A concise history ...

Preface

The object of the writer, in this little and unpretending volume, has been, to make a plain and simple statement of facts. If he has failed to do so, the failure has been unintentional.

CONCISE HISTOEY.

Chapter I

Civil sfovernment is an institution uesifrned for the mutual safety and protection of mankind, and for the promotion of that mutual happiness, for which an all-wise and benevolent Creator appears to have intended his creatures. That all men are by nature free and equal, is an axiom in phylosophy which no one will controvert, and which all liberal and enlightened statesmen freely admit without question. It is a maxim which constitutes the basis of all democratic republics, and which is fully recognised as the great fundamental principle of the government of these United States. Because all men are by nature free and equal, and because a free government is designed for mutual protection, safety, and happiness, such a government must be a mutual compact or covenant among equals ; and hence the republican maxim, that all the rightful powers of government are derived from the people, and are to be exercised for their good.

But government is also an affair of necessity. With the complete natural freedom with which man I comes into the world, with a consciousness of perfect equality among the entire liuman family, and with the infirmities to which all are subject, neither safety nor happiness could long exist without an organization in some form, and a controlling sovereign power lodged somewhere, to reduce the body to obedience to such rules as might appear best calculated to advnnce the great object of human existence. If the God of nature has made all men free and equal, so has he implanted a rule of action in the human breast, by which all men are bound to respect the rights and to promote the happiness of each other. But, as men seem inclined to overstep that rule to gratify iheir selfish propensities, and thereby step aside from the rult3 of right, the necessity becomes obvious, to associate together in bodies politic, in which, by mutual agreement, the power shall be placed in the hands of a few, to make and enforce laws for the government of the many. That government, and that power, however, are not created for the benefit alone of those to whom they are entrusted. Their object is the public good — or, as Burlamaqiii happily expresses it, ''for the good of ike ivhole in general, and of every individual in 'particidarJ^ No one will doubt the necessity of government. It is not a mere matter of choice of the few or the many. It is a matter of right and necessity due to each and every individual ; because it is the right of eveiy one to be protected against the violence of every other one, and to pursue measures, without impediment, to piomote his own hap})iness, provided he do not inflict injury

CONCISE HISTORY.

on others. This necessity creates in the majority, the right to impose laws on the minority ; and it confers on that majority, the authority to enforce tliose laws : — Provided always, that the minority shall enjoy safety p.nd protection' with the majority, and suffer no curtaihnent of privileges, but what the welfare of the whole may demand.

If this view be correct, it will at once be seen, that, w hen a majoi'ity of members of the body politic become dissatisfied with the form and principles of their government, and convinced that it does not tend to the object for which governments are or should be erected, they have the undoubted right to effect a change. This principle is theoretically recognised in the American Constitutions, as a necessary attribute of the popular sovereignty. But there is a principle paramount even to this ; and which must, in all cases, be allowed to take precedence of it. The social tie, the basis of all government, must never be dissolved nor impaired, except in compliance with absolute necessity ; because, by such an act, anarchy is created, and the pubhc weal endangered. All revolutions dissolve the existing restraints or impair them, and weaken the respect for government, and laws; and no man can bear and discharge the av/ful responsibility, for the terrible evils that may intervene between the demolition of one government, and the erection of another, by ^-evolutionary movements. As the first formation of government is a matter of absolute necessity, so should a revolution be; and so it must be in order to its justification. No act of violence to effect a change against the wishes of even a small minority, can ever be justified, as long as a hope remains of effecting that change in a legal and peaceable manner, and after a long and patient forbearance under oppression. Such were the views and feelings of our revolutionary sires, as set forth by them in the Declaration of Independence.

