USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > Part 29
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
260
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
towns on Sunday, reigns at Providence even on Monday. Everything here announces the decline of business. Few vessels are to be seen in the port. . Whether it be from prejudice or reality, I scemed to perecive everywhere the silence of death, the effect of paper money. I seemed to sce, in every facc, the air of a Jew, the result of a traffic founded on fraud and finesse. I seemed to sce, likewise, in every . countenance, the effects of the contempt which the other states bear to this, and the eonseiousness of meriting that contempt. The paper money at this time was at a discount of ten to one".1 He gives an even more dismal account of Newport, whose unsightliness he contrasts with the eharming description given a few years before by St. John de Creveeœur.
The paper money party was too dominant, however, to be quickly displaced. They remained in office two more ycars, only furthering their policy by completing the work of repudiation. Their power, however, was weakening, and at each session the number of those who favored a repeal of the forcing acts gradually gained in strength. In October, 1789, the law which had made the paper money accepted on a par with specie was repealed, and debtors were allowed to substitute property as a tender for debt. By the same act the depreciation of paper was fixed at fifteen for one.
The good sense of the people had been tardy in asserting itself. The paper money party had run a long race, bringing disgrace and misery upon their own state and allowing the strength of party passion to work for the rejection of many valuable measures of national concern. As an authority on the subject says: "However just her motives, however steadfast her hold on principle, still the work of the year 1786 so lowered her in the eyes of her neighbors that only bad and perverse motives could be seen in her acts respecting the federal constitution. It is owing to prejudiee and distrust it aroused against the state and to its influence in preparing the way for strife over the constitution, that this episode has its vital connection with the relations of Rhode Island to the union."2
Toward the close of the paper money period Rhode Island's relations with Congress were rapidly becoming critical. The controversies regarding the impost had been succeeded by several months of apathy toward national concerns. But the attention of Rhode Island, as well as of the whole country, was soon to be called to new plans for the establishing of a more supreme central authority. The system under
1New Travels in the United States, p. 143.
2Bates, Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union, p. 148.
261
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
the articles of confederation was decidedly inefficient. There was seldom a quorum in Congress, the revenue could not be collected, states were encroaching upon each other's rights in violation of federal agreement, and commerce, business and public credit were at low ebb. Throughout the whole country the sentiment was growing that the constitution required some radical amendment or the union would fall. In January, 1786, Virginia finally took the lead by proposing that a conference of delegates be held in September at Annapolis for the purpose of regulating trade. In June the Rhode Island assembly appointed delegates, who, however, did not arrive at the convention in time.1 But five states were represented, and the convention ad- journed, recommending that another convention should be held, "to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate".
Congress, thus urged to make some movement toward a change, resolved, in February, 1787, that a convention be held in May at Philadelphia, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation". The matter came before the Rhode Island assem- bly in March. The paper money, or anti-federal party, was in power, and the proposition to send delegates was rejected in the house by a majority of twenty-three. Since nearly all of the states had already chosen representatives, Rhode Island's decided opposition aroused a storm of disapproval. James Madison wrote: "Rhode Island alone refuses her concurrence. A majority of more than twenty in the legislature of that state has refused to follow the general example. Being conscious of the wickedness of the measures they are pursuing, they are afraid of everything that may become a control on them"; and again, "Rhode Island has negatived a motion for appointing deputies to the Convention, by a majority of twenty-two votes. Noth- ing can exceed the wickedness and folly which continue to rule there. All sense of character, as well as of right is obliterated. Paper money is still their idol, though it is debased to eight for one".2 Many were the imprecations and threats hurled at her, it even being suggested that her territory be appropriated by the surrounding states. The question of sending delegates again came up at the May session. Although the power of the paper money party was somewhat dimin- ished, the motion failed through the non-concurrence of the upper
1R. I. C. R. x, 203. Rhode Island, in this case, was certainly more active than some of the states, as Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina and Geor- gia did not even appoint delegates.
2Letters and Writings of Madison, i, 286; Gilpin, Madison Papers, ii, 630, dated Apr. 1, and Apr. 2, 1787.
262
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
house. In June, when the subject was renewed, the motion passed the senate, but was rejected in the house by a majority of seventeen. Thus both houses, at one time or another, had favored the proposition. It is unfortunate that their opinion could not have been expressed unanimously.
