The Ratification of the Federal Constitution in North Carolina 9780231896887

Table of contents :
PREFACE
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. CONDITIONS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS
CHAPTER II. NORTH CAROLINA IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787
CHAPTER III. THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE PEOPLE
CHAPTER IV .REFUSAL TO RATIFY
CHAPTER V. RELATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL UNION
CHAPTER VI. RATIFICATION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX

Citation preview

STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS A N D PUBLIC LAW Edited by the FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

N U M B E R 363

THE RATIFICATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN NORTH CAROLINA BY

LOUISE I R B Y T R E N H O L M E

THE RATIFICATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN NORTH CAROLINA BY

LOUISE IRBY TRENHOLME

AMS PRESS, INC. NEW YORK 1967

AMS P R E S S , New York, N.Y.

INC. 10003

1967

Manufactured in the United S t a t e s of America

U.O T H B MEMORY OF NORMAN

MACLAREN

TRENHOLME

PREFACE

INTEREST in the Constitution of the United States has never flagged from the time of its proposal to the present day. Important as the document has been in the life of the nation, it was with difficulty that its acceptance by the states was secured. In one way or another, ratification was brought about in eleven of the states, but two remained apart until the new government was established. Since Rhode Island was not represented in the federal convention, her reluctance to accept the Constitution might be expected. North Carolina, however, was well represented; moreover, the state convention to consider the proposed form of government did not meet until after ratification by more than the required number of states. Even then, the sentiment in the state was such that the convention refused to ratify the Constitution, and the General Assembly put off the meeting of a second state convention until after the new government would be in operation. This study attempts to present those conditions which kept North Carolina from participating in the establishment of the government, and those forces which in time brought the state into the union. The writer's interest in this period was aroused by Professor Robert Livingston Schuyler of Columbia University, and the completion of the work was due to his unfailing encouragement and aid. The special problem in North Carolina history was suggested by Professor R. D. W. Connor of the University of North Carolina, and the various contacts in the state were made possible through him. Professor Dixon Ryan Fox of Columbia University helped greatly in the initial portion of the study. Professor Evarts 7

8

PREFACE

B. Greene, also of Columbia, gave invaluable aid in organizing the great mass of material which had been gathered; the high standard he maintains is a constant inspiration to those who work under his direction. Dr. A . R. Newsome, secretary of the North Carolina Historical Commission, read a large portion of the manuscript, and Mr. D. L . Corbitt of the Commission helped in the preparation of the maps for the period. Mr. J. P. Boyd, editor of the W y o m i n g Historical and Geological Society, gave liberally of the results of his researches in the period. Professor Frank F. Stephens of the University of Missouri read the entire manuscript and gave many valuable suggestions. Miss Sarah Guitar of the State Historical Society of Missouri also aided in many ways. Acknowledgments are also due to the staffs of the following libraries: Columbia University, N e w Y o r k Public Library, New Y o r k Historical Society, North Carolina Historical Commission, State Library of North Carolina, University of North Carolina, University of Chicago, University of Iowa, Tennessee Historical Society, University of Missouri, and State Historical Society of Missouri. UNIVERSITY F E B R U A R Y I,

OF

MISSOURI,

1932.

CONTENTS FAGE

CHAPTER CONDITIONS

UNDER

I

THE A R T I C L E S OF

CONFEDERATION

Geographical factors Racial elements Social conditions Religion and the churches. Educational conditions Economic conditions Politics Federal relations

11 13 16 20 23 28 37 40 C H A P T E R

II

N O R T H C A R O L I N A IN T H E F E D E R A L

CONVENTION

OF

1787

T h e calling of the federal convention Selection of the North Carolina delegates Character sketches of the delegates Estimate of part taken by the individual delegates in the convention Attitude toward the legislative branch of the government T h e executive T h e rights of the states T h e regulation of trade Reports of the delegates to their constituents S i g n i n g of the Constitution Explanation of the financial provisions of the Constitution CHAPTER THE

CONSTITUTION

61 64 67 77 80 87 90 93 94 97 98

III

B E F O R E THE

PEOPLE

The Constitution a political issue T h e General Assembly, 1787 Election of delegates to the state convention . . . T h e federalist activities T h e antifederalist activities T h e influence of Virginia Objections to the Constitution Desire for amendments

100 102 107 116 129 133 137 144 9

IO

CONTENTS PAGE

C H A P T E R R E F U S A L TO

IV RATIFY

O u t s t a n d i n g federalists in the c o n v e n t i o n of 1788 L e a d i n g antifederalists in t h e c o n v e n t i o n Political and military service of m e m b e r s of the c o n v e n t i o n . Social status E c o n o m i c factors O v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y of the antifederalists D e c i s i o n t o discuss the C o n s t i t u t i o n D i s c u s s i o n of the legislative b r a n c h of the g o v e r n m e n t O b j e c t i o n s to p o w e r s of the e x e c u t i v e . . D e b a t e on federal judiciary D i s c u s s i o n of the r e m a i n d e r of the C o n s t i t u t i o n P o l i t i c a l m a n e u v e r s in c o n n e c t i o n with the refusal to ratify . • • R e s o l u t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the impost and paper m o n e y L o c a t i o n of the state capital C H A P T E R

V

R E L A T I O N S W I T H THE FEDERAL

A f t e r m a t h of the c o n v e n t i o n of 1788 G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y , 1788 D e v e l o p m e n t of public s e n t i m e n t , 1789 R e l a t i o n s to the new g o v e r n m e n t C o m m e r c i a l pressure Amendments Status of N o r t h Carolina C H A P T E R

146 147 150 152 156 163 165 167 172 173 175 180 188 190

UNION

192 202 207 216 221 225 229 VI

RATIFICATION

C o m p a r i s o n of the c o n v e n t i o n s of 1788 and 1789 Ratification A m e n d m e n t s proposed V i e w s c o n c e r n i n g action of c o n v e n t i o n I n f l u e n c e s that helped to b r i n g about ratification A c t s of A s s e m b l y r e l a t i n g to federal g o v e r n m e n t N o r t h Carolina admitted to the union

233 237 239 240 242 244 246

M A P S

V o t e by counties in the c o n v e n t i o n of 1788

164

V o t e by c o u n t i e s in the c o n v e n t i o n of 1789

236

BIBLIOGRAPHY

250

INDEX

269

CHAPTER CONDITIONS

UNDER

THE

ARTICLES

I OF

CONFEDERATION

GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS

A change from one form o f government to another is of interest not only to those directly concerned, but also to all students of political science. T h e change from the weak, ineffectual union under the Articles of Confederation to a strong national government under the present Constitution of the United States has been a subject of study ever since the change occurred. O f especial interest in this transition are the two states of North Carolina and Rhode Island, which delayed ratification so long that they had no part in the establishment of the new system, and in the newspapers of the time were referred to as foreign countries. A n attempt will here be made to describe the conditions which help to explain why the first convention called in North Carolina to consider the Constitution refused to ratify, and thereby prevented the. state's participation in establishing the form of union it helped to frame. North Carolina at this time contained the area stretching five hundred miles from the Atlantic coast to the mountains, and beyond them almost four hundred miles to the Mississippi river. 1 Since rainfall is copious throughout this region, there are numerous streams in all sections of the state. The rivers rising west of the Blue Ridge flow ultimately into the Mississippi river, those rising to the east flow 1 North Carolina and Its Resources, (Raleigh, 1896), p. 24; Rand McNally edition ( N e w Y o r k , 1930), p. 400.

State Board of Agriculture Commercial Atlas, Sixty-first 11

12

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

into the Atlantic. T h e most important rivers draining the piedmont region are the Catawba and Yadkin, which pass into South Carolina, where they become the Wateree and the Pee Dee. 2 The most important rivers in the tidewater area are the Roanoke, the T a r and the Neuse, which in their lower courses broaden into wide estuaries and flow into the sounds and bays of North Carolina, and the Cape Fear, which empties directly into the Atlantic. T h e sounds and bays of North Carolina are separated from the ocean by long narrow sandbars from one half a mile to a mile in width. 3 These are of white sand, occasionally covered with coarse vegetation. Here and there in these sandbars are inlets giving entrance into the sounds, but even in the eighteenth century they were too shallow for ocean commerce. T h e most important of these sounds are Pamlico, which lies along the coast for about seventy-five miles and is from fifteen to twenty-five miles wide; and Albemarle, from five to fifteen miles in width, lying east and west for a distance of sixty miles. T o the north of Albemarle is the narrow Currituck sound extending into Virginia; to the south of Pamlico are to be found smaller and shallower sounds almost as far as the mouth of the Cape Fear river. 4 T h e nature of the coast, which kept North Carolina from developing trade comparable to that of the neighboring states, had an important influence on its history. In the period under discussion, the settled areas west of the mountains in what is now Tennessee were the northern part o f the valley of East Tennessee, 5 and the central basin of Hand-book of North 1893). P- 198 Ibid., p. 24; Brickell, (Dublin, 1737), PP- 1-2. * Hand-book of North 5 The counties in this Hawkins. 2

Carolina, State Board of Agriculture (Raleigh, John, The Natural History

of North

Carolina

Carolina, p. 25; Brickell, op. cit., p. 2. area were Sullivan, Washington, Greene and

THE

Middle

ARTICLES

Tennessee. 6

OF

The

CONFEDERATION

valley

of

East

Tennessee

is

watered by streams coming together to f o r m the Tennessee river, which flows to the southwest in a bend beyond the confines of the state and then sweeps northward to join the O h i o river. T h e Cumberland with its branches waters the central basin before flowing northwestward to the Ohio. 7 T h e vast extent o f the state from the coast to the Mississippi river helps to explain the decentralization which existed. RACIAL ELEMENTS

According to the census of 1790, North Carolina ranked fourth among the states in population, having at that time 393,751 inhabitants. 8 T h e population o f the Southwest Territory, from which Tennessee was later formed, was 35,691.° This made a total of 429,442 inhabitants f o r the combined area. T h e density of population in North C a r o lina was 8.1 per square mile and in Tennessee O.9.10 It has often been said that North Carolina is composed almost entirely of English stock, but such a statement is misleading. Disregarding the larger percentage of the black race in the state, the population of today is the result of the blending o f four racial elements,—the A n g l o - S a x o n , the Celtic ScotchHighlander, the Scotch-Irish and the German. 1 1 In the period under discussion, these races were to a great extent distinct. a

T h e counties in this region w e r e D a v i d s o n , S u m n e r and T e n n e s s e e .

7

Tennessee,

Facts

p. 1 2 ; Hand-book 8

Ibid.,

1° Ibid., 11

Soil,

Climate

(Nashville,

1911),

of Population

Groii'th

(Wash-

T h e number g i v e n includes slaves.

pp. 47, 77. p. 58.

Connor, R . D . W . ,

N o r t h C a r o l i n a , " in North Historical

and Rainfall

( N a s h v i l l e , 1903), pp. 2, 8.

U . S . B u r e a u of C e n s u s : A Century

ington, 1909), p. 47. 9

About

of Tennessee

Publications

"Race

Elements

Carolina

State

in the W h i t e Normal

( G r e e n s b o r o , 1920), no. 1.

Population

and Industrial

of

College

I 4

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

T h e earliest settlers in North Carolina were the English who came from Virginia about the middle of the seventeenth century in search of rich bottom lands and settled in the Albemarle region. 12 Throughout the colonial period this section was influential in public affairs, and in the period under discussion was the stronghold of federalism. Attempts of the English to settle the Cape Fear region in the seventeenth century failed on account of the dangerous coast, the nearness of hostile Indians and pirates, and the unfavorable attitude of the proprietors toward the settlement of this area. Before the first quarter of the eighteenth century had passed, however, settlements were made, and soon there were fine estates along the Cape Fear and its branches. T h e English settlements in North Carolina were scattered over the entire state forming the principal element in the population. 13 T h e Scotch Highlanders were an important element in the population of North Carolina. In the eighteenth century a revolution in Scottish highland life, due to the breaking up of the clan organization and the transition from tribal to civil authority, caused many from all classes of Scotland's population and of all gradations of wealth to come to the new world. 1 4 Large numbers came to North Carolina and settled in the southeastern part of the state, especially in Bladen and Cumberland counties." In the course of time a town was 1 2 Ashe, Samuel A., History vol. i, pp. 58-60.

of North Caroline

(Greensboro, 1908),

1 3 U. S. Bureau of Census: A Century of Population Growth, p. 273. The statistics include only 265,334 of the population, excluding 23,847 persons from whom no data were available. 1 4 Andrews, Evangeline W . and Charles M. (editors), Journal of a Lady of Quality; Being the Narrative of a Journey from Scotland to the West Indies, North Carolina, and Portugal, in the Years 1774 to 1776 ( N e w Haven, 1927), p. 257. 1 5 MacLean, J. P., An Historical Account of the Settlements of Scotch Highlanders in America, Prior to the Peace of 1783, together with the Notices of Highland Regiments and Biographical Sketches (Cleveland

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

15

formed in Cumberland which was first called Campbellton, later Cross Creek, and after the Revolution was named Fayetteville in honor of L a Fayette. It became one of the leading commercial centers of the state. In 1 7 5 3 it was estimated that there were from 4,000 to 5,000 Highlanders in Cumberland county, which was one of the three counties, in the vast antifederalist area, having in the convention of 1788 a majority for ratification. The Scottish merchants were strongly in favor of the ratification of the federal Constitution by North Carolina. The earliest settlements of the Scotch-Irish in North Carolina were made in 1756 in New Hanover precinct, in the southeast. Later they also settled in the back country, along the Yadkin, Eno and Catawba rivers. 18 Many of this race came through South Carolina, having landed at Charleston, but the majority came from Pennsylvania, attracted by the more favorable conditions for obtaining lands. The counties where the Scotch-Irish settled in greatest numbers were Guilford, Orange, Caswell and Rowan, which cast a solid antifederalist vote in the convention of 1788, and Mecklenburg and Lincoln, in which the vote was divided. The first German settlers in North Carolina were Palatines who were brought over in 1 7 1 0 through the efforts of Baron Christopher de Graffenried and Louis Michel. 17 The Germans, along with the Swiss settlers who came also, founded and Glasgow, 1900), pp. 107-108; Hanna, Charles A., The Scotch-Irish, or The Scot in North Britain, North Ireland, and North America (New York and London, 1902), vol. ii, p. 34; Boyd, William K., Some Eighteenth Century Tracts Concerning North Carolina (Raleigh, 1927), P- 42516 Hanna, op. cit., pp. 32-33; Connor, " R a c e Elements in the White Population of North Carolina," pp. 84-85; Ford, Henry Jones, The Scotch-Irish in America (Princeton and London, 1915), p. 199. 17 Faust, Albert Bernhardt, The German Element in the United States, With Special Reference to Its Political, Moral, Social, and Educational Influence (Boston and New York, 1909), vol. i, pp. 212-213.

16

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

Newbern at the confluence of the Neuse and Trent rivers, and in time spread over Craven county. 18 A far greater number of Germans settled in the western part of the colony, coming f r o m Pennsylvania over the route that the ScotchIrish followed. These settlers, lured by the cheapness of good farm lands, arranged themselves eastward and westward of the Y a d k i n river, while the Scotch-Irish occupied lands west and south of the Germans along the Catawba river. In the course of time the Germans also settled on the Catawba, and later both Germans and Scotch-Irish went farther westward. T h e Germans settled mainly in Anson, Granville, Orange, Rowan and Guilford counties, which were solidly antifederalist in the convention of 1788, and in Burke and Lincoln where the vote was divided. The Germans were law-abiding, patriotic citizens, interested in religious, industrial and social life, 19 but they took little interest in politics. Their isolation on the western frontier, their ignorance of the English language and their political inexperience are factors which explain this lack of interest. SOCIAL CONDITIONS

F r o m its first settlement North Carolina was a region of rural communities. The early settlers came in search of rich bottom lands, and they continued to live on their country estates. The plantations lay mainly along the river courses, so that the products could be marketed more easily, and many of the great planters in the east had their own wharves where products could be loaded on the sloops, schooners and brigan1 8 Bernheim, Gotthardt D., History of the German Settlements and the Lutheran Church in North and South Carolina (Philadelphia, 1872), p. 7 1 ; and Cooper, Francis H., " Same Colonial H i s t o r y of Craven County," in The James Sprunt Historical Publications (Chapel Hill, 1920), vol. xvii, no. 1. 1 9 Smyth, J. F . D., Tour in the United States of America 1784), vol. i, pp. 214-218; Bernheim, op. cit., pp. 185-189.

(London,

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

tines.20 The planter's home was usually built on an elevation with an avenue of oaks, cedars or poplars leading up to it. Each plantation was practically a complete community, the labor being performed by slaves. In the east there were many large plantations maintained by slave labor and, of course, many small farms; but different conditions prevailed in the west, where the small farms predominated. On these the labor was performed primarily by the owners, for slaves were few. The German and Scotch-Irish settlers who predominated in this section usually selected rich lands along a stream and if possible, with a spring near. 21 Most of the wealth of North Carolina was in land and slaves. A study of the first census of the United States reveals the proportion of slaves to the total population. In the southeastern part of the state in Wilmington district 22 (one of the eight judicial districts of the state), there were more slaves in proportion to the population than in any of the other districts; out of a total population of 26,035, there were 10,056 slaves, more than 38^2 per cent.23 There were fifteen persons having over fifty slaves each; 24 but only one held over one hundred slaves. This was Peter Mallet, who owned 1 0 5 negroes. 25 Edenton district, in the northeastern part of the state, ranked second, with 19,200 slaves out of a total 20 Connor, R. D. W., History of North Carolina, vol. i, The Colonial and Revolutionary Periods (Chicago and New York, 1919), p. 187. 21 Nixon, Joseph R., " The German Settlers in Lincoln County and Western North Carolina," in James Sprunt Historical Publications (Chapel Hill, 1912), vol. xi, p. 2. 22

The counties in this district in 1790 were Bladen, Brunswick, Duplin, New Hanover and Onslow. 23 Heads of Families, First Census of the United States, 1790, North Carolina (Washington, 1907-08), p. 10. 24

Ibid., pp. 186-197.

25

Ibid., p. 193.

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

population of 53,770. 26 Cullen Pollock, who lived in the town of Edenton, was the largest slaveholder of North Carolina, and he may have had as many as 386 slaves. 27 Whitmell Hill of Bertie county, the federalist delegate for Martin county in the convention of 1788, had 1 3 0 slaves. 28 Samuel Johnston, who was most active in the campaign for ratification of the Constitution, possessed 96 slaves. Next in the percentage of slaves came H a l i f a x district, which was just to the west of Edenton district and contained the fertile lands that lay near the Virginia border. 29 The largest slaveholder in this section was the prominent antifederalist, Willie Jones, who owned 1 2 0 slaves. 30 Next in slave population came Newbern district in the central part of the coastal region, then the Hillsboro district along the Virginia border to the west of Halifax, and Fayette district to the west of Wilmington. The two districts with the smallest number of slaves were Salisbury and Morgan, which included the most western counties. Salisbury district 3 1 had 8,138 slaves out of a total population of 66,480, while Morgan district 32 had only 5,376 slaves with a popula28

Heads of Families, North Carolina, p. 9. The counties included in this district were Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Gates, Hertford, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Tyrrell. 27 On page 19, ibid., he is listed as having 204 slaves. On pages II, 14 and 15 there are 14, 83 and 43 slaves listed under other names but marked for Cullen Pollock. On page 73 there are 42 slaves listed under another name as overseer for Pollock, no Christian name being given. If this last refers to Cullen Pollock, he had 386 slaves, but if it referred to another Pollock, the records would still show him to have possessed 344 slaves. 28

Ibid., p. 13. The counties in this district were Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Martin, Nash, Northampton and Warren. 29

30 31

Ibid., p. 64.

Salisbury district included Guilford, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Rockingham, Rowan, Stokes and Surry counties. 32 Morgan district included Burke, Lincoln, Rutherford and Wilkes counties.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

19

tion of 66,792. It is estimated that there were 3 , 4 1 7 slaves in Tennessee." There were less than a hundred families in the state owning from fifty to ninety-nine slaves, and only about a dozen planters whose slaves numbered over a hundred. 34 Slavery was an important factor to be taken into account in the political as well as the economic history of North Carolina. In general the larger slaveholders were federalists and the smaller ones antifederalists, although there were, of course, exceptions to this rule. Travel, transportation and communication were rendered difficult in early North Carolina by scattered settlements, long distances, unimproved roads, great stretches of forest, wide sounds and deep and rapid rivers, frequently without ferries. The distance from Edenton in the northeast to Wilmington in the southeast is two hundred miles; in 1790 there were ferries over Albermarle sound and the Pamlico, and over the Neuse and Trent rivers. 35 The usual mode of overland travel was by horseback, though at times a gig or a sulky was used,38 and a journey of twenty-seven miles a day was regarded as good traveling. In 1784 a state road law was passed which authorized the county courts to lay out public roads where necessary, to establish ferries, to decide where bridges should be built, and to clear inland rivers and creeks, 37 but little was done under 33 The figures used for Tennessee in 1790 were reported as ior the Southwestern Territory, which had a slightly larger area than that of Tennessee. 34

It is difficult to be quite accurate because of the separate listing of slaves on different plantations, even though they belonged to one man. Mistakes in spelling also cause confusion. 35

North Carolina Colonial Records (Cited hereafter as " C. R.")

(Raleigh, 1886), vol. iii, p. xviii.

36 Watson, Elkanah, Men and Times of the Revolution, or Memoirs of Elkanah Watson (New York, 1856), p. 52; McRee, Griffith J., Life and Corrcspondatce of James Iredell (New York, 1857), vol. i, p. 375. 37

678.

North Carolina State Records (Goldsboro, 1905), vol. xxiv, pp. 674(Cited hereafter as " S. R.")

20

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

this act. In the same year a traveler wrote of the great trading path which led through Salisbury to the Catawba towns and thence to the Cherokee nation of Indians, a considerable distance w e s t w a r d . " In 1787 great interest was taken in the wagon road then being made from Holston to Nashville on the Cumberland river, for it was considered essential and advantageous to have this means of communication with the extreme western settlements. 89 It is not surprising that great numbers of the people of the state living under such isolated conditions were more interested in local than in national affairs, and were opposed to the establishment of a strong central government. RELIGION A N D T H E

CHURCHES

In 1785, Governor Martin, in his message to the legislature, urged that provision be made for ministers of the gospel, without giving preference to any denomination, 40 but his plea fell on deaf ears. T h e Revolution had given a deathblow to the Established Church, and the dissenting elements, w h o were in control of the legislature, were determined to take advantage of their opportunity. T h e Church of England had never gained a strong hold in North Carolina, hence the establishment was easily overthrown when the colony became a state. T h e North Carolina adherents of this faith were so few in number that no efforts at reorganization were attempted until 1790, and even then the attempt ended in failure. 41 A number of prominent federalists were of this denomination. 38

Smyth, A Tour in the United States of America, vol. i, p. 168.

39Martin's

North Carolina Gazette, Newbern, July 11, 1787; " S o m e Early North Carolina Legislation," in American Historical Magasine, vol. vi (Nashville, Tenn., 1901), p. 264. 40

S1. R., vol. xxviii, p. 553.

A n account of the attempt to establish an American episcopate is given in Cross, Arthur L., The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies 41

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

21

The earliest Presbyterian settlements in North Carolina were made in 1 7 3 6 on the McCulloch grants in Duplin and New Hanover counties. The Scotch Highlanders, who settled along the Cape Fear river, augmented the strength of the Presbyterians. 42 The greatest increase in this denomination, however, came from the migration of the Scotch-Irish from Pennsylvania and Virginia. 4 3 The Presbyterians were well organized in the Newbern, Hillsboro, Cape Fear and piedmont sections of North Carolina proper, and they also extended their influence into the region west of the mountains which later became Tennessee. 44 Presbyterianism was greatly strengthened in North Carolina through graduates of the College of New Jersey, and it was due to Presbyterians that classical schools were first established in the province. T w o of the most famous of these were James Tate's academy at Wilmington and David Caldwell's school near the present site of Greensboro; both of these men were prominent antifederalists. The influence of the Presbyterians was felt not only in education but in politics as well; many of the democratic features found in the state constitution were due to this denomination. 45 The Baptists early gained a foothold in North Carolina, and during the period under discussion were an important ( N e w Y o r k and London, 1 9 0 2 ) . In the Charleston Morning Post for June 30, 1787, there appeared a discussion of the religious conditions in the United States in which it was stated that a large majority of the people of North Carolina seemed to have their religion to seek. 42

Hanna, The Scotch-Irish,

43

Ibid.,

vol. ii, p. 33.

vol. ii, p. 38.

44

Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 1 1 0 - 1 1 4 . T h i s gives a list of the various Presbyterian churches and settlements in North Carolina and Tennessee from the earliest time through 1799. 45

Connor, R. D. W . , " Historical Foundations of Democracy in North Carolina," in Publications of the North Carolina Historical Commission, Bulletin 1 1 , pp. 22-23.

22

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

factor in political and social affairs 4 4 in the tidewater and piedmont regions, as well as west of the mountains. In 1765 the Kehukee Baptist Association was formed of the churches in the northeastern part of North Carolina and the adjoining part of Virginia 4 7 and meetings were held alternately in the two provinces. The North Carolina counties first included in this Association were Edgecombe, Halifax, Warren, Bertie and Camden. The division of the North Carolina and Virginia churches was begun in 1786, but the final division did not occur until 1790.*® Lemuel Burkitt, who was prominent in the Association, voted against the ratification of the Constitution in the convention of 1788. Elisha Battle and William Fort, both of Edgecombe county, and members of the Association," voted against the Constitution in the same convention. The German settlers in North Carolina were members of the Lutheran, German Reformed and Moravian churches.50 Except for the Moravians, none of the German settlers brought regular resident pastors with them, but they had missionaries who came and went.51 They were, however, a religious people and well read in the Bible and devotional books.52 In the absence of ministers, the German school teachers read prayers and sermons, buried the dead and baptized children. It was not until 1768 that the German 48

Paschal, G. W., " Morgan Edwards' Materials Towards a History of the Baptists in the Province of North Carolina," in The North Carolina Historical Review, vol. vii (1930), no. 3, p. 369, note 2. 47 Burkitt, Lemuel, and Read, Jesse, A Concise History of the Kehukee Baptist Association from Its Original Rise Down to 1803 (Philadelphia, 1850), p. xx. 48 Ibid., p. 91. 49 Ibid., pp. 9, 11, 17, 20, 23, 25, 30. 50 Faust, German Element in the United States, vol. i, p. 116. 51 Connor, The Colonial and Revolutionary Periods, p. 196. " Faust, op. cit., vol. i, p. 229.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

Reformed congregations had a regular pastor, and the first Lutheran congregation organized in N o r t h Carolina was St. John's Lutheran Church at Salisbury in R o w a n c o u n t y . " The Reformed and Lutheran congregations o f t e n united so as to form a stronger church, 54 but the Moravians kept their organization separate and distinct f r o m the other German churches. T h e Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, commonly called the Moravians, trace their origin back to the time of H u s s . " W h e n the Moravians came to this country, they settled in Pennsylvania, but a great many went from there to the Wachovia tract in North Carolina. 5 4 T h e M o ravian settlement at Winston-Salem is still the center of Moravian influence in the south. Their quaint customs and beautiful music attract many people to Salem, especially at Easter. T h e members of these churches were not very active in politics, but they were at first opposed to ratification o f the Constitution. EDUCATIONAL CONDITIONS

The educational ideals of the time are shown in article forty-one of the constitution of 1776, in the laws relating to schools, in the messages o f the governors, in advertisements of academies and in private correspondence. Although education was recognized as an asset, the state was backward in its organization. In 1783, the federalist, H u g h Williamson, wrote from Princeton, N e w Jersey, to James Iredell urging the establishment of a seminary at Edenton to be called Smith's Academy. 5 7 H e said that within two months, five 51 Bernhcim, German Carolinas, p. 239.

Settlement

and the Lutheran

Church

in

the

'* Ibid., p. 249. 55

Faust, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 422.

Fries, Adelaide L. (editor), Records Carolina (Raleigh, 1922), vol. i, p. 22. 54

of the Moravians

in

North

57 The money for this academy was left by Robert Smith who died in 17S2.—McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 68.

24

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

boys came to Princeton from North Carolina to attend a grammar school taught by two of the college students." Williamson was strongly in favor of improving educational conditions in North Carolina. In January, 1780, a school was established in Warren county which accommodated thirty boys, and on account of the healthful conditions there, boys from Edenton attended.5* In 1754, James Innes left property " For the Use of a Free School for the benefite of the Youth of North Carolina," but it was not until 1785 that Innes Academy in Wilmington was incorporated and the trustees were empowered to use all lawful means to gain possession of the legacy.*0 In 1784, Samuel Johnston arranged to have £1,000 invested outside of the state as a fund for the education of his boys,61 for neither the financial nor the educational conditions in the state were all that could have been desired. Other indications of the intellectual life of the people may be found in the books they read 62 and the position the press held among them. In Mecklenburg county a debating society was organized at the close of the Revolution which discussed both political and religious subjects. It had a library " replete with infidel philosophy and infidel sentiments on religion and morality " which was circulated among its members.6' 58 68

McRee, op. cit., vol. li, p. 68. Ibid., vol. i, p. 418.

80 Coon, Charles L., Beginnings of Public Education in North Carolina (Raleigh, 1908), vol. i, pp. 4-7; 5". R., vol. 24, pp. 5 » - 5 i 3 91 Manuscripts in the Hayes Collection. 62 Janet Schaw, in her Journal of a Lady of Quality, edited by E. W. and C. M. Andrews, page 185, speaks of a library with fine globes, mathematical instruments and telescopes at " Hunthill", even though the house of the master was not much better than one of his negro huts. «3 Weeks, Stephen B., " Libraries and Literature in North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century," in Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1895, p. 221.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

This library was taken into Tennessee about the last of the century. In Iredell County, Reverend James Hall, in order to overcome the general lack of books, circulated manuscript copies of a system of grammar he had written. There was in Rowan County a circulating library in which were found " Rollin's Ancient History, Gibbon's Decline and Fall, Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Robertson's Charles V , Hume's England, Josephus, Butler's Analogy, Prideaux's Connection, etc." William Hooper wrote in 1 7 8 2 from Wilmington that his library, except his law books, had been shamefully injured during the occupation of the town by the British.®* About one hundred of his valuable volumes had been taken. In 1 7 8 3 , James Iredell wrote to his brother in England to send him the last four Annual Registers, magazines, newspapers and pamphlets; a good collection of late Parliamentary Debates; everything Burke had written or spoken; a Calendar, a Bibliotheca Legum, a Peerage, and a general Catalogue of Books with their prices. 85 These references are but typical of many to be found in the writings of the public men of North Carolina of this period and indicate the range of their intellectual interests.89 It should be borne in mind in this connection that several of the leaders in public life and in the learned professions in the state were graduates of northern colleges and some were educated abroad. Princeton, or the College of New Jersey, as it was then called, exerted perhaps a greater influence than 61 ib

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 5.

Ibid.,

66

vol. ii, p. 56.

Yet William Hooper wrote to James Iredell in July of 1785 that " It is a melancholy consideration that we have not proper materials in the country to form the officers which the constitution makes necessary. We must do the best we can with such stuff as we have, until our academies and colleges supply us with something that may be more equal to the purpose." Ibid., vol. ii, p. 126.

26

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

any other educational institution outside of the state. Presbyterian missionaries came from there to North Carolina to teach and preach. Among the Princeton graduates were the anti federalists, David Caldwell, Alexander Martin, and Samuel Spencer, and the federalist, William R. Davie.4T By the action of Congress in the latter part of 1786, the Postmaster General was authorized to enter into contracts with sufficient security for the conveyance of mails by stage carriages, if practicable, for one year beginning in January, from Portland, Massachusetts, to Savanah, Georgia, by four or more separate contracts.68 He was also authorized to arrange for mail to be carried on certain cross roads, including the route from Wilmington to Fayetteville by way of Elizabethtown and from Fayetteville in North Carolina to Camden, South Carolina. These new routes were not to affect the cross posts previously established, and the postage for letters and packets on the cross roads was not to exceed that on the main post roads. Despite the attempts to improve the postal service, correspondents were reluctant to torego an opportunity of sending letters by friends who were traveling. The first newspaper issued in North Carolina after the Revolutionary war was the North Carolina Gazette, or Impartial Intelligencer and Weekly General Advertiser, published at Newbern by Robert Keith in 1783. 69 The subscription price of the Gazette, which was printed on a demi-sheet in clear type, was three Spanish dollars per year. In March of 1784 James Iredell wrote Mrs. Iredell that a weekly news67 Weeks, Stephen B., " Libraries and Literature in North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century," p. 2 1 3 ; Princeton University, General Catalogue, 1746-1896 (Princeton, 1896), pp. 43, 44, 50. 68

State Gazette of South Carolina, November 16, 1786. «9 Weeks, Stephen B., The Press of North Carolina m the Eighteenth Century (1891), p. 35.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

27

paper was being published in Halifax, 7 0 but no copy of it was available. In 1784 and 1785, Abraham Hodge established a printing office in North Carolina and was made public printer by the General Assembly.' 1 In 1785 or 1786, Hodge and Blanchard established at Newbern The State Gazette of North Carolina.''2 In 1788 the paper was moved to Edenton by its editors, who were now Hodge and Wills. 1 * In both Newbern and Edenton, Hodge and Wills faced competition. In Newbern, Martin's North Carolina Gazette was published during 1786 and 1787, and in Edenton, Maurice Murphy's The Edenton Intelligencer was published in 1787 and 1788.™ In 1785 and 1786, Thomas Davis was publishing The North Carolina Gazette at Hillsboro. During the period under discussion Wilmington was evidently without a newspaper until 1788 when Bowen and Howard established The Wilmington Centinel and General AdvertiserIn 1789 Howard went to Fayetteville and with Sibley began the publication of the Fayetteville Gazette,79 The four issues for 1789 now in existence are valuable for the articles they contain favoring or opposing the adoption of the federal Constitution. From the foregoing account, it is evident that there were at least eight newspapers published in North Carolina from the close of the war until 1789. During this time one paper 70

M c R e e , Iredell,

71 W e e k s , Press 72

vol. ii, p. 96. of North

Carolina,

p. 41.