They plead their long and patient sufiering, and the absolute refusal of the mother country to listen to their humble petitions, memorials^ and remonstrances. And it was after all these had failed, and after the mother country had prepared to demand and enforce her oppressive laws at the point of the bayonet, and at the cannon's mouth, that the cord was severed which bound her American colonies to allegiance. Thus was the necessity for revolution made apparent. A necessity not originating in the f\ict that the American colonies were oppressed, but in the absolute refusal of the mother country to remove the hand of oppression, the actual employment of force, and even the shedding of blood, to enforce her arbitrary and oppressive laws, and the consequent conclusion, that, resistance must be opposed to tyranny, or the fetters of slavery worn by the American people. On this ground alone, was the American Revolution justifiable. But, at the time the Declaration of American Independence was put forth, and when the patriotic colonists were treading the battle-field in hostile array, had there been a body of commissioners appointed by the British government, actually in session to consider our grievances, to consult the wishes of the people, and to devise modes of redress, who would have considered the measures of the colonists any thing better than rebellion and treason ? The necessity for revolution would not and could not have existed, till it should have been known that redress was finally and fully refused. Then, and not till then, could violent measures be justified. It was otherwise — and for that reason only, our revolutionary fathers became patriots and heroes, who else would have been rebels and traitors. Burke says, " It is the first and supreme necessity only, a necessity that is not chosen, but chooses — a necessity paramount to deliberation; that admits no discussion ; and demands no evidence, which alone can justify a resort to anarchy. "

Chapter II

I have offered the foregoing preliminary remarks, because there are many people at home and abroad, who appear to consider the late attempt at revolution in Rhode Island, to be analagous, if not parallel, to that which proved so eminently successful in the days that "tried men's souls;" and by which, the American colonies became free and Independent States. A candid and impartial statement of facts in the following pages, will enable the reader to compare the two cases, and to judge for himself how far they resemble each other. And, in order to refresh the memory, it 1* may be found necessary, occasionally, to refer back, and to compare notes as we proceed.

It will not be deemed necessary, in this brief epitome, to go into a labored history of the Rhode Island government. But it will be expedient, in order to have the whole case before us, and to correct false impressions, to advert to some of its most prominent portions and features.

The fact is well and universally known, that the only w^ritten fundamental law of the State, is, the Colonial Charter granted by Charles 2nd, King of Great Britain, in the year 1663. So much of that Charier as is necessary to the present purpose, because it involves the main questions now at issue, is as follows : —

"And further, we do, of our ^jspecial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, give and grant unto the said Governor and Company of the English colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England, in America, and their successors, that the Governor, or, in his absence, or by his permission, the Deputy Governor of the said Company, for the time being, the Assistants, and such of the freemen of the said Company as shall be so as aforesaid elected or deputed, or so many of them as shall be present at such meeting or assembly, as aforesaid, shall be called the General Assembly ; and that they, or the greatest part of them then present, whereof the Governor or Deputy Governor, and six of the Assistants, at least to be seven, shall have, and have hereby given and

CONCISE HISTORY. I I

granted unto tbem, full power and authority, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, to appoint, alter and change, such days, times and places of meeting and General Assembly, as they shall think fit; and to choose, nominate and appoint, such and so many other persons as they shall think fit, and shall be willing to accept the same, to be free of the said Company and body politic, and them into the same to admit. "

By the above quotation, it will be seen that there was no other qualification prescribed for a freeman or voter, than his admission as such, by those who were freemen or voters already. As they were to admit those whom they might think proper, it followed of course that they were at liberty, if they saw fit, to prescribe an uniform qualification to entitle a man to be admitted free, and to exclude all others ; and thi-s right was conceded to them, as one of the essential rights of a body corporate. No doubt, at that period and long after, nearly every member of the community was a freeholder; and it was not till a long period after the charter was granted, that the freehold qualification was required by law, to entitle a man to be "admitted free of said company.". And very probably that law was enacted as a necessary measure of safety, in consequence of the influx: of emigrants from abroail, whom, without resjjonsibility, and without character, mere itinerant fortune hunters, it was deemed unsafe to admit to a participation in the affairs of the government. However this may have been, and whoever may have considered himself outraged by being thus deprived of the right of suffrage, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt, that a very large majority of the people of the colony were freeholders at the lime, and, in accordance even with the doctrine of the present day, had the right to govern, till they were outnumbered.

