USA > Rhode Island > The Dorr war; or, The constitutional struggle in Rhode Island > Part 10
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
(d) There were thirty-six towns, and six wards in the city of Providence.
(e) As, for example, the soldiers at Fort Adams.
--
-
115
THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTION.
man;" he might have been less than twenty-one years of age; and yet his statement, on his ballot, would be all the proof required that he possessed the necessary qualifications of a voter. Even the honest people might have been unintentional participants in a fraud. In an election designed to show that the people of Rhode Island had made a change of government, the ordinary precautions and checks were here lacking.
Since 2,400 out of the 14,000 votes cast would vitiate the result, on the theory of the suffragists themselves, more than five votes out of six must be undoubted in order to give assurance. Accord- ing to the convention report, only about 10,200 persons voted for the constitutions on the first three days; then came a proxy vote of over 3,800. (9) The opportunities for fraud were thus increased many fold. Perhaps, had the question been sifted at the time, it might have been once for all decided before the lists of names were withdrawn from investigation; (f) but the General Assembly took the ground that the whole movement was extra-legal, and that they would have nothing to do with it, and refused to make any inves- tigation of the vote. Charges of fraud at the time bore mainly on the question of the number of freemen voting;(g) they are of little value as evidence, and have almost no bearing upon the question of the total vote cast.
One reason why claims of illegality were few, in the first months of 1842, was that the anti-suffragists speedily took the ground of
(f) As early as January 22, 1842, the Providence Journal requested permission to copy the list for publication, but was refused Providence Journal, Jan. 28, 1842. This is not surprising, for who could trust the list in the hands of most bitter opponents of the constitution ?
(g) " In Providence, of the 1,059 Freemen's votes, 375 were not on the ward lists ;" "in Coventry, of the 157 Freemen's votes, 40 never were Freemen ;" "of the 17 Freemen's votes in West Greenwich, Io were not Freemen ;" "in Cumberland, some of the votes were cast by citizens of Massachusetts ;" "of the 309 Freemen's votes in Warwick, but 185 were on the town clerk's list." Providence Journal, Jan. 28, 1842.
116
THE DORR WAR.
the General Assembly, viz .: that the presence or absence of fraud- ulent voting had no effect upon the question, since the whole movement was illegal. An examination was, however, later made of the votes cast in Newport, and a list of the fraudulent votes was published in the leading opposition newspaper; this showed 562 unauthorized ballots out of the 1,203 votes cast; (h) that there were frauds in Newport is undeniable, though the degree of them may have been exaggerated. Even the suffrage party could not deny the possibility of fraud in all the elections, and in the case of Newport, they made only a lame attempt to show that no fraud was intended; (10) but a witness before the "select committee " tes- tified: "I am aware that charges of fraudulent voting, on the question of the adoption of the people's constitution, have been made by the charter party; but I never have seen anything but general and vague assertions, except with regard to the town of Newport. That party made charges of that character against that . town, and published a list of those who, they say, had no right to vote. I, at the time, sought information from our friends with re- gard to the fact; and it is but just to say that there were votes received in that town, as I have been informed, which ought not to have been ; but the reason given at the time for receiving them was, that they were included in the census, and, if not taken, our side would be counted against us by our opponents. The list
(h) The Providence Journal, Feb. 7, 1843, is responsible for the following table of fraudulent votes in Newport :
Unnaturalized foreigners,
251
Fancy names, .
United States soldiers, .
53
Without consent of parties, 13
Residents of other towns,
4ยบ
At sea,
56
Pauper,
Minors, .
16
Insane,
I
Other persons absent,
30
Voted twice,
Making in all,
552
Variations on names of residents, 6
61
Colored persons,
5
I
117
THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTION. .
published as bad voters by the charter party, I know is not true ; but how many of those that I have spoken of there were I cannot say. My informant estimated them at less than 200."(11)
Both a priori reasoning and positive evidence, therefore, cast doubt on the tabulated results of the election; the chances of fraud were great; the protection slight; and the temptation large. If, as admitted, there were frauds in Newport, to the number of 200 out of 1,203, then many of the 13,944 were not properly cast. That there were 2,373 wrongful votes can neither be proved or disproved; but where so much depended on getting a decisive re- sult, to show public opinion, the suffragists had not made out a clear case.