M c R e e , op. cit., vol. ii, p. 157.

7:1 Crittenden, C h a r l e s C., " N o r t h Carolina N e w s p a p e r s B e f o r e 1790," in The James Sprunt Historical Studies ( C h a p e l H i l l , 1928), vol. x x , no. 1, p. 1 3 ; M c R e e , op. cit., vol. ii, p. 231. 74

Crittenden, " N o r t h Carolina N e w s p a p e r s B e f o r e 1790," p. 14.

Archibald Maclaine withdrew his subscription f r o m the paper on account of its antifederalist sentiments. H e wanted to get another printer, but he had difficulty in his attempt. 75

78

Ibid., p. 15.

28

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

was published in each of the towns of Halifax, Hillsboro, Wilmington and Fayetteville; Newbern had three papers, and Edenton two, one of which had been removed from Newbern. These newspapers form a most valuable source for our knowledge of the period. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

North Carolina, handicapped by the physical features of its coast, was not primarily a commercial state, yet its trade was of some local importance.77 During the Revolution the loyalist connections of the merchants had caused the passage of restrictive measures, but when the war was over the conservative group felt the need of the removal of these restrictions and the encouragement of trade. A s a consequence, an act was passed in 1784 to establish in the towns of Edenton, Washington, Newbern and Wilmington, courts for the speedy decision of mercantile transactions with foreigners and transient persons, and of maritime affairs. 78 Shipbuilding, which was extensively carried on during the war, was continued after peace was established. Owners of ships, however, suffered losses from shipwrecks and from masters converting to their own use vessels belonging to others. The most important exports were: naval stores, shingles, plank and scantling, staves of various sorts, fish, pork, lard, tallow, Indian corn, wheat, black-eyed peas, flaxseed, beeswax, hides and tobacco.79 The planters of the inland region were at a great disadvantage in regard to trade, since their products had to be sold 77 Crittenden, C. C., " The Seacoast in North Carolina History, 17631789," in The North Carolina Historical Review, vol. vii (1930), no. 4, pp. 433-438. 78 S. R-, vol. xxiv, pp. 686-688. 79 American Museum or Repository of Ancient and Modern Fugitive Pieces, etc., Prose and Poetical (Philadelphia, 1787-1789), vol. vi, p. 401; McRee, Iredell, vol. i, p. 565- There are also many manuscript port records in the archives of the North Carolina Historical Commission.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

to merchants who set their own prices, and the expense of transportation decreased the profit on products. Much of the trade of the northwest was with the towns of Virginia, and that of the southwest with Camden, Georgetown and Charleston in South Carolina. 80 In colonial times an attempt was made to offset this trade with the bordering colonies by developing Campbellton (Cross Creek), now Fayetteville, and building roads to the north and northwest. Trade with the neighboring states continued, however; f o r these roads were not kept in repair, and it remained easier to transport the products of this region through Virginia and South Carolina ports than through the ports of North Carolina. Those in the state interested in trade felt the need of a strong central government and were, consequently, ardent federalists. The deranged financial situation in North Carolina explains to a great extent the opposition to such a strong central government as would be established by the proposed Constitution. The financial situation was primarily the result of frequent issues of paper money; 81 but even then, money was scarce, and there were no bankers from whom one might receive aid. 82 Hard money was obtained with the greatest difficulty and when gold or silver was received it was an occasion for great rejoicing. A t the time of emission of paper money, promises were made for its redemption, but such promises were not always kept. When the bills came due, new issues would frequently be made, often larger than the previous ones, and paper 80

Smyth, Tour in the United States, vol. i, pp. 98-99; Lee, Richard H., Letters, edited by James C. Ballagh (New York, 1914), vol. ii, p. 183; Burnett, Edmund C., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1921-1928), vol. ii, pp. 253-254; Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia (Richmond, 1931), vol. i, pp. 3-4, 17. 81 82

McRee, Iredell, vol. i, pp. 404, 443, 446-448.

Andrews, E. W. and C. M. (editors), Journal of a Lady of Quality, p. 281; McRee, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 451, 472-473.

30

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

money therefore quickly deteriorated in value. During the war the Provincial Congress tried to meet the financial situation by further issues of bills of credit. Taxes were to be levied for the redemption of these bills, but delay in levying and collecting the taxes prevented a definite estimate of returns. This, together with the sudden expansion of the currency and the counterfeiting that took place, resulted in a rapid depreciation in the bills.83 In order to retire these issues the General Assembly passed an act in 1778 for a new issue, the bills of which were to be " lawful Tender in all Payments and Contracts within this state." 84 Provisions against counterfeiting were incorporated in this law and those convicted were to " receive judgment of death without Benefit of Clergy." A part of the proceeds was to be used to redeem the outstanding bills, but failure to do this had a bad effect. In 1779, 8 5 in 1780, 8 6 and again in 1783, 8 7 new issues were made to finance the war and to redeem the former bills. Only thé act of 1783 provided for a redemption tax. During the war the state dollar became the standard instead of the pound. A f t e r the war, the pound again came into use because the dollar was so closely connected with the practically worthless Revolutionary currency. The need for money to pay the claims of Revolutionary soldiers is shown in the preamble of the act of 1783, and the legislature knew no other remedy than a new issue of paper. The value of a pound of the issue was set at two and a half Spanish milled dollars, and the paper was made legal tender. Punishment for counterfeiting was again prescribed as " death without benefit of 83

Connor, The Colonial and Revolutionary Periods, p. 432. S. R., vol. xxiv, pp. 184-187. 85 Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 255-257. 86 Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 320-322. 87 Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 475-478. 84

THE ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

31

clergy." Provision was made that " A tax of three pence for each and every pound's value of taxable property in this state " should be levied. The confiscated property of Tories was to be held for the redemption of the bills. Evidence of the tendency to rapid depreciation, to which paper money was subject, is found in the act of 1 7 8 3 , which fixed a legal scale of depreciation. 88 The standard was one Spanish milled dollar, with a weight of six grains and a value of eight shillings specie. With this as a standard of value, in the latter part of 1778, five and one-half paper dollars equaled one silver dollar; in 1 7 7 9 the ratio was 30 to 1 ; in 1780, 200 to 1 ; in 1 7 8 1 , 725 to 1 ; and in 1 7 8 2 the lowest depth of depreciation was reached when the ratio became 800 to 1. It is readily apparent how great was the problem of reconstruction under such conditions. The law of 1 7 8 3 , beside providing for a scale of depreciation, also made provision f o r suits arising because of depreciation. The terms of the act were so vaguely worded, however, that they were interpreted with difficulty and both creditors and debtors tried to profit by this. Cases therefore frequently came before the courts for settlement. The courts held that the scale of depreciation established in 1 7 8 3 was valid f o r that year alone and was not applicable for previous years or f o r the future. 89 When the courts were left to decide the matter, they frequently allowed damages equal to the difference between the legal and actual depreciation. The sphere of judicial activity was thus enlarged, and much of the opposition to the courts, which was so pronounced in this period, was due to this policy. Depreciation of the issue 88 89

51. R., vol. xxiv, pp. 255-257.

Boyd, William K., History of North Carolina, vol. ii, The Federal Period (Chicago and New York, 1919), p. 7. In 1786 James Hogg wrote to James Iredell that " The laws of this state seem very favorable to knavish debtors."—McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 132.

32

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

of 1 7 8 3 followed in due time, and by 1785 another issue was necessary, 90 but it gave only temporary relief. There was a strong minority against this constant inflation of the currency. Among the leaders of the opposition were the federalists, James Iredell and Samuel Johnston. In 1 7 8 3 at a meeting in Edenton, resolutions were drawn up by Iredell to show the ideas of the conservatives." 1 They realized that the emission of paper currency was for the relief of the officers and soldiers, and they supported it on that account; yet they earnestly entreated that under no circumstances should any more be issued, and that the present issue be redeemed and burned at the earliest possible moment. Such a step they deemed necessary to overcome popular distrust of former emissions and to serve the public good, since the paper was of no value beyond the state and would tend to discourage foreign trade. When the act of 1 7 8 5 provided f o r another issue, dissent was entered in the Journals of both the House of Commons and the Senate by many who were later federalists. A f t e r the war western lands and confiscated lands occupied the attention of the people. The western lands consisted of the area beyond the Allegheny mountains, now the state of Tennessee. During the war much speculation in land was made possible by the large circulation of paper currency and the removal of British restrictions on grants. 92 In 1777, an act was passed to open land offices in the various counties and entries for the land were rapidly made. In 1780 an act was 99 S. R., vol. xxiv, pp. 722-725. A manuscript in the Hayes Collection shows that Samuel Johnston in 1784 asked a friend of his to invest £1,000 for him outside of the state, so that he might have a secure fund for the education of his boys. He said he had been so injured by paper money in the state that he had no confidence in any state security until paper money no longer prevailed. • x McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 63. M

Boyd, The Federal Period, p. 12.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

passed offering to enlisted soldiers 200 acres of land and one prime slave, 93 and in 1 7 8 1 the bounty was increased to 640 acres.94 In 1 7 8 2 more elaborate provisions were made,* 1 and the grants ranged from 640 acres for a private to 12,000 for a brigadier-general. The act of 1782 was passed f o r the relief of the soldiers, but by 1783 it was realized that the land might be used to redeem the specie and certificates and to increase the credit of the state. All entries of lands had been discontinued, but now the land office was opened once more. 96 The Indian lands were laid off and Indian rights protected. The land was rated at ten pounds for a hundred acres, and an office for receiving entries was established at Hillsboro. Many frauds were discovered in connection with the land certificates and the due bills for military service. Military officers and the Commissioners of A r m y Accounts were involved in these frauds, and by false certificates and due bills the state was mulcted of thousands of pounds. Some certificates were made in blank, some were given to persons who had not served in the army, others were forgeries. 97 Upon the opening of the legislature in 1786 Governor Caswell urged that action be taken. A thorough investigation was made, and men high in authority were punished. In North Carolina a large part of the land had been held by loyalists. The northern part of the state, comprising the area between 36° 30' and 3 5 0 34' north latitude, which was almost half of the state, was Granville district.98 When the 03

5". R., vol. xxiv, pp. 337-339-

94

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 367-373.

85

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 419-422.

98

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 478-482.

97

Ibid., vol. xviii, p. iv. 98 Coulter, E. Merton, " The Granville District," in The James Sprunt Historical Publications (Durham, 1913), vol. xiii, p. 38; Raper, Charles Lee, North Carolina. A Study in English Colonial Government (New York, 1904), p. H I .

34

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

original proprietors of the colony sold their land claims to the king, Sir John Carteret, who was later made Earl Granville, retained his share and was given this vast strip across the northern part of North Carolina. Throughout the colonial period the inhabitants in this area had suffered great difficulty and vexation, and it was a serious menace to the entire province. The McCulloch lands comprised another very large area possessed by non-resident owners." These two vast tracts alone are sufficient to explain the attitude of North Carolina toward loyalist property, and in addition there was a large amount of land held by other loyalists.100 During the war a series of laws was passed relating to this property. In 1777 a law was enacted confiscating the land belonging to persons inimical to the United States. 101 In October of 1779 a much more drastic act was passed which, in addition to confiscating the property of loyalists in general, named specifically a great number of men. So strong was the opposition to this act that a committee from the House of Commons, with Willie Jones at its head, entered a violent protest, one of the objections being that it repealed the former provision made for the protection of the wives and children left in the state by loyalists.102 In 1780 an act was passed to protect inoffensive inhabitants of the state from having their property seized; this was necessary since so many complaints had been made that acts of violence and barbarity had been committed upon the pretense of seizing the property of dis96

Newsome, A . R., " T w e l v e North Carolina Counties in 1810-1811," in North Carolina Historical Review, vol. v (1928), p. 431. 100 Andrews, E . W . and C. M. (editors), Journal of a Lady of Quality, pp. 307-313. The Returns of Confiscated Property, 1780-1786, in manuscript form in the archives of the North Carolina Historical Commission, show the vast amount of loyalist property. 101 102

S. R., vol. xxiv, pp. 123-124.

Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 991-992. Timothy Bloodworth, an antifederalist, was also one of those who protested against the act.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

affected persons. 101 In 1780, owing to confused conditions, the best results were not being obtained f r o m the sale of confiscated lands, and as a consequence, sales were discontinued until 1782. 104 In 1783, a f t e r the signing o f the provisional treaty with Great Britain but before the signing o f the definitive treaty, the General Assembly " out of an earnest desire to observe the articles of peace " passed an act of pardon and oblivion f o r past offences. 105 T h e comparison of this act, however, with the sixth article of the treaty shows that N o r t h Carolina came far short of the provisions of the treaty. Instead of pardoning all w h o had taken part in the late war as required by the treaty, the act excluded f r o m its benefits those who had served as officers under the king of Great Britain, those named in the confiscation acts, and those w h o attached themselves to the British and had not returned f o r twelve months previous to the passing of the act. T h e condition of the loyalists to whom the law did apply was not greatly alleviated by this act. There still remained the problem of the lands confiscated, as the state had guaranteed the titles to the purchasers of these lands. 104 T h e attempt made in 1784 to repeal the confiscation laws was defeated, and sales of the confiscated property continued. T h e act of 1784 provided for the disposition of all estates which remained in possession of the state, 107 and new commissioners were appointed. All unsold confiscated property was divided into lots and sold at auction between 1784 and 1790, notices of the sales appearing in the papers of North Carolina and the adjoining states. In the State Gazette of 103

S. R., vol. xxiv, pp. 350-351.

104

Ibid., vol. x x i v , pp. 352^353.

105

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 489-490.

loe x h e deeds are in the Land Grant Office in Raleigh, North Carolina. 107

Ibid., vol. x x i v , pp. 661-664.

36

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

South Carolina for November 24, 1785, appeared a notice of sales in the counties of Craven, Beaufort, Hyde and Wayne. The sales under the act of 1784 were far more beneficial to the state than those under the acts of 1779 and 1782.108 They amounted to £284,452, and by 1791 all of the money had been accounted for to the state except £26,292. The counties reporting sales of loyalist property were Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Martin, Mecklenburg, Orange, Pasquotank, Rowan, Surry and Wake. 199 There are in existence 563 deeds for confiscated property in the state. The Granville heirs were the heaviest losers of confiscated property and Henry E. McCulloch, a relative of James Iredell, came next. The Cornell heirs lost a considerable amount of property, 110 as well as Edward Bridgen, a prominent Cape Fear merchant, and George Hooper, son-in-law of Archibald Maclaine. In 1785 a law was passed forbidding the courts to try cases involving the title to land obtained in sales under the confiscation laws, 111 but in the famous case of Bayard vs. Singleton, heard in May, 1786, the court held that this provision was in conflict with the clause of the state constitution guaranteeing jury trials, thus placing the constitution above the will of the legislature. 112 In 1784 Iredell wrote that he and Samuel Johnston were the only ones in Edenton who opposed the outrageous treatment of the refugees, and as a result of their 1 0 8 Harrell, Isaac S., Historical Review, vol. based on a study of the are in manuscript f o r m Commission at Raleigh, 109

" N o r t h Carolina Loyalists," in North Carolina iii (1926), p. 588. T h i s is a splendid article papers of the Confiscation Commissioners which in the archives of the N o r t h Carolina Historical North Carolina.

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 586.

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 585. Harrell refers to the Cornell Papers, July 29, 1783, and September 8, 1784, which are in the N e w Y o r k Public Library. 110

111

S. R., vol. x x i v , pp. 730-731.

112

Boyd, The Federal

PP. 371-372.

Period,

pp. 9-10; American

Museum,

vol. iii,

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

37

action they were looked upon with suspicion. 11 " Iredell and Johnston, as well as William R . Davie, Archibald Maclaine and others, were employed by many prominent loyalists to represent them in business and legal transactions; but despite their willingness to do all they could for the refugees, they realized that conditions were such that it was best f o r the loyalists not to return to the state. 114 Iredell hoped that the intemperate spirit would subside, but he thought it would be a long time before those w h o took an active part in the war against America would be received cordially in the country. 1 1 5 POLITICS

A study of the state constitution is necessary to an understanding of the political conditions in North Carolina during the period under discussion. T h e first effort to frame a constitution, made by the Provincial Congress at H a l i f a x in April, 1776, was unsuccessful, and final action was deferred until the November Congress. 11 ® During the summer and fall there was much activity on the part of the radicals to prevent the election of conservatives f o r the fall session. T h e Congress met November 12, 1776, with the radicals in the majority. A change was made in the method of voting, which allowed a vote to each delegate, rather than to each county and borough town. F r a m i n g a constitution was an easier matter, since the constitutions of Virginia, South Carolina, Delaware and N e w Jersey could be used as models. 117 A f t e r thorough debate, the bill of rights was 113

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 93.

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 412. T h o u g h the loyalists themselves w e r e not an influential group in the state, they were closely associated in personal and business ways with important federalists. 114

115

Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 104-105.

119

Ibid., vol. i, p. 279.

1 1 7 Nash, Frank, " T h e N o r t h Carolina Constitution of 1776 and Its Makers," in James Sprunt Historical Publications (Chapel Hill, 1912), vol. xi, p. 2.

38

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

adopted December 17, and on the following day the constitution was adopted. 118 A governor was appointed by the Provincial Congress to serve until the end of the session of the next General Assembly. 119 One of the outstanding features of the constitution was the dominance of legislative power at the expense of executive power. Representation in the General Assembly was based, not on population, but on the county or town regardless of population. 120 All those who paid their taxes could vote for members of the House of Commons, but only those with a freehold of fifty acres could vote for members of the Senate. 121 Property qualifications were prescribed for the governor and members of the General Assembly. All the officers of the state were elected by the General Assembly. No clergyman while in the exercise of his pastoral functions was permitted to become a member of the General Assembly or of the Council of State and " no person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State " could be a civil officer. 122 This clause, however, was not enforced. The delegates from Mecklenburg county, where the ScotchIrish had settled in large numbers, had been instructed to form a government as near a simple democracy as possible. 123 118 119

C. R., vol. x, p. 974. Ibid., vol. x, p. 991.

120

Poore, Benjamin P., The Federal and State Constitutions (Washington, 1878), p. 1411. The terms General Assembly and Assembly are used interchangeably to refer to the legislature consisting of the Senate and the House of Commons. 121 Samuel Johnston was in great fear for the honor of the province when " men without reading, or experience " were in control.—McRee, op. cit., vol. i, p. 338. 122

Poore, op. cit., p. 1413.

123

C. R., vol. x, pp. 870a, 870f.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

Their efforts were not successful in 1776, and it was many years before a more democratic form of government was established. This was not done until the democratic west gained political power, and overthrew the power of the landed aristocracy of the east. Throughout the period from the close of the war until the adoption of the federal Constitution, there was conflict between the classes and the masses. In 1 7 8 3 , William Hooper was defeated as delegate for Hillsboro to the General Assembly. His defeat was attributed to the fact that some of his friends had made assertions which gave offence to the common people, as, for instance, that a drink of toddy would easily bring them over. 124 In some sections there was a feeling that the Assemblies had been too much under the influence of a set of unprincipled men who sacrificed everything for the sake of popularity. 1 " Even when some of the most substantial citizens were in the General Assembly, they had difficulty in obtaining the passage of legislation they desired. A f t e r such an experience, Samuel Johnston wrote, " It required longer than a single session to prevail on a popular Assembly, composed principally of men not the most enlightened with political knowledge, to adopt measures opposed to their prejudices, however salutary in their operation." 1 2 9 From Wilmington, Archibald Maclaine wrote of " a few insignificant and worthless characters " who, after attempting unsuccessfully to arouse the people in the town, endeavored to effect their purpose by assembling the lower classes at Colonel Bloodworth's in the country. 127 124 125 129

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 41. Ibid. Manuscript dated June 20, 1784, in Hayes Collection.

127 McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 69. The antagonism between citizens of Wilmington who were interested primarily in trade, and the citizens of the surrounding area who had agricultural interests, was an important factor in the politics of the southeastern part of the state.

40

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

FEDERAL R E L A T I O N S

The action of North Carolina in regard to the Articles of Confederation is of value in interpreting the attitude of the state toward the federal Constitution. In both cases the doctrine of states rights caused opposition to the proposed government and delay in acceptance; in the earlier case, however, the delay was shorter and less serious. One of the leading North Carolina members of the Continental Congress at the time the articles were being framed was Thomas Burke, an ardent advocate of state sovereignty 128 who, during his four years of service in Congress, gave expression time and again to his views. He held that he was responsible to the state of North Carolina 128 rather than to Congress. He was a severe critic of the articles while they were being framed and was largely responsible for the second article which guaranteed to each state the powers not specifically delegated to Congress. 1 ' 0 The Articles of Confederation were adopted by Congress on November 15, 1777, and were then sent to the states for ratification. When the members of the General Assembly of North Carolina considered the proposed form of government, they were undoubtedly influenced by Burke's views. In his " Notes on the Articles of Confederation," he indicated in what way the various articles infringed upon the rights of the states.131 The Assembly in joint session of the two 128 Dictionary of American Biography, vol. iii ( N e w York, 1929), p. 282. He was on the committee of the Provincial Congress of North Carolina which reported on April 12, 1776, a resolution unanimously adopted empowering the delegates of North Carolina in the Continental Congress to concur with the delegates from the other colonies in declaring independence.

12» Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental pp. 249, 276, 283, 320, 345-346, 360, 542, 552. 150

Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 345-346.

131

Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 552-556.

Congress, vol. ii,

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

houses determined that certain articles or parts of articles should be ratified, and instructed their delegates in Congress accordingly, but they appended to their acceptance a statement to the effect that the remaining clauses, articles and sections thereof containing matters highly important and interesting to the future people of this State and involving what may very materially affect the internal interests and Sovereign Independence thereof and not being immediately essential to the success of the present war ought not to be ratified until there shall be full time and leisure for materially and deliberately considering the same.1*2 The parts rejected by the Assembly at this time were those to which Burke objected as infringing upon the sovereignty of the state. Within the course of a f e w months, however, other forces were at work and ratification of all the articles took place the following spring. Cornelius Harnett, a prominent patriotic leader w h o was also a delegate to Congress, favored the proposed government and wrote Richard Caswell, the Governor of the state, that every member of Congress seemed to wish a Confederacy except Burke, and he added that unless the states confederated, there would be serious consequences. 133 W h e n the Assembly met the following year, both houses took into consideration the Confederacy proposed by the Continental Congress and on April 24, 1778, unanimously accepted it and requested the Governor to inform the President of Congress of their action. T h u s North Carolina took its stand in favor of the Confederation. The attitude of North Carolina toward the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain shows the opposition o f many to measures 132

51. R., vol. xii, p. 229. T h e articles ratified were the first, second, third, eighth and twelfth, and the second and third sections of the fourth and the last section of the ninth. 133

Burnett, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 138.

42

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

of federal importance, if they were thought to be detrimental to the people of the state. On January 14, 1784, the United States in Congress assembled ratified the definitive articles and enjoined officers in all branches of the government and citizens of all the states to carry the treaty into effect. 1 " On March 1 , 1 7 8 4 , Governor Alexander Martin proclaimed the ratification of the treaty to all civil and military officers and other citizens of the state.135 Since the fourth, fifth and sixth articles of the treaty were of so much concern to the people of North Carolina, it is well to bear in mind their content. The fourth article provided that creditors in Great Britain and the United States should meet with " no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted." 1 M Article five provided that Congress should earnestly recommend to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all confiscated " estates, rights and properties," belonging to " real British subjects," or to persons resident in districts held by the British and who had not borne arms against the United States. " Persons of any other description," which would include those colonists who fought on the British side, should be permitted to go to any part of the United States and remain unmolested for a year to try to obtain the restitution of property confiscated from them, and it was provided that Congress should recommend to the states to reconsider and revise the confiscation laws, so as to make them consistent with justice and equity and with the appropriate spirit of conciliation. It was also provided that Con1,1

5".

188

R., vol. xvii, p. 9.

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 19.

188 Journals of Congress (Washington, 1928), January 14, 1784; Macdonald, William, Documentary Source Book of American History, 16061926 (New York, 1926), p. 207.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

gress should recommend to the different states that property confiscated from this group, which included those who had borne arms against the United States, should be restored to them, but on condition that they refund to the persons then in possession the bona fide price paid for the confiscated property. A recommendation in accordance with this article was sent to the states at the same time as the treaty. 1 " Article six provided that no future confiscations should be made, nor any prosecutions commenced, against any person on account of his part in the late war; that no person, on account of the war, should suffer any future loss or damage in his " person, liberty or property " ; and that those imprisoned on such charges should be immediately set at liberty and prosecutions discontinued. The explanation of the treaty by the two North Carolina delegates in Congress, who were later prominent federalists, will help to explain the attitude of the state toward the treaty. Richard D. Spaight wrote to Governor Martin, March 12, 1784, that the attention of the General Assembly had no doubt been called to the recommendation of Congress concerning the restoration of the property of refugees, in consequence of the fifth article of the treaty. He felt it was his duty to send copies of two letters which passed between British and American commissioners prior to the signing of the provisional articles, plainly showing that the restoration of the property of the refugees, or compensation for the same, was never intended by the American commissioners nor expected by the British. 138 A week later Hugh Williamson wrote to Governor Martin that the recommendation to the states concerning British debts and refugees was not made until the ratification of the definitive treaty, because Congress feared the measures 137 138

R., vol. xvii, p. 3 ; Journals of Congress, January 14, 1784. S. R., vol. xvii, p. 21.

44

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

recommended might not be entirely acceptable to the states, and they did not wish a refusal to comply to be taken by the British as a breach of the treaty, especially while British troops were in the country. H e explained that the term " real British subjects " used in the fifth article was clearly understood by both the British and American ministers not to mean either " Tories or Loyalists and was applicable only " to those who had never incurred any blame, as they had never owed any duty to the States." 139 Governor Martin addressed the General Assembly on April 20, 1784, and submitted to it the treaty and recommendations from Congress. 140 Attempts made in 1783 to repeal all acts contrary to the treaty had failed, 141 and again the conservatives attempted to pass such a bill. W h e n the House of Commons rejected the bill, William Hooper, later a federalist, entered a strong protest in the Journal, for he thought the treaty was a sacred obligation and the fourth and sixth articles should be carried into execution. 142 Evidently, the interpretation of the treaty given by the North Carolina delegates in Congress was influential, for Governor Martin had written them on April 24 that their communications had given general satisfaction, especially those which explained the sense of the commissioners on the fifth and sixth articles of the treaty. 143 Attempts made in a later session in 1784 to repeal acts contrary to the treaty also failed. John Jay, minister of foreign affairs, was asked by Congress to report how far the several states had complied with 139S. R., vol. xvii, p. 23. " R e a l British subjects" referred to all persons, owing allegiance to Great Britain, who had never established residence in any of the original thirteen colonies. 140

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 34.

141 /fe»U,

vol. xix, pp. 210, 332, 340.

142

Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 715-716.

143

Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 725, 747, 754, 798, 800.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

the proclamation of January 14, 1784 and the accompanying recommendations, and in May of 1786 J a y wrote to the various states for the information. 144 A s a consequence, the Assembly which met in November considered the matter, and a bill in a different form from the one previously presented was considered. 145 It declared " the late Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and Great Britain is and hath been in full force in this State as part of the L a w of the Land." This bill, however, met the fate of the previous bills. On account of protests from England against violations of the treaty, Congress on March 2 1 , 1787, resolved that the legislatures of the several states could not of right pass any act interpreting any part of the treaty, nor for restraining in any way the execution of it, since upon its ratification it became part of the law of the land and was binding and obligatory on them. 144 Congress also resolved that all acts of the states repugnant to the treaty should be repealed and the courts of law and equity in all cases concerning the treaty should adjudge according to its true intent and meaning. The Assembly which met in November, 1787, first considered " a Bill to repeal such Laws and parts of L a w s as Militate against the Treaty of Peace with the King of Great Britain " , but in its final form it became " A n Act declaring the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the King of Great Britain to be part of the law of the L a n d . " 1 4 1 Since the treaty was part of the law of the land, the courts of law and equity were instructed to judge accordingly in all causes and questions cognizable by them respecting the treaty. 144

.9. R., vol. xviii, p. 600.

145

Ibidvol.

xvii, pp. 199, 260, 399.

149

Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 649; Journals of Congress, March 21 and April 13, 1787. 147

S. R., vol. x x , pp. 144, 145, 170, 204, 209-210, 242, 300, 325-326, 345. 387; vol. xxiv, p. 885.

46

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

Opposition in North Carolina to the treaty was largely due to the fourth, fifth and sixth articles which concerned debts to British merchants and confiscated property. T h e situation in the state concerning confiscated estates, as has been pointed out, was of greatest concern, but the British debts were also a matter of interest. There were many persons in the state who were later federalists who wished the debts declared valid, but as long as the Assembly withheld action in regard to the treaty, there was little hope of the state courts upholding claims. W h e n a discussion of the treaty occurred in the Assembly in April, 1784, Archibald Maclaine wrote that he assumed something would be done to prevent an immediate recovery of the whole of the British debts, for they were unable to pay all at once. 148 In June, Maclaine was investigating the action of South Carolina and Georgia with respect to debts due Great Britain. 149 In its interpretation of the treaty, the legislature held that such debts as were confiscated from persons named in the confiscation acts stood upon the same footing as other confiscated property. This construction was founded upon a consideration of both articles four and five, the latter considering all confiscated property whatsoever as objects of recommendation only, and the fourth providing only for those debts which had never been confiscated, or had never belonged to British subjects not named in the North Carolina acts. 150 Those who had debts in North Carolina were greatly concerned over the attitude of the members of the legislature. 151 T h e conservatives realized that if all acts contravening the treaty were repealed and the treaty enforced, suits would be brought in the courts, but there was doubt regarding the 148

5". R., vol. xvii, p. 135.

149

Ibid., vol. xvii, pp. 146, 148.

150McRee, 151

Iredell, vol. ii, p. n o .

5. R., vol. xvii, p. 427.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

action of the judges. 152 Maclaine wrote that they would not allow persons accused of misdemeanors to bring or maintain suits, and that they quibbled away the treaty in the most shameful manner, in order to prevent British inhabitants from suing.184 Merchants interested in the trade of North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland protested against infractions of the fourth article of the treaty in those states. 1 " After the treaty was proclaimed as part of the law of the land, debts to loyalists were held valid by the courts. According to the Articles of Confederation, each state was to be represented in Congress by from two to seven delegates, but it was with great difficulty that a quorum was maintained. In 1784, Thomas Mifflin, President of Congress, wrote Governor Martin that the business of the United States was at a standstill for lack of representation in Congress at the very moment when matters of the greatest importance were under consideration.155 Delegates were always elected by the Assembly, but it was with great difficulty that they attended, and the state was often unrepresented. Governor Martin showed by his message of 1785 that he understood the situation.158 He said that non-attendance in Congress was a financial problem. A s a remedy, he suggested that the General Assembly appoint an agent to obtain drafts on the Treasury and to see that the delegates received their salaries. Heretofore, these delegates who were willing to serve had been forced to take all the trouble themselves, and frequently lost on exportation of produce and on the purchasing of coin or bills. A t times they were even unable to obtain the paper currency to change into produce and hard money. 152 155

R., vol. xvii, p. ISO. Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 188, A . Maclaine to G. Hooper, December 20, 1784.

154

Ibid., vol. xviii, pp. 562-563.

155

Ibid., vol. xvii, pp. 16-17.

lss

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 271.

48

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

When the interests of the state did not conflict, North Carolina cooperated with the government of the Confederation. When Congress asked the states to make a change in regard to the time of the appointment of delegates, the General Assembly promptly complied, 157 and it also took prompt action upon the recommendation that the states have three delegates in Congress. 158 In an attempt to arouse interest in federal affairs the secretary of Congress was instructed to encourage communication with the governors of the states, 159 and the North Carolina governors were careful to forward all information of value. When the states were requested to send thirteen copies of all laws passed since September i , 1774, Governor Caswell was unable to do so, because they were not available, but he promised that when a revision of the laws was made the required copies would be sent. 160 Provision was made in 1784 for a census of all white and black inhabitants of the state, according to a recommendation of Congress. 161 North Carolina was prompt in response to demands for commercial powers to be given Congress. In February, 1 7 8 1 , it was recommended that the states vest a power in Congress to levy for the use of the United States a duty of five per cent ad valorem upon all goods of foreign growth and manufacture imported, with a few exceptions, so that the money arising from the duties might be used to discharge the principal and interest of debts already contracted, or which might be contracted. 162 When the Assembly met, 157

Journals of Congress, vol. xxiv, p. 578.

March 23, 1784; S. R., vol. xvii, pp. 29-30;

158

S. R., vol. xvii, pp. 33-34.

159

Ibid., vol. xvii, pp. 460-461.

100

Journals of Congress vol. xvii, pp. 492-493, S°9-

(Philadelphia, 1 8 0 1 ) , July 27, 1785; S.

161

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 650-651.

162

Journals

of Congress, February 3, 1781.

R.,

THE

ARTICLES

OF

COXFEDERATIOX

49

such an act was passed to take effect as soon as " all the United States from New Hampshire to North Carolina, both inclusive," invested Congress with the same powers. April 18, 1783, Congress proposed a general revenue system, 183 which might have averted the serious financial crisis of the Confederation i f it could have been put into effect. The North Carolina delegates in Congress approved the recommendations and the Assembly in the first session of 1784 complied with each part of them. This year was the highwater mark of North Carolina's cooperation with the Confederation. A n act was passed vesting in Congress for twentyfive years the power to levy certain duties upon foreign goods imported into the state, the proceeds to be used for the discharge of the interest and principal of the debts of the United States. 164 It was to go into effect as soon as all the other states granted such power. Until Congress should be empowered to levy such duties, provision was made for similar duties to be collected by state officials, " in aid of the public finances." 1 8 5 Another part of the general recommendations of April 18, 1783, was a request that for twenty-five years " substantial and effectual revenues " should be established by each state so that its proportion of the annual expenses of the government might be paid. A n act was passed in North Carolina granting Congress power for that length of time to collect within the state to discharge its quota of the annual expenses, a tax of six pence on every hundred acres of land, and one shilling and sixpence upon every poll and upon every hundred pounds value of town lots. 188 The power granted Congress did not extend so far, however, as to subject any citizen to be carried 183

Journals of Congress, April 18, 1783.