But the American Revolution opened a new era. The royal authority over the colony, was repudiated, and Rhode Island became a free, sovereign, and independent state. Most of the other states proceeded to make and adopt constitutions of government, as they had the right to do. But Rhode Ifland continued, as she had the right also to do, under her colonial charter, changing only her title, from colony, to state, and modifying her laws. I say Rhode Island had the right to do this, because a majority of the people appeared to have preferred it, and the minority to have acquiesced in it. And this fact is evident, because no attempt at a change was made. It is also certain, on the other hand, that the question was not put to the people of the state, whether they would continue under the old form of government, or institute a new one; at least there is no record of such a procedure now in existence, and no recollections of such an one is preserved. It is not the business of the writer to determine whether the course pursued was in itself right or wrong — whether the non-freeholder had or not the right to demand a constitution, and the privilege to exercise the elective franchise. It would seem that no such demand was made, and as those who possess the political power seldom relinquish it of their own accord the landholders still retained it unquestioned, and continued the exercise of the governmental powers under the original system, as though no other change had occurred, except that of transferring the sovereignty from the crown of Great Britain to the freeholders of Rhode Island. Thus the form and principles of government established by virtue of the Royal prerogative, over a dependent colony, became by prescription or usage those of the sovereign state. With this government in operation, and without question or objection, Rhode Island became a member of the Federal Union, under the constitution which requires of the United States to guarantee to each State, a republican form of government. That this government was considered legitimate and republican by the Federal Government, there can be no doubt, because, under it, the state was admitted into the Union. That the people of the state so considered it, nmst be taken for granted, because they did not protest against it at the time, and submitted to it without complaint. That the law of suffrage, and the representative apportionment, had become somewhat unequal and illiberal at the time, there can be no doubt, nor is it more questionable that the inequality has increased. Still as it is conceded that the majority must govern, the minority, if they felt aggrieved; had no other means of ledress than to await the change of public opinion in their favor ; and, meantime the government under the charter being sustained by the major })ortion of the people, was as fully binding on the minority as though it had been adopted by the unanimous voice of the entire population of the state.

Times and circumstances, have, however, in some respects, undergone a change. For nearly forty years past, a portion of the people of the state have been restless and uneasy under the laws which denied them the right of franchise. No direct measure however, it is believed, was adopted to effect a change in their favor, till the year, 1811, w^hen a bill was introduced into the State Senate, for that piupose. This was a strict party movement. In the spring of that year, the Republican part}'' had elected the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Senate, and a majority of the members of the other House. At the June session of that year, a bill was prepared for the extension of suffrage ; and arrangements Vv^ere made to carry it through.'^ By some means however, it w^as not presented. At the October session following, the Fedeial party had obtained the ascendancy in the House, and in which body the bill was defeated after it had passed the Senate. Thus ended the first serious attempt, by legislative means, to extend the elective franchise to the non-freeholders. The subject was subsequently revived, and occasionally discussed by the citizens among themselves, and also at times in the columns of the public papers. Little or nothing however appears to have been done, until the year 18:24; when a convention was directed, by the General Assembly, to be called for the purpose of forming a written constitution of State Government. The Delegates to that body were elected by the freemen, or qualified voters, including only freeholders and their eldest sons. The body convened June 21, 18-24; and closed its labors and adjourned on the 30th of the same month.