Some light is thrown upon this all-important question by pop- ular votes subsequently taken. In March, 1842, the people were called upon to vote on the adoption of the Freemen's Constitution. The number of votes cast at that time was 16,702; then two . classes of persons qualified to vote for the People's Constitution were excluded from voting on this occasion;(i) 8,689 votes only were cast against that constitution, though the suffrage leaders were opposed to it and had publicly advised their adherents to
vote against it. The 8,013 affirmative votes must have been cast almost altogether by people who did not vote for the People's Con-
stitution. There were not, in any computation, enough qualified . citizens to cast 14,000 votes in December, and 8,000 voters in March. And what had become of over 5,000 voters who favored the People's Constitution in December, but would not come out against the Freemen's Constitution in March ? In April, 1842, upon the election of officers under the People's Constitution, there
(i) Naturalized citizens, who did not own $134 worth of land, and persons who had not resided in the State two years. These two classes did not include a large number.
1
-
118
THE DORR WAR.
1
was a total of only 6,004 votes cast; in this case, however, every such voter was making himself liable to punishment for a breach of laws passed by the charter government, forbidding the holding of these elections by the suffragists, whom their opponents had _ begun to style the upholders of "Suvverinitiy." This comparison of votes appears to have affected the mind of one of the ablest of the suffrage leaders, Samuel Y. Atwell, of Glocester. "He had never spoken or written anything, which said, implied, or included the assertion, that the People's Constitution is the paramount law of the land. That opinion would depend on the fact, whether a ma- jority of the people of this State had voted for that constitution. Of this he had never been satisfied. Many things had led him to doubt it, and especially the vote upon the last constitution. That result had made it a great matter of doubt, whether a majority of the people of the State were in favor of that constitution, and of course whether it had ever been adopted."(12) And thus we must leave the question : "It is a matter of doubt." (i)
(1) Too much eredit should not be given to the Reminiscences of a Journalist, the volume written by Charles T. Congdon, the editor of the Express ; but his statement should at least be noted : " The People's Constitution was never fairly adopted by a majority of the people. Whatever deficiency was anticipated was supplied by proxy votes, and by the managers of the movement, in the name of the dead, the absent, the non - existent everywhere." Congdon, 115.
AUTHORITIES .- 1 Art. XIV, People's Constitution. Other details are omitted here, as not essen- tial to this discussion. 2 Burke's Report, 104: Testimony of John S. Harris. 3 Burke's Report, 253-254 : Testimony of Welcome B. Sayles. 4 Burke's Report, 664 : Testimony of Jacob Frieze. 5 Burke's Report, 438-439. 6 Burke's Report, 436-437. 7 Burke's Report, 476-622. S Review of Wayland, 23 (foot-note). 9 Burke's Report, 353. 10 Republican Herald, Dec. 31, 1842. 11 Burke's Report, 104: Testimony of John S. Harris. 12 Apr. 2, 1842, in the General Assembly, Mr. Atwell is thus reported. Providence Express, Apr. 4, 1842; New Age, Apr. 9, 1842 ; Providence Journal, Apr. 4, 1842 ; Potter, Considerations, 5 (foot-note).
-
-
CHAPTER X.
THE FREEMEN'S CONSTITUTION.
T HAT the formation and declared adoption of the People's Constitution had its effect upon the conservative party is plainly shown, by the action taken by the General Assem- bly in January as well as by the Freemen's Convention in February. The demand of public opinion for increased suffrage had finally become so strong that the General Assembly saw the necessity of granting a larger measure of relief. Since it was evident that the Freemen's Convention would considerably enlarge the franchise, it seemed best to almost the entire membership of the legislature to permit a larger number of citizens to vote on the adoption of the constitution than the existing laws allowed. Perhaps the strongly- urged claim of the suffrage party that a constitution should be adopted by a majority of the people-which expression meant, in their minds, a majority of the male residents-may have had its influence on the General Assembly.