164

5". R., vol. xxiv, pp. 547-549, vol. xviii, pp. 496-497.

185

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 549-556.

166

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 557-559-

5o

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

out of the state for trial, or to deprive him of a trial according to the constitution and laws of the state. The eighth of the Articles of Confederation provided that the value of land granted to or surveyed for any person should be the basis in the determination of the quotas for the different states. At the time the Articles were framed, such a provision was acceptable because the value of land in the state was much less than in the northern states. 167 B y 1 7 8 3 the members of Congress had reached the conclusion that a change in the basis of apportionment should be made, and recommended an amendment to provide that the expense of the war should be defrayed out of a common treasury supplied by the several states in proportion to the whole number of white inhabitants and three-fifths of the slaves. 168 By the time this recommendation was made, North Carolinians realized that this new basis would be more advantageous to them than the old. It was estimated that, according to the existing allotments, North Carolina was responsible for 72 out of every 1000 dollars requisitioned by Congress, but when all the vacant territory in the state was located and surveyed, the quota according to the old basis of apportionment would be doubled.169 The North Carolina Assembly authorized Congress to use such rules as it saw fit, without being wholly confined to the eighth of the Articles of Confederation, in determining the quota for the state. 170 A n act was also passed authorizing the delegates in Congress to assent to the repeal of part of the eighth article, and to substitute population as a basis, according to the proposal of Congress. 171 If all the states of 167 Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental Congress, vol. ii, pp. 548, 578. 168

Journals of Congress, April 18, 1783.

169

5". R., vol. xvii, p. 101.

170

Ibid., vol. x x i v , p. 561.

171

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 564-565.

THE

ARTICLES

OF COS

FEDERATION

ihe Confederation had responded to the general revenue system proposed in April, 1783, as did North Carolina, the financial problems of the times would have been greatly lessened. 172 Another recommendation of Congress, made a year later, requested the states to vest in Congress for fifteen years, the power to prohibit the importation of goods except in vessels belonging to and navigated by citizens of the United States, or the subjects of foreign powers with whom the United States might have treaties of commerce. 1 " The act passed in response to this by the North Carolina Assembly provided that in order to remove and prevent restraints of foreign powers upon the commerce of the United States, the North Carolina delegates in Congress were authorized to agree to any articles by which Congress should be empowered to prevent the importation of all foreign goods or commodities in any except American ships. 174 The act was to go into effect when all the states of the union had granted Congress similar powers. In 1786, when a committee was appointed by Congress to determine to what extent the states had complied with its recommendations, the report stated that New Hampshire, Rhode Island and North Carolina had passed laws in pursuance of the recommendation of April 30, 1784, but they were so contrary to the letter and spirit of the recommendation, that they could not be deemed compliances, and those states were asked to change their acts accordingly. 175 The North 172 North Carolina and Delaware were the only states that complied in full.—Journals of Congress, February 15, 1786. North Carolina's action in regard to the recommendation for the cession of western lands will be discussed later. 173 Jourtials of Congress, April 30, 1784. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina was a member of the committee that reported this. 174 175

R.. vol. xxiv, p. 561. Journals

of Congress, March 3, 1786.

-2

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

Carolina law instead of granting Congress the power for fifteen years to regulate the importation of goods, had empowered the delegates of the state in Congress to ratify such an article as a permanent part of the Articles of Confederation. The law also disregarded the distinction Congress wished to make between countries which had treaties of commerce with the United States and those which did not. T h e disorganized financial condition of the state made it most difficult for any actual financial demands to be met. A s early as August, 1778, it was asserted in Congress that the state of North Carolina had received from the continental treasury more than its proportion of money and until its account against the United States was properly liquidated, no further sums would be advanced. 179 Cornelius Harnett, delegate of the state in Congress, wrote Governor Caswell that it was absolutely necessary to send on the accounts and vouchers, not only those relative to supplies to continental troops, but also those for Indian expeditions and the militia sent to Virginia and other places. Harnett, believing that North Carolina was in advance to the Continental Congress more than enough to pay the late requisition of $250,000, urged the Governor to send the accounts and vouchers, 177 but they were not sent. When the war was over, North Carolina had not met the requisitions laid upon the state. In February, 1784, Richard D. Spaight, delegate in Congress, urged Governor Martin to have the Assembly do everything possible to expedite the settlement of accounts with the United States. 178 Spaight objected to part of the recommendation of Congress of April 28, 1784, which provided that one fourth of the sum paid 176

Burnett, Letters

of Members

P- 383. 177

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 413.

178

S. R., vol. xvii, p. 18.

of the Continental

Congress,

vol. iii,

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

53

might be in discount of interest on liquidated debts, for he thought it would give no relief to North Carolina's quota. 1 " In March, 1785, Congress passed a resolution that twelve months would be allowed for unliquidated claims to be presented to a commissioner authorized to settle accounts against the United States, and after that date claims would have to be adjusted at the Board of Treasury, but provision was made that those states without a commissioner should be allowed one year for delivering their claims from the time such officer was appointed. 180 The Board of Treasury and the North Carolina Assembly finally agreed upon a commissioner who would serve and in October, 1785, he notified Governor Caswell he was ready to receive claims. 181 In 1 7 8 5 the Assembly passed an act f o r the emission of £100,000 paper currency, £36,000 of which was to be used for the purchase of tobacco to be shipped to such parts of Europe or the West Indies or elsewhere as the Board of Treasury directed, in order to secure bills of exchange or money for payment of the state's share of the debt of the United States. 182 It was intended that the proceeds be used for the discharge of the interest on the foreign debt, as an amendment in 1786 indicated. 183 The act as amended authorized the North Carolina delegates in Congress to dispose of the tobacco bought and the proceeds were to be subject to the orders of the Board of Treasury, to be credited to the state in discharge of its share of the interest on the foreign debt of the United States. Provision was made for the further purchase of tobacco with money from the various 179

5". R., vol. xvii, pp. 61, 65.

180

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 431.

1,1

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 546.

182

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 7 2 2 - 7 2 5 ; vol. xviii, pp. 592-593. 606-607, 620-623, 657, 679-680, 761. 183

Ibid., vol. xxiv, pp. 812-813.

54

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

sources of revenue, so that the state's quota of the interest and principal of the foreign loans might be paid, and the commissioners were to settle their accounts with the controller on or before March i , 1788. 1 " In 1787 the act was revived for one year longer, in an attempt to meet at least a part of North Carolina's obligation to the United States.185 For many years the states had been urged by Congress to cede their western lands.188 In the general recommendations of April 18, 1783, the states which had passed no acts complying with the resolutions of Congress of September 6 and October 10, 1780, relative to the cession of western lands, were asked to make the liberal cessions recommended and the states which had complied in part were asked to revise and complete such compliance.137 By 1784 the sentiment in favor of ceding western lands had developed for local as well as continental reasons. Since there was a movement to levy a continental land tax and to apportion requisitions according to population, it would be advantageous to North Carolina to cede her western lands, especially if the land ceded should be credited to the state's account with the Continental Congress. 188 In 1784 an act was passed ceding the land west of the mountains to the Congress of the United States.189 There were, however, the following restrictions: ( 1 ) That neither the land nor the inhabitants of the ceded territory should be counted in estimating North Carolina's share of expenses in the late war; (2) that the rights of soldiers and others to 184

5". R., vol. x x i v , p. 797.

185

Ibid., vol. x x i v , pp. 892-893.

188

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 62.

187

Journals of Congress, April 18, 1783.

188

Boyd, The Federal Period, pp. 12-13.

189

R., vol. x x i v , pp. 561-563.

THE ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

whom land had been granted should be respected; (3) that the territory granted should be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of all the states; (4) that one or more states should be formed out of it; (5) that if Congress should not accept the cession within twelve months, the lands should revert to the state. A supplementary act provided that the sovereignty of the state over the territory and inhabitants should continue until Congress accepted the cession.190 There were some persons who considered the terms of the cession too liberal and a protest was filed by thirty-seven members of the House of Commons. Their dissent was primarily for the reasons that the western lands were needed in liquidating the state debt, that North Carolina's quota of the continental debt was not determined, and full credit had not been given the state for the military services rendered. Governor Martin wrote Hugh Williamson and Richard D. Spaight, delegates in Congress, that he doubted if the cession of the western land would be acceptable to Congress, since so much of the land had already been taken up. 1 " Williamson did not approve of the cession for he wanted the western territory so managed that Rhode Island and Georgia would agree to a 5% impost, that Georgia might be persuaded to cede part of her territory, and that the federal government might be prevailed upon to pay the expenses of the North Carolina Indian expeditions.192 He wrote: If we should immediately complete the Cession we shall give up the power of making advantageous terms and shall lose the argument which may bring others to adopt federal measures; on the other hand should we sell out what remains of this territory to the Western Inhabitants whatever inconveniences they may suffer, they will lose the prospect of becoming a Separate 19° 5". R., vol. xxiv, p. 563. 1,1

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 79-

1M

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 100.

56

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

State: the quota of our State will be doubled though we shall hardly have the means of paying half of our present quota. In that case too we should give up the means of making terms, or the power of adopting better measures if better should present themselves. When news of the cession of the western lands reached the people of the west, a movement was started to form a separate government. Both the North Carolina constitution of 1 7 7 6 and the Ordinance of 1784 had provisions in regard to new governments being formed in the west. Delegates from Washington, Sullivan and Greene counties met in a convention at Jonesborough, August 23, 1784, and chose John Sevier, president, and Landon Carter, secretary. Provision was made for another convention which met at Jonesborough, December 14, of the same year. This convention prepared a temporary constitution for the new state, prefaced by a declaration of independence and a bill of rights. 193 Meanwhile North Carolina had repealed the act of cession and formed the western counties into a new judicial district. Nevertheless, the legislature of the State of Franklin met early in 1785, elected Sevier governor, filled other offices, and passed several laws. William Cocke was sent as a delegate to Congress to present a memorial asking that Congress accept the cession made by North Carolina and admit Franklin as one of the states of the Confederation. A report of a committee of Congress recommending the acceptance of the North Carolina cession failed of adoption, but a recommendation was made to the state of North Carolina to repeal her act of November 20, 1784, which withdrew the cession of her western lands. 194 On November 14, 1785, a convention met for the adop183

Williams,

Samuel Cole, History

of the Lost

(Johnson City, 1924). PP- 330-338. 194

Journals of Congress, vol. iv, p. 525, et seq.

State

of

Franklin

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

tion of a permanent constitution. T h e draft of a constitution framed under Presbyterian influence was rejected by the convention and a modified form of the North Carolina constitution was adopted. 1 " For a time t w o sets of officials held jurisdiction in Franklin, one favoring the newly formed state, the other favoring North Carolina. Finally, the moderate and conciliatory policy of North Carolina prevailed and control was reestablished over the former State of Franklin. In 1789 the western land was finally ceded to the federal government, and early in the following year the cession was accepted. Closely connected with the subject of the western lands is the matter of the navigation of the Mississippi river. Timothy Bloodworth was a delegate of North Carolina in Congress at the time that negotiations were being made between John Jay and Gardoqui in regard to a treaty between the United States and Spain. In an official letter to the General Assembly, Bloodworth told of the Spanish proposals to negotiate a treaty granting commercial concessions, upon condition that the rights of the United States to navigate the Mississippi river be relinquished for twenty-five or thirty years. 196 H e also told of the opposition of Maryland, V i r ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to the proposal in regard to the Mississippi, and he explained his views at length. He did not believe Congress had the power to dispose of the rights of individual states without previously obtaining their consent. T h e concessions offered by Spain he thought would not benefit the southern states, which would suffer most from the closing of the river. He believed that such a treaty would cause the alienation o f 165 Williams, op. cit., pp. 91-92. The constitution adopted was doubtless in the form of the provisional constitution under which the State of Franklin was being governed. ie"

S. R., vol. xxii, pp. 899-902.

58

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

the citizens and depreciation of the land on the western waters. A s is well known, the treaty was not made. The right of navigation on the Mississippi river remained a matter of great concern to the many North Carolinians who possessed western lands. Indian relations were an important factor in North Carolina affairs, and helped later to bring about the ratification of the Constitution. When the Articles of Confederation were being framed, Thomas Burke, a delegate from North Carolina, objected to the part of the fifth section which related to Indian wars, and thought that such matters might be dealt with in alliances made by the states concerned.1"7 When the ordinance on Indian affairs was under consideration in Congress in 1786, Timothy Bloodworth of North Carolina took an active part, and was influential in having an amendment passed which obliged the superintendent for the southern district to act in conjunction with state authorities in all matters wherein the legislative rights of the states were concerned.19® After unsuccessful attempts to make a treaty with the Indians, the United States commissioners finally negotiated treaties with the Cherokees, Chickasaws and other southern Indians at Hopewell. Among the commissioners were Benjamin Hawkins and Joseph Martin of North Carolina.199 The negotiations were left largely to Martin, and an attempt was made to define the claims of the Indians and the whites in order to prevent the encroachment of the latter on the Indian reservation. Many North Carolinians, including Governor Caswell, had invested in lands excluded by the m Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental Congress, vol. ii, PP- 553-554198 Journals of Congress, July 24, 1786; R., vol. xviii, p. 718.

1»» Weeks, Stephen B., " General Joseph Martin and the W a r of the Revolution in the West," in Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1893, pp. 445-446; Journals of Congress, March 15, 21, 1785.

THE

ARTICLES

OF

CONFEDERATION

treaty.200 William Blount formally protested against the treaty with the Chickasaws because he thought it violated the constitutional and legislative rights of the state of North Carolina.201 Governor Caswell, supported by the Council of State, wrote to the delegates of the state in Congress that since the treaties with the southern Indians were repugnant to their bill of rights and constitution, they were by no means to consent to ratification and they were to try to prevent ratification from taking place.202 The treaties nevertheless were ratified in April, 1786, and copies were sent to North Carolina as well as the other states, with a request that the governor see to their enforcement.203 The General Assembly in January, 1787, instructed the state delegates in Congress to present the claims of North Carolina to the land in question.204 In August, John B. Ashe wrote that he and Blount had brought forward a resolution in Congress to disavow such part of the Hopewell Treaty as ceded land within the state to the Indians as hunting grounds. The claims of the state were deemed insufficient so the delegates wished to obtain all the evidence possible before pressing the matter further. 205 In September, 1788, Hugh Williamson, who still remained in New York to look after the interests of North Carolina, wrote to Governor Johnston in regard to a treaty pending with the southern Indians.206 He thought if the treaty was accepted, the rights of the state would be safeguarded. Johnston, in replying, said he did not know what effect the measures ordered by 200 Williams, op. cit., p. 97. 201

6". R., vol. xviii, p. 491.

202

Ibid., vol. xviii, pp. S9I-S92.

203

Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 599.

204

Ibid., vol. xviii, pp. 463-465, 483.

205

Ibid., vol. x x , p. 762.

208

Ibid., vol. xxi, pp. 497-498.

6o

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

Congress might have, for much would depend upon the officer in charge. He stated that the treaty of Hopewell would " ever be reprobated by every good citizen of this State." 201 Indian relations continued to be a matter of deep concern. It was clear that North Carolina cooperated with the government of the Confederation so long as it could do so consistently with the conditions prevailing in the state. It could well afford to comply with recommendations that would shift the financial burden to the commercial states, on account of the relative unimportance of its trade in comparison with the trade of the other states. The state was slow in meeting the requisitions of Congress, due to its deranged financial condition. The cession of western land was repealed when leaders in the state showed the possibility of obtaining more advantageous terms. Strong protests were made when interests of the state were threatened in relation to the navigation of the Mississippi and lands granted the Indians. The relations of the central government with North Carolina, as well as with the other states, showed clearly that amendments to the Articles of Confederation were necessary. 207

S. R., vol. xxi, p. 501.

CHAPTER NORTH CAROLINA

II

I N T H E F E D E R A L C O N V E N T I O N OF

1787

T H O U G H faults of the Articles of Confederation were evident even before they went into effect, the course of affairs under this form of government convinced political leaders all the more that the powers of the central government should be enlarged. 1 The correspondence of the men of the times shows that they were not only conscious of these faults, but also that they knew the changes that were needed. Even during the Revolutionary period conventions of delegates from several states met, and in 1780 at one of these meetings a general convention to revise the Articles was suggested. 2 A s early as 1782 the legislature of New Y o r k issued a call for a general convention, 3 and Congress appointed a committee to consider these resolutions, but no action was taken.4 The idea of changes in the government and a convention to propose these changes was a part of the thought of the times. Early in 1786 a restricted step was taken towards a revision of the Articles. The Virginia legislature, at the suggestion of James Madison, passed a resolution inviting the states to send commissioners to meet in a convention to 1

Lodge, H e n r y Cabot ( e d i t o r ) , Works of Alexander Hamilton ( B o s t o n and N e w York, 1892), vol. i, pp. 213-287. A l e x a n d e r Hamilton to James Duane, September 3, 1780. 2

Warren, Charles, The

p. 93 Lodge ( e d i t o r ) , Works

Making

of the Constitution

of Alexander

(Boston,

1928),

Hamilton, vol. i, pp. 291-295.

* Journals of Congress, September 2, 1783.

61

62

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

take into consideration the trade of the United Sates.® In the meantime, Congress, alarmed at the increasing dissensions among the states and the people, contemplated calling a general convention to consider the alteration of the Confederation.® In August, a sub-committee reported a set of proposed amendments, but as Congress took no action on the matter, attention was centered on the convention called by Virginia to meet at Annapolis in September. Many expected political, as well as commercial matters to be considered.7 When the convention assembled, only five states were in attendance, and delegates from the other states either failed to arrive or were not appointed. North Carolina was one of the states not represented, but this was not due to lack of interest. The comparatively small amount of direct overseas commerce, and dependence in commercial matters upon Virginia and South Carolina, made it advantageous for revenue to be raised by a general regulation of trade. One delegate 8 from the state was detained at home on account of illness and the other," who was most anxious to attend, arrived just after adjournment. The report of the Annapolis convention was sent to North Carolina, as well as to the other states.10 In it, as is well known, the commissioners issued a call for another conven5

Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America (Washington, 1894), vol. i, p. 1; Hunt, Gaillard (editor), Writings of James Madison ( N e w York and London, 1901), vol. ii, p. 218. 6

Journals of Congress, February 15, May 13, 1786; Hunt, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 403 and note 2 which gives letter of Grayson to Madison, dated March 22, 1786. T

Annual Report

of the American

Historical

Association,

1896, vol. i,

P- 7348

Abner Nash, Letter Book, Governor Caswell, 1785-1787, p. 364.

9

Hugh Williamson, one of the most prominent federalists in the state.

10

Letter Book, Governor Caswell, 1785-87, pp. 315-316.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

63

tion to be held at Philadelphia, the second Monday in May, 1787, to take into Consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further Provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the Fcederal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress Assembled, as when " agreed to by them and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every state " will effectually provide for the same. 11 The General Assembly of North Carolina met November 20, 1786, at Fayetteville, 12 and considered numerous matters, some of general importance, others of concern only to individuals. In the last week, practically every bill received final action. 14 On Wednesday, January 3, Governor Caswell submitted to the Assembly communications from Congress, and in addition two letters from Governor Randolph of Virginia, with an act of the legislature of that state for appointing deputies to the federal convention. 11 The House of Commons immediately sent to the Senate the Governor's message and the various papers submitted, proposing that they be referred to the committee to which were referred the last communications from Congress, 1 ' and that the committee report without delay as those papers appeared to be " of consequence of the first Magnitude." The Senate signified assent to the proposal made by the House. 18 The committee reported favorably on the message of the Governor and the 11

Documentary

12

S. R., vol. xviii, p. 2.

History

of the Constitution,

13

Ibid., vol. xviii, pp. 783-884.

14

Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 438.

15

Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 439.

16

Ibid., vol. xviii, pp. 219, 441.

vol. i, p. 5.

64

FEDERAL

dispatches

from

CONSTITUTION Congress,

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

a n d both the S e n a t e a n d

the

H o u s e concurred w i t h the c o m m i t t e e ' s report. 1 7 O n S a t u r d a y , J a n u a r y 6 , t h e S e n a t e proposed the election by j o i n t ballot o f c o m m i s s i o n e r s t o revise the federal c o n s t i tution. 1 8

T h e H o u s e a g r e e d t o ballot f o r persons " t o assist

in an alteration o f

the

Governor

Alexander

Spaight,

Caswell, Hugh

federal constitution,"

Williamson,

Martin,

William

W i l l i e J o n e s and S a m u e l J o h n s t o n . 1 9

nominating

Richard

Dobbs

Richardson

Davie,

T h e joint balloting

resulted in the e l e c t i o n o f Caswell, M a r t i n , D a v i e , and J o n e s .

Spaight

I t w a s decided t h a t the deputies attending t h e

convention at P h i l a d e l p h i a should receive the same pay as the delegates

attending

Congress.20

The

Governor

was

em-

powered to fill by a p p o i n t m e n t a n y vacancy o c c u r r i n g t h r o u g h death or a r e f u s a l t o serve.

P l a n s were made f o r t h e G o v -

e r n o r to receive t w e n t y - f i v e printed copies o f the resolution t o appoint deputies t o t h e federal convention. 2 1 I n the preamble o f t h e completed resolution the v i e w s o f the conservative e l e m e n t in the state were e x p r e s s e d : 2 2 W h e r e a s in the formation of the foederal compact which frames the bond of union of the American States, it was not possible in the infant state of our republics to devise a system which in the course of time and experience would not manifest imperfections that it would be necessary to r e f o r m . And whereas the limited powers which by the articles of confederation are vested in the Congress of the United States, have been found far inadequate to the enlarged purposes which the)' were intended to produce. 17

S. R., vol. xviii, p. 456.

18

Ibid., vol. xviii, pp. 461-462.

19

Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 462 ; and Legislative Papers, House, January 6,1787.

20 R., vol. xviii, p. 470. The salary was 64 pounds per month paid in warrants on the state treasury in depreciated state paper currency. 21 Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 476. 22

Ibid., vol. xxiv, p. 791.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

65

And whereas Congress hath by repeated and most urgent representations, endeavoured to awaken this and the other States of the union, to a sense of the truly critical and alarming situation into which they must be unavoidably cast, unless measures are forthwith taken to enlarge the powers of Congress, that they may thereby be enabled to avert the dangers which threaten our existence as a free and independent people. And whereas this State hath been ever desirous to act upon the enlarged system of the general good of the United States, without bounding its views to the narrow and selfish object of partial convenience, and has been at all times ready to make every concession to the safety and happiness of the whole, which justice and sound policy could vindicate: The North Carolina delegates were authorized to meet with the delegates from other states to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of the federal union, and " to procure the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect." One might infer from reading the North Carolina resolution that Congress had already issued the call for the convention. It was not, however, until February 21,23 a month and a half after the North Carolina legislature had appointed delegates, that Congress issued the call in such a way as not to invalidate the action of the states which had already appointed delegates. In a letter of April xi, Governor Caswell mentioned that Congress had recommended a convention to be held at Philadelphia and he supposed it would be " the same Generally acceded to by the deputies." 24 Soon after the close of the Assembly, Governor Caswell replied to Governor Randolph of Virginia, acknowledging the receipt of a copy of the resolution of the Virginia legis23 Documentary History of the Constitution, vol. i, p. 8; and Farrand, Max (editor), Records of the Federal Convention (New Haven, 1 9 1 1 ) , vol. in, pp. 13-14.

« S. R-, vol. xx, p. 666.

66

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROUNA

lature, and enclosing a copy o f a similar North Carolina resolution. 2 5 I f the communication f r o m V i r g i n i a had been received a week later, the Assembly would have been adjourned, and in all probability, delegates to the convention a t Philadelphia would have been chosen by the Governor and Council, instead o f by the legislature. A few days later Governor Caswell wrote to the delegates in Congress telling them o f the election o f delegates to the convention, 2 6 and enclosed a copy o f the resolution o f the North Carolina legislature. 2 1 Martin, Davie and Spaight agreed to serve in the convention notwithstanding inconvenience in their private affairs. Willie Jones, however, after receiving a second notice o f his election as delegate, without giving definite reasons for his refusal, declined to serve in the following w a y : I received your favor informing me that I was appointed to go to Philadelphia on the subject of revising the Confederation. I think it will not be in my power to attend there at the Time appointed, and therefore must Request that you will appoint some person in my place as a matter of so much importance must necessarily require the fullest Representation." Governor Caswell, by the time o f the meeting of the Council in March, had decided not to serve, as it was possible " the Business o f Government, or some other unforeseen cause " might prevent his going at the time set f o r the convention. 2 9 Letter Book, Governor Caswell, 1785-87, p. 418. Ibid., 1785-87, p. 419. At this time, however, William Blount was the only North Carolina delegate in Congress. 25 2t

5". R., vol. xx, p. 602. Miscellaneous Papers, vol. i, p. 126, Thomas Collection, Philadelphia; Letter Book, Governor Caswell, 1785-87, p. 461; S. R., vol. xx, p. 611. Since Willie Jones was to be of so much importance later in the opposition to the Constitution, his refusal to attend the convention at Philadelphia has been given in full. No documentary proof has been found to show whether Patrick Henry's refusal to serve in the convention for Virginia had anything to do with Jones's refusal to serve. 27

28

29

S. R., vol. xx, p. 636.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

67

William Blount, who had signified his intention of returning to the state from Congress about the first of May, was selected in his place. Dr. Hugh Williamson, who was attending Congress in New Y o r k , was notified of his appointment, with unanimous consent of the Council, to fill the place of Jones. 80 Williamson was flattered by the appointment, and as he had " a constant and sincere desire to serve the State," he promised to hold himself in readiness to attend the convention. 31 His absence would be made possible by the willingness of friends to attend to his mercantile business. A t first the deputies had been given warrants for three months' service, 32 but by this time it was thought best to give each of them a warrant for another month.33 In order to allow for the time spent in traveling to and from Philadelphia, it was found necessary to draw on the collectors for two months' allowance to each deputy in addition to the four months' allowance formerly drawn. 3 * When arrangements had been made through John G. Blount for his brother, William Blount, to serve, a commission was made for him 85 and sent by Spaight as he went to Philadelphia. 3 * Blount made the fifth of the North Carolina delegation. A brief sketch of each of the delegates will show the type of men who represented North Carolina in the federal convention. William Blount, the oldest of the eight children of Jacob Blount and Barbara Gray, was born in 1749 in Bertie county, North Carolina. 87 In 1776, he entered the service of revo80 81 32 83 84 85

51. R-, vol. xx, p. 637. Ibid., vol. xx, pp. 643-644. Ibid., vol. xx, p. 627. The pay was ¿64 a month. Ibid., vol. xx, pp. 666, 673, 674, 682. Letter Book, Governor Caswell, 1783-87, p. 512. Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 567-570.

88

S. R., vol. xx, p. 706. Biographical Directory (Washington, 1928), p. 712 87

of

the

American

Congress,

1774-11)27

68

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

lutionary North Carolina, and from then until his death, he was almost continuously in public office. 38 During the years from 1780 through 1789, he was four times a member of the House of Commons of North Carolina, twice a member of the state Senate, a delegate to the Congress of the United States for four terms, besides serving in the federal convention at Philadelphia in 1787, and in the second North Carolina convention of 1789. Blount took no part in the debates in the Philadelphia convention, yet he signed the Constitution.39 In the North Carolina convention of 1789 he represented the newly formed county of Tennessee, voting along with the other delegates from that county for the ratification of the Constitution.40 He desired to be one of the first United States senators from North Carolina, but failed of election.41 Blount had been familiar for sometime with the transAlleghany region, as he had been a speculator in western lands and a representative of North Carolina in negotiations with the Indians. When the western lands were finally ceded to the United States, he was able to secure the appointment as governor of the territory south of the Ohio. 42 This was especially lucrative, because the appointment included the Indian agency with authority to transact all affairs with the Indians in a very extensive manner. 43 Patrick Henry was unsuccessful in securing this agency for his friend General Joseph Martin. Even at this time Blount was 38

Dictionary of American Biography, vol. ii, p. 390.

39

Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 646, 663.

40

R., vol. xxii, pp. 38, 48.

41

Ibid., vol. xxi, p. 253; North Carolina Manual, 1913 (Raleigh, 1913), p. 911. 42 43

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, pp. 285-286.

Ballagh, James C. (editor), The Letters (New York, 1914), vol. ii, p. 523.

of Richard

Henry

Lee

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

69

44

financially involved. Mr. Hamer says: " Blount handled the affairs of his dual office with tact and firmness, with a conscientious regard for the orders of his superiors and yet with sympathy f o r the frontier settlers, with an eye also to his own advancement and with a considerable measure of political adroitness." 45 His popularity in the western country is shown by his choice as one of the first senators from the newly-formed state of Tennessee. His schemes in regard to land under Spanish control led to his expulsion from the Senate, and in this connection he was impeached but not convicted. Upon his return home he was elected to the state Senate and was chosen speaker of that body. He died in 1800. Alexander Martin was born in New Jersey about 1740. While he was quite young, his parents moved to Virginia and then to Guilford county, North Carolina. He was educated at the College of New Jersey. He served as justice of the peace for Rowan county,48 as member of the General Assembly and Provincial Congress for Guilford county,47 and as judge of Salisbury district in 1 7 7 4 and 1775. 4 8 While serving as colonel of the second North Carolina regiment at Germantown and Brandywine, he was courtmartialed for alleged cowardly conduct but was acquitted.49 He was state senator for many years, 60 acting governor of North Carolina, 1 7 8 1 - 1 7 8 2 , and governor, 1782-1785 and 44

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 285-286.

45

Dictionary

40

-S-. R„ vol. vi, p. 1077.

of American

47

North

48

5". R., vol. x, p. 953.

Carolina Manual,

Biography,

vol. ii, p. 390.

1913, pp. 365, 399.

49 S. R., vol. xi, p. 654; vol. xiii, pp. 262-264; and Hamilton, J. G. de Roulhac, " William Richardson Davie: A Memoir Followed by His Letters with Notes by Kemp P. Battle," James Sprunt Historical Monograph (Chapel Hill, 1907), no. 7, p. 24. 50

North

Carolina Manual,

1913, pp. 630-631.

7

o

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

1 7 8 9 - 1 7 9 2 . " He was United States senator from 1793 to 1799, 5 2 and although Governor Johnston expected him to be reelected, 5 ' he was defeated on account of his support of John Adams and the alien and sedition l a w s . " In 1793 the College of New Jersey conferred the degree of Doctor of L a w s upon him. 55 Wheeler says he was vain of his attainments and ambitious of literary renown. 66 H e was one of the trustees of the University of North Carolina from 1790 until his death in 1807. He was a well-to-do planter and slave-owner, having in 1790 forty-seven slaves." The records do not show that he dealt in public securities.5* William Richardson Davie was born in England in 1756. He was brought to America in 1 7 6 3 by his father, 5 * and was placed under the care of his maternal uncle, William Richardson, who adopted him, superintended his education and made him heir to his estate.60 He attended Queen's College, an academy in Charlotte, and later entered Nassau Hall at Princeton. In the summer of 1 7 7 6 he was in the army f o r several months in New York, but in the autumn returned to the College of New Jersey to take his degree. 91 While he 61

North Carolina Manual, p. 417.

52

Ibid., pp. 912-914.

53

McRee, op. cit., vol. i, p. 540.

54

Wheeler, John H., Reminiscences and Memoirs of North and Eminent North Carolinians (Columbus, 1884), p. 189.

Carolina

55

National Cyclopedia of American Biography ( N e w Y o r k , 1892), vol. iv, p. 420; Princeton University, General Catalogue, 1746-1896, p. 43. 56

Wheeler, John H., Historical Sketches of North 1584 to 1851 (Philadelphia, 1 8 5 1 ) , vol. ii, pp. 181-182. 07

from

Heads of Families, North Carolina, p. 169.

58

Beard, Charles A., Economic ( N e w Y o r k , 1923), p. 126. 59

Carolina

Interpretation of

the Constitution

Hamilton, op. cit., p. 1.

40

Carolina, Historical and

81

In the Wm. R. Davie Papers in the archives of the State Historical

Foote, William H., Sketches of North Biographical (New Y o r k , 1846), p. 245.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

71

was away from home, his uncle who resided in South Carolina, died. Davie began the study of law in Salisbury, North Carolina, since that profession offered promise of fortune and distinction. 42 Although his studies were interrupted by military service, he was licensed in 1779 to practice before the county courts, and in the spring of the following year he was admitted to practice in the superior courts. During the latter part of the w a r he was made commissary general of North Carolina. 94 In performing the work of this office he became familiar with accounts and acquired mercantile precision and accuracy in business. It was at this period that he began to impress James Iredell, who wrote of him, " He appears to me to possess uncommon abilities, and much goodness as well as greatness of soul." 84 A t the close of the war he resumed his law practice and in 1783 went on his first circuit." During this year he married Miss Sarah Jones, daughter of General Allen Jones, and niece of Willie Jones. He settled in H a l i f a x and developed a large practice in six out of the seven judicial districts of the state. Between 1786 and 1798 Davie served eight terms in the House of Commons as a representative from Halifax. 9 8 In the latter year his seat was vacated by his election as governor. In 1788 and 1789 he served in the state conventions called to consider the Constitution, in which he took a prominent part.87 When North Carolina ratified the Constitution, Commission of North Carolina, there is a certificate dated October 28, 1776, showing attendance and proficiency of Wm. R. Davie at Princeton College for two years. 62 Hubbard, Fordvce M., Life 1848), p. 4.

of William

Richardson

Davie

(Boston,

63

S. R., vol. xvi, pp. v, vi of the Introduction; McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 159. «4 McRee, op. cit., vol. i, p. 53465 66

Hamilton, op. cit., p. 11.

