USA > Rhode Island > The Dorr war; or, The constitutional struggle in Rhode Island > Part 6
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
·
61
TWO CONVENTIONS CALLED.
The suffragists had not forgotten the defeats of 1824 and 1834, and conceived that the coming convention offered no prospect of a better result. Hence they continued the agitation, as though the legislature had not voted, except that the convention seems to have stimulated them to greater energy, and the movement developed with great rapidity.
The Whig campaign of 1840 was still fresh in the minds of all. What better means for agitating the cause of "constitution and suffrage " than to adopt the essential features of that campaign Processions and mass conventions were in some respect new fea- tures in political affairs, and they were destined to be used with good effect by the leaders of the new movement in Rhode Island. The organ of the "Suffrage party," as the suffragists now began to be called, as early as the last week in February, strongly urged the holding of a mass convention of the non-freeholders of the State. (12) Such a convention, though never yet attempted, would, doubtless, "eventuate as successfully as any one can desire." A few days later a letter appeared in the same paper, purporting to come from a fifty-dollar tax-payer, enlarging upon the advisability of such a convention. The writer thought that it might easily be arranged and that it would be the largest assembly that Rhode Island had ever witnessed.
Meanwhile, public meetings were being constantly held, especi- ally in the city of Providence, many of which were given up to debate. One of the most remarkable of these discussions, extend- ing over three evenings, was on the question, "Is it expedient for the non-freeholders to refuse to do military and fire duty ? "(13) Another debate was held on the subject, " Is it expedient for the non-freeholders to form associations for the purpose of military
62
THE DORR WAR.
discipline ? " (14) This, the first hint that has been found of the possible need of arms in the controversy, evidently caused some hesitation. The fifty- dollar tax - payer, above alluded to, acknowl- edged that the organization of military companies would " strike a terror to some who have but small organs of combativeness, and a great fear of anything that has the appearance, or can in any way be construed into a semblance, of revolution or nullification." (15) The writer, however, went on to explain that the power of a gov- ernment consisted in the arms of the government, and that there was no power in the State "to ensure the citizen's safety from foreign invasion or an extensive internal commotion." . He then claimed the right to keep and use firearms, and also the right of the people to assemble together in a peaceable manner to perfect their knowledge of the art of using firearms. This letter, of March, 1841, is interesting in the light of the later events of May and June, 1842.
At a meeting of the "friends of suffrage," Saturday, March 20, 1841, a committee was appointed to report on the subject of a parade. They reported the next Wednesday, recommending that the non-freemen and other persons interested in an extension of the suffrage should " parade the streets of Providence, with appro- priate banners, and partake of a collation on Jefferson Plains," in the afternoon. They also requested that citizen's dress should be worn, and that efforts be made to preserve order and decorum throughout the day. This was to be the first demonstration of a series, and the leaders expected great results from such a united demand for what they considered their rights. Their organ, of course, was boiling over with enthusiasm; (16) and the Republican Herald swung around into line, expressing the belief that the right of the elective franchise belonged to everyone, and hoping that the
63
TWO CONVENTIONS CALLED.
parade might be the "precursor of a signal success, equal to the importance and justice of the object."(17)
The parade and feast, on April 17, must have fully come up to the hopes of the leaders of the movement. Although a great part of the day was unpleasant, there was an immense concourse of people, and many thousands turned out to see the parade, which consisted of from 2,500 to 3,500 men, about 200 mounted, and a very few in carriages. (18) All of these wore the suffrage badge, with the words, " I am an American citizen." Many banners were carried, bearing such legends as, "I die for liberty;" "Worth makes the man, but sand and gravel make the voter; " " Virtue, Patriotism, and Intelligence versus $134 worth of dirt;" " Peace- ably if we can, forcibly if we must." The collation fed the multi- tude and provided an opportunity for orations by Dutee J. Pearce, Samuel Y. Atwell, and others. (19) The suffrage organ was naturally very much elated, and predicted that "People's Day" would be honored in Rhode Island side by side with Independence Day. (0)
It must not be forgotten that curiosity played a great part in enlarging the numbers of the spectators in Providence on April 17; nor should it be supposed that all the persons taking part in the parade were " white male citizens over twenty-one years of age." Nevertheless, an unusual opportunity was afforded of sowing suf- frage seeds; many came to look on, and went away to think. The non -freeholders were awakened; those who had previously had no desire for the privilege of voting now began to look upon it as a boon not to be despised; those who had abandoned hope were now encouraged by organized effort. Many freemen, who had never be- fore thought much about the matter, were awakened to the feeling that others besides the freemen had equally as good a right to the suffrage.