The continued obstinacy of Rhode Island in this matter caused the state to be visited with much opprobium. Even the kindly and judicious Washington in a letter of July 1, 1787, remarked : "Rhode Island, from our last accounts, still perseveres in that impolitic, unjust, and one might add without mueh impropriety, scandalous conduct, which seems to have marked all her public councils of late".1 Throughout the whole country, especially in the strongly federal states, was uttered hostile criticism. The townspeople of the state, apparently more enlightened than their agricultural brethren, resented these charges and desired to place themselves on record as disapproving of the legislative action. Several of the Providence merchants, on May 11, 1787, addressed a letter to the chairman of the general con- vention, asserting that "It is the general opinion here, and we believe of the well informed throughout this state, that full power for the regulation of the commerce of the United States, both foreign and domestic, ought to be vested in the national council. And that effectual arrangements should also be made for giving operation to the present powers of Congress in their requisitions upon the States for national purposes".2
The party in power rejected the recommendations of Congress for various reasons-jealousy of outside interference, a mistaken idea of constitutional liberty, and a desire for a continuance of personal gain under the present administration. General Varnum, in a letter to General Washington, dated at Newport, June 18, 1787, so clearly gives the federal view of the case that a liberal extract is more valuable than any amount of comment. "Permit me, sir", he says, "to observe that the measures of our present legislature do not exhibit the real character of the state. They are equally reprobated by the whole mercantile body and by most of the respectable farmers and mechanics. The majority of the administration is composed of a licentious number of men, destitute of education, and many of them, void of principle. From anarchy and confusion they derive their temporary consequence, and this they endeavor to prolong by debauch- ing the minds of the common people, whose attention is wholly directed
1Ford's Writings of Washington, xi, 159.
2R. I. H. S. Publ. ii, 169.
263
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
to the abolition of debts both public and private. With these are associated the disaffected of every description, particularly those who were unfriendly during the war. Their paper money system, founded in oppression and fraud, they are determined to support at every hazard. And rather than relinquish their favorite pursuit, they trample upon the most sacred obligations. As a proof of this, they refused to comply with a requisition of Congress for repealing all laws repugnant to the treaty of peace with Great Britain, and urged as their principal reason, that it would be calling in question the propriety of their former measures.
"These evils may be attributed, partly to the extreme freedom of our own Constitution, and partly to the want of energy in the federal union ; And it is greatly to be apprehended that they cannot speedily be removed but by uncommon and very serious exertions. It is fortu- nate, however, that the wealth and resources of this State are chiefly in possession of the well affected, and that they are entirely devoted to the public good".1
Not until September 15, 1787, did Rhode Island officially explain her reasons for refusing to send delegates. Governor Collins then drew up a letter to the President of Congress, asserting "that we were actuated by that great principle which hath ever been the charac- teristic of this state-the love of true constitutional liberty, and the fear we have of making innovations on the rights and liberties of the citizens at large". He said that the real and technical reason was that such delegates could be appointed only by the people of the state at large, and not by the legislature. The federal minority in the assembly thought that these reasons were weak and insufficient, and nine of the deputies immediately entered a written protest. They said that as a colony and as a state Rhode Island had never up to this time decmed it inconsistent with "the rights and liberties of the citi- zens" to concur in appointing delegates to any convention proposed for the general benefit; and that both the Articles of Confederation and the state laws vested supreme power of sending delegates in the legislature. "As it would have been our highest honor and interest to have complied with the tender invitations of our sister states, and of Congress, so our non-compliance hath been our highest imprudence ; and therefore it would have been more consistent with our honor and dignity to have lamented our mistake, and decently apologized for our
1R. I. H. S. Publ, ii, 168.
264
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
errors, than to have endeavored to support them on ill-founded reasons, and indefensible principles".1
The Federal Convention, in the meanwhile, was deliberating at Philadelphia on matters of the highest moment to the nation. The general sentiment was in favor of having a new, thorough, and power- ful form of government. The Articles of Confederation had proved too weak. The states could not be restrained, nor the revenue guar- anteed, nor commerce protected, nor the orders of Congress be made effective. Although it was agreed that a new Constitution was neces- sary, the preparation of the detailed provisions of such an instrument was sure to be attended with much disagreement. There were many discordant elements. The powers to be retained by the states, com- inercial restrictions, slavery matters, state representation, were but a few of the questions that beset the delegates. But finally, on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was completed and sent to Congress for approval. On September 28 Congress unanimously resolved that it should be transmitted to the state legislatures, which in turn should summon state conventions to pass the final vote. When nine states had ratified the instrument, it was to take effect for those nine.