North

Carolina Manual,

1913, p. 637.

"Ibid.,

p. 882.

7

2

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

President Washington offered him the position of district judge but he declined. Davie was the grand master of the North Carolina Masons from 1792 to 1799. He took an important part in the movement for the establishment of the University of North Carolina, as a result of which the trustees in 1 8 1 0 conferred upon him the title of " The Father of the University " and in the following year conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws. He was one of the commissioners to settle the boundary between North Carolina and South Carolina in 1 7 9 1 , 1796 and 1803. In 1794 Davie was made major general of the third state division of troops, three years later he was made commander of the forces in the state, and the following year, he was appointed brigadier general in the army of the United States. 68 Davie's fortune grew rapidly and he bore himself too loftily to retain the love of the people.69 A detail that shows his nature is that his letters were always written on gilt-edged paper.70 While Jefferson was obtaining so many followers in the state, Davie clung fast to federalism. When the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were being considered by the state legislature, he worked strongly against their receiving favorable action. In 1799 he accepted appointment from President Adams as peace commissioner to France. 71 In 1803 he was a candidate for Congress, but was defeated. In 1805 he went to " Tivoli " , his luxurious estate on the Catawba River in South Carolina, where he spent the rest of his life in retirement. He died in November, 1820, and sixteen years later a county of North Carolina was named in his honor. 72 68

Hamilton, op. cit., p. 1 8 ; McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 159.

69

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 160.

70

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 431.

71

Wheeler, Eminent North Carolinians, p. 200.

72

North Carolina Manual, 1913, p. 590.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

73

Richard Dobbs Spaight was born in Newbern, North Carolina, March 25, 1758.™ At an early age he was sent to Ireland to be educated, but his studies were completed at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Returning home in 1778, he entered into military service. He represented Newbern and Craven county many times in the Assembly, 74 and was a member of Congress from 1783 to 1 7 8 5 . " Besides being in the federal convention at Philadelphia, he was a member of the North Carolina convention of 1788 which considered the Constitution. 76 For more than a year after this convention he was in bad health. He served as governor of the state from 1792 to 1795, being the first native-born governor of the state.77 While in the House of Representatives of Congress, Spaight supported the leading measures of the Jeffersonian party. 78 A political controversy led to a duel in 1802 in which Spaight was killed.79 According to the census of 1790 he had seventy-one slaves.80 but no evi73 Wheeler, Sketches, vol. ii, p. 1 1 1 ; Andrews, Alexander B., "Richard Dobbs Spaight", in North Carolina Historical Review, vol. i (1924), p. 95; Schneider, Robert, " Correspondence on Andrews' Richard Dobbs Spaight", in North Carolina Historical Review, vol. i, p. 340. 74

North

Carolina

Manual,

1913, pp. 567, 568.

75

Ibid., p. 910. It was while he was in Congress that the report of a committee, consisting of Jefferson, Chase and Howell, was made relating to a plan for a government for the western territory. Spaight moved that the paragraph forbidding slavery after the year 1800 be struck out. He voted to strike out the paragraph and Williamson voted not to. The vote of one state would have changed the result. In consequence, the clause prohibiting slavery in the western territory both north and south of the Ohio was omitted from the Ordinance of 1784. The Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the northwest territory, but not in the southwest.—Journals of Congress, April 19, 1784. 76

5 1 . R., vol. xxii, p. 1.

77

North

78

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 273; Wheeler, R. D. Spaight,

79

Wheeler, Sketches,

80

Heads

Carolina Manual,

of Families,

1913, p. 417.

vol. ii, p. 112. North

Carolina, p. 130.

p. 428.

74

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

dence has been found that he took part in the public security transactions of the times.81 Hugh Williamson, who was born in Chester county, Pennsylvania, December 5, 1735, of Scotch-Irish parentage," was by far the most versatile of the North Carolina delegates to the convention at Philadelphia.83 In 1757 he received a degree from the College of Philadelphia. After pursuing theological studies, he was licensed to preach, but was never ordained or placed in charge of a congregation. After further study in the College of Philadelphia, he was appointed professor of mathematics there. Later he studied medicine in Edinburgh and Leyden, received a degree from the latter University, and returned to Philadelphia to practice.84 In 1769 he was appointed by the American Philosophical Society one of the committee to observe the transits of Venus and Mercury. His interest in education was shown by his going abroad in 1773 to secure subscriptions for an academy in Newark, Delaware.85 After traveling in Europe several years, Williamson returned to America, and in 1777 was a merchant in Edenton, North Carolina. In the latter part of the war he was a surgeon for the North Carolina troops.88 In 1782, and again in 1785, he repre81

Beard, Economic Interpretation

of the Constitution, p. 143.

82

Neal, John W., " L i f e and Public Services of Hugh Williamson ", in Historical Papers, published by the Trinity College Historical Society, series xiii (Durham, 1919), p. 62. 83

He was spoken of as " a Jack of all trades."—McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 8. 81

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 28.

85

During this stay in Europe, Williamson and Silas Deane were evidently not on good terms, for the Committee of Secret Correspondence wrote the Commissioners in France in December of 1776 that they would pay the proper attention to what Deane wrote about Williamson and Hopkins.—Ballagh (editor), The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, vol. i, p. 237. 84

Corbitt, D. L., Calendars of Manuscript Collections (Raleigh, 1926), vol. i, p. 117.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

sented Edenton in the House of Commons." From 1782 to 1785 as a delegate of North Carolina in Congress,48 he became acquainted with Thomas Jefferson, who was favorably impressed with him.89 He accepted the appointment to the Annapolis convention in order to promote the mercantile interests of the state.80 After attending the constitutional convention at Philadelphia, he was again in Congress from 1787 to 1788. 91 During the campaign in North Carolina before the first convention had considered the Constitution, Williamson wrote James Madison : " For myself, I conceive that my opinions are not biased by private interests, but having claims to a considerable Quantity of Land in the Western Country, I am fully persuaded that the Value of those Lands must be increased by an efficient federal Government." 92 In a letter written to James Iredell during August of 1788, 93 he mentioned that his friends knew that he did not depend for support on public favor, but he was, nevertheless, ever ready for public office. That he was a person of means is substantiated by the fact that his name appears frequently on the records of the Treasury Department.84 He was a Tyrrell county member of the 87

North

88

Ibid., p. 910.

Carolina Manual, 1913, pp. 555, 557.

89

Ford, Paul L., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York and London, 1894), vol. iii, pp. 415, 418, 428; Journals of Congress, March 5. 26, 1784; McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 29. Mention has already been made of his voting to prohibit slavery in the territories. (See above, note 75-) 80 At the first of the chapter, mention was made of his arriving the day the convention adjourned. 91

In the fall of 1787 George Mason wrote George Washington about meeting Williamson and Davie at Philadelphia. He intended to write to Williamson in regard to getting a supply of corn from North Carolina. 82

Documentary

83

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 238.

94

Beard, Economic

History

of the Constitution,

Interpretation

vol. iv, p. 678.

of the Constitution,

pp. 146-147,

76

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

N o r t h Carolina convention of 1 7 8 9 which ratified the C o n stitution. 95

H e represented North Carolina in the lower

house of Congress f r o m 1 7 9 0 to 1 7 9 3 . 0 8

In 1 7 9 3 he applied

to Governor Spaight f o r permission to search the office of the secretary of state for such papers and documents as would help him in writing a history of the state. 97 in t w o volumes, w a s published in 1 8 1 2 . in

New

York,

where

he married

T h i s history,

In 1 7 9 3 he settled

Maria

Apthorpe,

the

daughter of a wealthy and prominent citizen of N e w Y o r k . 9 8 refers to Ms. Treasury Dept.: Loan Office, North Carolina, 1791, folio 3. Beard states that Williamson's correspondence with Alexander Hamilton and others shows that he had " the smallest of two large trunks " full of six per cents and threes, and deferred stock which he had turned over to Hamilton so that they might be transferred to the New York loan office in 1793. Williamson was a commissioner to settle the accounts of North Carolina with the United States. These securities referred to may have belonged to the state. 85

North Carolina Manual, 1913, p. 901.

96

Ibid., p. 912. It may be of interest to know what Archibald Maclaine's sharp tongue had to say of Williamson. " Is the all-knowing Doctor Williamson, instead of being on the road to attend his duty as a representative of the United States, torturing his ingenuity how to evade the laws of that body of which he has the undeserved honor to be a member? H e would have made a good petty-fogging attorney; but nature never intended him for a legislator."—5\ R., vol. xxi, pp. 574-57597

Corbitt, D. L. (editor), "Historical Notes" in North Carolina Historical Review, vol. v (1928), pp. 109-110. The opinion of Wm. B. Grove, another contemporary, may also be of interest. " Dr. Williamson proposes writing the History of the State & I have Sub'd for 3 copies, he is a man of such prejudices that I fear all that time which he has acted so conspicuous a part in the State—which is from his first coming into it, that the Book will not be much prized—however, the early part of the History will probably be correct, for he has great industry in procuring materials."—Wagstaff, Henry McGilbert, "Letters of William B. Grove," in James Sprunt Historical Publications (Chapel Hill, 1910), vol. ix, no. 2, p. 58. Wagstaff said Grove proved to be singularly correct in his estimate of the probable value of Williamson's work, parts of it being of unusual value, due in the main to the author's indefatigability in the collection of material. 98

National

Cyclopaedia of American

Biography, vol. ii, p. 492.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF

1787

77

From that time until his death in 1 8 1 9 , he was engaged in literary pursuits. The North Carolina delegates possessed native intelligence and force, and enough experience in business and political affairs to indicate sound judgment and discrimination. Spaight was the first of these delegates to arrive in Philadelphia," but by May 22, Davie had joined him, making North Carolina the fifth state to be represented.100 When the convention organized on Friday, May 25, Williamson and Martin had joined their colleagues. 101 The last two delegates stayed at the " Indian Queen " , along with Madison, Hamilton, Mason, Gorham and others. 102 Blount, the fifth delegate, did not arrive from New York where he was attending Congress, until June 20, and later, upon the request of the secretary of Congress, he returned to New York. 1 0 3 On August 7, the day after the committee of detail had reported, he once more took his seat in the convention. If Blount took part in the debates in the convention, the records do not show it. It might be well to note William Pierce's characterization of him: Mr. Blount is a character strongly marked for integrity and honor. He has been twice a Member of Congress, and in that office discharged his duty with ability and faithfulness. He is no Speaker, nor does he possess any of those talents that make Men shine;—he is plain, honest, and sincere.104 99

Farrand, Records,

vol. iii, p. 590.

100

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 587; and Documentary vol. iv, p. 166.

History

of the

Constitution,

101

Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 589-590. Ibid., vol. iii, p. 58. Mason wrote to his son that living in Philadelphia was very cheap, since they paid at the old " Indian Queen " only " twenty-five Pennsylvania currency" per day, including their servants and horses.—Ibid., vol. iii, p. 24. 102

103

S. R., vol. x x , p. 7 3 4 ; and Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 587.

104

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 95.

78

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROUNA

Martin was another of the North Carolina delegates in the convention who took a minor part. All that the records show is that he seconded three motions.108 Pierce, after speaking of Martin's creditable administration as governor of North Carolina, said, " He is a man of sense, and undoubtedly is a good politician, but he is not formed to shine in public debate, being no Speaker." 108 An indication of what his North Carolina colleagues thought of him is expressed by Hugh Williamson, who wrote: " The great exertions of political wisdom in our late Governor (Martin), while he sat at the helm of our State, have so exhausted his fund, that time must be required to enable him again to exert his abilities to the advantage of the nation." 10T Of considerably more weight in the convention was Davie. Although he left Philadelphia August 13, and consequently did not sign the Constitution, he was strongly in favor of it, and the North Carolina delegates felt that his early departure was a great loss.108 Pierce said that Davie's opinion was always respected.108 His longest speech was in support of a compromise on the composition of the Senate. 110 Davie was the North Carolina member of the grand committee that considered the question of representation in Congress, 111 and reported the compromise that resulted in equal representation in the Senate. 112 The willingness of Davie to compromise helped to place the vote of North Carolina with the small states, rather than with the large states as heretofore, 105 Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 668.

1®6 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 96. 107

M c R e e , op. cit., vol. ii, p. 163.

108

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 163.

10» F a r r a n d , op. cit., vol. iii, p. 96. 110

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 487-488, 498, 505.

111

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 509, 516, 520. Ibid., vol. i, p. 524.

112

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

thus making possible the compromise that probably saved the convention from disruption. Another decided stand of Davie's was in regard to the counting of slaves for representation in Congress; 1 1 1 he said North Carolina would not confederate on any terms unless at least three-fifths of the slaves were counted. 1 " At this time slaves formed about one-fourth of the population of the state. 115 Spaight was present during the entire convention.114 Pierce said of him, " Without possessing a Genius to render him brilliant, he is able to discharge any public trust that his Country may repose in him." 11T Spaight took a minor part in the discussions in the convention, but he is to be remembered primarily for differing from his colleagues on two points. When the vote was taken on the report of the grand committee, as amended, including the equal representation of the states in the Senate, North Carolina voted in favor of it, but Spaight was opposed.118 If he, instead of Davie, had represented North Carolina on the grand committee, there might have been a different report from that committee. The other point on which he differed from his colleagues was in regard to the vote required for passing navigation acts. Williamson was in favor of requiring a two-thirds vote, but Spaight was for a majority vote. He said that the southern states could avoid oppression by building ships for their own use. 11 " Hugh Williamson took a far more active part in the con113

B y the census of 1790, Davie owned 36 slaves.—Heads of North Carolina, p. 64. 114

Families,

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 593.

lie

Heads of Families, North Carolina, p. 8. B y the census of 1790, out of a total population of 393,751, there were 100,572 slaves. 114

Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 590.

11T

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 95.

118

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 15.

11P

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 451.

8o

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

vention than the other North Carolina delegates. The r e f erences to him in the index of the printed records cover over three times as much space as those to any of the other North Carolina delegates. Being so much the senior of the other delegates, and having had such a varied experience as physician, college professor, merchant and public official, he was able to take his place in the debates, expressing his ideas on most of the subjects discussed. Except for Davie's service on the grand committee to consider representation in the two branches of Congress, Williamson was the only North Carolina delegate who served on any of the committees. Five times when the delegates balloted for a committee of one from each state, Williamson was the one chosen. 120 Since his views practically represent the stand taken by the North Carolina delegates in the convention, his part will be brought out in the account of the state as a whole. A very good idea of him is gained from Pierce's characterization : Mr. Williamson is a Gentleman of education and talents. He enters freely into public debate from his close attention to most subjects, but he is no Orator. There is a great degree of good humour and pleasantry in his character; and in his manners there is a strong trait of the Gentleman.121 The part taken by the North Carolina delegates in the debates of the convention was important. On the first day 120 121

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 558; vol. ii, pp. 322, 366, 410, 473.

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 95. The following character sketch of Williamson (ibid., vol. iii, pp. 237-238), taken from the French archives is also illuminating. Although it was written of his influence in Congress, it is a very true picture of the man. " Médecin et ci-devant Professeur d'astronomie. Bizarre a l'excès, aimant à pérorer, mais parlant avec esprit. Il est difficile de bien connôitre son caractère ; il est même possible qu'il n'en ait pas ; mais son activité lui a donné depuis quelque temps beaucoup d'influence au Congrès. . . ."

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

81

that the Virginia plan was discussed in the committee of the whole, North Carolina voted with the majority of the states in favor of the establishment of a national government, consisting of supreme legislative, executive and judiciary branches. 122 The following day North Carolina still voted with the majority in favor of the election of the lower branch of the national legislature by the people.123 Williamson preferred a small number of senators, but he wanted each state to have at least one. 124 He claimed that lesser states would not be swallowed up by the greater states, even though proportional representation was applied. 125 The Virginia plan proposed that the senators should be chosen by the lower branch of the national legislature from persons nominated by the state legislatures. When this was first discussed, Spaight moved that the senators be chosen by the state legislatures. 126 When objection was made to this, the motion was withdrawn. Later, however, when the report of the committee of the whole was discussed in the convention, this proposal was passed by a vote of 9 to 2. On June 12, when the vote was taken on the resolutions presented by Randolph, North Carolina voted with the majority in favor of them. 127 From the time when the New Jersey plan was presented, the North Carolina delegates took no part in the debates upon it. Four days later, North Carolina voted with the large states to report the Virginia plan rather than that of New Jersey. 1 2 8 Still voting with the large states, North Carolina was in favor of a legislature consisting of two branches. 129 122

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 35.

123

Ibid., vol. i, p. 50.

124

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 150-151.

125

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 180, 191.

128

Ibid., vol. i, p. 51.

127

Ibid., vol. i, p. 213.

128

Ibid., vol. i, p. 313.

128

Ibid., vol. i, p. 354.

82

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

The state also favored the election of the members of the lower branch of the national legislature by the people of the several states. Spaight favored a seven-year term for senators, 130 but Williamson suggested six years as more convenient for rotation. 131 His motion was lost at this time, but later the majority of the states voted for the six-year term for senators, one-third to go out biennially. 132 On Saturday, June 30, there was a discussion of that part of the report of the committee of the whole allowing the legislatures to choose the members of the upper branch and establishing proportional representation in it. Ellsworth had offered the amendment to give the states an equal vote in the Senate. He felt that some regard should be given to the plighted faith under which each state, whether large or small, had an equal vote under the Articles of Confederation. 133 A strong central government would insure national security, but the state governments would preserve the rights of individuals. Sherman, who supported Ellsworth's motion, acknowledged that many states had been delinquent in regard to requisitions, but asserted that the object of the convention was to amend the defects of the government. 134 Davie considered it impracticable to have so large a body as proposed by the committee. He did not object to the appointment of senators by the legislatures, as some did. The fact was that the local prejudices and interests which could not be denied to exist, would find their way into the national Councils whether the Representatives should be chosen by the Legislatures or by the people themselves. On the other hand, if a proportional representation was attended with insuperable 130 Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 218. 131

Ibid., vol. i, p. 409.

132

Ibid., vol. i, p. 420.

133

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 484, 487, 495-498.

134

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 487, 498.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

83

difficulties, the making the Senate the Representatives of the States, looked like bringing us back to Congs. [¿ic] again, and shutting out all the advantages expected from it. Under this view of the subject he could not vote for any plan for the Senate yet proposed. He thought that in general there were extremes on both sides. We were partly federal, partly national in our Union. And he did not see why the Govt, might not in some respects operate on the States, in others on the people.185 This speech, which was the longest one made by Davie in the convention, showed his willingness to compromise in regard to the composition of the Senate. The following Monday, the vote was taken on Ellsworth's motion to give each state equal representation in the Senate. 134 The large states, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina 137 and South Carolina, voted against it. The small states, Connecticut, New Y o r k , New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, voted in favor of equality. The vote of Georgia was divided, Houston voting against and Baldwin for the motion. Since the states were exactly divided on the question of equality of votes in the Senate, General Pinckney of South Carolina " proposed that a committee consisting of a member from each State should be appointed to devise and report some compromise." 1 3 8 While the various delegates 135 Farrand, op. ext., vol. i, p. 488. The selection given above is taken from Madison's notes. Yates's and Paterson's reports of the speech are much briefer. (Ibid., vol. i, pp. 498, 505.) Madison's report is given at length on account of the importance of Davie's stand in the committee that decided on equality of representation in the Senate. 156

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 509, 510.

187

North Carolina ranked fourth in population among the states.

138

Ibid., vol. i, p. 511. John Fiske justly calls attention to the importance of Baldwin's vote. It made possible the calling of the grand committee.—The Critical Period of American History (Boston and New York, 1888), p. 251. Since Baldwin was a native of Connecticut and a graduate of Yale College, he may have been influenced by the delegates from that state.—McLaughlin, Andrew G , Confederation and Constitution (New York and London, 1905), p. 233.

84

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

were giving their views on the subject, Williamson expressed himself as favorable to compromise. 139 He thought if both sides did not make concessions, their business would soon be at an end. When a vote was taken to select a committee to consider the report of the committee of the whole in regard to representation in the two houses of Congress, only New Jersey and Delaware voted in the negative. 140 The committee, chosen by ballot, included those who favored compromise. Baldwin, who had voted in favor of the equality of the states in the Senate, was chosen to represent Georgia, rather than Houston who had voted against equality. Davie, who had made known his views in a long speech, represented North Carolina. A f t e r a recess for the national holiday, the committee reported that in the lower house of Congress each state should be allowed one member for every 40,000 inhabitants, that all money bills should originate in the lower house, and that in the Senate, each state should have an equal vote. 141 A f t e r a discussion in regard to various parts of the report, which consumed about two weeks, the vote was taken on the whole report of the committee as amended, including the equality of votes in the Senate. 142 The vote was in the affirmative, due to North Carolina's voting with the small states, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. 143 Georgia voted against the report, along with Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina. The vote of Massachusetts was divided. From a study of the votes on equality of the states in the Senate, we see the important part played by North Carolina. Davie's service 339 140

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 515. Ibid., vol. i, pp. 22g, 509, 510.

141

Ibid., vol. i, p. 523.

142

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 15.

143

Although the vote of North Carolina was cast for the affirmative, Spaight registered his disapproval by voting in the negative.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

»5

on the grand committee made possible the report of a compromise. In the final vote on the report of the committee, North Carolina, by deserting the ranks of the large states, made possible the acceptance of equality in the Senate. Next in importance to North Carolina's part in this compromise, is the part taken by the state in regard to the basis of representation in the lower house of Congress. When the Randolph resolution, relating to this question was being considered in the committee of the whole, James Wilson moved that representation be in proportion to " the whole number of white and other free Citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended by the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State." 144 This motion was seconded by Charles Pinckney and passed by a vote of 9 to 2. The two states voting in the negative were New Jersey and Delaware. 145 This clause in regard to the basis of representation in the lower house of Congress was part of the report of the committee of the whole to the convention. 146 The grand committee considered the matter of representation and recommended that in the lower house of Congress each of the states now in the union be allowed one member for every forty thousand inhabitants. 147 This part of the report of the grand committee was submitted to a special committee of five. 148 This committee in addition to reporting the representation of each state f o r the first Congress recommended that, since the states would change in wealth 144

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 193.

145

Ibid., vol. i, p. 195. New Hampshire and Rhode Island were not represented in the convention then. 148 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 227, 229. 147 148

Ibid., vol. i, p. 524. Ibid., vol. i, p. 538.

86

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

and in the number of inhabitants, Congress be authorized from time to time to increase the number of representatives.149 Randolph moved as an amendment that to determine the alterations in the population and wealth of the several states a census be taken periodically so that Congress could arrange representation.150 This amendment was replaced by a proposal made by Williamson that in order to determine the changes in the population and wealth of the several states a census should be taken of " the free inhabitants of each State, and three-fifths of the inhabitants of other description " and Congress should alter the representation accordingly.151 The southern states contended for the inequality of blacks to whites when taxation was under discussion, but when representation was being considered, some of the southern delegates wanted the blacks counted equally. In regard to taxation the eastern delegates had contended for equality, but for representation they did not want equality. Williamson did not concur in either extreme but approved the ratio of three-fifths. 152 He could look at the slave situation more calmly than some of the members; though he was opposed to slavery in theory and in practice,153 he had lived in a southern state and understood the situation of slaveholders. During the discussion as to whether slaves were to be counted in apportioning representation for Congress, Davie, who was a slave owner himself, 154 took a decided stand.165 149

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 557-558.

150

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 564, 570.

" i Ibid., vol. i, pp. 575, 579152

Ibid., vol. i, p. 581.

153

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 415. H e did not own slaves and he voted with Jefferson in the Confederation Congress in 1784 for excluding slavery from the territories. 151 Heads of Families, North Carolina, p. 64. Davie owned 36 slaves. 355

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 593.

According to this census,

THE FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

87

He said it was high time that he spoke out. He saw that some members of the convention wanted to deprive the southern states of any representation f o r their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would not confederate on any terms unless at last three-fifths of the slaves were counted. " If the Eastern States meant thereafter to exclude them altogether the business was at an end." Finally the three-fifths ratio was carried as the basis f o r direct taxation as well as for representation. In the debates in the convention concerning the executive, Williamson took an active part, while Spaight and Davie expressed their views in regard to a number of points. With respect to the election of the president, Williamson, in the committee of the whole, objected to the provision for electors to be chosen by the people because the electors would stand in the same relation to the people as the state legislators, and in addition there would be great trouble and expense in their election. 156 When the convention was discussing the report of the committee of the whole in regard to the election of the executive, Williamson continued to express his views. He preferred the election of the president by the national legislature rather than by the people. He thought that, although there were then distinguished characters known to almost every man, such would not always be the case. The people would be sure to vote for some man from their own state, and the result would be that the largest state would always elect its candidate. 151 H e acknowledged that the strong objection to the election by Congress was the danger of foreign influence, and stated that the main objection to an election by the people was the disadvantage tc the smaller states. 158 T o overcome the latter objection, 158

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 8i, 91. Ibid., vol. ii, p. 32. 1 I b i d . , vol. ii, p. 113. 157

88

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

he suggested that each man should vote for three candidates and it was probable that one would be from his own state and the other two from the other states. Gouverneur Morris approved of the idea, suggesting as an amendment that each man should vote for two candidates, at least one of whom should not be from his own state. James Madison liked the suggestion with the proposed amendment. When the convention was discussing the report of the committee of detail, Williamson objected to the dependence of the president upon the Senate, for he thought it laid a foundation for corruption and aristocracy. 159 He suggested that in place of an eventual choice by the Senate, the choice might be by Congress, voting by states and not per capita. 160 Roger Sherman suggested the House of Representatives as preferable to Congress and this suggestion was carried by a vote of 1 0 to i . Williamson was strongly opposed to a single executive. 161 He preferred the executive power being lodged in three men taken from three districts into which the states might be grouped. He thought the interests of the different sections were so different that an executive could not be fair to all sections. Another objection he had to a single magistrate was that he would be an elective king. He felt that the country would have a king at some time, but he wanted every precaution taken to postpone the event as long as possible. Williamson was also opposed to having a vice-president. He said such an officer was not wanted, and that the provision was introduced " only for the sake of a valuable mode 159 Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 501, 512. leo ¡bid., vol. ii, p. 527. H e did not explain in just what w a y the voting might take place, but it would evidently be by a joint meeting of the two houses. 161

Ibid.,

vol. ii, pp. 100-101.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

89

of election which required t w o to be chosen at the same time." 162 T h e North Carolina delegates favored the ineligibility of the executive for a second term. W i t h such a precaution Williamson was willing that the president should serve as long as ten or twelve years. 183 Later, when four years was the length of the term set, Spaight and Williamson tried in vain to get the time extended to seven years and then to six years. 184 W h e n the vote was taken on a term of four years, North Carolina was the only state voting in the negative. In regard to the powers of the executive, the convention agreed to Spaight's proposal " that the President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of the next Session of the Senate." 185 Williamson and Spaight, influenced no doubt by the strong objections of North Carolina to the proposals for a treaty with Spain, proposed that no treaty of peace affecting territorial rights should be made without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the Senate present. 160 R u f u s K i n g ' s motion to extend the restriction to all " present rights " of the United States was carried. Although Williamson was in favor of the veto power for the president, he did not want too much power given him. 187 He was afraid of too many rather than too f e w laws, and most of all he did not want the repeal of bad laws made too difficult. T h e clause providing that the executive be " removable on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty " was proposed 162

Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 537.

163

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 101.

194

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 525.

165

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 540.

168 [bid.t vol. ii, pp. 534, 543; i". R., vol. xxii, pp. 899-902. 167

Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 585.

go

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

by Williamson and seconded by Davie.168 Davie believed that if the president " be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected." 169 He considered impeachment " an essential security for the good behavior of the Executive." Williamson thought there was " more danger of too much lenity than of too much rigour towards the President." 170 It is interesting to note from the votes and speeches of the North Carolina delegates the stand taken by the state in regard to the rights of the states. At the very beginning of the discussion in the committee of the whole, North Carolina, along with the other states then represented, voted to give Congress the power to negative all state laws in opposition to the Constitution.171 When the attempt was made somewhat more than a week later to give Congress the right " to negative all laws which to them shall appear improper," 172 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia were the only states voting in favor of this power.173 Madison believed an indefinite power to negative legislative acts of the states was absolutely necessary to safeguard the central government, and it would render the use of force unnecessary. This was before the problem had been solved in such a way as to remove the need for a negative or for force, by making it possible for the courts to consider all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of Congress and treaties. Williamson thought that Congress should have the power to negative only such laws as encroached upon the national government, and that the state legislatures should possess independent powers in 168

Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 78.

189

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 64.

170

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 551.

171

Ibid., vol. i, p. 54.

172

Ibid., vol. i, p. 162.

173

Ibid., vol. i, p. 163.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

matters involving their internal policy. 1 7 1

91

N o r t h Carolina

voted along w i t h the other large states that the " legislative, executive, and judiciary powers within the several ought

to

Union."

173

be bound by

oath

to

States

support the articles

of

Williamson, however, declared that he consid-

ered the resolve unnecessary, " as the union will become the law of the land."

178

Later, when the matter was under con-

sideration in the convention, Williamson suggested " that a reciprocal oath should be required f r o m the National officers, to support the Government of the S t a t e s . "

1TT

Liberal views in regard to the rights of states did not extend to new states that might be admitted to the west. It must be borne in mind that N o r t h Carolina had ceded her western lands in 1 7 8 4 , only to withdraw the cession at the next meeting of the General Assembly.

Williamson had

land grants in this territory that could be more favorably located with N o r t h Carolina in possession, and he helped to bring about the repeal of the cession.

H e was in f a v o r of

the states paying out of their own treasuries the salaries of the members of Congress. 1 7 8

W h a t actuated him w a s the

prospect of new states being formed to the westward which would be poor and therefore unable to pay much into the common treasury.

Since the western states would have a

different interest f r o m the old states, he did not think that the latter should pay the expenses of men w h o would be employed in thwarting their measures and interests.

When

the question came to a vote N o r t h Carolina w a s against the 1,4

Farrand, op. ext., vol. i, pp. 165, 169, 171.

175

Ibid., vol. i, pp. 194, 195.

178

Ibid., vol. i, p. 207. It is of interest to note the reference this early in the convention to what became the central clause of the Constitution—" the supreme L a w of the Land."

Ibid., vol. it, p. 87. 178

Ibid., vol. i, p. 372.

92

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

payment of members of Congress out of the federal treasury.179 When the matter of representation was claiming the attention of the delegates, Williamson asked them to keep in view the expectation of new states to the westward.180 They would be small states, they would be poor, they would be unable to pay in proportion to their numbers. Their distance from markets rendering their produce less valuable, they would be tempted to combine to lay burdens on commerce and consumption which would fall with greatest weight on the old states. In the discussion of the matter of representation, after the report of a committee of five which had considered the proposition of the grand committee in regard to the ratio of representation in the lower house of Congress, Williamson said it was necessary to return to the rule of numbers.181 He believed, however, that the western states stood on a different footing. If their property was rated as high as that of the Atlantic states, then their representation should hold a like proportion. I f their property was not rated as high, neither should their representation be equally rated. The other North Carolina delegates, however, were not as hostile to the west as Williamson, whose interest in the west seemed solely to get a good financial return on his holdings there. When the vote was taken in the convention on limiting the number of representatives in the lower house of Congress from the new states that might be formed, so that it should never exceed the number of representatives from the original states, North Carolina voted with the majority against the proposition.182 When representation in the Senate was considered, Wil" " Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, p. 385. " o Ibid-, vol. i, pp. 445-446. 181

Ibid., vol. j, p. 560.

182

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 2.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

93

Harrison wanted Congress left free to make the conditions upon which new states might be admitted. Although existing small states enjoyed an equality, and for that reason were admitted to equality in the Senate, this reason did not apply to the new western states. 183 He was opposed to any compulsion in the Constitution in regard to the cession of western lands, and was " for leaving the whole matter in Statu quo." 1 8 1 The regulation of trade was a matter of deep concern to North Carolina. Williamson, who from his former experience had a knowledge of such conditions, let his views be known in regard to the various aspects of the problem. He was opposed to the central government taxing exports, as such taxes would bear heavily upon the southern states which produced staples. 185 If states were allowed to tax exports, he thought it would destroy the last hope of an adoption of the plan of government. 188 He wished the laying of imposts or duties absolutely prohibited to the states, since North Carolina and New Jersey might suffer from the regulations of neighboring importing states. 187 He was in favor of requiring a two-thirds vote for the regulation of trade, instead of a bare majority, as it would be more satisfactory to the southern people.188 If a majority of the northern states should push their regulations too far, the southern states could build ships for themselves, but the southerners were apprehensive on the subject and would be pleased with the precaution. Spaight, however, differed with his col183

Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 454.

181

T h e debate in the convention left the fate of the State of Franklin at the option of North Carolina.—Williams, State of Franklin, pp. 179-182. 385

Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 307.

186

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 360. H e said North Carolina had been taxed by Virginia, by a duty on 12,000 hogsheads of her tobacco. 187

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 441.

188

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 450.

94

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

leagues; he was opposed to a two-thirds vote for the regulation of trade. He believed that the southern states could save themselves from oppression by building ships for their own use. 189 When the heated discussion in regard to the slave trade was taking place, Williamson explained how North Carolina regulated the slave trade by imposing a duty on each slave imported. 190 He said he thought the southern states would not be members of the union if the slave trade were prohibited. He did not think it wise to force anything, not absolutely necessary, to which any state must disagree. Rutledge said that North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia would never agree to the plan unless their right to import slaves be left untouched. When the committee had reported the compromise in favor of not prohibiting the slave trade prior to 1800, which was amended to 1808, Williamson spoke in favor of the compromise. 191 He said although he was opposed to slavery, he thought it more in the interest cf humanity to allow South Carolina and Georgia to come in on these terms rather than to exclude them from the union. In the course of time the provision allowing the slave trade for at least twenty years was accepted, along with the majority vote for the regulation of trade. From the above account it is apparent that the North Carolina delegates did not have a prominent part in proposing the main features of the new government; yet they played a most important part in the compromises, without which the whole attempt to improve the government might have been a failure. In the working out of details, the delegates made many suggestions which were of value. During the meeting of the convention the reports of the 189

Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 451.

