USA > Rhode Island > The Dorr war; or, The constitutional struggle in Rhode Island > Part 23
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 suffrage qualifications, by the Freemen's Convention, dis- tinguished naturalized citizens owning the necessary real estate from native-born citizens by requiring three years' residence instead of one; by the new constitution, one year's residence suffices for both classes.(37) The two constitutions agreed in giving the right to vote to native male citizens who did not own real estate, if they had had two years' residence.(38) Herein they were more con- servative than the People's Constitution, which placed the necessary residence at one year and opened the suffrage also to naturalized non - property owners. All three constitutions agreed in not per- mitting any but real estate owners and tax-payers to vote on matters relating to taxation or the expenditure of public moneys. The constitution of 1842 added a new requirement, in the shape of a dollar registry tax, upon all non -tax - payers who should present themselves to be registered, exempting persons who had performed military service during the preceding year. (39)
To what extent had the most radical suffragists, who were content with the People's Constitution, the right to criticise such a constitution? They limited their opposition to the two subjects of apportionment and suffrage. The apportionment would seem to-day to be far more just than that provided in their own con-
37
290
THE DORK WAR.
stitution. In the matter of suffrage they had some ground for complaint from their point of view: a few persons, those who had been in the State twelve but not twenty-four months, and natural- ized citizens not owning real estate, were still deprived of the privilege of voting. The first exclusion was of but little account ; the second was calculated to give power to the rural communities, in which the suffragists were strong, inasmuch as foreigners, natural- ized or unnaturalized, flocked to the cities and large villages. The suffragists also objected to the registry tax: all that need be said is that the tax was not compulsory, and that opinions still differ upon its advisability.
On only one legitimate ground could the people's party vote against the constitution of 1842 or refrain from voting-on the ground that they should still uphold the People's Constitution, no matter what the result to the State; they had no sufficient objec- tions to the document itself. When the constitution was adopted by an almost unanimous vote of those who went to the polls, the question came, what should the people's party do next? They had ignored the election, and had not put themselves on record against the constitution. They did not hesitate to declare, however, that it did not replace their own constitution, inasmuch as it had not received the votes of a majority of the people. (4)
Yet they saw clearly that the constitution of 1842 was to be the de facto fundamental law of the State. They realized that the People's Constitution, whatever it might be de jure, was practically null and void. The only possible future for it lay in reviving it in accordance with the ordinary forms of law. They claimed to be a majority of the people; by the provisions of the new consti- tution, nearly all the people could vote; there was a chance open to them of obtaining control of the government at the polls. There-
291
THE STRUGGLE ENDED.
fore the suffrage leaders advised their followers to register, ("") and the Democratic Convention, as we have seen, fell into line.(?) Per- haps they were inconsistent, but the voters, of all political beliefs, followed the advice, and at the April election 16,520 votes were cast for Governor, nearly twice as many as had been ever given before; and the gubernatorial vote of 1843 was not equalled, in later years, until 1852.(43)
It would be unjust to use these figures as proofs of any one thing, except that a majority of those voting preferred the election of Governor Fenner. The claim that the Fenner vote represented the anti-suffragists, or the anti- Dorrites, and that the Carpenter vote stood for the suffrage, or people's, party, cannot be substan- tiated. Governor Dorr's suggestion, already quoted, (15) that the people would have won at this election had not some been timid and had deserted at the last moment, is untenable. The nine thousand votes for the law and order candidate cannot be lumped together. Many who cast their votes for Fenner did so because he represented the law and order party and would oppose what they considered the anarchical methods of the opposition; but some were still advocates of the old charter; some had deserted the peo- ple's party for the sake of quiet and peace; some were satisfied to continue the administration in power another year; while a large portion were too partisan Whigs to vote a ticket prepared by the Democrats. On the other hand, though many of the seven thou- sand voters for Carpenter were Dorrites of the ultra stamp, there were also among them many who voted for "the regular Demo- cratic ticket;" some who were constitutionally opposed to the exist- ing government; and some who wished to voice their criticisms of the treatment by the charter government of its enemies after the abandonment of Acote's Hill.
292
THE DORR WAR.