The matter soon came before the Rhode Island assembly at the session of October, 1787. As a state she had had no voice in the framing of the Constitution, no delegate to the Convention, and no representative in the Congress that approved of it and sent it out to the states. She naturally could not take such interest in the new instrument as was felt by the other states. Instead of calling a convention, she merely ordered that a thousand copies of the Constitu- tion should be printed and distributed among the freemen. In February, 1788, for fear, as one writer expressed it, lest "certain learned men, called lawyers and divines, might deceive them by sophistry and fair speeches".2 the assembly again refused to call a convention, and ordered that the proposed Constitution should be submitted to town meetings. Since the instrument itself provided only for ratifieation in state convention, such proceedings by the towns would have been entirely nugatory. This fact the federalists of the state well understood. They also realized that in case the Constitution was defeated by a full vote at the polls, it would clearly indicate the opinion of the state upon the subject and might in- definitely delay the holding of a convention. Accordingly in the two
'The address and the protest are in R. I. C. R. x, 258-260.
2Prov. Gazette, Mar. 15, 1788. The legislative action is in R. I. C. R. x, 271.
265
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
large towns they abstained from voting altogether. Newport cast but one vote in favor of the Constitution, and Providence cast not a single vote in its favor and but one against. When the total came to be added up, it was found that 2,708 had voted against, 237 for, and that about 3,000 had not voted at all.1
The federalists now bent their efforts toward inducing the general assembly to call a convention. They said that the state would have to accept the Constitution anyway in the end, and that if it was accepted now, she would have the privilege of proposing amendments. At the session of March, 1788, the motion for a convention was renewed. It was defeated by a majority of twenty-seven, less by three than the vote of the previous session. The Rhode Island legislature had clearly shown its opposition to the Constitution. No other state in the country had refused to call a convention.
In the meantime the Constitution had been making fair headway in the other states. Delaware had ratified the instrument in December, 1787, and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachu- setts, Maryland, and South Carolina followed in quick succession. In some of these states, notably Massachusetts and South Carolina, much opposition was encountered; but able leaders and active measures soon vanquished the doubters. On June 21, 1788, the union was completed by the ratification of New Hampshire. Final success was assured, as it was only a question of time when the other states would accept the new government.
The news of New Hampshire's ratification was received with great joy throughout all the federal towns in Rhode Island. The citizens of Providence arranged for an elaborate demonstration to be celebrated on the approaching Fourth of July. Invitations were sent to both town and country. On the auspicious day an oration was delivered in the First Baptist meeting-house by Enos Hitchcock, and the joy of the townspeople was again denoted by the discharge of cannon and the pealing of bells. But the crowning feature of the day was a feast, conducted in the open air and spread on a table upwards of a thousand feet in length. Over 5,000 persons partook of the entertain- ment. The only unpleasant feature of the occasion was a riot threat- ened by the ardent party spirit that existed. Several of the people in the outlying towns conceived the idea that the entertainment was intended as a public insult upon the legislative authority of the state, which had already shown its opposition to the Constitution. Headed
'The totals and also all the names of the freemen who voted are given in Staples, R. I. and the Continental Congress, p. 590-606.
266
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
by a few raslı leaders, they took the unwise method of attempting to break up the said entertainment by force. The Providence committee, hearing that a band of armed men were lurking in the woods nearby, immediately procceded to investigate. The two contending factions met, and after a short parley the town agreed, for the sake of peace, to make the celebration in honor of Independence Day and not of the ratification of the Constitution. The toasts were somewhat altered, but the spirit of the demonstration suffered no change. During the next few days both parties resorted to the newspapers to state their views. The country rioters sought to exeuse their hasty action, while the townspeople found mueh food for reflection on the "decadence of the times".1 Within a few weeks the ratification of the Constitution by the states of Virginia and New York again gave rise to federal demonstrations. In the latter instance, eleven flags were set up on one side of the Weybosset Bridge representing the eleven adopting states. On the opposite side was the standard of North Caro- lina three-quarters raised and with the motto, "It will rise". In a place by itself, disconsolate and alone, stood a bare pole canted to an angle of forty-five degrees and labelled, "Rhode Island in hopes".2 There was surely an ardent and powerful sentiment in Rhode Island in favor of the Constitution, but it was soon found that many anxious months were to be passed through before the anti-federal majority, with their mistaken ideas upon constitutional liberty, eould be induced to vote for a change.
Throughout the whole winter the federalists in the state were at- tempting to strengthen their party, but with little sueeess. The motions for a convention, though fruitless, were constant. In October, 1788, the motion was rejected in the house by a vote of 40 to 14, in December by a vote of 34 to 12, and in Mareh, 1789, by a vote of 37 to 19.3 The gain was so slight as to be imperceptible. The election of 1788 came and went, and there was still little ellange in the strength of the parties. Conditions, however, were somewhat altered. As a Provi- dence petition, handed in at the May session, stated the matter: "We have not an alliance or treaty of commeree with any nation upon earth, we are utterly unable to defend ourselves against an enemy, we have no rational prospeetof protection and defence but from the United States of America."4 In spite of the melancholy picture, the motion
1See Prov. Gazette, July 5, 12, 1788; U. S. Chronicle, July 3, 10, 1788.
