USA > Rhode Island > The Dorr war; or, The constitutional struggle in Rhode Island > 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
(h) No town was granted more than seven Representatives, nor less than two ; towns having over 3,000 inhabitants were assigned three Representatives ; over 5,000, four ; over S,ooo, five ; over 12,000, six ; and over 17,000, seven.
33
EARLY MOVEMENTS FOR A CONSTITUTION.
was quite different from that three years before: in 1821 it was the desirability of holding a constitutional convention ; in 1824 it was the adoption or rejection of a proposed constitution. In 1821 the referendum was taken at the end of a hotly-contested gubernatorial campaign ; in 1824 no extraneous questions were before the people which might confuse their vote on the constitution. The number of votes at a special election would be less; but this would be off- set by the interest which might be expected in an actually submit- ted constitution.
The usual vote for governor from 1819 to 1829 was under 3,000; in 1821 the total vote for governor was 6,602, and the sum of the " yes " and "no" votes on the convention reached 3,543; in April, 1824, 2,751 votes only were cast for governor, (20) and in October 4,792 ballots expressed the opinions as to the constitution. These figures conclusively show that the interest of the freemen in the constitutional question was marked, and make the comparison be- tween the "yes" and "no" votes of much importance. The con- stitution received 1,668 votes in its favor and 3,206 against it- being lost by a vote of nearly two to one.(D) The sectional issue is again prominent-the two northern counties being nearly a unit for the constitution, while the three southern counties were strongly ranged on the other side.(i) Inasmuch as there has come down to us no record of the reasons for the rejection, we can only surmise what they were :() first, natural conservatism ; the feeling that the
(i) Newport county gave 33 "yes" out of 1,095 votes ; Washington county recorded 70 "yes" out of 793 ; and Kent county 169 out of 777. Providence county gave 677 votes, out of 1, 885, against the constitution ; the comparatively large negative vote being mainly due to two towns, Scituate and Foster, that adjoined Kent county. Adding the vote of the other eight towns in this county to that of Bristol county, we find 265 " no" votes out of a total of 1, 634.
(1) The apportionment clause in the proposed constitution does not seem to have noticeably af- fected the vote. l'rovidence, Smithfield, and Bristol, which would have gained in representation, did not give a proportionally greater "yes" vote than the neighboring towns; and the towns in
5
34
THE DORR WAR.
charter was working satisfactorily and that no change was needed : second, the pronounced rivalry between the northern and the south- ern counties ; the demand for a constitution coming mainly from the city of Providence.
The movements in favor of a new constitution have been now traced through the last quarter of the eighteenth and the first quar- ter of the nineteenth centuries. In summing them up, we must conclude that little consistency was shown by the leaders who de- manded a change. They do not seem to know what they wanted; and we are almost tempted to declare that the agitation was, for the most part, the result of a mere desire for change. The people of the State seemed to have but little real interest in the move- ment ; and it is evident that the majority of the voters were op- posed to any innovation, while the non - freemen were seldom, if ever, heard from. Not until some definite plan was presented, not until the agitators were certain of their desires, not until they per- sistently and consistently urged their demands, could it be expected that the Rhode Island freemen would annul, or even amend, their time- worn charter.
The whole movement for a constitution now underwent an entire change : suffrage became the central question when the agitation was resumed. It will be remembered that not one of the preceding attempts to obtain a constitution had been made by those desirous of enlarging the franchise : the bill and petition of 1811 were for a change in the suffrage qualifications to be made by the General Assembly, and not for a constitution ; and the movement, at that time, was led by those who claimed that universal suffrage might offset the prevalent fraudulent voting. As these men subsequently
the southern part of the State, which were accorded an extra Representative, gave almost a unani- mous negative vote.
35
1770083
EARLY MOVEMENTS FOR A CONSTITUTION.
showed no desire for an increased suffrage, the isolated movement of 1811 may well be ignored. After 1825 the agitation was wholly in the hands of the suffragists. At first their cause seemed a des- perate one and their various attacks invariably failed, the leaders deserting the cause and new leaders coming to the front. The struggle was, thereafter, never abandoned-although there were sev- eral resting spells-until the cause finally triumphed in 1842-3. A demand that the freemen, who possessed the right to vote, should give this privilege to a large class of non-voters would not at first, to say the least, be likely to obtain a hearing. Before a privileged class can be prevailed upon, of their own free will, to admit another large group to a share in their advantages, a "campaign of educa- tion " is always necessary. Years of agitation and the clearly ex- pressed desire of the non-freemen would, inevitably, be necessary to bring about so radical a change.