180

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 373-

191

Ibid.., vol. ii, pp. 415-416.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

95

delegates to their constituents were very meager. Franking privileges granted by Congress to the members of the convention encouraged correspondence, 182 but the seal of secrecy decided upon by the convention prevented a free communication of the debates. Early in the convention Davie wrote to James Iredell of North Carolina asking his opinion in regard to the judicial and executive powers of the central government in its relation to the states, also in regard to absolute or limited powers for the regulation of trade. 19 * Benjamin Hawkins, a representative of North Carolina in Congress, wrote to Jefferson early in June that every citizen was looking forward with eagerness to the establishment of an efficient government. 194 On June 1 4 , the four North Carolina delegates wrote the governor that although the convention was in session six days a week, they did not know when the business would be finished. Their concern over the situation was shown by the following statement : A very large Field presents to our view without a single Straight or eligible Road that has been trodden by the feet of Nations. An Union of Sovereign States, preserving their Civil Liberties and connected together by such Tyes as to Preserve permanent & effective Governments is a system not described, it is a circumstance that has not occurred in the History of men; if we shall be so fortunate as to find this in descript [iic] our Time will have been well spent.195 When some of the delegates had their wives with them in Philadelphia and others were sending for theirs, the North Carolina delegates realized that the convention would last for some time. They began to think of their business affairs 182

Documentary

History

193

of the Constitution,

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 161 Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 3 1 .

vol. iv, p. 1 2 1 .

(Philadelphia,

May

30,

1787);

194

Documentary

185

S. R., vol. x x , pp. 723-724; Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 46-47.

History

of the Constitution,

vol. iv, p. 189.

g6

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

at home, but they assured the governor they were resolved to remain as long as they were able to serve the state and the union. A few days later Davie wrote to Caswell, " W e move slowly in our business; it is indeed a work of great delicacy and difficulty, impeded at every step by jealousies & jarring interests." When Governor Caswell was sending additional allowances to the delegates, he said the task was arduous and would require time for deliberation and consideration.197 He knew each delegate, in being absent so long, was concerned about his private affairs, but the work was so important as to induce each one to see to it that the business was completed. Caswell thought the secrecy of the convention necessary, for " otherwise it would give more room to Babblers & Scriblers to exercise their powers than they can be at Liberty to take in their present case." 198 He approved the plan of having a strong Congress and a supreme executive, but he also wished to have an independent judicial department to decide any contest between the United States and individual states and between one state and another.199 Alexander Martin wrote Caswell that it was no small task to form a united government, and still preserve the particular interests of the individual states.200 Later he wrote that as much unanimity had prevailed as could be expected from sentiments arising in twelve " Independent Sovereign Bodies." 201 He said they were then discussing the report of the committee of detail. Although he could not relate what had been done, he could tell they were not creating a king as had been reported in some of the eastern states. 19C

George C. Thomas Collection, p. 12.

19r

5". R., vol. xx, p. 729, July 1, 1787; Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 52.

198

Letter Book, Governor Caswell, 1785-87, p. 520.

199

5". R., vol. xx, p. 752; Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 63-64.

200

5". R., vol. xx, p. 753; Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 64-65.

201

S. R., vol. xx, p. 763; Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 72.

THE

FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF

1787

T h e third week in June, Davie wrote to Iredell telling him of John A d a m s ' Defence of the American Constitutions which was signally engaging the attention of the public. 202 A g a i n in August, Davie wrote Iredell concerning Adams' book, and was sorry he could not forward him a copy. 203 He thought Iredell would be pleased with it, even though it was rather an encomium on the British constitution than a defence of the American system. During August a newspaper writer from Prince Edward county, Virginia, supposed by some to be Patrick Henry, promised to investigate and expose the dangerous tendency as well as the unsoundness of John Adams' doctrines. 204 Iredell wrote to Davie that he wished every success to the work of the convention, 205 and he did not think unanimity necessary. About the time that Davie left the convention, Spaight wrote Iredell that it was not probable the United States would ever again risk their happiness upon the unanimity of the whole, and thereby make it possible for one or two states to defeat important propositions; and that every man of reflection who had seriously considered the weaknesses of the federal government and the tyrannical and unjust proceedings of many of the state governments must sincerely desire a strong and efficient national government. 208 He supposed that those persons, who had popularity in the different states and made use of it for their private good rather than for public benefit, would oppose any system establishing a strong central government. It is of interest to note the North Carolina delegates who 202

M c R e e , Iredell,

203 ibid., 204

vol. ii, p. 161.

vol. ii, p. 168.

Documentary

History

of the Constitution,

vol. iv, pp. 264-265.

M c R e e , op. cit., vol. ii, p. 167. Iredell was one of the most active workers for the ratification of the Constitution in North Carolina. 205

2oa

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 168; Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 68.

98

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

signed the Constitution. Of the delegates originally elected, two refused to attend the convention,201 and two left before the Constitution was completed,208 so that Spaight was the only one of them left to sign.208 Williamson and Blount, who were later appointed by the governor, also signed the Constitution. Williamson was strongly in favor of the Constitution and signed readily. Blount was not willing to pledge himself to support the plan; 210 but he signed when the form was so arranged that, without committing himself, he could " attest the fact that the plan was the unanimous act of the States in Convention." The Constitution, the resolutions of the convention, and the letter written by Washington, were sent to Congress to be submitted to the states.211 The people of North Carolina realized that the state should be represented in Congress when the Constitution was received, and plans were so made that the state was represented at that time.212 At the close of the convention, the North Carolina delegates as a group wrote to Governor Caswell to explain the financial provisions of the Constitution in so far as the state was concerned.213 They spoke of the severe and painful application during the four months that the convention met, during which time a plan of government was framed which they hoped would eliminate the defects of the old federal union. They enclosed a copy of the Constitution to be submitted to the General Assembly, and they wished the gover207

Richard Caswell and Willie Jones. 208 Davie left August 13 and Martin left the latter part of August. Martin did not take an active part in the state campaign for ratification but Davie did. 20» Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 587. 210

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 646.

2,1

i . R-, vol. x x , pp. 775-777-

212

North

213

S. R., vol. x x , pp. 777-779; Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, pp. 83-84.

Carolina Manual, 1913, p. 610.

THE FEDERAL

CONVENTION

OF 1787

nor to assure that body they had done all that was possible " to guard and promote the particular interest of North Carolina." They called attention to the fact that representation in the lower house was based upon the white inhabitants plus three-fifths of the blacks. During the first three years, the state was to have five representatives, which was exactly one thirteenth of the whole number. The population of North Carolina was no doubt more than one thirteenth of the population of the union; but the state had never allowed its delegates in Congress to prove the fact, because the quota of the national debt would have been increased accordingly. They believed that the state was secured against unequal or heavy taxation, because all direct taxes had to be apportioned among the states according to population, counting only three-fifths of the slaves. The southern states were given greater security for the return of fugitive slaves than under the Confederation. Most of the national taxes would be collected by imposts, duties and excises, which were to be uniform throughout the United States. Although, as a concession to the northern states, Congress was given the right to regulate commerce, North Carolina was in this respect the most independent of the southern states. With this explanation of the economic advantages of the Constitution, the delegates left Philadelphia. Prominent men of the state had their part in the framing of the Constitution and were able to explain its provisions so that the progressive element would realize the advantages of adoption. The reaction of the masses to the Constitution remained to be seen.

CHAPTER THE

CONSTITUTION

III

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

THE Philadelphia convention after completing its work, adopted a resolution recommending that Congress submit the proposed Constitution to a convention of delegates in each state, chosen by the people thereof, " under the recommendation of its Legislature." 1 A copy of the Constitution, accompanied by an open letter from Washington, president of the convention, was sent to the legislatures through the governors of the several states. 2 Immediately the advocates and opponents of the new scheme marshaled their forces for the contest under the names of federalists and antifederalists, and in the campaign that followed party animosity and personal bitterness raged furiously. Even before it was known what the Philadelphia convention would recommend to the states, the plan of government became an issue in North Carolina politics. The annual election for members of the General Assembly was held in August, 1787, while the federal convention was still in session. Since the legislature would have to take action concerning measures recommended by the convention, great interest was aroused in the election. O n July 11, in Martin's North Carolina Gazette of Newbern, there appeared an address To the Freemen of the State of North Carolina by " A Voter ". T h e writer urged that care be taken in the choice of delegates to the Assembly and suggested that after the election the freeholders and freemen meetito consider what instructions should be given their representatives. B y such 1

Poore, The Federal

2

51. R., vol. xx, pp. 128-129. 100

and State

Constitutions,

p. 13, note.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

instructions, printed in the newspapers, the legislators would learn the true sentiments of the people and would be obliged to pay attention to them.3 In the same issue of the Gazette,* was printed a discussion on the best forms of federal government. The writer maintained that although order might be preserved under any one of the three systems of government, democracy, fortified by an efficient executive branch, was the best form. While Hugh Williamson was still in the convention at Philadelphia, 5 he wrote to a friend in North Carolina urging that the federalists make every attempt to elect representatives to the General Assembly in order that men of understanding might be present to explain and promote such measures as might be recommended.8 Despite the urging of Williamson, Samuel Johnston of Edenton, one of the most prominent federalists of the state, did not even stand for election, because he felt the opposition to him was too strong. A federalist, anxious to have Johnston serve, yet realizing the opposition to him, wrote, " Surely your enemies are a blind stupid set, that wish Damnation to their Country." 7 In the town of Edenton, the home of many prominent federalists, through mismanagement one federalist defeated another fed3

Following the suggestions of " A Voter ", a considerable number of the inhabitants of the county of Chowan and the town of Edenton met at the court house in Edenton on November 8, 1787 ( T h e American Museum, vol. iii, p. 7 1 ) . At this meeting Hugh Williamson gave a long address on the proposed system of federal government {ibid., vol. iii, pp. 548-554). After his address resolutions were passed instructing the delegates of the county and town to use their utmost efforts to obtain a resolution of the General Assembly, appointing the choice and meeting of representatives of the people, in a convention to deliberate on the proposed Constitution {ibid., vol. iii, p. 72). 4

July 11, 1787.

' July 8, 1787. 6

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 163.

7

Johnson Mss. 1786-89, May 11, 1787.

Ï02

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

eralist, neither of whom desired to run against the other. The name of James Iredell, the defeated candidate, had been proposed by his friends the day before the election without his knowledge. 8 Iredell had written earlier that although no one was more conscious of the critical situation of the government or better disposed to lend assistance for its relief, yet he had become so unpopular with the people that he did not think he would be chosen and he was resolved not to solicit votes or use any " electionary " arts, to carry a bare election by a people who had not proper confidence in him and entertained views altogether different from his own.® Charges of fraud were made in the election of a delegate to represent Wilmington in the House of Commons. 10 In Hawkins and Washington, two western counties, the elections for senators were conducted in such a manner that the Senate declared them illegal and ordered a new election in each county. 11 A short time before the election in Orange county, animosity reached such a pitch that William Hooper, a prominent federalist, had an encounter with an antifederalist, in which he came off " second best with his eyes blacked." 1 2 In Brunswick county, Benjamin Smith, a strong federalist, was defeated. 13 Archibald Maclaine, disturbed over the defeat of so many federalists, wrote, " we have a set of fools and knaves in every part of the State, who seem to act as by concert; and are uniformly against any man of abilities and virtue." 14 When the General Assembly met at Tarboro on November 8

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 171.

»Charles E. Johnson Collection, 1784-1790. 10

S. R., vol. x x , pp. 159-162.

11

Ibid., vol. x x , pp. 322-324, 326.

12

Johnson Mss., 1786-89.

13

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 179.

14

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 178.

THE CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

19, 1787, it was evident that the federalists had made some gains, although in both branches the anti federalists were in control. Prominent among the federalists in the House of Commons, who were later active in behalf of the Constitution in the convention, were William R. Davie and Richard D. Spaight, both of whom had served in the Philadelphia convention, John Sitgreaves, who was chosen speaker, Stephen Cabarrus, John Steele and William B. Grove. 15 Federalists in the Senate who were later active supporters of the Constitution were Isaac Gregory, General Allen Jones, John Skinner and John Johnston. 18 Among the prominent antifederalists in the House of Commons who later opposed the Constitution in the convention were Timothy Bloodworth, William Goudy, Britain Sanders and Alexander Mebane." Some of the anti federalists in the Senate who later opposed the Constitution were Thomas Person, Elisha Battle, James Kenan and Joel Lane. 18 In recognition of his eminent services, Samuel Johnston was elected governor by the legislature, despite the fact that he was opposed to many of the principles for which the anti federalist majority stood.19 Two days after the meeting of the General Assembly, Governor Caswell submitted to that body such dispatches and other public papers as appeared to him to be of importance.20 The greater part of his message referred to a file of papers endorsed " Papers respecting the Federal Convention ". By this time of course, the provisions of the Constitution proposed by the federal convention were known. On October 15

R., vol. xx, p. 121. Ibid., vol. xx, pp. 301-302. 17 Ibid., vol. xx, p. 121. 18 Ibid., vol. xx, pp. 301-302. 19 Wagstaff, Henry McGilbert, " Federalism in North Carolina," in James Sprunt Historical Publications, vol. ix, no. 2 (Chapel Hill, 1910). 18

20

S. R., vol. xx, pp. 128-129.

104

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

4, the State Gazette of North Carolina at Newbern printed the Constitution in full, with the list of delegates from each state who signed it, and the letter submitting the Constitution to Congress; no comments, however, were made on the work of the convention. There went out from Newbern on November 22 the information from Tarboro that both houses of the Assembly were expected to be formed by that time and that " the Federal Constitution seemed to meet with an almost universal approbation." 21 On December 5, the date set for discussion of the document,22 a message was sent to the Senate by the House proposing a joint meeting in the Commons room.23 Thomas Person objected and tried to prevent action on the proposal by speaking as often as the rules of the Senate permitted, but when Person was quieted, the Senate agreed to meet the House in conference as proposed. When the two houses convened, they formed themselves into a committee of the whole with Elisha Battle as chairman.24 The committee adopted a series of resolutions, accepted by both houses on December 6,25 providing that on the last Friday and Saturday in March, 1788, delegates should be selected for a state convention to consider the Constitution. Freemen who had paid public taxes were qualified to vote in the election, but only freeholders were eligible to sit in the convention. Each of the fifty-eight counties was entitled to elect five delegates, each of the six borough towns one, and the election was to be held under the rules governing regular elections for members of the General Assembly. The delegates elected were to assemble in convention at Hillsboro July 2 1 , 1788. The public printer was ordered to print 21 22

Connecticut Courant, December 31, 1787. R., vol. xx, p. 133.

23

Ibid., vol. xx, pp. 193-194, 369.

24

Ibid., vol. xx, pp. 194, 370.

25

Ibid., vol. xx, pp. 196-197, 370-372.

THE CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE PEOPLE

105

300 copies o i these resolutions and 1 5 0 0 copies of the Constitution, to be circulated by the members of the Assembly among their constituents.28 When the resolutions were being considered in the Senate, Person again tried to obstruct the proceedings, anticipating the later demand for amendments. He assisted James Coor in an attempt to insert a proviso that, in case the members of the state convention did ratify the proposed Constitution, they should report to the governor of the state their objections and the necessary alterations which should be made to secure to the people their rights, liberties and privileges, as expressed and secured to them by the bill of rights and constitution of the state.27 This was negatived, however, by a vote of 35 to 8. On December 10, four days after the decision to call a state convention had been reached, Governor Caswell sent to the General Assembly sundry resolutions of Virginia, concerning the federal Constitution, with a letter addressed to the speaker of the House of Commons. 28 The act of the Virginia legislature calling the convention of that state for June did not reach Governor Caswell until after the North Carolina Assembly had adjourned. 29 The North Carolina delegates in Congress who were in Tarboro were requested to lay before the Assembly " the 26 On December 2 1 , W y c k Goodwin was allowed 5 pounds for going express to Newbern to carry to the printer the directions of the Assembly relative to his printing 1500 copies of the federal Constitution and 300 copies of the resolutions of the General Assembly thereon.—Legislative Papers. House of Commons, 1787, Dec. 21.

27 29

S . R., vol. x x , p. 372. Ibid., vol. xx, p. 208.

29 Letter Book, Governor Johnston, p. 7. T h e details in regard to the time the communications were received from Virginia are given, on account of the reports later that North Carolina set the date of her convention after that of Virginia, in order to be guided by the action of Virginia.

IOÓ

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

present State and Circumstances of the Union, and such transactions of Congress in the course of the last year as may be conducive to the better understanding of this Subject." 30 Accordingly on December 15, 1787, Robert Burton, William Blount and Benjamin Hawkins attended, and Hawkins addressed the Assembly in the name of the three delegates. A f t e r discussing the deplorable financial condition of the nation and various other matters of concern to North Carolina, 31 Hawkins said the subject of the navigation of the Mississippi river was of too delicate a nature to commit to paper. The matter had been seriously agitated, but the conduct of Spain was not liberal, no doubt because of the fact that the United States was not a formidable neighbor. 32 The people of North Carolina had strongly opposed the proposals for a treaty with Spain in which the United States would give up the use of the Mississippi for a number of years. 33 From the Secret Journals of Congress,34 we learn that the North Carolina delegates presented to Congress in March, 1787, various papers in regard to merchandise seized by the Spaniards on the Mississippi within the dominion of the United States. The motion to refer the matter to a committee was lost, with Massachusetts, Connecticut and Pennsylvania voting against it. O n December 21, 1787, both houses of the General Assembly resolved: That the Citizens of this State and the United States have a full and indisputable claim to the Navigation of the river Mississippi, as well by the clear and express stipulations of Treaties as by the Great Law of Nature. That the Delegates of this State be 30

5. R., vol. xx, p. 228.

31

Ibid., vol. x x , p. 241.

32

Ibid., vol. x x , p. 242.

33

Ibid., vol. xxii, pp. 899-902.

31 Ibid., vol. xxii, pp. 324-329; Secret 30, 1787.

Journals of Congress,

March

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

instructed to move in Congress for a full and explicit declaration that the right which the United States and each of them have to the Navigation of the Mississippi is absolute and inalienable, in order that the apprehensions, and fears of our fellow Citizens on that Subject may be entirely removed. 35 T h e unanimous passage o f this resolution is proof that there was strong feeling in North Carolina regarding the navigation of the Mississippi. Interest had been shown in the election of members of the General Assembly, but even greater interest was shown in the election of delegates to the state convention. Since any freeholder might be chosen by any county or borough town, regardless of residence, letters were written by prospective delegates to their friends to determine at what place their names might be offered for election. 86 T h e newspapers were eagerly read for the course of events in other states as well as in North Carolina. 37 A t the sessions of the courts, at county militia musters, in the taverns, wherever men gathered, the main topics of conversation were the Constitution and its framers. In the heat of argument no man's character was above attack and no past political or military service could overcome party animosity. Thomas Person, a general of the Revolution and a patriot of undoubted sincerity, denounced Washington as " a damned rascal and traitor to his country f o r putting his hand to such an infamous paper as the new Constitution." 38 Willie Jones, leader of the antifederalists, found it necessary to deny in the public press that he had " called the Members of the Grand Convention, generally, and General Washington and Col. Davie, in particular, scoundrels," and asserted that he **S. R., vol. xxii, pp. 279-280, 471; American Museum, vol. iii, p. 198. 36

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 183.

37

Salem Diary, 1788, March 13, translated by Miss Adelaide L. Fries.

38

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 224-225.

I 0

8

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

thought Washington " the first and best character in the world " and Davie " a valuable member of the community." 89 During the course of the campaign, sentiment became well crystallized in the various sections of the state. The western counties were in general opposed to the Constitution without amendments, 40 while the eastern counties were in favor of it. 41 The records show that in at least two counties positive instructions were given the delegates. William Lenoir of Wilkes county said later in the debates in the convention that his constituents had instructed him to oppose the adoption of the Constitution. 42 In a weekly newspaper published at Halifax appeared instructions for the delegates from the county of Northampton. 4 3 Most of the delegates came to the convention with an understanding of the wishes of their constituents and a determination to carry them out. At the beginning of the convention Willie Jones said the Constitution had been so long the subject of deliberation, that he believed every delegate was prepared to give his vote upon the question. 44 William Lancaster of Franklin said that his own feelings and his duty to his constituents induced him to oppose the adoption of the Constitution, since he believed every delegate was bound by his instructions.4® Although many prominent men were elected delegates to 39 State 20, 1788. 10

Gazette

of North

Carolina,

Edenton, Hodge and Wills, Oct.

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 222.

41

Address of the Grand J u r y at Beaufort, in New York Daily Advertiser, May 14, 1788; address of the Grand J u r y at Edenton, in McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 181-183. 42 Elliot, Jonathan, The Debates in the several State Conventions, on the adoption of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia, 1891), vol. iv, p. 202. 43

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 96.

44

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 4.

45

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 215.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

the convention, some candidates of prominence were defeated. Among the latter was Allen Jones, an advocate of the Constitution, who had been a general in the Revolutionary war, a delegate to the Continental Congress, and f o r several years a representative of Northampton county in the state Senate. 46 Other defeated candidates were William Hooper, 47 one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, William Blount and Alexander Martin, both delegates to the Philadelphia convention." A l f r e d Moore, who was later an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Williams and Judge Ashe of the state bench were also defeated. The committee on elections in the convention settled a dispute between two antifederalist candidates from New Hanover county. 49 Fayetteville, which was not one of the borough towns of the state although its population was larger than that of some of the towns so designated, failed to have its candidate seated in the convention. 50 Elkanah Watson, who was living in North Carolina during the convention campaign, 51 advocated the ratification of the Constitution and made numerous contributions to the press in Virginia and North Carolina. Lemuel Burkitt, a Baptist preacher strongly opposed to ratification, was a candidate in Hertford county. Watson had been engaged 46

McRee, op. ext., vol. ii, p. 223; Wheeler, Historical North Carolina. 47

Sketches

of

He was a native of Boston. A f t e r studying law with James Otis, he moved to North Carolina in 1764. " H e had much nervous irritability, was imaginative and susceptible. With a well-disciplined mind, and of studious habits, he shone with lustre whenever he pleased to exert himself."—McRee, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 194-195. 48

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 223.

49

S. R., vol. xxii, p. 13.

50

Ibid., vol. xxii, p. 12.

51

Watson, Men and Times of the Revolution,

p. 301.

I I 0

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

with Burkitt in many warm personal discussions and in public correspondence. A week before the election Watson was riding with M a j o r Murfree and Dr. Garvey when they observed on a tree the following placard: " N o t i c e ! — O n Wednesday next, at three o'clock, all persons desirous of hearing the new Constitution explained, by Elder B 1, are requested to attend his church in the Woodlands, 17th March, 1788." Indignant at what they deemed to be " an insidious attempt to deceive the community," they determined to be present to counteract the movement. W h e n Watson and his companions arrived, they found a horse hitched to every tree about the church, and the interior of the building crowded. Finding seats near the pulpit, they noticed the speaker " frequently cast a suspicious and disconcerted eye " at their pew. 52 In explaining the selection of an area ten miles square as the seat of the government, Burkitt said: "This, my friends, will be walled in or fortified. Here an army of fifty thousand, or perhaps, a hundred thousand men, will be finally embodied, and will sally forth, and enslave the people, who will be gradually disarmed." Watson and his friends, aroused by the absurd assumption, determined to interfere. In the uproar that ensued they were saved from violence by the personal popularity of Murfree, and managed to make their escape. Their object, however, was attained, for the meeting was broken up. T h e next day Watson and Garvey planned and executed a caricature which they hoped would have a good effect at the polls. This they committed to some resolute fellows with instructions to post it at the door of the court house at the opening of the polls. Some of Burkitt's friends attempted to pull it down, and a general battle ensued which obstructed the voting. Candles in the 5 2 W a t s o n , op. cit., p. 302. T h e elder referred to was Lemuel Burkitt of H e r t f o r d . M a j o r H a r d y M u r f r e e was in the convention of 1789 and voted f o r ratification.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

court house were extinguished in the disturbance and " both parties, in great confusion, were left in the dark, literally as well as politically." 53 T o the great annoyance of Watson, Burkitt was elected. The election in Dobbs county showed the extreme to which thè federalists were willing to go to carry the elections. Their candidates in this county included some of the most prominent men in the state ; Richard Caswell had served as governor of the state for seven terms and had represented his county fifteen times in the General Assembly, 54 while James Glasgow had served as secretary of state since 1 7 7 7 . " The other three candidates also had held important positions in both county and state. In spite of their varied careers in politics, however, the federalist candidates displayed less political sagacity than their inexperienced opponents. Failing to realize the necessity of presenting a solid front, they allowed some of their none too numerous supporters to fritter away part of their strength by casting a few merely complimentary votes for men closely allied with them by family. 68 No such over-confidence prevailed in the antifederalist camp. They presented only five candidates and lined up solidly behind them. These men, except Moses Westbrook who had represented the county one term in the House of Commons, were without political experience; Abraham Baker, one of the candidates, was a Baptist preacher, and Absalom Price occasionally preached. 57 The voters of 55

Watson, op. cit., p. 303.

51

North Carolina Manual, 1913, pp. 362, 417, 591-592.

65

Ibid., p. 441.

sa

Convention Papers, 1788, pp. 7, 13.

67

New York Daily Advertiser, June 30, 1788. The person from Dobbs county who wrote the letter appearing in the New York paper said that about 370 persons voted out of the approximate number of 700 in the county, " and it is more than probable that every person of the antifederalist party appeared, for they had been stirred up even from the

112

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

Dobbs county were to choose between men who for years had held prominent positions in the state and others who, if they had ability, had not had opportunity to display it. The sheriff took every precaution to have a fair election. A f t e r the balloting had closed, a number of men gathered in the dimly lighted court room to watch the counting of the votes; and as each name was called out and recorded, speculation as to the outcome rose to a high pitch. T o the delight of the antifederalists, the election was going in favor of their candidates, and as name after name was called out, there seemed to be no doubt of the outcome. 68 T h e total number of ballots cast was 372, each elector voting for five candidates. T h e counting of the first 282 showed the following results : 5 9 FEDERALISTS

Richard Caswell James Glasgow Benjamin Sheppard Bryan Whitfield John Herritage

120 120 no 106 98

ANTIFEDERALISTS

Moses Westbrook Jacob Johnson Isaac Croom Absalom Price Abraham Baker

159 158 157 156 154

In addition to these there were a few scattering federalist votes. pulpit (being mostly Baptists) and circular letters had passed from meeting to meeting, and from preacher to preacher. This scheme is said to have originated in the brain of a politician, in the full enjoyment at all times of one or more lucrative offices under the state, and that his most pious friend has been the principal agent." 58 Convention Papers, 1788, p. 15. 69 Ibid., pp. 3-7.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

n j

T h e federalists were deeply chagrined. It scarcely seemed possible to them that Richard Caswell could be defeated by Preacher B a k e r ; 4 0 they decried the character and ability of their successful opponents and cursed the folly of the people. T h e antifederalists, of course, did not tamely submit to these insults. One of the federalists threatened an inspector of the election with blows, just as another federalist struck the candle f r o m the hand of one holding it. T h e inspector who had been threatened sought safety through an open window. 6 1 Instantly all the other candles were knocked over, and the room was left in utter darkness. T h e sound of curses and blows was heard above the general uproar. T h e sheriff, who was endeavoring to guard the ballot-box, was knocked almost senseless, and the box was forcibly and violently wrenched f r o m him and carried away. 62 Thereupon one of the federalist candidates exclaimed, " Well done, Boys, now we'll have a new Election." 63 T h e morning after the riot, the ballot-box w a s found near the jail, broken to pieces and tickets scattered around it on the ground. Curiosity led many people to the place to see the remains of the evidence that might have elected antifederalists to seats in the state convention. One person who picked up a number of the scrolls or tickets said that sixtytwo of the sixty-three had the names of the anti federalist candidates on them. 64 Another person w h o picked up a number of the tickets said if the election had been broken up by members of the federalist party they did wrong, f o r it seemed from the uncounted ballots that the federalist candidates would have been elected. 65 80

Convention Papers, p. 15.

61

Ibid., p. 12.

62

Ibid., pp. 7, 17.

03

Ibid., p. 17.

94

Ibid., p. 11.

«Ibid.,

p. 16.

U4

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

The federalists had prevented the success of their opponents, but this was not victory; they desired to have federalist delegates to represent the county. Accordingly, they appealed to Samuel Johnston, the federalist governor, to order a new election. Johnston promptly complied with the request, but, doubtful of his authority in the matter, merely " recommended " to the sheriff to hold another election.4® The sheriff held the election as " recommended " by His Excellency, but instead of 3 7 2 votes as in the March election, only 85 were cast in the special election in July. 87 The antifederalists, fearing to countenance an illegal procedure, remained away from the polls. Consequently, federalist candidates were chosen without opposition, and Richard Caswell, James Glasgow, Winston Caswell, Benjamin Sheppard and Nathan Lassiter were given certificates of election.68 When the convention met at Hillsboro, these five federalists appeared to take their seats, but a strong protest against seating them was presented by the antifederalists of Dobbs county.68 A petition signed by 248 men, those not able to write having made their marks, protested against the means used by 85 men of the county to send federalist delegates to the convention. They stated that the first election had been broken up by a riot because it was apparent that the antifederalist candidates would be elected, and that the federalists had induced the governor to call a new election. The petitioners claimed that the governor had exceeded his power and asked that Johnson, Baker, Westbrook, Price and Croom be seated in the convention. The petition and various depositions were referred to the committee on elections which was composed of eleven federalists and sixteen anti federalists. 70 88

Convention Papers, p. 8.

87

Ibid., p. 18.

88

Ibid., p. 8.

89

Ibid., p. 9.

™ Ibid., p. 19.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

115

A s a result, both the federalist and the antifederalist candidates from Dobbs county were refused seats, and Dobbs was not represented in the convention. 71 In the western counties of Davidson and Sumner, the election for delegates to the convention was hotly contested.72 In Davidson there were fifteen candidates. John Brown Cutting, writing from London to Thomas Jefferson in July, 1788, described these elections in the west as follows: In North Carolina violent contests at the election of members for their state Convention by a few of those tramontane [¿ic] districts have resulted. In one instance the operation of those intrigues to which I refer probably induced a majority of the voters to bestow their suffrages on men extremely obscure and unfit from excessive ignorance—as is alledged—to discuss or decide upon so great a question.7* Despite all the efforts of the federalists, there were only two delegates in the convention from the counties west of the mountains who voted f o r ratification of the Constitution. 74 Cutting also wrote that among the whole thirteen states there was not a community in which internal disturbances more strongly demanded the interference of such national authority as would be secured through ratification. 75 71

R., vol. xxii, p. 10.

72

New York Daily Advertiser,

73

Documentary History of the Constitution, vol. iv, pp. 770-771.

June 28, 1788.

74

These were James Winchester and William Stokes from Sumner county. 75 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 771. The following quotation from the State Gazette of South Carolina for April 10, 1788 shows that Virginia as well as North Carolina had disturbances in connection with elections: " A t a meeting of the justices at Clowe's tavern, in the county of Sussex, on the 2d inst. after business was over, a riot arose between the parties called Whigs & Tories, which continued for some time with great violence with fists and cudgels. We are sorry to hear that such occurrences are exceedingly frequent in the county."

I 16

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

Such was the course of events leading to the election of delegates to the state convention. The key-note for the federalists in the campaign was sounded by Hugh Williamson, one of the delegates in the Philadelphia convention, in a series of seven letters which appeared over the name of " Sylvius ". These letters were written in North Carolina in 1786 and were sent to N e w Y o r k for publication. They were first published in a newspaper and later in pamphlet form. 7 6 In A u g u s t 1787, during the latter days of the federal convention, the letters appeared in the American Museum which was published in Philadelphia. 77 Williamson originally addressed the letters " T o the freemen inhabitants of the State of North Carolina " , but the printer, to make a general appeal took the liberty of addressing them " T o the freemen inhabitants of the united states." The letters com7 0 T h e library of the N e w Y o r k Historical Society has the pamphlet f o r m of the Letters from Syknus, f r o m the library of H u g h Williamson. T h e g r e a t value of this copy of the pamphlet is due to the fact that W i l l i a m s o n made corrections in it, and the f o l l o w i n g note is in his handw r i t i n g and signed " H . W . " : " T h e f o l l o w i n g Letters were written in N o r t h Carolina in the Y e a r 1786 and the Copy w a s sent to N e w Y o r k f o r Publication but the Printer wishing to publish them in a N e w s Paper with little addition to the T r o u b l e of publishing them in a Pamphlet, took the unjustifiable Liberty of addressing them to the ' Inhabitants of the United States ' instead of the ' Inhabitants of North C a r o l i n a ' to w h o m they w e r e addressed in the manuscript. In Consequence of that Alteration the Printer also thought fit to make some Alterations in the Letters, thus in 3rd P a g e 5th Line he inserted ' these S t a t e s ' instead of ' this S t a t e ' . B y such Liberties he affected the Unity of the w o r k and made it appear much less correct than it should have been." T h e f o l l o w i n g is the title page of the pamphlet: Letters/ f r o m / Sylvius/ to the/ Freemen Inhabitants/ of the/ State of N o r t h Carolina/ containing/ some r e m a r k s / o n / the scarcity of m o n e y ; / paper c u r r e n c y ; / national d r e s s ; / f o r e i g n l u x u r i e s ; / the federal debt;/ and/ public taxes./ N e w Y o r k : / Printed by C a r r o l l & Patterson, N o . 16, Water-street./ M,DCC,LXXXVII. 77 The " Letters of S y l v i u s " taken f r o m a copy of the American Museum have been reprinted in the Historical Papers published by T r i n i t y College Historical Society, Series X I (Durham, 1915), pp. 4-46

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

ny

prised an " Essay on the consequences of emitting papermoney; on the necessity and advantages of encouraging American manufacturers; on the beneficial effects of an alteration in the present mode of taxation," etc. The letters were considered an authoritative account of the financial situation, showing the evils that needed to be corrected. Williamson was qualified to write on the subject, not only because he was a close observer of conditions, but also because he had had experience in financial administration. He wrote under an assumed name; assured his readers that his complaints were not occasioned by personal misfortunes; declared that the proposed constitution would remedy the situation he discussed. Frequent references were made to his essay by the advocates of ratification. Williamson began his discussion with an account of the scarcity of money in all the states. 78 He then explained how the General Assembly of North Carolina, in order to meet the situation, had resorted to the emission of paper money. He did not consider paper currency an honest tender because of its rapid depreciation. However convenient depreciated paper appeared to those who used it to discharge their debts, he contended that the credit and finances of the state had been injured by it. No part of the debt of North Carolina had been discharged by the operations of paper money, " the whole advantage of depreciation being a mere juggle," by which one citizen was injured f o r the convenience of another.78 So great were the evils of paper money that the dignity of government was wounded by declaring it legal tender, industry languished, the orphan was defrauded, and the most atrocious frauds were practised under the sanction of the law. He thought it important f o r manufacturing to be developed in this country, especially in New England, so 78

American Museum, vol. ii, p. 107.