2Prov. Gazette, Aug. 2, 1778; U. S. Chronicle, July 31, 1788.
3Staples, R. I. in the Continental Congress, p. 618.
'Staples, R. I. in the Continental Congress, p. 619.
267
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
for a convention in June met with its sixth defeat by a vote of 32 to 22.
By the passage of an impost law in July, 1789, Congress for the first time enacted legislation hostile to Rhode Island's welfare. In export- ing goods into neighboring states she now had to pay the same duty as foreign governments. The towns were immediately thrown into consternation. Both Providence and Newport petitioned for relief, praying that they should not be compelled to suffer for the reprehen- sible conduct of others.1 At the session of September, 1789, the anti- federal party in power for the first time showed signs of wavering. They enacted that the opinion of the people should be given upon the Constitution by the useless method of town meetings, framed an impost act in accordance with the Congress bill, and drew up a letter for the President of Congress. This address, though conceived in a more narrow and local spirit than many in the state would have wished, was the best exposition yet of their views. After assurances of friendliness to the other states, they observed: "Our not having added to or adopted the new system of government formed and adopted by most of our sister states, we doubt not has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to do it consistent with our idea of the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain to us ; we have not doubted but we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief. The people of this state from its first settlement have been accustomed and strongly attached to a democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new Constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, towards that form of government from which we have lately dissolved our connection at so much hazard of expense of life and treasure. They have apprehended danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange then, that with these impressions, they should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation, to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to, etc., established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity ? These amendments we believe have already afforded some relief and satisfaction to the minds of the people of this state. And we earnestly look for the time when they may with clearness and safety, be again united with their sister states under a constitution and form of government so well
1Staples, R. I. in the Continental Congress, p. 626; Newport Town Meeting Rec. 1779-1816 (MS.) p. 174, 192, under date of Aug. 27, 1789.
268
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
poised, as neither to need alteration or be liable thereto by a majority only of nine States out of thirteen."'1
On September 19, 1789, Congress, unwilling to make use of the appearance of force, relieved Rhode Island and North Carolina from the impost duties until January 15, 1790. Whether or not the anti- federalists thought that this action was a concession to their principles, in October they rejected for a seventh time the motion for a conven- tion. Strange to say, it was negatived by a vote of 39 to 17, a larger majority than in either of the two previous votes on the question.
A critical change in the situation occurred on November 21, 1789, when North Carolina ratified the new Constitution as the twelfth state. Rhode Island was now absolutely alone. The suspension of the impost act in her favor could last only until January 15, 1790. After that, if the legislature still refused to grant a convention, the future looked dark. The leaders of the federal party girded them- selves for a final effort. They had been defeated seven times, the last by a significantly large vote of 39 to 17. But they hoped that the change in conditions, through the ratification of North Carolina, would bring about the fulfillment of their hopes. The assembly met by adjournment at Providence on January 11, 1790. After four days spent in routine business, the motion for a convention was again renewed in the house. A long debate ensued, when it was finally carried by a vote of 34 to 29, and sent up to the senate for concur- rence. On the following day the senate, after a whole day's discussion of the matter, voted for non-concurrence, 5 to 4. Unwilling, under stress of such excitement, to wait until Monday, the assembly ad- journed to Sunday morning. A great concourse of people came to attend the session. Religious worship was suspended in favor of the great political question of the hour. Another slightly differing motion for a convention was quickly introduced into the house and passed by a vote of 32 to 11. It again went up to the senate for approval. By an odd stroke of chance the personnel of that body had suffered an important change. According to a story of the times, one of the anti- federal senators who was a minister, feeling the importance of his
1R. I. C. R. x, 356. The letter concludes: "We cannot without the great- est reluctance look to any other quarter for those advantages of commercial intercourse which we conceive to be more natural and reciprocal between them and us". Staples ( R. I. in the Continental Congress, p. 624), says that the clause seems like a threat to seek foreign aid. Dr. Dwight in his Travels in N. E., iii, 50, refers to a proposal made by the French government to have "the island of Rhode Island and harbor ceded to them by Congress". Of course such a proceeding would have been impossible.
269
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
Sabbath duties, had deserted his colleagues for his congregation.1 This left a tie in the senate, four senators voting for and three and the deputy-governor against. The casting vote remained with Gov- ernor Collins. Although a paper money partisan and an anti-federalist candidate, he realized the critical situation in which the state was placed, and voted to concur. By the narrow margin of one vote the federalists had won the first move in their efforts to obtain ratifica- tion.2
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.