In 1829, public agitation began again in the form of petitions to the legislature. At the May session of that year, Mr. Arnold presented to the General Assembly a memorial from 998 citizens of Providence, of whom 369 were said to be freeholders, ( ?? ) asking for an extension of suffrage. Similar memorials were presented from about 300 people of Bristol, Warren, and North Providence, nearly half of whom were claimed to be freeholders. These were local petitions, it is true, but they deserved recognition by the legislature ; for it is evident that a large minority, at least, of the citizens of Providence would favor the movement, even making al- lowance for the carelessly signed names which are found on almost any petition. The 629 non-freemen of Providence also deserved to be listened to respectfully, even though they had no legal footing and were supported by no special backing. The House referred the memorials to a committee, of whom Benjamin Hazard, of New
36
THE DORK WAR.
port, was chairman, and upon which was but one member who had presented memorials. At the next (June) session they reported ad- versely, and the petitioners were "allowed to withdraw."
The report of this committee-containing about 15,000 words- was evidently drawn by the chairman, and has always been called " Hazard's Report." (23) Its animus toward the petition may be seen from the opening words : " The committee . . ask leave to report : That they find nothing in these memorials, either of facts or of reasoning, which requires the attention of the House. If there is anything noticeable in them it is the little sense of propriety mani- fested in the style in which they are drawn up." The committee . continued that they were confident that the people of the State did not desire to introduce the "new and untried system" of universal suffrage, but for the sake of the citizens who have not this confi- dence they will explain the subject of the franchise. The most remarkable feature of the report is its constitutional doctrine. It declared that the legislature had no power in the matter whatever: " The right of suffrage, as it is the origin and basis of every free elective government, so it is the peculiar and exclusive prerogative of the people, and cannot, without infringing that prerogative, be subjected to any other control than that of the people themselves. If representatives of the people, chosen for the ordinary purpose of legislation, could assume a control over this right, to limit, curtail, or extend it at will, they might, on the one hand, disfranchise any portion of their own electors; might deprive them of the power ever to remove them; and thus reduce the government to a permanent aristocracy. . . Such are the ordinances which our ancestors thought necessary to preserve the rights and liberties of themselves and their posterity; by preserving the elective franchise in the hands of the sound part of the community-the substantial freehold inhabitants
37
EARLY MOVEMENTS FOR A CONSTITUTION.
of the State. Had they not a right to adopt these provisions ? And have not their descendants, and those whom they have asso- ciated with them in conformity to those provisions, equally a right to preserve and adhere to them ? . . Complainers mistake their right; which is, a right to qualify themselves as the laws require- not a right to be voters without such qualifications." The rest of this document consists of arguments upholding the freehold quali- fications, and denouncing democracy as the curse of every nation which has ever yielded to its charms. In spite of its inconsisten- cies, in spite of the failure to treat the petitioners respectfully, the report accomplished its purpose, and the memorialists were unable to do anything further. The suffrage agitation was quiescent for a few years after this blow, and all movements for a constitution seemed at rest. How far party rivalries affected this result will be discussed in the next chapter.
In 1834, for the first time, we find an attempt at systematic action in place of the individual movements which have been noted in previous years. Before attempting to make any effort with the legislature, the leaders sought to mould public sentiment. This was done in various ways, but special trust was put in educating the people up to a realization of the need of a new constitution. Early in the year two northern towns of Providence county, Cum- berland and Smithfield, invited the towns of the State to send dele- gates to a convention to be held at Providence, "to promote the establishment of a State Constitution."(#) Providence, North Prov- idence, Cranston, Johnston, and Burrillville, as well as Smithfield and Cumberland, responded to this invitation by sending delegates. Bristol and Warren, of Bristol county, were represented, and also the town of Newport. These delegates from ten towns met Feb- ruary 23d, 1834, and organized by electing Nathan A. Brown
38
THE DORR WAR.
president. The principal business done was the appointment of a committee of five to prepare an "Address to the People of Rhode Island," and to report at an adjourned session, which was held March 12th, at which time Scituate, in Providence county, and North Kingstown, in Washington county, were also represented.(k)
The masterly report of this committee is the first clear state- ment of the position of those who desired a new constitution ; boldly attacking the charter and the legislature, it is throughout clear and unusually logical, and seizes upon the critical points with rare judgment. (25) . It was a document of more value for its purpose than any of the many publications which the greater agitation of eight years later produced. Even those who most bitterly oppose its theories and conclusions must acknowledge its merit and give due credit to its author, Thomas W. Dorr, who thus first appears in the controversy.