The great complaint by a portion of the freemen, especially of Providence county against the existing form of government, then, as now, was the inequality of the Representation in the Lower House of the Assembly. The. same apportionment had been continued from the date of the colonial charter, nearly one hundred and fifty years. It had no regard to the future increase of population, or change of circumstances; but, by an arbitrary rule, gave to each town its number of Representatives, wiiliout the authority to eil'ect a change, in all time to come. That rule, at the time it was first adopted, was probably very nearly correct in principle. It gave to Newport, then the commercial einporium of the colony, six Representatives; and to Providence, then a secondary village, four. To Warwick 'and Portsmouth it also gave four, each, and to each other town, two. But, in process of time a great change had taken place as to population. In 1824, the population of Providence was more than double that of Newport. ^lany towns entitled by the charter, to two Representatives each, had acquired a population more tlian double the number in Portsmouth which sent four; and three times as great as some, and four or five times as great as others, which also sent two each. So great in fact had the inequality become, that the county of Providence, furnishing but twenty-two Representatives out of seventy-two, included ten towns out of thirty-one, and three-fifths of the entire population of the State. The convention framed and gave out a constitution designed measurably to correct this alleged evil. It provided that each town having 3,000 inhabitants, and less than 5,000, should elect three Representatives. That each town having 5,000, and less than 8,000, should elect 4 — That each town having 8,000, and less than 12,000, should elect 5- • That each town having 12,000, and under 17,000 should elect 7 — And that no town should send less than two Representatives, nor more than seven. The freehold qualification was retamed, which requires the ownership of real estate to the value of one hundred and thirty-four dollars, or of the annual value of seven dollars ; and tlie right of franchise of the eldest son without the freehold qualifications, was cut off.

In most of the towns, if not all, whose representation was to be unfavorably affected by the proposed change, there was a very strong opposition to it ; so that, out of the twenty one towns in all but Providence county, only three gave a majority for it, and they were Bristol and Warren, which would have gained by it, and Barrington, which it would not have affected, Foster and Scituate, Cianston and Burrillville, all in the county of Providence, also gave heavy majorities against it, partly perhaps from a reluctance common to a large body of the freemen, to any innovation on the old system, and partly from jealousy of the influence of the city of Providence.

From these causes, and probably in part from others, the constitution was rejected by a comparatively large

CONCISE HISTORY.

majority, as appears by the official returns ; which for reference, we give below.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Newport,

Charlestown,

Providence,

Glocester,

Portsmouth,

West Greenwich,

Warwick,

Coventry,

Westerly,

Exeter,

New Slioreharh,

Middletown,

North Kingstown,

Bri>tol,

South Kingstown

]00

Tiverton,

East Greenwich

Little Compton,

Jamestown,

Warren

Smithfield,

Cumberland,

Scituate,

Richmond,

Cranston,

Johnston,

Hopkinton,

North Providence,

Barrington,

]2

Foster,

Burrillville,

Total — for the constitution 1668 — Against it, 3,206 — making a majority against it, of 1538 votes. The vote, it will be seen, is small, and probably not one half as large as might have been cast. The question however was not to be put to rest by such means. But a short period had elapsed after the quietus had been given to the constitution of 1824, before the subject was again brought up ; or rather before the flame which had only been partially smothered, broke out afresh. It would be of but little interest to the reader to trace the progress of excitement from month to month, or from year to year, and to enter into the details of particular movements among the people at a period so long gone by, in connexion w^ith this subject; suffice it to say ; for the succeeding five years, up to 2

XQ CONCISE HISTORY.

1829, the object was kept steadily in view, and, among a portion of the people, with a determination never to recede from the ground, till that object should be accomplished. From the following reports of the General Assembly, copied from the Providence Journal, some opinion may be formed of the state of the question at that period. At the May session cf that year, the report says — '• Several memorials on the subject of extending the right of suffrage, were received, and referred to a Committee to report thereon at the June Session. The committee was composed of iMessrs. B. Hazard, Haile, Wilbur, Thurston, and Rhodes. " Thus the matter rested till the June Session ; when, on Saturday the 2Tth of that month, the leport says ; — '• The subject of the memorials and petitions for the extension of suffrage, was called up. Mr. Hazard from the committee, to whom they had been referred, reported adversely to extending the right. Mr. Howe moved to continue the subject to the next session, but withdrew his motion before the question was taken. On motion of jMr. Updike, the petitioners were allowed to withdraw their petitions. " By way of comment, the reporter adds — •' Thus died without a struggle, a subject which has created so much excitement in our State." — A comment which, as respected merely the petitions thus summarily rejected, was true enough ; but w hich, as related to the future, was subsequently falsified by events in a very short period of time.