An extension of the suffrage, therefore, came near being made by the Assembly : a motion in the House to grant the suffrage, on all questions, "to all male citizens, of lawful age, natives of the United States, resident two years in the State and six months in the town,"(1) was only defeated by a vote of 37 to 30,(2) in order to
1
i
1
120
THE DORR WAR.
substitute in its place the following provision, which would throw the responsibility upon the convention : " Whereas the good people of this State having elected delegates to a convention to form a constitution, which constitution, if ratified by the people, will be the supreme law of the State: therefore, be it enacted by the General Assembly as follows : All persons now qualified to vote, and those who may be qualified to vote under the existing laws previous to the time of such their voting, and all persons who shall be qualified to vote under the provisions of such constitution, shall be qualified to vote upon the question of the adoption of said constitution." (8)
All eyes were now turned upon the approaching adjourned meeting of the Freemen's Convention. In January, Joseph Veazie, a delegate from Providence, resigned, on the ground that the peo- ple had already adopted a constitution;(4) whereupon the General Assembly passed an act requesting the freemen of the various towns to fill any vacancies in the delegations from such towns ; (5) and a special election was held in Providence, early in February, at which the noticeably small total of 136 votes was cast, and J. H. Clarke elected. The other five pro-suffrage delegates, in spite of their dual membership in both conventions, did not resign, even though repeatedly urged by the newspapers to define their position. In the adjourned session of the Freemen's Convention a proposition to ratify the People's Constitution, and another to adjourn because its work was unnecessary, was rejected. With regard to the trouble- some franchise problem, while it did not go as far toward universal suffrage as the People's Convention, its liberality seems remarkable in view of its carefully guarded suggestion in November. The re- vised suffrage article of the Freemen's Constitution, as definitely determined by the convention in February, was a close approxima- tion to that of the People's Constitution. It differed from the
.
121
THE FREEMEN'S CONSTITUTION.
latter in denying the suffrage to naturalized citizens of less than three years' residence and not possessing the freehold qualification ; and in demanding at least two years' residence of all voters. (6)
Meanwhile the People's Constitution had been brought before the General Assembly. January 11, 1842, Mr. Atwell presented a bill to alter the day of annual election, to dissolve the constitu- tional convention, and to adjourn the General Assembly in May sine die."7) This was the day before the adjourned meeting of the People's Convention, and therefore before the official announcement made by that convention of the adoption of their constitution. It is not strange to find expressions of surprise in the newspapers. " Waiving all discussion upon the right of revolution, as exercised, or, at least, attempted to be exercised, in the overthrow of the State government, there has as yet been presented no legal evi- dence of the number of votes cast, during the week's voting, of ' the manner in which they were given, or of the qualifications of the persons voting. Nay, before the votes have been counted by the convention, much less examined by the public, with no other evidence than a bare newspaper report, these resolutions are brought forward, proposing to abandon the entire government of the State into the hands of men who have not yet even demanded it. Allow- ing the proceedings of the suffrage party to have been perfectly legal, it must be shown that the 14,000 votes are the votes of citi- zens of the State, of lawful age. and the burden of proof rests with those who claim the government. The right of possession is valid until the party claiming brings forward his proof." (8)
Three days later, January 14, the Assembly received from the Governor a set of documents called "papers from the 'People's Convention.' "(9) Six days later, January 20, Mr. Atwell called up his bill and moved that, with the papers communicated by the
16
122
THE DORR WAR.
Governor, it be referred to a committee of fifteen, who should be authorized to examine the whole subject, and investigate the elec- tions and the returns. (10) Debate on this motion consumed all the sessions to mid-day of the 22d of January. (11) When the vote was taken, Mr. Atwell was able to carry ten other members with him, against fifty-seven who refused to investigate the affair " because there was nothing in it."(a) February 5, Mr. Atwell's bill and the papers from the People's Convention were indefinitely postponed. (12)
Not satisfied with this negative expression of opposition to the People's Constitution, the General Assembly passed, at this same session, the following resolutions :
" Whereas a portion of the people of this State, without the form of law, have undertaken to form and establish a constitution of government for the people of this State; and have declared such constitution to be the supreme law; and have communicated such constitution unto this General Assembly; and whereas many of the good people of this State are in danger of being misled by the informal proceedings; therefore,
" It is hereby resolved by this General Assembly, That all acts . done by the persons aforesaid for the purpose of imposing upon this State a constitution, are an assumption of the powers of gov- ernment, in violation of the rights of the existing government, and of the rights of the people at large.
" Resolved, That the convention called and organized in pursu- ance of an act of this General Assembly, for the purpose of form- ing a constitution to be submitted to the people of this State, is the only body which we can recognize as authorized to form such a constitution; and to this constitution the whole people have a
(a) Burke's Report, 443. One of these ten is recorded as having voted in favor of Mr. Atwell's motion of the previous June, proposing a new call for a reapportioned convention, with almost un- limited suffrage. Six of his associates, at this time, actually voted against him on the earlier occasion.