The report opens with a declaration of loyalty to the "ancient sturdy spirit of Rhode Island patriotism;" with a request to lay aside all party predilections, to avoid the " too much man-worship" of the past and to form a constitutional party, "in the spirit of concession and compromise upon matters of local politics." The claim is made that political reforms are necessary in the State and can only be obtained by a written constitution, especially as the "discretionary regulation of the elective right, and of the judicial system, can never be properly and safely vested in the legislature." Frequency of election is not a sufficient safeguard : the constitution should be the fundamental law of the State, coming directly from the free and sovereign people. "When the American States sev- ered the political tie which formerly bound them to Great Britain,
(k) This committee consisted of Thomas W. Dorr, Joseph K. Angell, David Daniells, William H. Smith, and Christopher Robinson.
39
EARLY MOVEMENTS FOR A CONSTITUTION.
all obligation to acknowledge obedience to a British charter as a constitution of government was, of course, dissolved ; and the people of each State were left free and sover- eign." "The sover- eignty of the King of England passed, not to the Gover- nor and Company of Rhode Island, but to the people at large, who fought the battles of the Revolution, and to their descendants." "That the people of Rhode Island retain their inherent right to establish (in their original, sovereign capacity) a con- stitution, cannot for a moment be doubted."
The next eight pages are devoted to a brief resumé of the character of the charter as an instru- ment of govern-
Baud Master
THOMAS W. DORR. Aged about 35 Years
40
THE DORR WAR.
ment, and to a more complete statement of the minor defects of the charter and of the provisions which the legislature had changed. Six pages are given to a treatment of the inequality of the repre- sentation, in which the claim is put forward that Rhode Island has not a republican government-" a government resulting from the will of the majority, ascertained by a just and equal representation." Rather the government is that of "an oligarchy, or the rule of a few." The demand is made that population, considered nearly pro- portional with wealth, be made the basis of apportionment.
One- half of the docuinent is devoted to the subject of the ex- tension of the suffrage. " We contend that a participation in the choice of those who make and administer laws, is a natural right, which cannot be abridged, nor suspended any farther than the greatest good of the greatest number imperatively requires." The exclusion of women from the franchise is declared to be right because based " upon a just consideration of the best good of society including that of the sex itself." The justice of the exclu- sion of minors is discussed, and the rule that twenty-one is a suitable age for acquiring the right of the suffrage is accepted. " No man should be excluded from the exercise of [the suffrage], except from circumstances of unavoidable necessity." Arguments follow that the landed qualification acts unjustly and operates " differently from what it did in early times," and is also opposed to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States and to the theory and practice of most of the States. Every voter ought to show some sign of sufficient honesty and intelligence to exercise the privilege consistently with the best good of the whole people : therefore a small tax as a requisite for voting, and a distinction between native and naturalized voters, and a strict registration of voters are suggested. Then comes a brief discussion concerning
41
EARLY MOVEMENTS FOR A CONSTITUTION.
improvements in the judiciary, especially urging life tenure and competent salaries for the judges. In closing, the people are urged to call, through their representatives, a convention to frame a "lib- eral and permanent constitution," and the report requests the legis- lature, "which has imposed a landed qualification not spoken of in the charter, ... to suspend it, for the single purpose of facilitating the exercise by the people of the great, original right of sovereignty in the formation of a constitution."
The convention and its report met with a response from the legislature, at its June session, 1834, (26) and it issued a call for a convention, worded very much like that of 1824. As many dele- gates were to be chosen by the towns as they had representatives, and in the usual manner. The hint that a broader suffrage be granted for the occasion was ignored in arranging both for the election of delegates and for the voting on the constitution, if formed. The convention met as called, September ist, and started upon its work; but the sessions were noted for the absence of interest, and frequent lack of a quorum. After a few days it ad- journed until November, then again until February, 1835, and finally to June, when its members simply did not come together, and it thus expired.