78

Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 .

118

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

that the unfavorable balance of trade with other countries might not be so great. 80 He believed it necessary to alter the existing mode of taxation, because of the many hardships imposed by the land and capitation tax, especially on those who lived in the western counties. A n excise tax on luxuries he felt would be far better. 81 It was also necessary to overcome the ruinous consequences of employing British vessels as carriers of the produce of this country. A n address 82 which Williamson delivered at a meeting on November 8, 1787, in Edenton, appeared in the State Gazette of North Carolina,*3 in the New York Daily Advertiser 84 and in the American Museum,85 In the letters of " Sylvius " Williamson outlined the state of affairs in the nation and the remedy for the situation. W h e n he addressed the freemen of Edenton and Chowan county, the Philadelphia convention had framed the new Constitution which he believed would bring relief from many of the grievances which they suffered. Although it contained certain faults, the benefits were far greater. 86 He thought the government proposed would be safe from foreign invasion or domestic sedition, would protect and enlarge commerce, increase the value of produce and of land, encourage and support the laborer and mechanic, protect liberty and property, and cherish the good citizen and the honest man. T h u s Williamson prepared the way for the campaign in North Carolina. 80

American Museum, vol. ii, pp. 117-121.

81

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 127.

82

See note 3 of this chapter.

The date of its appearance is not known, but there is a clipping from the State Gazette preserved in the New Y o r k Historical Society library. From this clipping P. L. Ford reprinted the address in his Essays on the Constitution (Brooklyn, 1892). 83

84

February 25, 26, 27, 1788.

85

June, 1788.

86

American Museum, vol. iii, p. 548.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

1

1 9

The outstanding supporter of the Constitution in North Carolina was James Iredell. H e w a s born in Lewes, Sussex county, England, October 5, 1 7 5 1 , the son of a Bristol merchant and an Irish mother, whose uncle, Henry McCulloch, owned large landed estates in North Carolina. 87 This great uncle and his son, Henry Eustace McCulloch, played an important part in Iredell's life. 88 A t the age of seventeen Iredell came to North Carolina as deputy of the comptroller of the customs at Roanoke (Edenton). 8 9 A f t e r studying law with Samuel Johnston, he was licensed to practice, first in the inferior courts ( 1 7 7 0 ) , and later in the superior courts (1771). In 1773 he married Hannah, the sister of Samuel Johnston. Imbued with the views of the American patriots, Iredell wrote a number of political essays which were well received by the revolutionary leaders. 80 H i s services were recognized by William Hooper. " Whilst I was active in contest," wrote Hooper, " you forged the weapons which were to give success to the cause which I supported." 91 A f t e r the adoption of the state constitution in 1776 and the inauguration of the new government, Iredell drafted the state judiciary law of 1777, 9 2 and was appointed one of the first judges. H e resigned the following year in order to resume his practice, 93 but in 1 7 7 9 became attorney general, 87

M c R e e , Iredell,

vol. i, p. 1.

«s Ibid., vol. i, p. 7. 88

Ibid., vol. i, p. 29.

90

Ibid., vol. i, p. 184.

91

Ibid., vol. i, p. 196.

92.?. 93

R., vol. x x i v , pp. 48-75-

M c R e e s a y s o f I r e d e l l : " U n a b l e to d e t e r m i n e the opinions o f the

C o u r t , he w a s unwilling to s h a r e the d i s c r e d i t o f i g n o r a n c e , o r participate in the odium o f illegal decisions.

T h e r e w a s no h a r m o n y on the

b e n c h ; no cordiality between the j u d g e s and the a t t o r n e y s ; and h e could only anticipate collisions p a i n f u l a s d i s g r a c e f u l , a n d utterly inconsistent with his elevated s t a n d a r d o f j u d i c i a l d e c o r u m . " — M c R e e , op. cit., vol. i, P. 395-

j 20

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

serving until 1781. 9 4 On account of financial considerations, he refused to serve as a delegate to Congress. 95 Iredell had an ease of manner that made it possible for him to meet people in his own station in life, 96 but he did not care for popularity among the masses. This is shown in a letter he wrote to Pierce Butler of South Carolina in which he said he had learned to despise the sort of popularity gained by flattering the passions of the multitude, for he considered it not only dishonest, but weak and impolitic.97 Iredell devoted his time to his law practice, making a circuit twice a year from Hillsboro, by way of H a l i f a x and Edenton to Newbern, and attending a county court now and then.98 In 1787 he was appointed commissioner to revise and compile the acts of the General Assembly of " the late province and the present State of North Carolina." 99 He was a delegate to the convention of 1788 in North Carolina and was the ablest defender of the Constitution. The state recognized Iredell's services by naming a county for him, 100 and his national reputation is shown by his appointment in 1790 as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 101 94

McRee, op. cit., vol. i, p. 430; vol. ii, p. 9.

95

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 56. Iredell lost the possibility of an inheritance from an uncle in the West Indies by supporting the patriot cause in the Revolutionary war.—Ibid., vol. ii, p. 73. In 1786 Iredell had fourteen slaves, as shown by a list in the Johnson Manuscripts, 1786-1789, in the archives of the North Carolina Historical Commission at Raleigh. 96 Johnson Manuscripts, 1788, Burgwin to Iredell from Wilmington, June 13, 1788. 97

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 93.

98

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 105.

99

S. R., vol. xxiv, p. 888.

100 North Carolina Manual, 1913, p. 660. 101 McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 222, 279; Johnson Collections, letters of Samuel Johnston to Iredell from New York, February 7 and 11, 1790.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

Vitally interested in the establishment of a stable government, Iredell used his literary ability to mold public opinion. T h e resolutions passed November 8, 1 7 8 7 , by the inhabitants of Chowan county and the town of Edenton, instructing their representatives in the General Assembly to vote f o r a convention to consider the Constitution, were written by him. 1 0 2 It was pointed out in these instructions that since Congress was without money, credit or resources, it was necessary to establish such a government as could bind the states together, and the proposed f o r m of government w a s the best that could be expected. 1 0 3 F o u r days later, November 1 2 , 1 7 8 7 , the grand j u r y f o r Edenton district, presented to the court an even more vigorous address. 1 0 4 T h i s also was written by Iredell and was widely circulated as campaign literature. Considering the important crisis in A m e r i c a n a f f a i r s , the jurors urged the General Assembly to call a state convention to r a t i f y the Constitution which would secure liberty as well as a strong authoritative government. More important than the addresses just summarized was Iredell's essay written over the name of " Marcus " in answer to George Mason's objections to the new Constitution. 1 0 5 It was printed serially by H o d g e and Wills at Newbern in their State Gazette of North Carolina,10* and later appeared in 102 McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 1 8 0 - 1 8 1 ; American pp. 71-72.

Museum,

vol. iii,

103

This was evidently an indirect reference to the movement f o r a second federal convention. 104

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 1 8 1 , 1 8 3 ; Legislative Papers, House of Commons, 1787. 105 McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 1 8 6 - 2 1 5 ; Ford, Paul Leicester, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (Brooklyn, 1888), pp. 333-370. Ford was unable to find a copy of the pamphlet, so he reprinted the answers from McRee's work. The exact title of the pamphlet is not known.

los x h e earlier numbers of the State Gazette are missing, but the answers evidently appeared in the latter part of 1787.

122

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

pamphlet form. 107 This contribution was the most valuable one made in the state in defense of the Constitution. A n anti federalist attempt to counteract the interest it aroused appeared in the State Gazette for February 7, 1788. Iredell's able arguments confirmed the federalists in their beliefs but did not remove the fears of their opponents. The spirited defence of the Constitution by Archibald Maclaine,108 which appeared over the name of " Publicola " in pamphlet form with Iredell's answers to Mason's objections, was also printed in The State Gazette of North Carolina.10* Maclaine in his vigorous style answered the objections that had been made to the proposed Constitution, and attempted to show the absolute need of North Carolina joining the union. A somewhat different plea for the Constitution appeared in the same number of the State Gazette.110 101

The pamphlet that McRee used was dated January 8, 1788.—

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 186. The State Gazette of North

Carolina

at Newbern advertised the pamphlet in the number of March 27, 1788. 108 Maclaine's family were from Loch Bowie in the Highlands of Scotland. Archibald Maclaine after having served an apprenticeship of three years to a merchant in Dublin, came to Wilmington, N. C., where he with his brother established a mercantile house. A f t e r failing in business he commenced the study of law. He soon won his way to the front rank of his profession. He held a number of prominent positions in Wilmington and in Brunswick county. H e was a member of the Provincial Congress in 1775 and 1776. H e was in the General Assembly in 1777, 1780, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786. McRee said of him: "Maclaine, ' sensible, pointed, and vigorous,' was the Hotspur of his party: choleric, and defiant, his iron heel, instead of extinguishing, kindled animosity into flame." 109 March 27, 1788.

This copy of the Gasette

has survived.

March 27, 1788. In the same number of The State Gasette appeared a poem, or perhaps better called doggerel, on the Constitution. It has twelve stanzas of six lines each. When one number of the Gasette has so much of interest on the Constitution, it is a great loss not to have the complete file of the paper for the year 1788. The issues for February 7 and March 27 are the only ones known to exist prior to the number of September 8. The imminence of the elections for members of the state convention explains the great interest in the Constitution shown in the paper of March 27. 110

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

123

In a letter to the people of North Carolina, " Alonzo," who was " Unconnected with party or faction, and not expecting or desiring to be one of the leaders of the people, but to be cne of the governed," said he wished only to enjoy the inestimable blessing of being well governed. He discussed the many benefits that would accrue from a stable government. The best summary of the objections made in North Carolina to the Constitution is to be found in an essay in manuscript form in the collections of the North Carolina Historical Commission at Raleigh. 111 The writer wished to prepare the minds of the populace for the reception of the Constitution by giving a fair and plain answer to all objections capable of answer, and to acknowledge the force of those objections that had weight and should be proposed for amendment. The objections he discussed were those he had heard in conversation or collected from reading. He did not approve of those persons who, with very little reading or thinking, or perhaps none at all, condemned parts of the Constitution as fast as they heard or read them. He attempted to divest himself of all prejudice, listened attentively to the objections, and made use of all his reading so that he could discuss the situation intelligently. A f t e r reviewing the various objections to the Constitution, he waited anxiously for the decision of the Hillsboro convention. It is unfortunate that there are extant so few of the newspapers of the first half of 1788, but those which have survived show the use made of them by the federalists. In the Edenton Intelligencer of June 4 more than a page was devoted to a flowery article taken from a Norfolk paper in which the author based his appeal upon high-sounding 1 1 1 T h e incomplete manuscript of twenty pages is in Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, 1755-1788, pp. 137-141. The author is not known, but he was well versed in the affairs of the state. A reference to ratification by six states shows that it was written before the author knew of the ratification by Maryland on April 26, 1788.

124

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

phrases rather than upon sound argument. T o those who believed that " monarchy, or despotism and slavery " would follow the adoption of the Constitution, he pointed out the action of the minority in the ratifying states. Although they discerned the faults of the Constitution, they were willing to trust the members of Congress under the new government " to repair and beautify this noble monument of American production." He thought the hour had arrived which would either rid America of her fears or " stamp her ruin." In the spring of 1788 James Iredell and William R . Davie prepared a pamphlet which has not been preserved, so far as is known, nor is it known whether it was actually printed. On May 1 , Davie wrote to Iredell that he had finished twenty-five pages " of our little collection on the subject of the Federal Government." 1 1 2 Davie struck out part of what had been written about a religious test and left the discussion of the judiciary entirely to Iredell, who was well acquainted with the objections to it. Davie suggested to Iredell that he answer any popular objections that were omitted, if it could be done without enlarging the publication too much. The pamphlet was to be prefaced with a note stating that it was not offered as an original production, but as a " compilation from several fugitive pieces." 1 1 3 The federalists of North Carolina lost no opportunity to make use of the favorable action of other states to further their cause. News from Newbern, North Carolina, dated January 3 1 , 1788, referred to ratification by Pennsylvania to show that despite opposition to the Constitution in other states, they ratified nevertheless. 114 The State Gazette of 112

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 223.

11S

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 224. The preface would excuse them " to the author of Marcus and others for the liberties " they had taken with them. 114

State Gazette of South Carolina, March 3, 1788.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

North Carolina of February 7, 1788, quoted Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia, who was well known in North Carolina, 115 to show that he favored the Constitution. H e believed that the adoption of the federal Constitution would bring about " the advancement of commerce, agriculture, manufactures, arts, and sciences, the encouragement o f emigration [ i i c ] , the abolition of paper money, the annihilation of party, and the prevention of w a r . " T h e debates of the Pennsylvania convention were read by the federalist leaders. 114 It was expected in North Carolina that New Jersey would ratify, 1 1 7 and the unanimous ratification of the new federal government by that state was a cause for great rejoicing in North Carolina. 118 It was felt that New Jersey's action should convince the minority in Pennsylvania that there was no despotism in the constitution. " N o commercial influence, no terror of an applauding gallery, no legal sophistry had any weight in the Convention of that patriotic state in producing the ratification." A t the same time announcement was made of the unanimous ratification by Georgia. O f greater importance was the ratification of the Constitution by Massachusetts. T h e news reached North Carolina just in time to be used in Newbern to influence the elections for the state convention. Governor John Hancock sent to Governor Caswell the proceedings of the Massachusetts convention together with its proposed amendments. 119 In the State Gazette of North Carolina for March 27, 1788, appeared the announcement of the action of Massachusetts 115

H e was a friend of Rev. D a v i d Caldwell, an antifederalist leader

in the state. 1 1 8 M c R e e , op. cit., vol. ii, p. 230. D a v i e wrote to Iredell f r o m H a l i f a x July 9, 1788 thanking him f o r a copy of the Pennsylvania debates. 117

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 217. State Gazette

119

of North

Carolina,

Feb. 7, 1788.

Letter Book, Governor Johnston, 1788-89, p. 35.

126

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

which was considered " a most propitious omen of the rising prospect of American greatness." The congratulations sent by the officials of Pennsylvania to the newly ratifying state aiiorded a new mark of approbation by the representatives of Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia the celebration of the great event lasted for several days. In New Y o r k City thirteen guns were fired six times, in honor of the states that had ratified the Constitution. A t the fort a union flag was displayed, and flags were hoisted on the different vessels in the harbor. It was asserted on " indisputable authority " that Elbridge Gerry would support the Constitution after its ratification by his state. T h e Edenton Intelligencer on April 9 devoted much space to the significant event, giving two columns to an extract from the speech of Governor Hancock to the legislature of Massachusetts. T h e federalists were delighted with Hancock's remark that the " obvious imbecility of the confederation of the United States," had made a new government necessary. The objects of the Constitution were declared to be " defence against external enemies, and the promotion of tranquility and happiness among the States " ; the incorporation of the proposed amendments would make it " the most perfect system of Government." The Intelligencer 120 also printed an extract of a letter dated February 20 f r o m a gentleman of Massachusetts who had opposed the Constitution. This was such good publicity for the federalists that it is worth quoting: I will confess to you without a blush, that I was in the Minority, and opposed this new fabric, from a jealousy of its ultimate consequences; this jealousy my friends, is the soul of Republican Governments—Perhaps I may have pushed my doubts too far; indeed I am consoled, and feel less anxious from the assurances of our President, Governor Hancock, that the necessary amend12°

A p r i l 9, 1788.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

127

ments would doubtless be the first subject taken up by the New Congress.—In this case our political system will perhaps approach nearer perfection than any other in the world; besides the minds of its present opposers will be calm'd; trade and agriculture will flourish, and every shoulder will be pushing on the wheels of Industry, and all joining hand in hand, in peace and harmony, for the common interests of the United States, without confining our views locally to the State we happen to inhabit. T h e writer from Massachusetts also said that many doubts arose with the minority in Massachusetts because they believed that the southern states were more fully represented in the grand convention and had obtained more advantages; but he thought such illiberal jealousies should be forever dismissed. Interest was taken by the people of North Carolina in the sentiment in neighboring states. T h e notice of the elections for members of the South Carolina convention appeared in the State Gazette of North Carolina,121 and when the news of ratification reached Wilmington June 4 there was great rejoicing. 1 2 2 Handbills were distributed in North Carolina concerning the celebration ordered by the convention in South Carolina. T h e closest attention was paid to the course of events in Virginia, but newspaper records of this interest are scarce. O n November 15, 1787, in the State Gazette of North Carolina, appeared a two-column account of the debate in the Virginia House of Delegates in regard to calling a state convention. Scattered references in letters show the interest taken in this state. 123 The people in North Carolina were in touch with affairs in 121

February 7, 1788.

122

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 225.

1 2 3 Pettigrew Papers, Peter Singleton to Rev. Charles Pettigrew, June 10, 1788; McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 229, 230.

128

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

New York. The series of essays, " The Federalist," 124 was eagerly read and passed from one person to another. Charles Johnson, upon returning to Iredell the papers containing " The Federalist " , said he was particularly desirous to see the numbers that dealt with the additional security the new Constitution would afford " to the republican form of government, to liberty and property." 1 2 5 Iredell, in his answers to Mason's objections, said that the great author of " The Federalist " from the remoteness of his situation, did not know that North Carolina, as well as Pennsylvania, had violated her bill of rights in regard to a standing army. 128 Iredell believed that these papers would immortalize Hamilton. 127 On February 7, 1788, a notice appeared in the State Gazette that the federal Constitution was to be considered by the New York legislature. On June 1 1 , 1788, Tench Coxe sent James Madison an address to the New Y o r k convention, 128 suggesting that it be published in the newspapers of Virginia and North Carolina. The names of the delegates from New York City to the state convention appeared in the Wilmington Centinel and, General Advertiser. 129 The comment was made that many delegates were friendly to the proposed Constitution, yet it was expected that there would be a small majority in the convention against ratification, unless some amendments were accepted. On July 7, John Swann wrote from New York about the indecision of that state in regard to the new Constitution, but he hoped that such an example would have no influence in North Carolina. 130 124

" The Federalist", no. 1 appeared in the New tiser, Oct. 30, 1787 and was continued serially. 125

York

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 598-600.

126

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 2 1 1 .

127

Johnson Collection, Iredell to Baron de Poellnitz.

128

Documentary

12

Daily

History

of the Constitution,

vol. iv, p. 697.

® June 18, 1788.

130 Corbitt, Caletulars

of Manuscript

Collection,

vol. i, p. 127.

Adver-

THE The

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE PEOPLE

129

federalist activities in N o r t h Carolina before the

meeting of the state convention have been presented;

if

force of argument should prevail, one might expect ratification.

W h e n w e turn to the part the anti federalists took, the

records show no such formidable literary e f f o r t

T h e out-

standing leader of the antifederalist party w a s Willie J o n e s of H a l i f a x county.

H e w a s born in 1 7 3 1 , 1 8 1 w a s sent to

E n g l a n d and educated at E t o n

College.

After

traveling

in E u r o p e he returned to A m e r i c a in the early

sixties.

H e served m a n y times in the Provincial Congress and G e n eral Assembly, as well as in the Continental

Congress. 1 ® 2

A l t h o u g h he refused the appointment to the Philadelphia convention, he served in the state convention of 1 7 8 8 .

Very

little that J o n e s wrote has survived, consequently it is difficult to ascertain the exact nature of his leadership.

Tradition

has rather idealized him and it is hard to separate him f r o m that

tradition.1"

He

was

from

the

upper class

but

a

131

Long, W. L., "Willie Jones: A Brief Sketch of his Life and Political Influence in North Carolina," in North Carolina University Magazine, New Series, 1906-09, p. 23. Jones's given name is pronounced as though it were Wylie. 132

North Carolina Manual, 1913, pp. 400, 637, 638, 882, 909. McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 232. The traditional view of him as given by McRee is as follows: " Willie Jones of Halifax, was the most influential politician in the State: ultra-democratic in theory, he was aristocratic in habits, tastes, pursuits and prejudices; he lived sumptuously, and wore fine linen; he raced, hunted, and played cards; he was proud of his wealth, and social position; and fastidious in the selection of associates for his family. A patriot in the Revolution, he was now the acknowledged head of a great party. He was jealous of his authority, and prompt to meet any attempt to undermine his power. His knowledge of human nature was consummate; and in the arts of insinuation he was unrivalled. He had the powers of forecast, and combination, in an eminent degree; and his plans, if sometimes intricate, were always ingeniously constructed. . . . Though generally relentless, and uncompromising as a partisan, he had a generous heart, and on more than one interesting occasion, had given signal proof that he could soar above the murky atmosphere of party. He was a loving, and cherished 133

I3o

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

leader of the masses, and of undoubted prominence in the General Assembly. His opposition to the Constitution was an important factor in the affairs of the state. It is greatly to be regretted that only two North Carolina antifederalist newspapers and only one issue of each, have survived for the period between the submission of the proposed form of government and the meeting of the first state convention.184 In Martin's North Carolina Gazette 185 there appeared " An essay on the Constitution proposed to the People of the United States by the Federal Convention " which was headed by the phrase " Si Populus vult decipt fjic], decipiatur." The strongest objection was made by the author to the many innovations which he thought would restrict the liberties of the people, and to any form of government unless it gave definite assurance that sacred rights should not be violated. The letter of Elbridge Gerry to the Massachusetts legislature in which he stated his objections to the federal Constitution was published at length in Martin's North Carolina Gazette.™ Gerry believed that the adoption of the plan as it was would entail the loss of liberties; yet he felt that if the plan should be rejected entirely, anarchy might ensue. If disciple of Jefferson, and was often taunted with his subserviency to Virginia ' abstractions.' He seldom shared in the discussions. His time of action was, chiefly, during the hours of adjournment: then it was that he stimulated the passions, aroused the suspicions, or moderated the ardor of his followers; then it was that, smoking his pipe, and chatting of crops, ploughs, stock, dogs, etc., he stole his way into the hearts of honest farmers, and erected there thrones for himself." 134 Ninth Biennial Report of the North Carolina Historical Commission, 1920-1922. Publications of the North Carolina Historical Commission, Bulletin no. 29 (Raleigh, 1923), pp. 21, 25. These papers are Martin's North Carolina Gazette, December 19, 1787 and the Wilmington Centinel and General Advertiser, June 18, 1788. 135 December 19, 1787.

is« December 19, 1787.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

131

those who favored the Constitution and those who were against it, preserved moderation in their discussions, a happy issue might result. Though he would support the Constitution if it were adopted, he thought amendments might better be obtained before ratification than afterward. Such moderation as Gerry proposed was not evident in a report from Philadelphia. 1 " A correspondent stated that John Jay, who was at first carried away with the new plan of government, was later decidedly against it, and declared it to be as deep and wicked a conspiracy as was ever invented in the darkest ages against the liberties of a free people. In New York, so the report went, the plan of government was called the " gilded trap," and very properly was it named, when men of the first abilities and best intentions were at first taken with it, on account of its being so drawn up and glossed over. It was no wonder, thought the writer, that General Washington or anybody else should have signed it in the convention. Over a month before the convention in North Carolina was to meet,1®8 there appeared in the Wilmington Centinel and General Advertiser a vigorous article over the name " Honestus ". 13e The author, who was apparently James Tate of Wilmington, 140 described himself as a veteran of the 187

Martin's North Carolina Gazette, December 19, 1787.

«» June 18, 1788. In Martin's North Carolina Gazette for August 15, 1787 appeared the notice that a piece over the signature of " Honestus " had been received, but if the author wished to have it inserted, he should make himself known and pay a fee. This may have been the same person whose article appeared in the Wilmington paper but the articles could not be the same. 139

1 4 0 A letter by Archibald Maclaine in McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 216, indicates such authorship. Tate was a Presbyterian minister who came from Ireland in 1760 and opened a classical school in Wilmington. Maclaine said " Parson T a t e " had picked up all the arguments, good or bad, against the Constitution, but the only original objection was

X32

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

Revolution who was writing to the people of North Carolina. His account of the course of events is an interesting portrayal, from the antifederalist viewpoint, of what had taken place. He said he returned to farming after the war, fully persuaded that the established government would serve the people in their acquired liberty. T o his surprise, after a few years a general clamor was raised all over the continent that Congress did not have enough power to govern the country. A s a result a convention was called to meet in Philadelphia. Many in each state did not know at that time of such a proceeding and had not even heard of the great and serious points which were to be decided. A f t e r a long and expensive session, it was learned that the convention had exceeded its powers and offered a plan of government contrary in several respects to the still existing federal government. A f t e r the plan had appeared, the public was entertained with letters and pamphlets claiming the great advantages and blessings that would follow such a form of government. In the opinion of the writer, however, few persons could be ignorant of the ill consequences which always followed from such a government as that proposed. The plan did not meet the approbation of all the delegates in the convention, but those in opposition were overpowered. " Honestus " then gave an account of what had been done in each state, stressing the objections made and amendments offered. Such articles as appeared in the newspapers, as well as those published in pamphlet form, were scattered over the state. Early in the campaign the influence of Mason's objections was great enough to induce Iredell to answer them, as related above. On June 18, 1788, 1 4 1 there was advertised for sale for six shillings, a pamphlet containing the want of a mint in each state. In the article by " Honestus " , the matter of a state mint was discussed at length. 141

Wilmington Centinel and General Observer.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

Luther Martin's address to the legislature of Maryland. This had appeared earlier in the State Gazette of South Carolina,1*2 and may also have been in North Carolina papers. There is no doubt that anti federalist arguments in various forms were spread over the state. The federalists read them carefully in order to refute thein. It was commonly believed that the federalists were the better informed of the two factions, and no doubt they were. 143 Archibald Maclaine accused an antifederalist of condemning the new Constitution after having a slight view of one-half of it over the shoulder of another person.144 A letter of a large landowner and slaveholder who voted against the Constitution in the convention of 1788 gave evidence that he at least was not well-informed.145 He wrote of the grand convention that met at Philadelphia whose only production he had seen published was a Constitution to be submitted to the legislature of each state for approbation and concurrence, a copy of which he enclosed for his friend's amusement. He said the legislature of North Carolina was then considering it. For his part, though he was but a " shallow Pollition," there were some parts of it he did not like; but he expected the legislature to adopt it in full. He acknowledged that the Constitution of an empire was too deep and expansive for his comprehension, so it did not become him to cavil at it.146 The letters of William R. Davie arc the main source of information on the influence of Willie Jones and the effect 142

April 10, 1788.

143

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, p. 222.

144

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 219. Hanover. 145

The antifederalist was John Huske of New

Dickson Papers, William Dickson to Rev. (Robt.) Dickson, Goshen in Duplin Co., Nov. 30, 1787. 148 It is greatly to be regretted that so few letters of the antifederalists have survived.

I34

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

of Virginia upon North Carolina. Davie, living in the same county as Jones, was in a position to know the political methods of the antifederalist leader. In January of 1788, Davie wrote Iredell that " Mr. Willie Jones continues perfectly anti federal; and is inducing the people here to doubt, very generally, of its adoption in the present form." 147 Later in the same month 148 Davie wrote, " We have nothing worth remarking here, but the dissemination of anti-federal principles. Mr. Jones continues to assail the constitution, and the Virginia communications have strengthened his party. Y o u know his opinion has great weight here, and that it is much easier to alarm people than to inform them." Davie also wrote that Col. Geddy, a late convert, had announced himself a candidate for the convention and was a most furious zealot for what he called " W . Jones's system." Davie believed that the great deference North Carolina had been accustomed to pay to the political opinions of the Old Dominion would have a bad effect upon the determination of the question. Patrick Henry was evidently in touch with the political leaders in North Carolina for he wrote in June of 1788 to General John Lamb of New York, " I can assure you, that North Carolina is more decidedly opposed to the new government than Virginia. The people there seem rife for hazarding all, before they submit." 149 A f t e r Virginia had ratified the Constitution, 150 Davie wrote that the decision 147

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 215.

148

Ibid., vol. ii, p. 217.

149 Leake, Isaac Q., Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb (Albany, 1850), p. 307. John Brown Cutting wrote to Thomas Jefferson, July 11, 1788. He said: " It seems to me (if it were not rash either to form or offer any opinion at this distance) that some of the gentlemen warmly opposed to an acceptance of the plan (in the back counties of Virginia) have diffused their objections throughout those of the two Carolinas which are most remote from the Atlantic shores." —Documentary History of the Constitution, vol. iv, p. 770. 150 Virginia's action was on June 25, 1788.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

135

in that state had altered the tone of the antifederalists in North Carolina very much.151 Jones said his object then would be to get the Constitution rejected in order to give weight to the proposed amendments, and he commended highly those proposed by Virginia. It is interesting to trace the course of the reports that North Carolina would follow the lead of Virginia, or " take the tone " from that state, as the phrase went. From a study of the correspondence of the times, it seems that Virginians, and primarily Washington and Madison, were responsible for the report. As early as October 28, 1787, Madison wrote from New York that the three southern states would go right unless the conduct of Virginia were to mislead them.152 Washington, on December 7, 1787, informed Madison that he had heard from Richmond that North Carolina would be governed in a great measure by the conduct of Virginia. 15 ' General Wilkinson, who had just arrived at Mount Vernon by way of North Carolina, reported that state almost unanimous for adopting the Constitution. Henry Knox wrote to Washington that North Carolina would be materially influenced by the conduct of Virginia. 154 Early in 1788, Washington mentioned to Madison that the Assembly of North Carolina had postponed the meeting of their convention until July, evidently for the purpose of taking the tone from the " Old Dominion." 155 A few days later, 151 McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 230. This letter written in Halifax, July 9, 1788, twelve days before the convention met at Hillsboro, indicates the course that events would take. 152 Documentary History of the Constitution, vol. iv, p. 354, James Madison to Edmund Pendleton. 153 Ford, Worthington C., Writings of George Washington (New York, 1891), vol. xi, p. 192. 151

Documentary History of Constitution, vol. iv, p. 402, December 11, 1787. 155 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 440, January 10.

136

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

Madison wrote Washington that North Carolina had been so complaisant as to postpone its convention until July. 1 0 6 January 18, 1788, Carrington informed Madison that it was said, and he thought with truth, North Carolina had, out of respect for Virginia, deferred its convention until after the time appointed for their convention. 157 Washington in letters to Samuel Powell, 158 John J a y 1 5 9 and James McHenry 1 6 0 remarked that North Carolina's action in setting a late date for its convention indicated that it would take the tone from Virginia. Echoes of this idea were heard from New York and from Jefferson in France. 1 6 1 It is well to bear in mind that although the North Carolina Assembly may have set a late date for the convention in order to learn the sentiment of the other states, the choice had been made before it was known when the Virginia convention would meet. 182 In fact, it was learned in Virginia later, from a gentleman coming directly from the North Carolina Assembly, that the postponement of the convention in that state by no means indicated a disposition to follow the politics of Virginia. 1 6 3 When we read of the probability of 158 Documentary 14, 1788.

History

of the Constitution, vol. iv, p. 443, January

157

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 448.

158

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 449, January 18.

159

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 445, January 20.

160

Bancroft, George, History vol. ii, p. 466, April 27, 1788.

of the Constitution

(New York, 1883),

161 Documentary History of Constitution, vol. iv, p. 633 ; Ford, Paul L., Writings of. Thomas Jefferson, vol. v, p. 21 (Jefferson to Carrington, May 27, 1788) ; Documentary History of Constitution, vol. iv, p. 695 (John Jay to Jefferson, June 9, 1788) ; McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 226, (Hugh Williamson to James Iredell, June 11, 1788). 162 Letter Book, Governor Johnston, p. 7. James Monroe wrote James Madison, Feb. 7, 1788, that the date of the Virginia convention had been put at so late a date so that the disposition of the o.ther states would be known. He thought that Virginia might mediate between contending parties. 163

Documentary

History

of Constitution, vol. iv, p. 497.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

North Carolina following the lead of Virginia, we must bear in mind that Virginia was almost evenly divided in sentiment, and the influence of the large minority in Virginia was strong in the neighboring state. Gradually less favorable news began to spread from North Carolina into Virginia. Madison wrote Washington that the adoption of the Constitution was expected in South Carolina and Georgia, but some letters from North Carolina spoke of ratification in very equivocal language. 1 ® 4 Soon after, Madison said he had seen a letter from North Carolina which admitted the existence of a formidable opposition there. 145 In May of 1788, Washington, hearing from Richard Dobbs Spaight of the great opposition in North Carolina to the proposed government, was deeply concerned. 168 From the local situation, as well as the other circumstances in North Carolina, he wrote he would be truly astonished if that state withdrew from the union. 16 ' He believed that more salutary counsels would certainly prevail. The federalists lost no opportunity to present a gloomy picture of conditions under the Articles of Confederation, and the many benefits anticipated from the proposed Constitution.168 A s ratification took place in one state after another, it was predicted that deplorable conditions would 164 Documentary February 1, 1788. 165

History

of the Constitution,

vol. iv, p. 469, New Y o r k ,

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 487, Madison to Washington, February 8, 1788.