.
64
THE DORR WAR.
:
Liberty shall be restored
to the People's
BANNER USED IN SUFFRAGE PARADE. ( ORIGINAL IN COLLECTION OF RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.)
The parade had accomplished so much that the agitators imme- diately began a movement for a mass convention in Newport on " Election Day," May 5. (21) This term has always been used to mean the day when the new government of the State entered upon
65
TWO CONVENTIONS CALLED.
its duties, and has always been a time of special interest, one of the holidays of the State. Time and place were well chosen. for this convention, which it was hoped would bring together, as could not have been done in larger States, a vast assemblage of inter- ested persons, and would be likely to produce an effect upon the incoming legislature. The number in the procession was, however, barely half that in the previous parade in Providence; about a third of those who took part were armed, either with guns or swords, (22) but certain companies of the State militia advertised to appear were not present. (23) The smaller number was disappointing, but not in- explicable, even from the standpoint of the suffragists: Newport and the neighboring towns were much smaller than Providence and its vicinity, and were geographically separated from most of the State. Moreover, the centre of the discontent with regard to the existing conditions was at Providence, while Newport headed the opposition to any change in the form of government. The . number and enthusiasm shown in behalf of free suffrage at New- port on this occasion ought to have satisfied even the most earnest suffragist in the State.
The meeting on " Election Day " was not merely a procession, a mark of interest in the movement of the day. The convention, at which only badge-wearers were supposed to be present, listened to addresses by General Stoddard (the presiding officer), Dutee J. Pearce, James A. Greene, and William Ennis. (9) A series of reso- lutions was reported by the committee on resolutions, (d) which criti- cised the " Charter of a British King as a Constitution of political
(c) The convention was presided over by General Martin Stoddard ; John Sterne, Franklin Cooley, Samuel H. Wales, James A. Greene, Silas Sisson, and James A. Brown were chosen vice-presidents ; and Samuel Thomas and Francis B. Peckham, secretaries. Republican Herald, May 8, 1841.
(d) This committee consisted of William Ennis, Edward Field, David Parmenter, Jesse Calder, and Simeon Anthony.
9
66
THE DORR WAR.
government," deeming it "insufficient and obsolete; " declared that the "whole body of the people of this State" had the right, "in their original and sovereign capacity," to make their own constitu- tion, and that this right was not barred by the lapse of time, and that the proper time had arrived; criticised the "undefined and uncontrolled " legislative power, the unequal representation in the General Assembly, and the restricted suffrage; declared that a government of property was inconsistent with the American idea ; denied all connection with any political party; criticised the un- equal and limited representation in the convention called by the General Assembly; advised the suffragists to perfect their organi- zation in every town ; appointed a State committee to carry forward the cause, and to "call a convention of delegates to draught a con- stitution at as early a day as possible ;" requested the State com- mittee to obtain " a list of all the citizens in the several towns who were ready to vote for and sustain a constitution based on the principles hereinbefore declared," and to prepare an address to the people; and directed that copies of the resolutions be sent to the various executive and legislative officers of the State. (24) The resolution establishing the State committee (e) and assigning its duties is the most significant portion of the action of the convention. The advice to call a convention, and to obtain a list of pledged supporters, indicated a determination to go forward with a constitu- tion and to ignore the legislature and its legally-called convention. The convention adjourned to meet in Providence on Independence Day, Monday, July 5, 1841.
(e) This committee, as appointed May 4, consisted of Charles Collins and Dutee J. Pearce, of Newport county ; Samuel II. Wales, Welcome B. Sayles, and Benjamin Arnold, Jr., of Providence county ; William S. Peckham and Sylvester Himes, of Washington county ; Silas Weaver and Emanuel Rice, of Kent county ; and Samuel Allen and Benjamin M. Bosworth, of Bristol county.
1
67
TWO CONVENTIONS CALLED.