From the very beginning this convention was doomed to failure. There was not even the interest shown that had been manifested ten years before. Many of the delegates thought that the labor of framing a constitution would be uselessly expended. They remem- bered that the same demand had, in 1821, 1822, and 1824, been distinctly and completely rejected by the freemen. Apparently the leaders in the movement thought that they had chosen a very op- portune time to bring up their proposition : when neither party had a safe hold on the State, it might be expected that at least
6
42
THE DOKR WAR.
one, if not both, of them would make a bid for the new voters. The inability to elect a governor the year before, and the unusual number of seven candidates for Representative to Congress, indi- cates a period of political dissatisfaction. But the hopes of the suffragists were in vain ; neither party gave them any assistance, and their attempt to form a new party. definitely pledged to a con- stitution, was a failure from the beginning.
Two definite movements toward universal suffrage, in connection with a new constitution, had now been made: the first by peti- tions from four towns, including freemen and non-freemen ; the second from a convention of delegates from about a third of the towns, nearly all in the northern part of the State. For the dis- mal failures of both attempts two reasons may be given : the free- men, as a rule, had no desire to extend the suffrage, and it was not to be expected that they should have; the sectional character of the demand also tended to create a prejudice in the other sec- tions from the start. The attempt of 1834 was, hence, premature : the " campaign of education " had not been complete enough to overcome the traditions of generations.
Undoubtedly the non-freemen desired the franchise, and realized the fact that men like themselves had the ballot in almost every other State. But they were powerless : they could not vote suffrage to themselves; they had petitioned, but they had been laughed to scorn : they had obtained a convention, but it simply fell to pieces ; they had no newspapers to speak for them: they were debarred from urging their point at town meetings; they had not succeeded in forming any kind of organization. Therefore they were practi- cally unable to make their desires known. The freemen had not, as yet, really been impressed with any clear notion of their legiti- mate demands. The failure in 1834 was evidently decisive against
43
EARLY MOVEMENTS FOR A CONSTITUTION.
the constitutional party, even though it struggled along for a few years and went so far as to nominate two candidates for Represen- tatives to Congress in 1837.(i) The party and the movement were dead ; and when a new attempt was begun, the leaders of 1834 de- clined, for a long time, to have anything to do with it.
We are now prepared to come to some conclusion as to the dispute between President Wayland and the " Boston Lawyer." It seems very evident that the latter was entirely wrong in speaking of any strong demand for a voice in the government as coming from the non-freemen previous to 1829. Beginning with that date we find a change. The landless residents began to awaken to a desire for what are called their political rights. But there had not been sufficient time to reach anything like the desired result : the first lessons had been learned, and the movement was destined to advance more rapidly when next taken up. The conclusion is inevitable that President Wayland was very nearly right. It might have been " a matter of surprise that the question had awakened so little attention," but before 1840 there was no definite general demand for a change. The movements had all been irresponsible and had not shown a strong feeling of injustice.
(1) At this election, Thomas W. Dorr received 72 votes, and Dan King 25, out of a total of 7,615. Rhode Island Manual, 1896-7, 160.
AUTHORITIES .- 1 Wayland, The Affairs of Rhode Island, 14. 2 Burke's Report, 271-274. 3 Rhode Island American, Mar. 5, 1811. Newport Mercury, Mar. 9, ISII. 4 Newport Mer- cury, Nov. 1, 1817. 5 Manufacturers and Farmers Journal, Nov. 27, Dec. 1I, Dec. 25, 1820; Jan. 11, Jan. 14, Feb. 19, 1821. Rhode Island American, Feb. 13, 1821. Providence Gazette, Jan. 24, 27, 31 ; Feb. 10, 17, 24 ; March 3, 1821. See, also, Turner, Report of The Trial of Thomas W. Dorr, 77. 6 Manufacturers and Farmers Journal. March 1, 1821. Rhode Island American, Feb. 27, Mar. 2, IS21. Providence Gazette, Feb. 28, 1821. 7 Rhode Island Manual, 1896-7, 99. S Idem, 126. 9 Rhode Island American, Sept. 14, 28, 1821. Manufacturers and Farmers Journal, Sept. 17, 1821. Providence Gazette, Sept. 22, 1821. 10 Manufacturers and Farmers Journal, Jan. 28, Feb. 4, IS22. 11 Rhode Island Manual. 1896-7, 126. See, also, Manufacturers and Farmers Journal, Apr. 22, 1822. 12 Rhode Island American, Apr. 23, 1822. 13 Manufactur- ers and Farmers Journal, Nov. 11, 1823. 14 Providence Gazette, Jan. 17, 1824. Rhode Island
.