The last General Assembly under the charter was in session on the first day of May, 1843. In grand committee, on that day, it appointed a committee to "be present at and witness the organ- ization of the government under the constitution adopted by the people of this State in November last;" and directed them to re- port as soon as the organization was completed "in conformity to the provisions of said constitution; " in order that they might know when their "functions should have constitutionally passed into the hands of those who have been legally chosen by the people to re- ceive and execute the same." (46) The committee reported on the next day that they had attended to their duty; that the Senate and House of Representatives under the constitution had, that day, been duly organized; and that the "powers of the government as organ- ized under the charter had ceased." Thereupon the grand com- mittee resolved "that the Report be accepted and that the General Assembly be and the same is hereby dissolved."
Thus, on May 2, 1843, after an honored existence of one hun- dred and eighty years, the charter of King Charles the Second ceased to be the fundamental law of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. After an intermittent struggle of nearly two-thirds of a century and a violent contest of more than two years, including an armed rebellion of two months, the people of the State replaced the time-worn royal charter by a constitu- tion modeled upon a more modern pattern. Twice the voters had vetoed the call for a constitutional convention ; once a convention had labored in vain to prepare a constitution; twice constitutions prepared by conventions had been defeated. Once a constitution, framed in direct opposition to the existing government, declared to be adopted by its framers, under which a full State government had been chosen and a legislature organized, and for the support
-
293
THE STRUGGLE ENDED.
of which civil war had been undertaken, had failed de facto be- cause of the irregular and non-legal method of adoption, the timid character of the revolutionists, and the failure of their arms; and it was destined to be refused the recognition of the legislative and judicial departments, as well as the executive branch, of the national government. After all these failures, a constitution was obtained, which, while it did not receive an affirmative vote of a majority of "the people " upon its adoption, was accepted by a large majority, as is shown by the vote in April, which was cast by fully two- thirds of the possible voters of the State.
Under this constitution the people of Rhode Island have since lived and prospered for more than fifty-five years. Amendments have been adopted, from time to time, slightly modifying its provis- ions. Since 1854 the General Assembly has been freed from the necessity of counting the votes, and has not been required to hold sessions in more than two places. In the same year an amendment was adopted, giving the power of pardon to the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Forty-six years after the Dorrite suffragists vainly demanded equal suffrage. rights for native-born and naturalized citizens, an amendment to that purport was adopted. In 1893 plurality elections were substituted for ma- jority elections in all cases.
Three or four attempts have been made to replace the constitu- tion by a more modern document, but each has failed. In 1853 the voters were twice asked to call a convention to " frame a new constitution," and to "revise the constitution," but they refused by votes of 4,570 to 6,282, and 3,778 to 7,618.(17) After an interval of about forty years the proposition of a new constitution was again broached. The method of amendment provided by the constitution of 1842 seemed too complicated to many citizens of Rhode Island,
294
THE DORR WAR.
and for a time the old question of constitution-making came to the front. Arguments for and against the power of a convention to frame a constitution without regard to the existing fundamental law appeared in the newspapers, and a pamphlet war was begun. Soon, however, the matter quieted down, and the constitution, as a whole, remained undisturbed for a dozen years.
. In January, 1897, the General Assembly created a commission of fifteen persons to revise the constitution of the State and report such revision to the Assembly, as a preliminary to its submission to the voters as an amendment. (18) In January, 1898, the commission reported a revised constitution, which was unanimously approved by the legislature. A new Assembly was chosen in April, which again approved the document, with few dissenting votes, and submitted it to the people. The electors voted on the adoption at the con- gressional election, November Sth, IS98, and failed to ratify it : though the affirmative vote greatly exceeded the negative, it fell short of the necessary three-fifths more than a thousand.
The important changes proposed in this revision were few. The required residence of all classes of voters was put at one year ; ability to read and write was to be required of all future new voters; the number of Representatives was to be increased from seventy - two to one hundred, and Providence to be allowed one- quarter (twenty-five) instead of one-sixth (twelve) ; towns and cities were to be divided into representative districts; the Governor was given more power, especially the veto, and was relieved from the duty of presiding over the Senate; biennial elections were to take the place of annual, and new provisions were made for amending the constitution.