The next movement in the drama consisted in the " Address of the State Suffrage Committee, setting forth the principles of the suffrage movement," sent out to the public June 11, 1841. . This address presented the usual arguments for a constitution, criticised the omnipotent power of the Assembly, and claimed that there were but two methods by which an improvement could be obtained. The ballot box was open to them, or they might resume "their original and natural rights and powers;". but the " disfranchised majority " were excluded from the ballot box, and there was little hope from the freemen at the polls. An important concession was made: " The committee are happy to believe that a very considerable change has taken place in this respect, within a short period; and that a very respectable body of the landholders are now advocates for a written constitution, to be framed and adopted by the people, and a liberal and permanent system of suffrage placed beyond the reach of legislative control and interference. The committee con- gratulates the friends of the cause on this auspicious circumstance ; still it must not be disguised that much remains to be done." The address urged the "people-' the numerical force '-to proclaim their will, resume their original powers, and assert their original rights." It closed with a promise that, in due time, a call would be issued for the holding of primaries prior to a State convention. (25)
Another effort was made, however, to obtain more liberal pro- visions from the General Assembly. On the second day of the May session, a resolution was introduced apportioning the dele- gates to the convention more in accordance with the population, (26) and was immediately passed by a vote of 48 to 20 : (27) It allowed one delegate from towns under 850 inhabitants; two from towns with a population between $50 and 3,000; three from towns of 3,000 to 6,000; four, from 6,000 to 10,000; five, from 10,000 to
68
THE DORK WAR.
15,000; and six, if over 15,000 inhabitants. (28) That is, six dele- gates from Providence; four each from Newport, Warwick and Smithfield; three each from Tiverton, Bristol, Scituate, North Provi- dence, Coventry, and South Kingstown; one each from Jamestown and Barrington; and two each from the other towns; making sev- enty-seven in all. (29) This concession to the suffrage party was received with scorn. At a meeting of the Rhode Island Suffrage Association, immediately following this action of the legislature, the following resolutions were adopted : (30) " Resolved that this Associ- ation believes that the action of the General Assembly, May 6th, to proportion the delegates to the whole People for the Convention in November, is but a feint to draw the attention of the friends of equal rights from the object they have in view. Resolved, that we will relax no exertion, but redouble our energies in the cause, and shrink not until our rights, and the rights of the People be ac- knowledged."
Early in the May session Samuel Y. Atwell introduced a bill, which was taken up at the June session, referred to the committee on the judiciary, and by them endorsed "not recommended." (31) The main features of the proposed act(32) related to the represen- tation in the convention and to the qualifications of the electors of the delegates. The franchise, for election of delegates and upon the question of ratification, was granted to "every male inhabitant of the State, of the age of twenty-one years, who is a citizen of the United States, and who has resided in the State two years, and in the town or city where he offers to vote for three months next previous to the day of town or ward meetings, (persons insane, under guardianship, or convicts excepted)." The apportionment al- lowed eighteen delegates to Providence; nine to Smithfield; eight to Newport; seven to Warwick; five to Cumberland: four each to
69
TWO CONVENTIONS CALLED.
Scituate, South Kingstown, and North Providence; three each to Tiverton, Cranston, North Kingstown, Coventry, and Bristol; one each to Middletown, Little Compton, New Shoreham, Jamestown, Charlestown, Richmond, West Greenwich, and Barrington ; and two each to the other ten towns, making 102 in all. A long debate took place on this bill, occupying the whole day. (33) The argu- ments advanced pro and con are of little importance. The one notable incident of the debate was the moment when Mr. Atwell, in order to "prevent," as he said, "any more violent appeal, sol- emnly and earnestly appealed to the Assembly to be wise in their determination." (34) The vote was taken June 25, and the bill was defeated, ten to fifty-two, with ten absentees. Five of the seven- teen Democrats were absent, and seven voted in favor of the bill; five of the fifty-five Whigs were also absent, three voted yes, and forty-three no. (35) The objection to the bill lay mainly to the suf- frage clause, though the apportionment was unpopular with many representatives. (f)
The Election Day Convention met again at Providence July 5. The usual procession was held, banners and mottoes were carried, orations were delivered. It is difficult to ascertain the exact num- ber of persons in the procession; while one account acknowledged that it consisted of some 1,600, (36) another declared that it was the largest concourse ever assembled in the State, though it granted that "owing to the heat and the length of the route, less persons marched over the route than on April 17." (37) It stated also that 1,200 persons came over the Stonington railroad.