44
THE DORR WAR.
American, Jan. 20, 1824. 15 Providence Gazette, Jan. 17, 1824. 16 Burke's Report, 642-643. 17 Rhode Island American, Apr. 16, 1824. 18 Burke's Report, 209-219. Providence Gazette, July 10, 1824. Manufacturers and Farmers Journal, July 12, 1824. Rhode Island American, July 9, 1824. 19 Burke's Report, 722. 20 Rhode Island Manual, 1896-7, 99. 21 Manufac- turers and Farmers Journal, Nov. 4, 1824. Rhode Island Manual, 1806-7, 127. 22 Rhode Island American, May 12, 1829. 23 Burke's Report, 377-401. See, also, Providence Journal, May 21, 22, 1841. 24 Burke's Report, 151. 25 Address to the People of Rhode Island from the Convention assembled at Providence, Feb. 23 and March 12, 1834 : To Promote the Establishment of a State Constitution. Burke's Report, 151-185. 26 Burke's Retort, 643-644.
-
-
CHAPTER IV.
THE RHODE ISLAND SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.
W HEN the question of an enlargement of the suffrage first came into prominence in 1829, the politicians had no wish to increase the number of their constituents; for they knew what to count upon and could not calculate the effect of a large additional voting list. The personal popularity of James Fenner kept him in office until 1829, but the next year his elec- tion was hotly contested, and in 1831 he was defeated by Lemuel H. Arnold, the Whig candidate. In 1832 the ascendency of the Whigs was threatened; the two parties were evenly matched, while a thousand independents prevented an election of governor, although five attempts were made. Though the State gave its electoral vote to Clay, the Whigs lost the governorship and did not regain it until 1838. The early defeats of the suffrage clause, therefore, seem not due to either party, but rather to the marked indiffer- ence or conservatism of the average voter.(a)
(a) In January, 1833, the legislature chose Asher Robbins, a Whig, to be United States Senator, giving him 41 out of the 78 votes cast. In November of the same year the newly-elected Assem- bly showed the change of sentiment politically by declaring the previous election void and choos- ing Elisha R. Potter, a Democrat, Senator. (Rhode Island Manual, 1846-7. 39 ) The United States Senate refused to give the seat to Potter and declared Robbins legally elected. (Senate Journal, 1 Sess. 23 Cong. 1833-34, page 285 )
.
1
46
THE DORR WAR.
In 1839 neither party was able to elect its candidate for gov- ernor, and the Whig representatives received but a slight plurality over the opposing candidates. It would not be accurate to place Rhode Island in either po- litical camp during this decade, but Whig principles were proving more attract- ive throughout the country, and Rhode Island felt the tidal wave.
In election of April, 1840, the Whigs elected Samuel Ward King their governor by a plurality of nearly fourteen hundred votes over Thomas F. Carpenter and carried nineteen of the thirty-one towns.(1) The House had a Whig major- ity of two to one(b) and the LEMUEL H. ARNOLD. General Assembly chose a Whig senator, James F. Simmons. In the national election in November, General Harrison received about 5,000 votes in a total vote of 8,000. (e)
(b) The twelve towns that had Democratic majorities chose each two representatives, making twenty-four in all. or one-third of the entire membership. The strong Democratic towns, at this time, were Burrillville, Glocester, Foster, Scituate, Charlestown, Exeter, and North Kingstown. The close towns were Tiverton, West Greenwich, Richmond, Hopkinton, Jamestown, New Shore- ham, and Coventry. Thesc towns, for the most part, were entirely agricultural, and remote from the centres, such as Providence, Newport, Bristol, and Warwick.
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.