In analyzing the vote of 1898, no one reason can be given for the defeat of the constitution. The vote was light, as it came at
.
295
THE STRUGGLE ENDED.
the relatively unimportant election of congressman. Four of the five cities favored the constitution, though Providence alone gave it the necessary three-fifths vote. This would seem to indicate an opposition, outside of the metropolis, to increasing its power in the Assembly. The southern part of the State showed the greatest opposition, and perhaps this also may be attributed to jealousy of Providence. As a rule, the most thinly-populated towns voted strongly against the proposed constitution: their interests are most unlike those of large cities. Doubtless the educational requirement for future voters was opposed by some, and probably the fact that the constitution was proposed by a Republican legislature made it objectionable to some Democrats. It is generally believed, however, that the principal trouble lay in the proposition for biennial elec- tions. When it is remembered that up to 1843 semi-annual elec- tions were held, and that up to the present time semi-annual sessions of the legislature are required, it is easy to understand why belief in the necessity for frequent elections is so strong. An earlier amendment authorizing biennial elections had been defeated.
One fact is evident from this vote. The old-time geographical divisions had little or no influence upon it. Some towns that per- sistently upheld Governor Dorr gave large majorities for this new constitution, while others as strongly opposed it. Burrillville gave more than the required three-fifths vote in its favor, while the old Smithfield gave a majority against it,(10) and Glocester was about evenly divided on the question. At any rate, we may accept the vote as showing that the civil war of 1842 is finally ended. The old parties are broken up; the old issues are at an end. The demands of Dorr and his friends are practically all granted, and " The Struggle for a Constitution in Rhode Island " has ended
296
THE DORR WAR.
in the adoption of a constitution which, with its amendments, the people refuse to supersede even by one constructed by the leading talent of the State.
AUTHORITIES .- 1 Providence Journal, September 27, 1842. 2 See page 200. 3 National Intelligencer, June 2, 1842. A Providence Journal, June 22, 1842. 5 Rhode Island Acts and Resolves. June, 1842, pp. 3-5 : Burke's Report, 444-446. 6 Wayland, Discourse of July 21, 1842, PP. 4, 5. 7 Providence Journal, June 27, 1842. & Providence Express, June 27, 18.12. 9 Repub- lican Herald, August 3, 1842. 10 Republican Herald, August 6, 1842. 11 Burke's Report, 21.
12 Providence Journal, September 1, 1842. 13 Providence Journal, September 14, 1842. 14 Jour- nat of the Constitutional Convention, 1842. 15 Republican Herald, September 17, 1842. 16 The New Age, September 19, 1842. 17 Providence Express. September 19, 1842. 18 Providence Express, September 20, 1842. 19 Providence Express, October 1, 1842; Republican Herald, October 5, 1842. 20 Providence Journal, October 12, 1842 ; Providence Express, October 15, 1842. 21 Burke's Report, 445. 22 Burke's Report, 647. 23 Rhode Island Acts and Resolves, October, 1842, p. 42 ; Burke's Report, 648. 24 Providence Express, November 11, IS42. 25 Providence Journal, November 14, 18.42. 26 Rhode Island Manual, 1896- 97, p. 129. . 27 Rhode Island House Journals, January 13, 1843 ; Rhode Island Acts and Resolves, January, 1843, pp. 9 and 36. 28 Article I, Sections I and 2 : "Section 1. In the words of the Father of his country, we declare that ' the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government ; but that the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people. is sacredly obligatory upon all.' Section 2. All free govern- ments are instituted for the protection, safety, and happiness of the people. All laws, therefore, should be made for the good of the whole ; and the burdens of the State ought to be fairly dis- tributed among its citizens." 29 Article I, Section IS. 30 Article IV, Section II. 31 Article XI, Section 1. 32 Article IX, Section 5. 33 Article IX, Section 1. 34 Article X, Section 3.