123
THE FREEMEN'S CONSTITUTION.
right to look, and we are assured they will not look in vain, for such a form of government as will promote their peace, security and happiness.
" Resolved, That this General Assembly will maintain its own proper authority, and protect and defend the legal and constitu- tional rights of the people."(13)
Meanwhile the Freemen's Convention had continued its exist- ence, and on the last day of its session, February 19, 1842, passed a resolution appointing March 21, 22, and 23 as the days upon which the voters might approve or reject the constitution.
The people of Rhode Island might now be comprised in at least four classes or parties. At one extreme we find the advo- cates of the People's Constitution, who intended to live up to their resolution to uphold that instrument whatever happened. At the other extreme were the charter advocates, who were opposed to any change, and therefore objected to the Freemen's Constitution. Midway stood two moderate parties who voted for the Freemen's Constitution : first those who were in favor of a liberal instrument, formed and adopted in accordance with the legal methods provided by the existing government; second, those-doubtless very few- who voted for one constitution, and who were also willing to vote for the other.(b)
We might suppose that the extreme suffragists would ignore
(b) In Burke's Report, 354-355, are printed copies of four ballots (selected out of the fourteen thousand) cast by : William Sprague, of Warwick ; George B. Holmes, Ilenry G. Mumford, and Stephen Branch, of Providence. These men were stigmatized as traitors to the cause, because, after having voted for the l'eople's Constitution, they became "among the most violent persecutors of the suffrage party." They were not the only "traitors" who voted for the Freemen's Constitution, for to them must be added some, at least, who voted for the l'eople's Constitution only to influence public opinion, and could have felt no objection to voting on the second expression of choice. See Wayland, Affairs of Rhode Island, 15 ; Letter from " Fifth Ward," Providence Journal, Feb. 28, 1842.
1
124
THE DORR WAR.
the Freemen's Constitution and decline to vote for or against it. But this would have been inconsistent with their views of sover- eignty. Even if they had, in December and January, adopted one constitution, another, adopted in March, might supersede the first, even before it went into operation. The Republican Herald briefly stated the position of this party, as follows: "A sort of feeling appears to have taken possession of many persons who voted for the People's Constitution that because they did so it would not be right for them to take any part at the polls for or against any other. For our own part we do not so regard the matter. It is our opinion that the people have not, by voting for that constitu- tion, parted with their original sovereignty."(11)
The two cohorts on the day of the vote on the Freemen's Con- stitution were, then: the law and order party, in favor; and the charter advocates, voting with their enemies, the suffragists, against it. When the vote was counted, the Freemen's Constitution was found to be defeated by the small majority of 676; 8,013 yes to 8,689 no.(15) It is evident that the vote of the suffragists would not have been sufficient to defeat it, but for the aid of the ultra- charter men.
Why did the suffrage party decide to vote against the Free- men's Constitution? Mr. Dorr, in his inaugural address, explained that "this constitution was voted against by a large majority of the friends of the people's constitution -not because it was made by the freemen, and not by themselves, but because its leading provisions were unjust and anti-republican, and tended to prolong, under a different guise, some of the greatest of those evils which had been the occasion of so much complaint under the old charter system."(16) Mr. Dorr mentions no specific cause of complaint, but we find a list of four criticisms, which a contemporary writer gave
125
THE FREEMEN'S . CONSTITUTION.
as " the chief grounds on which the suffrage party opposed this constitution." (17) (1) The retention of the property qualification for naturalized citizens, a provision retained until ISSS; (15) (2) the un- equal apportionment in both branches of the General Assembly : in the preceding chapter it has been shown that on this point the difference between the two constitutions was scarcely worth considering; (3) the provision in relation to amendments: this was only a question of requiring a three-fifths vote as against a ma- jority vote; (4) the people had already adopted a different and a better constitution. Analyzing these complaints, the last seems the real and effectual reason for the opposition, and not the content of the Freemen's Constitution, an instrument brought about through the agitation of the suffragists but killed by their hostility.