The important feature of this meeting was the series of resolu- tions passed, (38) the most important of which was the following:
(f) The votes in favor of the bill came from Glocester, Burrillville, Charlestown, North Kingstown, North Providence, and Cumberland.
70
THE DORR WAR.
" Resolved, That we unanimously and cordially reaffirm the views, sentiments and plans set forth in their resolutions by the conven tion of the friends of equal rights, held at Newport on the 5th day of May last; and that, inasmuch as the General Assembly of this State, at their last session, in June, have finally decided that the freeholders are exclusively the people of Rhode Island, and have denied to the great majority of the people, so far as it is in their power thus to deny, any participation in the convention to be held in November next, the time has now fully arrived for the people. in their original and sovereign capacity, to exercise their reserved rights; and that we hereby approve the call by the State committee of the people's convention, on the basis of the resolutions aforesaid, at an early day, for the formation of a constitution. Resolved, That when the constitution, so framed, shall be adopted by a majority of the whole people of the State, by their signatures or otherwise, as the convention may provide, we will sustain and carry into effect said constitution, by all necessary means; and that, so far as in us lies, we will remove all obstacles to its successful establishment and operation ; and we hereunto solemnly pledge ourselves to each other and the public." (g)
The State committee met in Providence, July 20, and acted in accordance with these instructions. (39) Samuel H. Wales, of Provi- dence, was chairman, and Benjamin Arnold, of Providence, secre- tary. The committee issued a call(1) for the election of delegates
(g) The convention added to the State committee : Silas Sisson, of Newport county ; Henty I .. Webster, Philip B. Stiness, and Metcalf Marsh, of Providence county ; John Brown and John B. Sheldon, of Kent county ; Abijah Luce, of Bristol county ; and Wager Weeden and Chules Allen, of Washington county ; making eighteen in all. John Brown (who afterwards voted against the " People's Constitution ") and William S. Peckham did not act with the committee. It is of in. terest to note that most of these eighteen, if not all, were freemen. Burke's Report, 474-622 ' " List of Persons voting on the People's Constitution."
-
71
TWO CONVENTIONS CALLED.
to take place August 28; these delegates to attend a convention to be held at the State House, in Providence, October 4, for framing a constitution to be laid before the people for their adoption. They directed that "every American male citizen, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, who has resided in this State one year preceding the election of delegates," should vote for delegates; that every meeting held for the election of delegates should organize by the election of a chairman and secretary, whose signatures would be needed by the dele- gates; that every town of 1,000 inhabitants or less should have one delegate; that for every additional thousand one delegate should be allowed ; and that Providence should elect three delegates from each ward.
We have thus brought the story to the point where two conventions have been called, each for the framing of a con- SAMUEL H. WALES. stitution for the State: one under an act of the legislature; the other by an extra-constitutional machine. This seems to be a fitting opportunity to pause in the narrative, and discuss the issue now fairly before the people.
AUTHORITIES .- 1 New Age, Dec. 18, 1840; Burke's Report, 402-403. 2 New Age, Dec. 18, 1840. 3 Rhode Island House Journals, Jan. 21, IS41 ; Providence Journal, Jan. 22, 1841. A Review of President Wayland's Discourse, 20. 5 Rhode Island House Journals, Jan. 22 and
72
THE DORR WAR.
29. 1841. 6 Providence Journal, Jan. 23, 1841. 7 Providence Journal, Feb. 6 and 8, 1841 ; Rhode Island House Journals, Feb. 5, 1841. S Rhode Island House Journals, Feb. 6, 1841 ; Rhode Island Acts and Resolves, Jan., 1841, 85 ; New Age, Feb. 12, 1841 ; Burke's Report, 401-402, 644-645. 9 Rhode Island House Journals, Feb. 6, 1841 ; Providence Journal, Feb. 8, 1841. 10 Republican Herald, Feb. 10, 1841. 11 New Age, Feb. 12, IS41. 12 New Age, Feb. 26, 1841. 13 New Age, Feb. 26 and Mar. 5, 184I. 14 New Age, Mar. 12, 1841. 15 New Age, Mar. 19, IS41. 16 New Age, Apr 9, 1841. 17 Republican Herald, Apr. 17, IS41. 18 Re- publican Herald, Apr. 21, 1841 ; Providence Journal, Apr. 19, 1841 ; New Age, Apr. 23, IS41 ; See, also, the Testimony of Jacob Frieze, Burke's Report, 663-665. 19 Providence Journal, Apr. 19, IS41. 20 New Age, May 14, 1841. 21 Republican Herald, Apr. 24, 1841. 22 Providence Journal, May 4, 1841 ; Newport Mercury, May 8, 1841. See, also, Testimony of Martin Stoddard : Burke's Report, 660 ; of Jacob Frieze, Burke's Report, 663. 23 Providence Journal, May 4, 1841. 25 Burke's Report. 261-268. 26 Rhode Island House