We ought perhaps, in this place, to pause a moment, for reflection on the state of public feeling at that period, and the peculiar character of the legislative action on the sLihject, and which becomes absolutely necessary, in order to appreciate the merits of the subsequent controversies on the subject in dispute.

Chapter III

It will be seen by the brief references in the preceding pages, that, however the subject of extending the right of suflTage may have been discussed and treated in tlie community, the General Assembly, or at least the House of Representatives, was disposed to treat the matter with very little ceremony or consideration. Tlie petitions and memorials presented to the House from time to time, invariably received their death-blow in that body ; and therefore never reached the Senate. Consequently, as they failed by that means to find a place among the records of the state, it would be impossible to ascertain how numerous were the signatures a))pended to them. As far however as is now known, the number has been at no time large, and has, in all cases presented but a small proportion of the male population of the State twenty-one years of age and upwards, and but few indeed of the qualified voters. This is one reason why the Legislature continued to treat the subject with neglect. That body naturally formed the conclusion that, if a majority of the people of the state were dissatisfied with the existing laws relative to the elective franchise, they go CONCISE HISTORY.

would not be backward in presenting themselves, by memorial, before that body ; and the inference from the fact that they did not, was, that the disaffected constituted but a small minority. In the second place the Legislature, and the Landholders in general, with here and there an exception, considered the original charter of Charles 2nd. as an act of incorporation giving to the freemen of the State, and their successors, a perpetual existence as a body corporate, with powers which could not be impaired witliout their own consent. Consequently, a portion at least appear to have arrived at the conclusion, that it was an act of impertinence in non-freeholders, even to petition for the right of suffrage. And It is a fact iliat every attempt to call a convention, or to modify the election laws, was made in consequence of resolutions offered by members of the Assembly, and not in compliance with the prayers of petitions and memorials.

During the whole controversy, for more than a quarter of a century, the portion of the people of the state opposed to an extension of the elective franchise, planted themselves firmly on the ground of chartered rights, denying the doctrine of the natural right of any man to participate in the affairs of government, and utterly disclaiming the doctrine, that the con-freeholder acquired any other rights by the revolution which severed this couutiy from Great Britian, than those vouchsafed to him by the British Monarch, under the charter. This party maintained the doctrine that the right of suffrage was a social and acquired right ; emanating from the conditions of the original compact of the body corporate and politic ; that that body alone had the authority to modify or change it, and that no others could of right become members with them, and parties to the compact, or be endowed with the privileges of freemen, without their consent. When complaint was made by those who were denied the right of suffrage, they were told that the qualification demanded by law was of trifling amount, that the safety of the state required the voter to possess an interest in the soil, and that those who did not like the condition, were not compelled to remain ander the state jurisdiction.

On the otlier hand, the argument has been, that, though previous to the revolution tlie political power vested, under the Charter, in the Company alone, yet that the revolution destroyed the colonial government, annulled the Charter, and resolved society into its original elements: — That natural right and natural equality were restored: — Tliat the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States, recotmised and enforced the same doctrine: — That every free citizen was entitled to the elective franchise : — And that the State would be as safe under the operation of such a system, as though the right to vote was coupled with an interest in the soil.

The foregoing is, to be sure, but a bird's-eye view of the arguments advanced on either side of this question, but it presents the general outlines ; and any one of common reflection, may readily discovei: the tendencies of the whole. These texts have served as the subjects of discussion for more than twenty years ; during which period, oceans of ink have been shed, and scores o[ speeches made, to estabhsh, first one side, and then the oiher.