35 Article VI, Section 1. 36 Article V, Section I.
37 Article II, Section I.
3S Article II,
41 Providence Express, Decem- Section 2. 39 Article II, Section 3. 40 Burke's Report, 21.
ber 29, 1842. 42 See page 278. 43 Rhode Island Manual, 1896-97, p. 102. 44 Though the law and order party was composed mainly of Whigs. it had a large quota of anti - Dorrite Democrats. When, therefore, the party nominated its candidates for general State officers, party lines were prac- tically ignored. Of the five State officers, Governor James Fenner and Attorney - General Joseph M. Blake had been life - long Democrats ; Lieutenant - Governor Byron Diman, Secretary of State llenry Bowen, and General Treasurer Stephen Cahoone were Whigs 45 See page 279. 46 Rhode Island Acts and Resolves, May, 1843, PP. 3 and 4. 47 Rhode Island Manual, 1896 - 97, p. 130. IS This commission, as appointed by Governor Henry Lippitt. consisted of Thomas Durfee, Chair- man ; Samuel W. K. Allen, Edward L. Freeman, William W. Blodgett, David S. Baker, Samuel Pomroy Colt, John II. Stiness. E. Charles Francis, Robert II. I. Goddard, Charles E. Gorman, Edwin D. McGuinness, Augustus S. Miller, William P. Sheffield, Jr., William B. Weeden, and Nathan F. Dixon. On the death of the last named. Ellery 11. Wilson was appointed to take his place. The eommission was remarkably representative and could not fail to carry great weight. The different political parties, Senators, Representatives, Mayors, Judges, Attorneys, Merchants, Manufacturers, Bankers, Economists, Historians, were all represented on the Board. The fact that these men could agree on a constitution ought to have had its influence upon the electors.' 49 This town has been divided, since 1842, into five parts, but the statement in the text is true.
1
CHAPTER XXIII.
CONCLUSION.
I T remains to summarize the results of the Dorr rebellion, both in its effect upon the State of Rhode Island and in its rela- tion to national and constitutional issues. Little did Dr. J. A. Brown realize, when he organized the State Suffrage Associa- tion and established the New Age at his own expense, in IS40, that within three years a civil war would take place in Rhode Island; that many of his friends would be indicted for high trea- son ; and that he himself would be a fugitive from his native State and a resident of Delaware. Much less did he realize that he was inaugurating a strife which would bring to the front constitutional issues of as great import as had appeared at any time during the half century of the United States under the constitution.
What did the agitation accomplish? The end sought by At- well, Carpenter, Pearce, and Dorr was a new and liberal constitu- tion. Without the agitation, it is fair to say no such constitution could have been obtained. At no time, early in the contest, would the freemen have yielded so much to the suffragists. Whether the form of the movement be approved or not, it must be acknowl- edged that, almost entirely because of the agitation, the constitu-
38
298
THE DORR WAR.
tion which went into effect in May, 1843, was liberal and well adapted to the needs of the State.
" A revolution is the overthrow of one government and the sub- stitution of another." Therefore the movement in Rhode Island would ordinarily be called an attempted revolution. No one can question the fact that the people's government, inaugurated in May, 1842, was a different government from that under the charter -- that it was a new government intended to be substituted for an- other, which was considered thereby to have been overthrown. The question of importance in this connection is whether the revolution was or was not justifiable,
The change of character at about the middle of May, 1842, should not be overlooked. Before Governor Dorr returned from Washington and New York, the revolution was peaceful; after his return it became military. An armed revolution in Rhode Island in 1842 was manifestly unjustifiable. The people of that State were not oppressed to an extent sufficient to warrant them to take up arms to right their wrongs. From the minute that Governor Dorr appealed to arms the revolution became a mere rebellion. This movement to establish the people's government and to overthrow the existing government by force can have no upholders to-day.
That the peaceful revolution was unjustifiable is not so clearly apparent : a revolution which causes no loss of life and no blood- shed may be proper when an armed movement would be a crime. It may be urged that, inasmuch as the revolution produced a suit- able constitution, which it had been impossible to obtain otherwise, the whole movement was defensible and right. But can it be proved that a liberal constitution might not have been obtained without going to such great lengths? Would not an agitation pure and sim- ple have accomplished the purpose as well ? Had the history of
1
.
299
CONCLUSION.
previous movements been such as to warrant the belief that noth- ing could be expected from the existing government ?