24 Burke's Report, 256-259, 405-407.
Journals, May 6, 1841 ; Newport Mercury, May 8, 1841. 27 Rhode Island House Journals, May 6, IS41. 28 Burke's Report. 409, 645-646. 29 Newport Mercury, May 15, 1841. 30 New Age, May 14. 1841. 31 Newport Mercury, June 26, 1841. 32 Burke's Report, 439-441. 33 Rhode Island House Journals, June 25, 1841 ; Providence Journal, June 26, 1841 ; Republican Hlerald, July 3, 1841. 34 Providence Journal, June 28, 1841. 35 Providence Journal, June 28, IS41 ; Burke's Report, 441. 36 Providence Journal, July 7, 1841. 37 Republican Herald, July 7, IS41. BS Burke's Report, 259-261, 407-409. 39 New Age, July 23, 1841 ; Newport Mercury, July 24. 1841. 40 Burke's Report, 269-271, 410-412.
-
.
-
CHAPTER VI.
-
THE CHARTER CRITICISED.
I N the calls of these two conventions may be found the real controversy and the positions held by the two parties. The call issued first, for what later came to be called the Land- holders' or Freemen's Convention, was directed to the freemen of the different towns, requesting them to choose, at the regular elec- tion, a certain number of delegates to a convention for framing a new constitution ;(1) the second call was directed to male citizens of the United States, resident within the State of Rhode Island, requesting them to elect, on a specified day, a certain number of delegates to what has been commonly called the People's Conven- tion.(2) The first call was issued by the General Assembly of the State, which claimed the right from a clause in the charter granting to the General Assembly power "from time to time, to make, or- dain, constitute or repeal such laws, statutes, orders and ordinances, forms and ceremonies of government, and magistrates ;" the second call was issued by a committee of eighteen, chosen by mass meet- ings-some at a convention at Newport, and the others at another convention at Providence, and acting under instructions from these irregular meetings of the "people." The first call took the form
10
74 .
THE DORR WAR. ,
of a set of resolutions, witnessed and sent out to the public by the Secretary of State; the second, of a series of votes, passed by the committee of eighteen, one of which directed the chairman and secretary to sign the proceedings of the meeting, and to cause them to be printed and distributed throughout the State.
The Freemen's Convention was to be made up of delegates elected nominally "on the basis of population "-from one to six delegates from each of the towns; the People's Convention was to have a more proportionate representation-from one to eighteen delegates from each town. The electors to the Freemen's Con- vention were naturally the freemen of the State: that is, the male inhabitants who owned $134 worth of real estate and had qualified, together with their eldest sons ; the People's Convention was made up of delegates chosen by "every American male citizen of twenty- one years of age and upwards, who has resided in the State one year preceding the election of delegates." The Freemen's Conven- tion was directed by the call to submit the constitution formed to the freemen in open town meetings, whose vote was to ratify or fail to ratify ; the People's Convention was restricted in no way by the call, though the resolutions of July 5th promised to uphold the constitution which should "be adopted by a majority of the whole people of the State, by their signatures or otherwise, as the con- vention may provide." Behind the Freemen's Convention and its work was the legal government of the State ; authority for the People's Convention could be found only in the irresponsible com- mittee of eighteen and the mass meetings. The Freemen's Con- stitution, if adopted, would have the approval of a majority of the legal voters of the State ; behind the People's Constitution, if it became the law of the land, would be an unproved majority of the
75
THE CHARTER CRITICISED).
male inhabitants of the State, voting at extra-legal meetings held without legal restrictions.
Both movements showed that there was a genuine need of a more modern constitution. The inequalities and inconsistencies in the Charter Constitution became apparent with very little study, as may be seen by a brief resumé of the most important causes of the grievances which were set forth during the years of controversy.
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.