16a

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 628. The original of this letter is in the possession of the North Carolina Historical Commission. 167

Ford, Writings of George Washington, vol. xi, p. 286; Documentary History of the Constitution, vol. iv, p. 762, Washington to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, June 28, 1788. 168 American Museum, vol. iii, pp. 552-553; McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, pp. 181, 183; Legislative Papers, House of Commons, 1787; State Gazette of North Carolina, March 27, 1788; Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i,

P. 137.

138

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

arise if North Carolina were separated from the union. 169 Those who opposed the new form of government were described by the federalists as placemen who feared losing their jobs, the idle, factious and dishonest, secret enemies of the country who had never been reconciled to independence, men who had made fortunes or expected to make them by speculating in paper money or western territory, and delinquent debtors. 170 T h e supporters of the Constitution were respectable planters, merchants, hardy mariners, artisans and members of the learned professions. 171 T h e objections to the proposed plan were so numerous that the federalists had difficulty in explaining the lack of similar opposition to the Articles of Confederation and the state constitution. 172 T o offset the charge that the members of the convention exceeded their powers, great stress was placed upon their ability and renown. 173 T o counteract the charges of monarchical tendencies, attention was called to the minority in the ratifying states who were willing to trust the work of amendment to the members of Congress under the new government. 174 There was some apprehension because the president was not ineligible after four years in office. 175 T h e anti federalists especially emphasized the absorption by the central government of state powers. 176 It was asserted 169 State Gazette of North Carolina, March 27, 1788; Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 137; Edenton Intelligencer, June 4, 1788.

American Museum, vol. iii, p. 551 ; State Gazette of North March 27, 1788; Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 137. 170

171

State Gazette of North Carolina, March 27, 1788.

172

Miscellaneous Papers, series 1, vol. i, p. 137.

Carolina,

McRee, Iredell, vol. ii, pip. 181, 183; Legislative Papers, House of Commons, 1787; State Gazette of North Carolina, March 27, 1788; Miscellaneous Papers, series 1, vol. i, p. 138. 173

1 7 1 McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 213 ; State Gazette of North March 27, 1788 ; Edenton Intelligencer, June 4, 1788. 175

Miscellaneous Papers, series 1, vol. i, p. 140.

176

American Museum, vol. iii, p. 549.

Carolina,

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

that the only rights retained by the states were the guarantee of a republican f o r m o f government and the assurance of aid in case of insurrection or invasion. 1 ™ T h e majority in the state, who felt it was imperative to have a bill of rights, were not convinced by the assertion that the whole Constitution was a bill of rights and every right not expressly delegated was retained by the several states. 174 Especially was the demand made for liberty of the press, for it was felt that Congress might constitutionally forbid printers to publish opinions " on the conduct of that august body, or any of their officers." 178 Another matter of concern was the failure to guarantee trial by j u r y in civil cases. 180 T h e antifederalists strongly objected to congressional control over the " Times, Places and Manner " of holding elections. 181 T h e federalists, on the other hand, could not understand why representatives in Congress could not be depended upon as well as members of the General Assembly. Since the legislature would choose t w o senators at the time that private citizens chose five representatives, there should be no objection to congressional regulation of all except the place for the choice of senators. There was no more chance of Congress making a law that there should be no elections for several years, than of the General Assembly doing it. There was propriety, as well as justice, in the Congressional control over elections, as it was intended to fix places of election convenient to all voters, to make the time uniform 1 7 7 Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 141; article iv, section 4 of the Constitution.

American Museum, vol. iii, p. 548; McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 186; Miscellaneous Papers, series I, vol. i, p. 138. 179 American Museum, vol. iii, p. 548; Martin's North Carolina December 19, 1787. 180

Gazette,

American Museum, vol. iii, p. 548.

Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 138; article i, section 4, clause 1 of the Constitution. 181

I 4

0

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

throughout the United States, in order to prevent possible electioneering that might take place if elections occurred at different times, and to insure uniformity of procedure. One of the most popular objections to the Constitution was raised against the clauses on military matters. 182 Surprise was felt that so soon after the Revolutionary war, a proposal should be made to have a standing army, but attention was called to a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation. The federalists recognized the importance of an army in time of need, yet even some of that party thought that the Constitution should have been more explicit in regard to cases when Congress might call the militia out of the United States, and in regard to the length of time for which it might be done. Objection was made to the legislative power of Congress over the federal district, on the ground that it might be made a " nursery " out of which " legions " could be dragged to subdue the people to " unlimited slavery." 183 If Congressional sovereignty were granted over the smallest extent of territory, it might easily be increased. Some persons even thought Congress should be denied exclusive jurisdiction in the forts, arsenals, magazines and dock-yards to be established in different parts of the United States. There was strong objection to the power of Congress to regulate foreign and interstate trade. 184 The common people of the state who were chiefly farmers believed that the system was formed for the commercial interests and not for them, 185 and the federalists were unable to convince them 182

American

Museum,

vol. iii, p. 5 5 0 ; Miscellaneous Papers, series i,

vol. i, p. 140; article i, section 8, clauses 1, 1 1 - 1 7 of the Constitution. 183

Martin's

North

Carolina

Gazette,

December

19, 1 7 8 7 ;

article i,

section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution. 184

Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 1 4 1 ; American Museum, vol. iii, pp. 5 5 0 - 5 5 1 ; McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 2 1 2 ; article i, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. 185

Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 1 4 1 .

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

that the interests of the farmer and the merchant were inseparable. The strong influence of the belief that the Constitution would benefit the eastern part of the state but would harm the west was later shown by the sectional alignment of the vote in the convention of 1788. A letter written in May of 1788 to a delegate in the convention who voted against ratification, voiced a warning that the Constitution would be of service to the maritime parts of Virginia and Carolina, but it must certainly prove detrimental to the people of the back country, since taxes would be levied to protect the interests of the east. 188 It was argued that the determination of the people along the seaboard to keep up a respectable fleet, as well as a standing army, would much enhance the expenses of the states. Every discussion that took place emphasized financial issues. Some persons thought it to the interest of the state to oppose ratification, since expenses incurred in the Revolutionary war had to be paid if the Constitution were adopted. 1 " During the federal convention, Maclaine wrote that, if apprehension arose from the expectation of heavy taxes by the federal government, there would be a storm of opposition headed by Thomas Person. 188 The anti federalists were not won over by the argument that even if the old form of government continued, there would have to be increased taxation on land and polls, 188 while under the new system the federal ias Waiker Papers, John Parkinson to Joel Lane, Portsmouth, Va., May 18, 1788. Lane, a delegate from Wake county in both conventions, voted against ratification in 1788, but for it in 1789. It is interesting to note that Parkinson had been made an offer of Carolina bonds and he was anxious to know if Lane thought there was any likelihood of their being paid. 187

Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 141.

188

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 178. Person represented Granville county in the two conventions, voting both times against ratification. 189

American Museum, vol. iii, p. 552.

142

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

expenses would be discharged through imports and excises. Objection was made to the members of Congress fixing their own salaries 190 and to Congress having the authority both to lay and collect taxes. 191 The Constitution provided that no money should be drawn from the Treasury, except through an appropriation made by law, and that a regular report of receipts and expenditures of all public money should be published from time to time, but the antifederalists called attention to the vagueness of the clause about public expenditures being made known " from time to time." 192 The purse and the sword were said to be in the same hands and evil consequences were feared. One antifederalist believed that Congress should have power to fix a standard coinage for all the states, but that the minting should be left to each state which could use the profits of the mint to keep down taxes. 183 The army, navy and a general mint, he considered the three greatest and most powerful objects which would enforce obedience against all resistance. Outstanding among the objections urged against the Constitution was the charge that all the paper money would be swept away, leaving no money at all for the payment of taxes and other demands. 194 This view was most carefully considered by the advocates of ratification. The comparative value of metallic coinage and of paper was discussed, with emphasis upon the disadvantages of the latter. Paper might by legislative action be made legal tender, but such laws led to many evils. Speculators were the warmest advocates of paper money, though some honest men had joined 190

Article I, section 6, clause I of the Constitution.

191

Article I, section 8, clause I of the Constitution.

192

Article I, section g, clause 7 of the Constitution.

193 Wilmington Centinel and General Advertiser, June 18, 1788. 194 Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 139; article i, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

them from mistaken principles. L a w s to force an individual to accept depreciated paper were really acts to legalize violation o f contract. Attempts to carry tender laws into effect banished gold and silver which were necessary for all foreign payments, increased the price of domestic industry, and discouraged foreign commerce. Since some persons believed that the powers of the federal judiciary were too extensive, the need of such authority was carefully explained. 1 ' 5 A l l questions of general concern would be referred to the federal judiciary, but all cases of individual or state concern would be left to the state judiciary. Some thought there should be no federal judges; some thought their power should be far less; and others dreaded interference with the state judges. It was charged that the latter, fearing curtailment of their powers, were trying to get seats in the state convention to oppose ratification. 198 A n appeal for ratification was made to those w h o opposed the domination of the judges. One phase of the subject of judicial power concerned the payment of debts due British subjects. It was generally realized that if the new government was put into effect and the treaty of peace enforced, the federal courts would be opened for the recovery of such debts. 197 Many, therefore, opposed a change in the government, some from mistaken zeal, others from motives of self-interest. It was argued that, since the citizens bore the expenses of the war and had had their property taken from them while the British were at ease, it would be manifest injustice to force the payment of debts to those who had contributed to oppress them and 1,5 American Museum, vol. iii, p. 549; M c R e e , op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 193-194; Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 1 4 1 ; Martin's North Carolina Gazette, December 19, 1787. 188

State Gazette

of North

i " Ibid., M a r c h 27, 1788.

Carolina, M a r c h 27, 1788.

144

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

reduce them to poverty. In reply it was said that, if a citizen was ruined by the war, the debts against him were not collectable ; if he became rich by canceling debts to British subjects, resentment against his late enemies was excited by love of wealth, to the attainment of which he would sacrifice the national credit. Since only a few owed debts to British subjects, the federalists argued that surely the many would not consent to pay the debts of others. It was asserted that if the courts were not speedily opened for the recovery of such debts, the people would be taxed for their payment, or they would be collected at the point of the bayonet.198 From the discussion of the Constitution, it is evident that amendments were desired, but the question was when and by whom they were to be made. The federalists urged that the new form of government be put into effect so that Congress could propose the needed changes.199 Many anti federalists, however, insisted that a new convention would more effectually secure the liberties of the people.200 Even one of the federalists was confused enough in his thinking to wonder why the Philadelphia convention had not provided for another general convention to alter, amend, ratify and confirm the Constitution.201 In June or July three prominent North Carolina anti federalists, Willie Jones, Timothy Bloodworth and Thomas Person, received communications from John Lamb of New York in regard to a federal republican committee to correspond in regard to amendments, and they were urged to be steadfast in their opposition.202 198

It is of interest to note that later the central government did assum« the responsibility for those debts not collected because of lawful impediments. See article six of Jay's treaty of 1794. 199

Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 137.

200

Edenton

201

Miscellaneous Papers, series i, vol. i, p. 138.

202

Boyd, W . K., " News, Letters and Documents concerning North

Intelligencer,

June 4, 1788.

THE

CONSTITUTION

BEFORE

THE

PEOPLE

Willie Jones was evidently not pleased at finding himself in the company of the other two, and, so f a r as is known, did not answer, but Bloodworth and Person 203 replied. Bloodworth assured Lamb that the North Carolina anti federalists would work for the common cause " with pure melting ardor and requested that the amendments desired in New Y o r k be sent to them. Since the people of both states were moved by similar motives, " the Love of Liberty and an attachment to Republican principles " , he thought they would not differ much in regard to desired amendments. Even when it was known that ratification had taken place in the required number of states, there was determination on the part of some North Carolinians to delay acceptance until amendments were secured. The meeting of the state convention was anxiously awaited. Carolina and the Federal Constitution ", in Historical Papers published by Trinity College Historical Society, series xiv (Durham, 1922) ; John Lamb Manuscripts in possession of the New York Historical Society. 203 Since Person's reply was written after the North Carolina convention adjourned, it will be discussed at the beginning of the fifth chapter.

CHAPTER R E F U S A L TO

IV RATIFY

WHEN the North Carolina convention assembled at Hillsboro J u l y 2 1 , 1788, the outstanding member was Samuel Johnston, 1 then governor of the state. Though a native of Scotland, he had early immigrated to North Carolina where he filled many important positions. For several years he represented Chowan county or the borough of Edenton in the General Assembly, and was a member of the first four Provincial Congresses. 2 From 1780 to 1782 he was a member of Congress 3 and in 1785 was chosen one of the commissioners in the New York-Massachusetts boundary dispute.4 When the North Carolina Grand Lodge of the Masonic Order, which had been extinct since 1776, was revived in 1787, Johnston was chosen the grand master. 5 1

Connor, H. G., " James Iredell, 1751-1799 ", in North Carolina Booklet, vol. xi, no. 4, 1912; Connor, R. D. W., "Governor Samuel Johnston of North Carolina" in North Carolina Booklet, vol. xi, no. 4, 1912; Allen, T. Murray, " Samuel Johnston in Revolutionary Times" in Historical Papers, published by the Historical Society of Trinity College, Durham, N. C., series v, 1905. 2

North Carolina Manual, 1913, pp. 352, 355, 356, 556, 557, 387, 393, 3943 Ibid., p. 909. * Corbitt, Calendars of Manuscript Collections, vol. i, pp. 23-24. 6

Martin's North Carolina Gazette, December 19, was evidently under strong federalist influence for all to have been federalists. Among them were Richard Payne, Abner Neale and James Glasgow. Wm. R. grand master for a number of years.

146

1787. The order the officers seem Caswell, Michael Davie was later

REFUSAL

TO RATIFY

147

A f t e r two years as governor, he refused a third term on account of his election as state senator under the newly adopted Constitution. Of imposing personal appearance, from an influential family and with a conspicuous public record, Johnston was a valuable asset to the federalists. 4 Prestige was lent to the convention and to the federalists by Johnston, but outstanding in debate was James Iredell. His active part in the campaign preceding the convention showed his great concern in the issues at stake. Fully conversant with the arguments presented throughout the country both for and against the proposed Constitution, he was prepared to answer any objections that might be made. Other federalist leaders were William R. Davie and Richard Dobbs Spaight, who, from their attendance at the federal convention, were well qualified for debate. In the state, as in the federal convention, Davie was f a r more active than Spaight. Davie, " too impetuous to be politic, but adding a peculiar familiarity with the subjects of discussion to his always bold and commanding eloquence," often aroused the antagonism of the opposing party. Another ardent advocate of the proposed Constitution was Archibald Maclaine of Wilmington. He was a learned and able lawyer, strong in debate, but impatient and too apt to give way to his temper.7 Prominent among the federalists, though not very active in debate, were the merchants John Steele and Stephen Cabarrus, and the wealthy landowners, Whitmell Hill and John Gray Blount. Among the anti federalists not many were renowned for 8

Wheeler, Eminent North Carolinians, p. 120; Hubbard, Fordyce M., Life of William Richardson Davie, Governor of North Carolina (The Library of American Biography, conducted by Jared Sparks. Second Series, vol. xv, Boston, 1848.) 7 Connor, Henry G., " The Convention of 1788-89 and the Federal Constitution—Hillsboro and Fayetteville," in North Carolina Booklet, vol. iv, no. 4, 1904.

148

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

debate or widely known beyond the state, yet their leaders had to be reckoned with in the politics of the state. Prominent among them was Willie Jones, who was in the convention, not to convince others in debate, but to marshal the forces of the opposition. The leading debater of this group was Samuel Spencer who had been a member of the General Assembly in 1769, a member of the first three Provincial Congresses of the state, and one of the judges of the state court since , 1777- 8 Being candid and temperate in his manner, he ably upheld the antifederalist arguments. Another delegate of importance was Timothy Bloodworth, a prominent politician of the lower Cape Fear region who served many years in the General Assembly as well as in Congress. 9 Though he was considered an unpractical radical by his opponents, he was a " true exponent of the instincts and prejudices, the finest feelings and noblest impulses of the masses." 10 David Caldwell of Guilford county, who 8 North Carolina Manual, 1913, pp. 343, 388, 447. The following characterization of him by McRee who edited the writings of James Iredell shows the biased view of one primarily interested in the federalists: " He certainly was not below mediocrity, even in his profession, but was not qualified by learning or dignity of manners for the office conferred upon him. He was as insensible to wit or sarcasm as a rhinoceros to the sting of a mosquito. He proved very unacceptable to the bar, but no indignity or neglect could ever tempt him to resign. T o effect this end much ingenuity was exerted in vain. Squibs and pasquinades rebounded from him as paper pellets from a wall of stone. Neither the avowed contempt of the most distinguished advocates, nor the sneer of the pettifogger could penetrate his selfishness or avarice. In 1788, as a member of the Convention at Hillsboro, he contributed largely to the rejection of the Constitution."—McRee, Iredell, vol. i, pp. 368-369. 9

North Carolina Manual, 1913, pp. 720, 721, 910. McRee, Iredell, vol. i, p. 195. A splendid characterization of him is given by McRee in Iredell, vol. ii, p. 233: " Timothy Bloodworth, by no means the least among them, was one of the most remarkable men of that era, distinguished for the versatility of his talents, and his practical knowledge of men, trades, arts and sciences. The child of poverty, diligence and ambition had supplied the place of patronage and wealth. 10

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

149

was a native of Pennsylvania and a graduate of the College of N e w Jersey, served as teacher, preacher and physician." His classical school at his home in Guilford county was widely known and was a center o f Presbyterian influence. Occupied, however, with his many duties, he was unable to keep up with the politics of the time. T h o u g h an ardent advocate of liberty, he was not well informed about governmental details and did not appear to great advantage in the convention. 12 T h o m a s Person of Granville county, though not active in debate, was influential in the state. He had been in four of the Provincial Congresses and in the General Assembly for many years. 13 A conspicuous W h i g , he served as brigadier-general during the Revolutionary war. Another brigadier-general among the anti federalists was Griffith Rutherford of R o w a n county, an Irishman, " brave and enterprising, but uncultivated in mind o r manners." 14 Preacher, smith, farmer, doctor, watchmaker, w h e e l w r i g h t , and politician; if his brain w a s a receptacle of ideas somewhat ill-assorted, and his learning so ill-digested as sometimes to excite ridicule, and expose him to the charge of quackery, his manifold services, his unheralded charities, his gentle offices, had been received by his neighbors as testimonials of a mission almost divine. In the social circle, good-humored, gay, and f u l l of racy anecdotes, as a politician he w a s resolved almost to fierceness, and almost radical in his democracy." 1 1 Caruthers, E . W . , A Sketch of the Life and Character of the Rev. David Caldwell (Greensboro, 1842), pp. 23, 29, 4 1 ; Foote, Sketches of North Carolina, pp. 234-236.

12 Caruthers, E . W . , David North Carolina Manual, Historical Sketches of North 13

Caldwell,

p. 246.

1913, pp. 365, 398-399, 620-621; W h e e l e r , Carolina.

1 1 M c R e e , op. cit., vol. i, p. 456. T h e f o l l o w i n g letter written b y G. R u t h e r f o r d to James K a r r , July 23, 1783, in the R u t h e r f o r d M a n u scripts, Miscellaneous Letters in the archives of the N o r t h Carolina Historical Commission at R a l e i g h will g i v e an insight into the m a n :

" Sir as to the first of youre General Conduct as an Honest N e g h b o r you have cause to think y o u desarve countanance, but as a open enemy y o u must know you desarve none, f o r if a blast of youre mouth would have Annehelated the 13 United Stats W e have a R i g h t to beleve y o u

I5o

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

H e was strongly opposed to the restoration of confiscated property, and designated as " Imps of

Hell "

those

who

f a v o r e d such restoration as recommended to the states in the fifth

article of the T r e a t y of Peace. 1 5

Joseph

McDowell,

w h o had been a member of the General Assembly f o r Burke county since 1 7 8 1 , took part a number of times in the debate, stating his opposition to parts of the Constitution. other prominent members were W i l l i a m Lenoir of county and Elisha Battle of Edgecombe. 1 6

Two Wilkes

T h e former took

only a minor part in the debates; but Battle, w h o had been a member of the Provincial Congress which formed the state constitution and had served several years in the A s s e m b l y , became chairman of the convention's committee of the whole. It is well to know the leaders of the opposing forces in the convention, but it is also important to know the interests of the rank and file whose votes were to determine N o r t h C a r o lina's stand in regard to the Constitution. 1 7

T h o u g h the fed-

would have don it. As for the Latter where you say you Expect a Frend in General Rutherford Surly Sir you know that I tuck an Oath of Alejance to this State & Hops to keep it unviolated, you cannot expect That at this Time I would Turn Trator to my Gauntry in Indevering to subvart the Laws of it that I myself gave my Hearty approbation too—as for youre Property that you have so Justly forfited not one Shilling of it is sold—but Two Thirds of it is Rented to the Higest bider—You crave my advise—my advise is that you send for youre famely if it suts you and goe to Novescho where I understand the Royal Brut, of Britton has made provision for all his Loyalests in North America— For be assured I do not mean to prove Treatrus to the Laws of my Much Injured Country." " N. B. Sir be assured that I shall Continue my frenship fo youre Famely." 13

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 100.

14

North Carolina Manual, 1913, pp. 364, 398, 599.

1T

The conclusions given in this section are based on a careful study of state records, county records, histories and biographies concerning the members of the convention of 1788 which refused to ratify the Constitution.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

eralists were outstanding in debate, the numerical advantage was with the opposing side; for the antifederalists had more than double the number of federalists. A s one looks over the records of the various members of the convention, whether federalist or anti federalist, it is evident that they were prominent in political and military affairs. It is true that such records are more easily found, yet that does not lessen the importance of the fact that the men in the convention were those who had been the leaders of the state during the Revolutionary war 18 and were active in politics before and after the w a r . " O n both sides there were young men whose service to the state still lay before them, and others, who so far as the available records show, were quite unimportant. Search in the county records has, however, o f t e n shown that members 1 8 Among the federalists were Charles McDowell, Robert Irwin, Isaac Gregory, William R. Davie, Thomas Wynns, John Steele, George Wynns and W.J.Dawson. Among the anti federalists were Thomas Person, Griffith Rutherford, Thomas Brown, Joseph Graham, William Lenoir, Robert Williams, William Shepperd of Orange, Joseph Winston, Joseph Herndon, Joseph McDowell, Curtis Ivey and Thomas Armstrong. Among the North Carolinians who signed the Continental Association proposed by the first Continental Congress were four federalists: Samuel Johnston, John Johnston, Isaac Gregory and Joseph Leech; three antifederalists : Thomas Person, Willie Jones and Griffith Rutherford; and one who did not vote in the convention, Edward Starkey of Onslow.— " Papers on the ratification of the Declaration of Independence by North Carolina," in Historical Magazine of America, Nov., 1868, vol. xiv (Morrisania, N. Y . ) , pp. 250-253.

Writers seem to stress especially the independent spirit of Col. William Sheppard of Orange, Thomas Person of Granville, and William Dickson and James Kenan of Duplin, all of whom were antifederalists. 1 9 Among the federalists besides those named as leaders in the convention were Thomas Wynns, Robert Irwin, Isaac Gregory, Charles Johnson, Henry Abbott, Peter Douge, Edmund Blount and William Barry Grove. Among the antifederalists beside those named as leaders in the convention were Joseph Winston, Joseph Herndon, William Lenoir, William Dickson, David Dodd, James Gillespie, James Kenan, Thomas Brown. Matthew Locke, Nathan Bryan, Joel Lane and Joseph Graham.

152

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

apparently insignificant were nevertheless persons of some local importance. Generally speaking, then, the delegates were men of substantial position and achievement, whether from a political, military or social viewpoint, in the various counties they represented. That the majority were antifederalists, simply shows that interest was far greater in local than in national affairs. Information on the social status of members is not easily available. It is possible to glean here and there facts of significance, but it is impossible to get data for the majority of the group. A m o n g the federalists Davie was educated at the College of N e w Jersey, Whitmell Hill at the University of Pennsylvania, 20 Richard D. Spaight at the University of Glasgow and William J. Dawson in England. 2 1 A m o n g the anti federalists Willie Jones was educated in England, David Caldwell at the College of New J e r s e y ; 2 2 and in 1784 the latter college conferred the degree of Doctor of L a w s upon Samuel Spencer. 23 A m o n g the federalists, Johnston, 24 Iredell and Maclaine, had libraries of note; those of David Caldwell and General Joseph Graham, 25 anti federalists, reflected their special interest in religion. Books were now and then mentioned in wills. 26 A n antifederalist from R o w a n whose father provided in his will that his children were " to be schooled as far as is common," 27 made provision 20 Wheeler, Sketches

of North Carolina, vol. ii, p. 252.

21

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 272.

22

Foote, Sketches

23

Gazette of the State of North Carolina, November 11, 1784.

of North Carolina, p. 232.

2 4 Weeks, " Libraries and Literature in North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century," pp. 198-205. 25

Ibid., p. 216.

Orange County Records, Wills, 1753-18119, vol. iii, pp. 21-22, will of Alexander Mebane, antifederalist from Orange county. 28

27

Rowan County Records, Wills, 1743-1868, vol. iii, p. 52.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

153

for the education of his son at the University of North Carolina. 28 T h e most prominent lawyers of the state as a rule were federalists, 28 but the judges were conceded to be antifederalists.30 Although many of the leaders were trained men, 28

R o w a n County Records, Wills, 1743-1868, vol. iii, pp. 56-59.

T h e federalist lawyers in the convention w e r e Johnston, Iredell, Davie, Maclaine and John Sitgreaves. A l a w y e r of lesser note w h o w a s an antifederalist was Joseph T a y l o r . Popular prejudice against lawyers existed in the colonial period, and a f t e r the Revolutionary w a r this prejudice w a s renewed and increased. V a r i o u s restrictions w e r e put upon lawyers by law. A residence requirement of a year had to be met b e f o r e a lawyer could be admitted to practice. I n January 1786, there was an unsuccessful attempt to pass a bill providing f o r the prosecution of attorneys and practitioners of the law f o r extortion and malpractice in their profession and asking the judges of the superior courts to be more c a r e f u l in future in admitting attorneys to the bar, particularly f o r eigners (Legislative Papers, Senate, 1786-1787). Y e t the bill that w a s passed (S. R., vol. x x i v , pp. 804-807) w a s such that W i l l i a m Hooper wrote Iredell that the new court law would be better christened a bill inflicting pains and penalties on attorneys ( M c R e e , Iredell, vol. ii, p. 133). T h e part of the l a w providing that only one counsel should be heard in any case w a s so rigidly enforced by the judges that Iredell felt constrained to refund his fee in a case in which he was retained with H o o p e r ( M c R e e , Iredell, vol. ii, p. 158). T h e fees f o r attorneys were set by law. T o the General A s sembly of 1786-1787 that passed the court law (S. R-, vol. xviii, pp. 137142) Judge A s h e addressed a letter defensive of himself and his colleagues in which he denounced the members of the bar ( M c R e e , op. cit., vol. ii, p. 601). A n answer soon appeared signed by James Iredell, Samuel Johnston, W i l l i a m R. Davie, Archibald Maclaine, w h o w e r e later members of the convention of 1788, and also W i l l i a m Cumming, John Stokes, W i l l i a m Hooper, John H a y and James Spiller. In his rejoinder Judge A s h e said his remarks w e r e not intended to apply to Iredell, Johnston and Moore. 29

3 0 In the State Gazette of North Carolina, M a r c h 27, 1788, there appeared the f o l l o w i n g : " A l l the maxims and all the actions of the judges tend to increase their o w n power. T o avert the loss of that, they are n o w aiming at seats in the ensuing Convention. I f present federal government remains, the judges will continue to domineer over you. Should the new f o r m be adopted, they will sink into their original insignificancy. A l l they have now to support them is that degree of respectablity w h i c h

154

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

lack of education did not prevent others from rising to political prominence, examples being the antifederalists, Timothy Bloodworth and William Lenoir. Some of less importance never attended school and were unable to write their names. 31 S o far as the records are available, it seems safe to say that the federalist ranks contained the greater number of educated men. T h e racial element does not seem to have been a determining factor in the attitude taken by the members toward the constitution. There were members of both parties of French, German, Welsh, English and Scottish descent, yet the Scots apparently tended to favor the Constitution and the Germans to oppose it. 32 people are apt to annex to their person, though it really belongs to their station." In the General Assembly of 1786-1787 a controversy of long standing between the bar and the bench came to an issue. There had been several publications made by some of the lawyers against the Court and to some of these Judge Ashe had replied. A l l of these articles appeared under assumed names. The object was to have the judges removed, but the lawyers were not able to accomplish this. Archibald Maclaine, as chairman of the committee to examine into the present mode of the administration of justice in the superior courts of law and equity, preferred charges against the judges (S. R., vol. xviii, pp. 421-425). With Maclaine on this committee were William R. Davie, R. D. Spaight, J. G. Blount, John Sitgreaves, William Hooper and John Stokes. It was alleged that the judges had suspended the operation of an act of the General Assembly that had illegally banished two tories, Brice and McNeil, that they delayed procedure by their disagreements on the bench, and that they were irregular in their attendance at court. Judges Spencer and Williams appeared before a joint session of the two houses, but Judge Ashe sent a letter to the legislature, excusing himself from attending and defending the actions of the judges. The two houses in joint session, after considering the charges made against the judges, found that they had been guilty of no misdemeanor in office. Both the Senate and the House concurred in this action (S. R., vol. xviii, pp. 213, 428). The judges, who had prejudices originating in the war, were upheld by the Assembly and reflected the sentiment of the mass of the people (McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 145). 31

James Vaughan, antifederalist of Northampton was one.

32

Wheeler, Eminent North Carolinians, p. 122; Wheeler, Sketches

of

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

155

Religion seems to have been a more important line of cleavage than race, in separating advocates of the Constitution from its opponents. Episcopalians, who were generally of the upper classes, favored, as a rule, the ratification of the Constitution. Among them were such outstanding federalist leaders as Samuel Johnston, James Iredell, Richard D. Spaight and Archibald Maclaine; yet some of that faith opposed it.33 The report before the convention met was that the Quakers favored the proposed Constitution ; 8 4 but it is uncertain whether any of the delegates were Quakers. Presbyterian influence seems to have been largely against the Constitution; at any rate the centers of Presbyterianism in the west were also centers of antifederalism. Reverend David Caldwell, for instance, was outspoken in his opposition to the Constitution, yet Davie of H a l i f a x and Robert Irwin of Mecklenburg, who also were Presbyterians, upheld the Constitution. 35 A strong denominational influence was exerted against the ratification of the Constitution by Baptists who took pride in being advocates of liberty and strong republicans." The Baptists of Virginia and North Carolina were closely associated, 37 and in both states generally opposed the ConstiNorth Carolina, vol. ii, pp. 43, 462 ; De Rosset, William M., Jr., Sketches of Church History in North Carolina (Wilmington, 1892), p. 151 ; Hunter, C. L., Sketches of Western North Carolina, Historical and Biographical (Raleigh, 1877), p. 299; Draper, Lyman C., King's Mountain and Its Heroes (Cincinnati, 1881). P- 47'; "Editorial Table," in North Carolina University Magazine, second series, vol. iv, p. 135, 1855. 33

De Rosset, Sketches 152, 153, 170, 207, 421. 34

of Church History

in North

Carolina,

pp. 146,

McRee, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 229.

35

Wheeler, Eminent North Carolinians, p. 274 ; DeRosset, op. cit., p. 170. Hugh Williamson who was not in the convention of 1788 was also a Presbyterian. 36

Burkitt and Read, Kehukee

37

Ibid., p. 96.

Baptist

Association,

p. 312.

156

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

38

tution. The active part taken by Lemuel Burkitt in the campaign preceding the convention has been related. It was believed that a prominent politician who held public office originated the idea of circulating letters opposing the Constitution " from meeting to meeting, and from preacher to preacher." 39 T w o other antifederalist Baptist preachers were Francis Oliver of Duplin 40 and William Lancaster of Franklin. 41 Among the Baptist laymen who took the same side were Nathan Bryan of Jones County and John Branch of Halifax. 4 2 A n indication of their strength in the convention was the choice of Elisha Battle, a prominent Baptist, as the chairman of the committee of the whole. On the other hand, Baptist elders from two eastern counties where the federalists were strong, voted in favor of ratification. 43 So in religion, as in other social and political factors, the differences between the tidewater and the back counties seemed to be of great importance. A n examination of the economic factors shows that the federalists generally belonged to the wealthier class. A n important part of the wealth of the people of North Carolina was in slaves; although there were more slaves in the eastern counties, no North Carolina county was without slaves. 38 Documentary History of the Constitution, vol. iv, p. 463; Bancroft, George, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America ( N e w Y o r k , 1883), vol. ii, p. 301. 39

New York Daily Advertiser,

June 30, 1788.

*» Hufham, J . C., " T h e Baptists in North Carolina," in North Carolina Baptist Historical Papers, vol. i, 1896-1897 (Henderson, N . C . ) , p. 235; Albritton, John T „ " Bear Marsh C h u r c h " in North Carolina Baptist Historical Papers, vol. ii, 1897-1898, p. 29. " Warren County Marriage Bonds," in North torical Papers, vol. iii, 1899-1900, pp. 45, 51. * 2 Burkitt and Read, Kehukee 43

Baptist

Association,

Carolina

Baptist

His-

pp. 1 1 5 , 316.