The suffrage agitators, it has been seen, from the very begin- ning, ignored the charter government. The Smithfield memorial, the Dillingham petition, the various motions of Mr. Atwell in the House, were not the work of the suffrage leaders. They took it for granted that nothing could be obtained from the freemen or their representatives : they would not concede the possibility that agita- tion alone would accomplish anything. Herein they were in error. The Smithfield memorial started a legitimate movement: the suf- frage processions led to a more liberal convention : the expression of opinion, shown by the attendance at the so-called town -meet- ings of the suffragists in December, caused the Assembly to open the suffrage in the vote on the Freemen's Constitution; and the liberal nature of this constitution was due to the agitation. Agita- tion, not revolution, was the proper course to take. It is evident that when the freemen saw that the people demanded recognition, and that the demand was something more than a passing desire, they conceded what was asked. Though the Freemen's Constitu- tion was not all that was desired, yet its adoption would have been a long step forward, and all that the suffragists could legitimately expect. Other steps might well follow. The armed revolution was unnecessary : the peaceful revolution led to the use of force, and must inevitably do so. Agitation alone would have served the pur- pose; and it must be concluded that the peaceful revolution was unnecessary, and, therefore, unjustifiable.
The suffragists claimed, however, that the adoption of their con- stitution and the establishment of their government was not a revo- lution. " The people," they declared, "had the right, at any time, in any way, and on any occasion, to change their government."
300
THE DORR WAR.
While the Dorr rebellion cannot be said to have given a final de- cision on this question, it is certain that this struggle made plain that "the people " are the "organized people;" that a new consti- tution must be adopted in accordance with the forms of law; and that its adoption, if not strictly legal, must be held to be revolu- tionary.
" But," said the suffragists, "it would be revolutionary in a monarchical country; but in a democratic country, like the United States, it has become legal. Our declarations and conventions rec- ognize the right of the people outside of all organizations, to act for themselves." The reply that came was clear and distinct : " Revolution is not to be regulated by law. This is an appeal against the law and the government. Allegiance to the government is violated by such non-legal proceedings and such violation is re- bellion and treason." The upholders of the "legal right of revolu- tion," if we can couple such words, were unable to make good their claim : the Rhode Island struggle ended by emphasizing the fact that an irregular exercise of sovereignty, like that of the suffrage movement of 1841 and 1842, could not be called legal, and was revolutionary.
Could not the civil strife resulting from this revolutionary move- ment have been avoided ? Was there no authority to which the contesting parties might have appealed ? Naturally, the thought turns to the national government. Could it be an arbiter in such State matters? If so, to which branch of the national government should an appeal be made ? Having no precedents to guide them, each party appealed to the executive power of the Union, which was centered in an individual, and hence would work more swiftly than the other branches of the government. But the President
301
CONCLUSION.
would not take the position that he was " an armed arbitrator between the people of the different States and their constituted authorities." He could only "respect the requisitions of that gov- ernment which had been recognized as the existing government of the State," until he had been "advised, in regular manner, that it had been altered and abolished, and another substituted in its place by legal and peaceable proceedings, adopted and pursued by the au- thorities and people of the State." Should it be necessary, he would use the national army and navy to quell any insurrection against a recognized government.
If the executive branch of the national government failed as an arbiter, could not the legislative branch be called upon? Congress had turned over to the President the power to give aid to the gov- ernment of any State, and therefore it must be approached from some other side. Let the new government elect Representatives to Congress or choose a United States Senator at a fitting time: then, surely, the contest would be thrown into the national legislature. But the People's Government was too short lived to accomplish this result, and not until 1844 was any attempt made to bring the matter directly before the House of Representatives. The memorial from the minority of the General Assembly asked Congress to determine if the Rhode Island Representatives were entitled to their seats; to inquire if the President of the United States had the power to "interfere " in the affairs of Rhode Island; and to act as arbitrator "in favor" of that constitution and government which had not been in force for nearly two years, if it had ever had any real existence. The contest had become an old story long before this time, and the . House of Representatives took no pains to make an official re- sponse. Had circumstances been different, it surely would seem as
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.