bloodworth and Williamson opposing it. The Jay treaty of 1795 was also the source of considerable criticism. The objection on the part of North Carolina was made by Holland, who declared that article nine, which enabled aliens to hold land in the United States, would put in jeopardy titles in the Granville district, which had been taken over by the state during the Revolution, and that if the article was ratified and applied to the lands in question, it would be resisted by force. 4 Likewise the provision in the treaty for the liquidation of British debts was contrary to the interests of the commercial classes in Eastern Carolina. On the final vote all the North Carolina congressmen except one, William B. Grove, voted with the opposition.
Interesting also to note was the prevalent feeling towards the act of 1789 organizing the federal judiciary. Davie, staunch defender of the federal system in 1788, wrote that the judiciary act was "so defective in point of arrangement, and so obscurely drawn, or expressed, that, in my opinion, it would disgrace the composition of the meanest legislature of the State." 5 Even Samuel Johnston, arch-federalist, wrote from Philadelphia :- "The House have not given up the idea of a reform in the judicial system; I do everything in my power to keep it up." 6
The reaction against federalist policies was not confined to speeches and votes in Congress. Within the state there was a strong sentiment against various measures of Wash- ington's administration. In 1790 the House of Commons re- fused to take an oath to support the Federal Constitution. In the same year also a state court of equity refused to obey a writ of certiorari issued by the Federal District Court ordering a case to be brought before it, and the legis- lature passed a vote of thanks to the state judges for their ac-
4 Annals. 4th Congress, 1st session, 1129.
5'McRee's Iredell, IT, 335.
6 Ibid.
Vol. II-4
50
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
tion. Nor was this restiveness toward centralizing ten- dencies confined to the opposition. In 1793 James Iredell, who had been appointed a member of the United States Su- preme Court by Washington, wrote a dissenting opinion in the case of Chisholm vs. Georgia, holding that Chisholm could not sue the State of Georgia, on the ground that the states were completely sovereign in regard to the powers they had not delegated to the Federal Government. This was the first states' rights opinion emanating from the court; Ire- dell's theory of divided sovereignty became the working the- ory of the Federal Government, and was a factor in that public opinion which resulted in the twelfth amendment.
Federalist conception of the relation of senators and con- gressmen to state authority also played a part in the re- action against the party. Prior to the adoption of the Con- stitution it had been the custom for the state's delegates in the Continental Congress to correspond with the governor regarding national affairs and to visit the annual sessions of the legislature, and to take instructions from the body that elected them. Gradually under the new regime there devel- oped an aversion to this tradition. First to revolt were the senators; Johnston and Hawkins did not give an account of their stewardship at the sessions of the legislature, and Johnston voted for the excise bill, against which instructions had been adopted. Hence, early as 1790 the legislature adopted resolutions directing senators to use their efforts for open sessions of the Senate, and that they correspond with the legislature when it was in session and with the gov- ernor between sessions. On the expiration of Johnston's term in 1792, he was replaced by Alexander Martin. Although the federalist members of the lower house were not yet in revolt against the idea of responsibility to the legislature, the re- action against their party reached its height in 1793 when the republicans carried all the congressional districts save one, the Cape Fear, and from then to the end of our early party history the republicans elected a majority of the North Carolina congressmen. President Washington himself was not spared partisan criticism. In 1794 Timothy Bloodworth made an issue of the President's neutrality proclamation, was
51
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
elected to the legislature, and became senator in 1795 in place of Hawkins. In Congress the reply to Washington's last address was criticized by Nathaniel Macon as too adula- tory, and Macon, Blount, Holland, and Matthew Locke voted against its adoption. In the presidential election of 1796 Adams received only one electoral vote from North Carolina.
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.