In coming to this decision, the basis of the conclusion here stated is not entirely a priori reasoning, but testimony before the select committee which brought out the true position of the suf- fragists. "The landholder's constitution, in itself, would have been, so far as it concerned suffrage, I think, acceptable; and its adop- tion would have given peace to the State, and power, as was gen- erally believed, to the suffrage party in Rhode Island for some years to come; but coming forth as it did, coupled with an im- plied surrender of an invaluable right, the suffrage men freely (and, I believe, from a clear and strong sense of duty), omitted all present, personal, and local advantages, rejected the offered constitution, and, by so doing, incurred calamities too numerous to be here related."(19) This position seems unreasonably stiff. The right to frame and adopt a constitution, irrespective of the forms of law, would not have been waived by accepting the Freemen's Constitution to supersede the People's. A large minority, at least, of the people of Rhode Island were opposed to the principles of
126
THE DORR WAR.
the suffragists concerning constitution - making: the existing gov- ernment and the existing "people" of the State, the freemen, were evidently determined to prevent the People's Constitution from going into operation; instead, they offered the suffragists a con- stitution nearly as satisfactory to them as their own. By this con- stitution the suffrage was opened to about as many non -freemen as freemen; and at once the suffragists would obtain control of the government and doubtless might have made amendments, still further extending the suffrage. The suffragists had really obtained, at their first organized agitation, nearly all for which they asked.
Against an acceptance of this practical victory was set an ab- stract doctrine of "sovereignty:" no matter what civil disturbances might follow, the People's Constitution was to be the law of the land, and should be upheld through thick and thin. Here was the vital mistake of the suffragists; therefore their cause had been one constantly, even rapidly, gaining; from the mere handful of agitators in the autumn of 1840 they had become a large minority, if not a majority, of the people. From this time on their cause waned; there were daily defections from their ranks; and by the first of May the ebb-tide was plainly noticeable. The rejection of the Freemen's Constitution was an error of great moment. Had but three hundred and fifty suffragists changed their votes from no to yes, the Freemen's Constitution would have been adopted, the Dorr rebellion would not have occurred, the community would never have been disturbed, the suffrage party would have taken the reins of government, the sovereign right of the people would not have been injured, and peace and quiet would have reigned supreme in the State.
AUTHORITIES .- 1 Rhode Island House Journals. Feb. 1. 1842 ; Providence Journal, Feb. 7, 1842. 2 Rhode Island House Journals, Feb. 4, 1842. 3 Rhode Island Acts and -Resolves, Jan., 1842, p. 58 ;
127
THE FREEMEN'S CONSTITUTION.
Burke's Report, 646. 4 Providence Journal, Jan. 26, 1842. 5 Rhode Island House Journals, Feb. 1. 1842 ; Burke's Report, 646. 6 Art. II, Freemen's Constitution. See Appendix. 7 Rhode Island House Journals, Jan. 11, 1842 ; Burke's Report, 443. S Providence Journal, Jan. 12, 1842. 9 Rhode Island House Journals, Jan. 14, 1842 ; Burke's Report, 443. 10 Rhode Island House Journals, Jan 20, 1842. 11 Rhode Island House Journals, Jan. 20, 21, 22, 1842. 12 Rhode Island House Journals, Jan. 22, 1842. 13 Rhode Island Acts and Resolves, Jan., 1842, P. 45. 14 Re- publican Hlerald, Mar. 2, 1842. 15 Rhode Island House Journals, Mar. 30, 1842 ; New Age, Apr. 2, 1842 ; Providence Express, Mar. 31, 1842 ; Burke's Report, 119; Rhode Island Manual, 1696-07, 12S. 16 Burke's Report, 725. 17 Democratic Review, X, 604 (foot-note). 1S Rhode Island Manual, 1896-97, 46. 19 Burke's Report, 278 : Testimony of Aaron White.
CHAPTER XI.
THE ELECTIONS.
1 NEASINESS in the rank and file of the suffrage party began to be shown before the date of the vote on the Freemen's Constitution. Many of the advocates of a new constitution were not convinced of the legal status of the instru- ment which had been voted upon in December and January. Ac- cordingly, at the beginning of March, a private request was made to the justices of the Supreme Court of the State to express their opinion upon the validity of the People's Constitution. In reply they said: "We have ever held it our duty, as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, not to intermeddle with party politics, nor to volunteer our opinion on questions of law which might be pre- sented to us officially. The questions submitted to us, in your note, do not seem to us to be of such class, nor are they such, under all the circumstances of the case, as we feel at liberty to decline answering. We state then, as our opinion, that the con- vention which formed the 'People's Constitution' assembled with- out law; that in forming it they proceeded without Jaw; that the votes, given in favor of it, were given without law, and however strong an expression of public opinion they may present, that said constitution, instead of being the paramount law of the land, is of
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.