Chapter IV

The question of Suffrage was not suffered to slumber for a great length of time, after its fancied strangulation in 1829. About tlie year 1833, or possibly some time in 183*2, immediately after the Presidential election, the subject was again resuscitated. The question was brouglit up anew in the city of Providence, at first by a jmall number of persons mostly mechanics, and nearly, if not all, non-freeholders. The Town House was put in requisition, and weekly meetings were held, and well attended, and speeches made on the great question. Tliese meetings were generally addressed by mechanics and working-men, in set speeches, which exhibited very considerable talent ; and though often pretty highly spiced with satire and sarcasm, afforded evidence that those who delivered them had ielt ruuch, and tliought much, if they had not learned much. It was fashionable then, as well as now, to give to the land-holders the appellation of aristocrats and rufiied-shirt gentiy ; and the speakers and their associates prided themselves in occupying an opposite standing. Hence, they frequently appeared in the desk, at least some of them, arrayed in green baize jackets, to address the audi-

CONCISE HlSTORy. 23

ence ; and to illustrate the feeling still farther, in a correspondence with Hon. John Q. Adams, and Hon. Francis Baylies, in May, 1833, the committee of correspondence designate themselves as follows : — William J. Tillinghast, Barber — Lawrence Richards, Blacksmith -^Wm. Mitchell, Shoemn- Tcer — Seth Luther, iifoHse Carpenter — Wm. Miller, Currier — David Brown, IVntck and Clock Maker. Tliis fact is of no farther importance, than merely to show the feeling that actuated the persons engaged at first in the attempt at that lime, to obtain an extension of sulTrage. But very few freeholders united with the party, and the mode of action was, to operate on public feeling and opinion. Subsequenlly, however, several of the members of the bar united themselves with the party ; among whom, was Thomas W. Dorr ; and the afiair assumed a new aspect.

In May, 1833, a circular was issued by the party, which had been adopted in a public meeting, and signed, Seth Luther, Chairman, and William J. Tillinghast, Secretary. The doctrine set forth in tliis document, as that of the party, \\'as, free suffrage. An exjyianation of tlie phrase however was given, as they understood it, not as unconditional universal suffrage, but such as is designated in the Constitution of Massachusetts: — That American citizens should be allowed to vote on condition of a specific residence in the State, and the payment of taxes. In the same year, a petition w^as presented to the General Assembly, from Cbarles Randall and others in the town of Warren, in accordance with the doctrine of the abov^e circular, which was referred to a select committee, and which, at a subsequent session, met with the same fate as its predecessors had done in the year 18-29. But the result was different. The party had now been organized ; and though not as yet strong either in numbers or energies, it had acquired a hold on life, from which it was not to be shaken by the unfavorable decioion of a legislative committee.

Not long after the above period, in the spring of 1834, and after Mr. Dorr had taken the field, it was determined to make preparation for a State Convention, the object of which was to confer together, and to draw up, and to lay l)efore the people, the outlines of a constitution. It v/as also determined to make an appeal through the ballot-box. The convention was called. It assembled and acted. And the provisions relative to representation and the elective franchise recommended by that body, were similar to those Vvdiich had been put forth by the party. The appeal to the ballot-box of course failed ; but from time to time the effort was continued, until the summer of 1837 : when the Constitutional Party, as it Was then called, brought out a number of votes somewhat less than seven hundred. This was the last expiring effort, and with its failure, terminated the existence of the party. It is not how^ever to be understood that the cause for which the constitutionalists contended, had lost ground, or that the friends of a constitution and an extension of suffrage had yielded their opinions, or diminished in number. The contrary is the fact; and, from 1833 to 1837, greater advances liad been made towards the accomplishment of the object, than had been made in twenty years before. But it was a period of high political excitement. Most of the 'active members of the Constitutional Party were also members of one or the other of the two political parties of the day. Tlie success of . the constitutionalists, if not highly doubtful, appeared very remote, and political considerations demanded immediate action. For these reasons, many members of the party could not be prevailed on to vote for the constitutional candidates, and Went to the polls and voted for others. And thus was the party disbanded in 1837, at a period when, strange as it may appear, it had probably increased threefold, if not fourfold, in numbej-s, talents, and moral energy in the short space of four years.