Henry Abbott of Camden and Samuel Harrell of Hertford. Hufham, op. cit., vol. i, p. 1 6 9 ; Burkitt and Read, op. cit., p. 36.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

157

The federalists probably held more slaves than their opponents but there were also some large slaveholders in the latter group. Light will be thrown on this question by noting the number held in 1790 by some of the prominent men in the convention. Among the federalists, Whitmell Hill owned 140 slaves 44 and five others held from 96 to 3 6 ; 4 5 among the anti federalists who were active in the convention, Willie Jones with 1 2 0 was the only large slaveholder. 44 The most important form of wealth in the state was land. Records of original land grants of the state and of sales of land by individuals are in existence, but a thorough search to determine all the land owned by a large number of people would take an endless time, since the files are only partially indexed. Difficulties also arise f r o m the similarity of names. Lands inherited are not shown in the files, but now and then a will has survived which throws light on the inheritance of estates. 41 A study of the recorded grants and of wills, though not exhaustive, has revealed some interesting facts. The outstanding fact is that most of the delegates were large landowners. This was particularly true in the seaboard counties in which the delegates were preponderantly in favor of the Constitution. T w o examples were Josiah Collins of Tyrrell who obtained thousands of acres in that county in 44

Heads of Families,

North Carolina, p. 68.

45

Samuel Johnston 96, John Gray Blount 74, Stephen Cabarrus 73, R. D. Spaight 71, William R. Davie 36.—Ibid., pp. 18, 64, 126, 130. 46

Among the other antifederalists, Matthew Locke held 27, Elisha Battle 22, Samuel Spencer 18, James Galloway and William Lenoir 12 each, Timothy Bloodworth and Joseph McDowell, Jr. 9 each, and Griffith Rutherford and David Caldwell, 8 apiece.—Ibid., pp. 36, 64, 106, 152, 169, 174, 176. 47 Records of a great many counties of North Carolina are preserved by the North Carolina Historical Commission at Raleigh. Wills generally form a most important part of the records.

158

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

48

1788, and Richard Dobbs Spaight who had original grants for at least 1800 acres in Craven county besides land he inherited or obtained in other ways. Another federalist, Benjamin Smith, held extensive land grants scattered through nine counties/ 9 as well as over twenty thousand acres in the western district. The holdings of the antifederalists were not so extensive, yet Samuel Spencer of Anson held grants amounting to over 5000 acres in Anson, Bladen, Tryon, Mecklenburg and Rutherford counties.50 Since all of the counties east of the mountains in which at least a majority of the delegates voted in favor of ratification, were with three exceptions, in a solid group along the Atlantic seaboard, it is of interest to note those exceptions. In Lincoln, Cumberland and Robeson counties the votes were divided so that either three or four of the five delegates of each county voted in favor of ratification, though the delegates of all the surrounding counties were either solidly or by a majority against ratification. In Lincoln county, so f a r as original grants show, John Sloane who favored the Constitution, was the only one of the delegates who had obtained a considerable amount of land by 1789. In Robeson county four delegates favored the Constitution and one opposed it. The four with little or no land in 1788, later acquired very extensive grants in the county. 51 The one opposition mem48 H e had one grant in Tyrrell county for 54 acres, three others for 640 acres each, one for 10,000 acres, another for 5,000, another for 2,500, and so on for thousands of acres more. A l l of these grants were made in 1788. A l l of the original land grants are recorded in the Land Grant Office under the Secretary of State at Raleigh, North Carolina. 49 Benjamin Smith of Brunswick county held grants exceeding 3,000 acres in Brunswick and 4,000 acres in the other counties. 50 The information was gleaned from the index books in the Land Grant Office in Raleigh. In these books the names are not arranged alphabetically, but they are grouped with all the A ' s together, the B's together, and so on. 51

John Willis later acquired 30,000 or 40,000 acres.

John Cade later

REFUSAL

TO RATIFY

159

ber had no original grant before 1 7 8 8 and later acquired only a few hundred acres. 52 In Cumberland county the vote was three to two in f a v o r of the Constitution. Of these delegates, the two antifederalists had considerable grants before the time of the convention, 53 and one of them later obtained original grants exceeding his former purchases. 64 A m o n g the federalists, no one had original grants in the county before 1788, but two of them later obtained considerable grants. 55 H o w much effect the desire f o r later grants of land had upon certain federalists cannot be ascertained, but at least those in the western area who voted in favor of ratification took advantage of later opportunities to purchase land. Ownership of lands west of the mountains, in what is now Tennessee, does not seem to have been important in determining the attitude of delegates toward the Constitution. Since there is a separate index in the Land Grant Office at Raleigh f o r original land grants in Tennessee, it is possible to determine easily if a person held an original grant in that section. The names of many members do not appear in this index at all but there are many interesting entries. John Gray Blount, a federalist of Beaufort county who held a acquired over 1,000 acres. Elias Barns in 1788 obtained with another man 200 acres, and later he acquired about 3,500 acres. Neill B r o w n received a grant for 40 acres in 1788 and later his grants amounted to 1,300 or 1,400 acres. It is not known how much land acquired in other ways these men had. 52

John Regan, who voted against the Constitution, later acquired only a small amount of land. 53

Alexander M'Callaster had about 1,800 acres and Thomas Armstrong over 4,000. 54 55

Alexander M'Callaster later received grants f o r about 2,100 acres.

James Porterfield had no original grants before or after the convention. William B a r r y Grove later obtained grants from between 2,000 and 3,000 acres. George Elliot later obtained grants f o r hundreds of acres.

160

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

great deal of land in common with Thomas Blount, was one of the largest landowners of the state. Thousands of acres were granted him before 1788, and then during the year 1 7 8 8 immense tracts were taken up. Most of this land was in the western and middle districts, but part was in Sumner, Davidson and Tennessee counties. Richard Caswell, the prominent federalist delegate from Dobbs county who was not allowed to take his seat in the convention, was also much interested in western lands. 58 T o offset the federalists who were interested in the western land, there were antifederalists who had similar interests. A n anti federalist from Cumberland, received in 1786 and 1787 grants for over 9,000 acres, and in 1788 for 5,000 acres; another anti federalist took up 4,640 acres in 1786 and 6,000 acres in 1 7 8 8 . " The will of Matthew Locke, the anti federalist from Rowan, showed that he had extensive holdings of western lands. 88 Another prominent anti federalist, Thomas Person of Granville, held land west of the mountains." It is interesting also to see how much land was held by the delegates who represented the counties west of the mountains. The largest speculator in western lands, so f a r as the records in the Land Grant Office reveal, was Stokely Donel56

Hugh Williamson, who was in the federal convention and in the North Carolina convention of 1789, but not in the convention of 1788, owned a great deal of western land. On June 2, 1788, he wrote James Madison the following: " For Myself I conceive that my opinions are not biassed by private Interests, but having claims to a considerable Quantity of Land in the Western Country I am fully persuaded that the Value of those Lands must be increased by an efficient federal Gov't."— Documentary History of the Constitution, vol. iv, pp. 678-679. 87

Thomas Armstrong of Cumberland county and John Brown of Wilkes. 68

Rowan County Records, Wills, 1743-1868, vol. 09 Wagstaff, Henry McG., " Letters of William James Sprunt Historical Publications, vol. ix, no. 2 William Barry Grove to James Hogg, Philadelphia,

xiv, p. 59. Barry Grove," in the (Chapel Hill, 1910). January 21, 1795.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

161

son, an anti federalist delegate from Hawkins county, to whom thousands of acres were granted both before and after 1788. 60 Various others were interested with Donelson in land speculation, among whom were the federalists, Richard Caswell and James Glasgow of Dobbs county. Of the Tennessee members in the convention of 1788, only two voted in favor of the Constitution, and four of the delegates did not vote. Of the two who favored the Constitution, one had no original grants of western land so far as the records show,91 and the other had the small grant of 228 acres held with another person.62 It is thus evident that those who defied public opinion, as expressed in the views of their associates, were the least favored in the possession of land. The four who refrained from voting 48 and those who voted against the Constitution had grants varying from several hundred to several thousand acres. The ownership of western land certainly did not cause these delegates to vote for the Constitution. Owners of western lands were concerned about their economic interests, even though they voted against the ratification of the Constitution. They did not agree as to whether a strong central government would safeguard the interests of the western country. Both in Virginia and in North Caro60 The stack of cards showing his grants fills a space of three or four inches. It has been estimated that his landed estate amounted to half a million acres.—Williams, The Lost State of Franklin, p. 306. 81

William Stokes of Sumner.

62

James Winchester of Sumner. George Winchester shared in the grant. They later acquired 400 acres more. 83 Daniel Smith, David Wilson and Edward Douglass of Sumner and Joseph Martin of Sullivan. Daniel Smith and Joseph Martin were prominent men of affairs and no doubt realized the benefits that would come from ratification. Since the two votes cast for ratification in the Tennessee counties were from Sumner, the county went in favor of the Constitution, although Smith, Wilson and Douglass did not vote. Martin's four colleagues from Sullivan voted against the Constitution.

1S2

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

lina, there was strong feeling in regard to the possibility of the central government giving up the right of navigation on the Mississippi river.64 Patrick Henry was outspoken in Virginia, claiming that the adoption of the Constitution would be the renunciation of this right. The people of North Carolina, as shown above in chapter three, were equally concerned. Although Hugh Williamson, who was not in the convention, was not afraid of the new government giving up the navigation of the Mississippi, others in the state were. Rumors were rife that both Spanish and British overtures were being made to the western settlers.65 Though the people of the area which had been the State of Franklin were interested in this question, those in the Cumberland valley were even more concerned.66 There was the possibility of this region uniting with Kentucky when the western areas were separated from the eastern states,87 since the interests of the two regions were similar. One group seems to have been unanimous in favor of the Constitution and that was the commercial interest. It has been shown that in the campaign before the convention, it was considered that the Constitution would benefit the eastern commercial interests, but would harm those of the back country. 68 The federalists were unsuccessful in their at81

Bancroft, History of the Constitution, Lee, R. H., Letters, vol. ii, p. 184.

vol. ii, pp. 295, 311, 352, 4 1 5 ;

65 Williams, S. F., State of Franklin, p. 229; Haywood, John, The Civil and Political History of the State of Tennessee (Nashville, 1891), p. 2 5 1 ; New York Daily Advertiser, June 30, 1788. et

Ibid., February 22, 1787, extract of a letter from Nashville in Davidson county, North Carolina, about the designs of the Spanish court in regard to the Mississippi river. Everyone considered all at stake. ST Draper Manuscripts, King's Mountain Manuscripts, 1776-1826 (Photostats in possession of North Carolina Historical Commission at Raleigh). Sam'l McDowell to Col. Arthur Campbell of Washington county. 68

C f . supra, p. 141.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

tempts to show that what would benefit the trading section of the east would also benefit the west. All the members of the convention who are known to have been merchants were ardent federalists. 4 ' The index of the North Carolina State Records shows that one federalist after another served as commissioner of navigation. 70 Trading and shipping interests more than any other factor appear to differentiate the eastern delegates who favored the Constitution from the western men who opposed it. The vote of 184 to 93 against the ratification of the Constitution without amendments, showed the overwhelming majority of the antifederalists; but an even more impressive result is shown by an analysis of the vote by counties. In twenty-five counties every delegate voted against the Constitution," and there were only seven which cast a solid vote for the Constitution. 72 In six counties all the votes cast were against the Constitution, but one or two delegates refrained 69 They were Stephen Cabarrus, Charles Johnson, Nathan Allen and Michael Payne of Chowan, John Steele of Salisbury, John Gray Blount of Beaufort and Isaac Gregory of Camden.—McRee, Iredell, vol. i, p. 35; R., vol. xxii, pp. 578, 579; Davie Papers, No. 17; Battle, Kemp P., " Letters of Nathaniel Macon, John Steele and William Barry Grove," in James Sprunt Historical Monograph, no. 3 (Chapel Hill, 1902) ; Attmore, William, " Journal of a Tour to North Carolina, 1787," in James Sprunt Historical Publications, vol. xvii, no. 2 (Chapel Hill, 1922); Gates County Records, Wills, 1762-1805, vol. i, p. 56. 7 0 Among these were Whitmell Hill of Martin, John Gray Blount and Thomas Alderson of Beaufort, William Barry Grove of Cumberland, Isaac Gregory of Camden, and Nathaniel Allen of Chowan. 7 1 These twenty-five counties were: Caswell, Duplin, Davidson, Edgecombe, Franklin, Guilford, Granville, Greene, Halifax, Hawkins, Jones, Moore, New Hanover, Nash, Orange, Rowan, Rutherford, Richmond, Rockingham, Surry, Sampson, Washington, Warren, Wayne and Wilkes. 7 2 These seven counties w e r e : Currituck, Chowan, Camden, Gates, Hyde, Pasquotank and Perquimans. See map page 164 where federalist and antifederalist counties, whether with solid or majority vote, are indicated.

164

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

f r o m voting. 73 There were four counties in which all the votes cast were for the Constitution, but one, two or three delegates did not vote. 74 Hence, there were thirty-one counties in which every vote cast was against the Constitution and only eleven counties in which every vote cast was for the Constitution. T h e solid federalist area included a small group of counties in the northeastern section of the state and one county in the Cumberland region of Tennessee. The rest of the state, with three exceptions, was entirely antifederalist, judging by the votes cast in the convention. T h e three exceptions, where the votes were divided, and where the majority was on one side or the other, were: ( 1 ) five counties just to the west of the solid federalist area, three of which had a federalist majority, one an antifederalist majority and one was evenly divided; 7 5 ( 2 ) seven counties in the southeastern part of the state, t w o of which were federalist and five antifederalist; 76 ( 3 ) three counties in the southwestern part of the state, one of which was federalist and two antifederalist. 77 T h e first area named, in which the votes were divided, formed a border between the federalist and antifederalist areas and shared the interests of the two sections. T h e other t w o areas were in the valleys of the Cape Fear and Y a d k i n rivers, and of the Catawba river. T h e solid anti7 3 These six counties were: Anson, Montgomery, Northampton, Onslow, Randolph and Sullivan. 74

These four counties were: Bertie, Carteret, Sumner and Tyrrell.

The counties that had a federalist majority were: Beaufort, Hertford and Martin; the county with the antifederalist majority was Pitt. Craven was evenly divided since the federalist Abner Neale did not vote. 75

7 8 The two counties with the federalist majority were Cumberland and Robeson; the five counties with the antifederalist majority were Brunswick, Bladen, Chatham, Johnston and Wake. 7 7 The one county with the federalist majority was Lincoln; the two counties with the antifederalist majority were Burke and Mecklenburg.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

165

federalist area extended along the entire border of Virginia from Northampton in the east to Davidson in the west with the exception of Sumner, and also through the central part of the state to the South Carolina border. Of the six borough towns represented in the convention, five had federalist delegates and one an antifederalist delegate. Hillsboro, the county seat of Orange and the meeting place of the convention, was represented by the anti federalist, Absalom Tatom, who was a surveyor and contractor and had served as a tobacco agent. 78 Three towns which had federalist delegates were in counties that gave solid antifederalist votes,78 while the other two were in the federalist area.80 Four of the federalists representing towns were prominent lawyers of the state 81 and the other was a prominent merchant.82 A f t e r this survey of the personnel of the convention, one is better prepared to understand the debates. T w o days were given to organization during which time the outstanding federalist leader, Governor Samuel Johnston, was unanimously chosen president. When the convention proceeded to the business for which it had been called, the bill of rights and constitution of the state, the Articles of Confederation, the act of the state providing for the appointment of delegates to the Philadelphia convention, and the resolve of Congress accompanying the report of the federal convention were read.83 The presiding officer presented the official accounts of ratification by Massachusetts and South Carolina. 78

S. R., vol. xii, pp. 791-792; vol. xvi, p. 494; vol. xvii, p. 460.

79

Salisbury in Rowan county, Halifax in Halifax county, and Wilmington in New Hanover. 80

Edenton in Chowan and Newbern in Craven.

81

James Iredell, William R. Davie, Archibald Maclaine and John Sitgreaves. 82

John Steele.

83

Elliot, Debates, vol. iv, p. 3.

166

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

To the consternation of the federalists, Willie Jones, the antifederalist leader from Halifax, secure in his control of the majority, moved that the question be put immediately. His argument was that the Constitution had been so long the subject of deliberation that the delegates were prepared to give their votes, so that there was no need to waste the public funds by a long session. The federalists induced Jones to withdraw his motion. The anti federalists were not agreed as to the need of full discussion. Before Jones tried to precipitate a decision, James Galloway of Rockingham had proposed a full debate of the Constitution. After much discussion pro and con, it was decided that the convention should resolve itself into a committee of the whole and discuss the Constitution clause by clause.84 David Caldwell, the Presbyterian minister and teacher from Guilford county, proposed some fundamental principles of government as a basis of discussion but they were voted down by a large majority. 85 The decision to discuss the Constitution did not mean that the antifederalists would bring out all their objections, and it soon became evident that the debate would be one-sided. One of them questioned the propriety of the friends of the new system discussing objections although none was urged by its opponents.86 When attention was called to clauses being passed in silence that had been denounced out of doors, the suggestion was made that friends of the Constitution could discuss it by one of them making objections and another answering them.87 Iredell thought it was proper to mention objections made out of doors, since such objections operated upon the minds of gentlemen who, unaccustomed to 84

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 8, 15.

85

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 7, 9, 13.

86

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 29.

87

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 30.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

167

expressing their ideas in public, concealed them out of diffidence." A f t e r the debate had taken place, Bloodworth announced he had heard nothing of sufficient weight to alter his belief and Jones said he believed no person had changed his opinion.8* Iredell acknowledged that it was useless to contend any longer against an irresistible majority. More or less significant objections were made to various parts of the Constitution relating to the legislative branch of the government. The provision for impeachment provoked debate, for objection was made to giving the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment, and to the wide jurisdiction of the Senate as a court for impeachments.®0 The anti federalists feared that federal officers in the state might oppress the people and they opposed vesting the sole means of redress in the House of Representatives. They feared that the state would be deprived of the power of impeaching any of its own congressmen. Finally, opposition was quieted by the explanation that if an officer committed an offense against an individual, he would be tried in a court of law, and if he committed a crime against the state, he would be indicted and punished, since impeachment extended only to high crimes and misdemeanors in public office. The anti federalists were still apprehensive of the danger of a loose construction of these clauses by Congress.' 1 The clause giving Congress control over the times, places and manner of holding elections, which had been strongly opposed outside of the convention, led to another heated discussion.'2 One after another of the anti federalists— 88

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 32-33.

89

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 217, 235.

90 Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 32-37; article i, section 2, clause 5, and article i, section 3, clauses 6 and 7 of the Constitution. 81

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 48-50.

92

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 50; article i, section 4, clause 1 of the Constitution.

168

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

Samuel Spencer, Timothy Bloodworth, William Goudy, James McDowall, David Caldwell, Joseph Taylor and James Galloway—insisted on the danger of such a provision. Even the federalists were willing that it should be so amended that Congress should exercise the power only when a state legislature failed to adopt the necessary regulations.83 This, however, led an anti federalist to express the wish that North Carolina would " never swallow the Constitution " until it was amended.84 The fundamental objection to the clause was the fear of consolidation since the state governments were not sufficiently secured from being " swallowed up by the great mass of powers given to Congress." 85 Security depended upon the liberties of the people being properly safeguarded. 88 The debate on this question offers an excellent illustration of the part taken by the various leaders. Iredell was outstanding. With a combination of ability and modesty, he ably defended the Constitution, and presented his arguments in such a way that no one would be antagonized. Maclaine also, when his temper was under control, could analyze a situation and present it forcibly. Johnston, with a dignity which gave him prestige in any gathering, was an easy speaker, but intellectually inferior to Iredell and Maclaine. Davie brought to the debate fluency, a wealth of illustration and the prestige of membership in the federal convention, but his manner tended to arouse antagonism. Among the anti federalists Spencer was the leading figure. With a sincere interest in the welfare of the union, he wanted a federal government to be established, provided the rights of the states and of the people were safeguarded. The ob93

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. SO, 54.

94

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 56.

Johnston and Iredell.

Timothy Bloodworth.

95

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 51.

96

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 56, 68.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

169

jection to the congressional power over elections was one of his main objections to the Constitution, and he presented his arguments with ease, dignity and force. His long experience as a judge served him well. Bloodworth, clearly a person from the ranks, having determined his attitude toward the Constitution, did not mind antagonizing those who differed from him.97 McDowall, with the confidence of a conspicuous public man, did not object to calling down the governor of the state," while Caldwell, acquainted with books, rather than with men and the times, could not make much headway against men of more practical experience. When the discussion of congressional control over elections was practically over, James Galloway of Rockingham, one of the western counties, introduced a sectional note. He said the five representatives that North Carolina would send to the general government would, no doubt, be chosen from or near the seaports, and that the representatives from the other states would very likely be from the eastern sections, so that the law regulating the places, times and manner of elections could, without violating the Constitution, continue that section in power. 89 Galloway's objection was answered by Steele, a federalist merchant of Salisbury in Rowan, another western county. In a clear and convincing way, he explained that the Constitution regulated the qualifications of electors, and that the congressional power over the manner of holding elections merely enabled them to determine whether the electors should elect by ballot or by some other method. If Congress made laws inconsistent with the Constitution, universal resistance would ensue. In a country where every man was his own master, and where almost every man was 67

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 56, 67. He said of Iredell, " The honorable gentleman has amused us with learned discussions." »»Ibid., vol. iv, p. 57. 89

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 70.

170

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

a freeholder and had the right of election, violations of the Constitution would not be passively tolerated. The taxing power of congress was warmly debated, with Spencer presenting the main opposition argument. This was a matter of vital concern to the people at large and was a most important factor in the opposition to the Constitution. Many believed that the liberties of the people were at stake and that safeguards were necessary. Spencer thought the power granted was too extensive and might lead to annihilation of state governments.100 He was willing that Congress should have the right to lay and collect imposts and excises, but he felt that direct taxes should not be levied unless the states failed to pay requisitions laid upon them. The scarcity of specie in North Carolina was an argument against unduly enlarging federal power in this respect. The core of the argument against consolidation and the annihilation of state governments, was this vital factor of control of the purse-strings. Sectionalism in the state was based upon the same objection. 101 From colonial experience the people of the west feared the control of the east over taxation, and the people of the west felt at this time that the proposed government would still further remove the control of taxation. In view of the great scarcity of money in the state, especially in the west, it was natural that the people should fear increased taxation. Goudy expressed well the fears of the masses.102 He could not, he said, follow the learned gentlemen through all the labyrinths of their oratory, but he knew the people had no gold or silver, no substantial money, with which to pay taxes, and this clause, with that about elections, would totally destroy their liberties. He was jealous and suspicious of the liberties of mankind, for this matter concerned " the interest of millions yet unborn." 1 0 0 Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 75-77; article i, section 8, clause I of the Constitution.

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 87-89. 102 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 93. 101

REFUSAL

TO RATIFY

i7i

During the course of the debate the evils of paper money were clearly brought out. When reference was made to the inefficiency of the state legislature in resorting to paper money, 103 an anti federalist asserted that without it the state, involved in war and lacking specie, would have had its political existence destroyed. 104 Johnston said every man of property, whether a planter, merchant, mechanic, or of any other condition, felt the baneful influence of that currency; it gave relief for a moment by assisting in the prosecution of war, but it was destructive in the end; though issued with the laudable motive of paying the officers and soldiers, the army and the country would have been better off without it. 105 A debt of £200,000 was created by the emission of paper money, but by that sum only £50,000 had been honestly and fairly paid. In addition, hard money was driven out of circulation. The rest of the article providing for the legislative branch of the government was passed over with very little debate. Even the clause empowering Congress to raise and support armies, which had been so strongly opposed in the state, was read without the opposition of a single anti federalist. Nevertheless, Iredell explained in a long speech the absolute necessity of Congress having this power. 104 The question of slavery aroused some discussion. 14 ' The 103

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 86. Ibid., vol. iv, p. 88. 105 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 90. 108 Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 95-99; article i, section 8, clause 12 of the Constitution. 107 Earlier in the convention (ibid., vol. iv, p. 30) Goudy had objected to part of the slaves being counted for representation. He said he did not care to be represented with negroes, especially if it increased their burdens. James Galloway, however, did not object to representation of negroes so much as to the small number of the North Carolina representatives. 104

172

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN

NORTH

CAROLINA

anti federalists denounced the clause preventing suppression of the slave trade until 1808 and the federalists attempted in vain to overcome the objections. Spaight explained the contest in the federal convention on this point, saying that the southern states would not consent to the desire of the northern states to exclude slaves absolutely, and that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on the clause. 108 Since North Carolina had not prohibited the importation of slaves, 109 its delegation in the convention did not feel authorized to contend for immediate prohibition. Iredell supported Spaight and said it would give him the greatest pleasure not only to see the suppression of the slave trade, but even the entire abolition of slavery if that were practicable. W i t h the Constitution, a little would be gained; without it, nothing could be hoped for. The antifederalists, though not convinced, had their attention called to the fact that the next Assembly might, if it wished, end the importation of slaves into the state. T h e antifederalists raised only a few objections to the part of the Constitution relating to the executive. Objections, however, were made to the power given Congress to regulate presidential elections; for a vague fear was entertained that with the control of elections and the power of raising an army, Congress might dominate the electors. 110 T h e antifederalists thought the power of appointing the time for choosing electors belonged to the state legislatures. T h e clause making the President commander-in-chief of the army and navy and of the militia, which had been so strongly denounced, aroused no comment from the antifederalists. Iredell, in a long speech, attempted to j u s t i f y these and other powers granted to the President. 111 108

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 100.

109

T h e state had, however, taxed the importation of slaves.

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 104. A l s o article i, section 4, clause 1 ; article i, section 8, clause 1 2 ; and article ii, section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution. 110

111

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 107-114.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

17 3

T h e only phases of the executive power which were really debated were those relating to treaties and appointments. 112 Spencer thought it essential for the legislative, the executive, and the supreme judicial powers o f the government to be forever separate and distinct f r o m each other. 113 But according to the proposed Constitution, the Senate, though primarily legislative, had judicial power in trying impeachments, and was associated with the executive in making treaties and appointing federal officers. T h e President would thus be forced to form a connection with the Senate and to be contented to put himself at the head of the leading members who composed it. H e thought it would have been infinitely better if the President had been provided with a standing council composed of one member f r o m each state, the duration of whose office might have been the same as his own. T h e advantage of this plan was that the entire executive department would be separate and distinct from the legislature and the judiciary, and amenable to justice. T h e federalists were unable to convince Spencer that his fears were unfounded; but Bloodworth remarked with a prophetic note that he did not dread the matter of treaties so much as what would arise from the jarring interests of the eastern, southern and middle states. 114 There was a spirited debate on the federal judiciary. Spencer objected to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in all cases o f law and equity arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and also to its appellate jurisdiction in controversies between the citizens o f different states. 115 H e did not wish the federal .courts to 112

Article ii, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution.

118

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 116.

111

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 134-135-

115 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 136; article iii, section 2, clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

174

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

interfere with controversies in which the state judiciaries were competent, nor to intervene in such a w a y as to carry the people a great way from home. H e feared there would be " clashings and animosities " between the federal and state courts. Since all officers were required to take an oath to support the federal government, he thought consolidation would result at the expense of the states. T h e state courts could decide the common controversies of the people without carrying them to far-distant tribunals. T h e federalists attempted in vain to dispel Spencer's fears. Emphasis was placed upon the lack of a provision for trial by jury in civil cases. 118 It was argued that juries were the bulwarks of the rights and liberties of the people and should be required in civil as well as criminal cases. The federalists tried to make clear why the Constitution made no reference to trial by jury in civil cases, pointing out that state practise was not uniform in this respect, and that it was not possible to frame a general regulation satisfactory to all the states. 117 It would hardly be proper to require jury trial for a given case in one section of the country and forbid it elsewhere in similar cases. The antifederalists, unconvinced by the arguments given, were most concerned over cases relating to paper money, but also, no doubt, over those regarding debts owed to British merchants and to cases touching confiscated property. T h e debate on the judiciary brought out one objection strongly urged before the convention met, namely, the lack of a bill of rights. Spencer ably upheld the antifederalist views. H e considered a declaration of rights necessary to secure to every member of society those inalienable rights 1 1 6 Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 142-143; article iii, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution provides that " T h e T r i a l of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury." 117

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 144-145, 150, 164-166.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

175

which ought not to be given up to any government. 11 * T h e mere assertion that all powers not given to the United States would be retained by the individual states did not satisfy him; without a definite statement in the Constitution to that effect, he thought a bill of rights necessary. 11 * Since the expression, " W e the people of the United States," showed that the government was intended for individuals, a bill of rights was necessary to ascertain and secure the great rights of the states and the people.120 T h e federalists attempted to show there was no need for a bill of rights since the powers of Congress were expressly defined, and a definition of the rights of the people might be interpreted to exclude all not named. 121 Their arguments only led to the declaration that too much care could not be taken to guard their essential rights and liberties; an express negative was therefore needed to prevent encroachments by Congress. 122 One of the most significant parts of the debate was over the clause making the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States the supreme law of the land; but no long speeches were made on either side. 12 ' In the brief objections raised by Timothy Bloodworth, Joseph McDowall and James Galloway we have in a nutshell the fears of the masses. A f t e r a short explanation by Iredell to the effect that the clause meant that, when the plan of government was adopted, it would be maintained and obeyed, Bloodworth said the explanation was not satisfactory to him.12* H e agreed that the 118

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 137.

119

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 152, 163.

120

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 153, 163.

121

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 140-142, 148, 151, 159-160, 164, 166.

122

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 168.

125

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 178-191; article iv, section 2 of the Constitution.

i " Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 178-179.

176

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

clause gave the central government no more power than to execute its laws, but he did not know how far that went. It appeared to him " to sweep off all the constitutions of the states ", to be " a total repeal of every act and constitution of the states." Since the judges were sworn to uphold it, it would produce " an abolition of the state governments." Since the clause would be destructive of every law which came into competition with the laws of the United States, it was necessary to define the extent of its operation. 125 His question, " Is not the force of our tender laws destroyed by i t ? " went to the heart of his objection. He thought the clause too general, that it should be limited and defined. A federalist referred to the fact that, since ex post facto laws were not allowed, 126 the prohibition upon emission of bills of credit by the states would not affect their present paper money. Bloodworth wanted to know if a law compelling the payment in silver coin of money then due would be ex post facto.127 He asked whether paper money would satisfy the judgment when a suit was brought in the federal court against a citizen of North Carolina. There was danger in adopting as the supreme law of the land, a Constitution which might destroy the currency of the state and which prohibited the emission of paper money. Since gentlemen of the best abilities differed in the construction of the Constitution, the members of Congress would no doubt differ also. H e was not in favor of throwing the state out of the union, but he felt that certain changes were necessary. T h e northern states being more populous might pass laws harmful to the south. McDowall developed the argument further. 128 1 2 5 Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 180. 126

Article i, section g, clause 3 of the Constitution.

128

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 188.

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 184.

H e wished

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

177

to know if paper money could be used to pay the taxes Congress levied in the state, for he anticipated that taxes would be higher and he did not know how they could be discharged. H e was of the opinion that the state laws might be entirely repealed by those of Congress. Maclaine explained that taxes had to be paid in gold or silver coin, but when the Constitution was put into effect the shortage of hard money would be overcome through imposts and loans. McDowall doubted whether the impost would be productive, for trade was on such a " contemptible " footing, and in North Carolina lower than anywhere; and loans would be ruinous to the country. 129 Galloway spoke toward the end of the discussion. 130 He said he would make no objection to the clause, if the powers granted by the Constitution were sufficiently defined, for it was absolutely necessary for every government, and especially for a general government, that its laws should be the supreme law of the land. H e called attention to the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution which put a negative upon the state not imposed by the state constitution. T h e part in which he was particularly interested provided that no state should pass any law " impairing the Obligation of Contracts." 131 H e said their public securities were at a low ebb and had been so for many years. T h e million and a half in securities which had been issued hung over them as a contract. T h a t clause of the Constitution might be used to compel them to make good the nominal value of those securities. He hoped that the country would never allow the general government to redeem the securities which had been issued. If this were done, they would be purchased for a trifling consideration by speculators who would look to the Constitution to see that they were paid in gold and silver. He 129

Elliot, of. cit., vol. iv, pp. 189-190.

130

Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 190-191.

131

A r t i c l e i, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution.

I78

FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION

IN NORTH

CAROLINA

therefore asked the committee of the whole to consider whether North Carolina could redeem those securities in the manner most agreeable to her citizens and justifiable to the world, if the Constitution should be adopted. The arguments presented by the federalists 132 did not overcome the fears of the antifederalists in a matter of such great importance. The last clause of the Constitution which occasioned debate in the committee was the one prohibiting religious tests for federal offices. 133 The delegate who opened the discussion was Henry Abbott, a Baptist elder from Anson who voted with the federalists, but who appears to have been the only participant in the debates not whole-heartedly of one party or the other. He said that some persons were afraid that, should the Constitution be put into effect, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be denying them a benefit they enjoyed under the existing constitution. 134 T h e y wanted to know if their religious and civil liberties would be secured under the system, or whether the general government might make laws infringing their religious liberties. It was feared that under the power of making treaties, a treaty might be made with foreign powers to adopt the Roman Catholic religion in the United States, which would prevent the people f r o m worshipping God according to their own consciences. H e said many wished to know what religion would be established. F o r his part, he was against any exclusive establishment, but if there were any he preferred the Episcopal. Many thought that the prohibition of religious tests was dangerous and impolitic. They supposed that if there were no religious test required, pagans, deists and Mahometans 132

Iredell, Maclaine, Davie, Cabarrus and Johnston.

133

A r t i c l e vi, section 3 of the Constitution.

134

Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 191.

REFUSAL

TO

RATIFY

179

might obtain office, and that the senators and representatives might be all pagans. Since every person employed by the general and state governments was to take an oath to support the former, some persons desired to know how and by whom they were to swear. H e wanted some one to answer these objections to satisfy those who were interested in religion. He declared that if he could be convinced that the objections were well founded, he would oppose the Constitution. Iredell explained that the clause was proof that those who formed the system of government desired to secure universal religious liberty. 1 " T h e power to make treaties could never be supposed to include a right to establish a foreign religion, though it might authorize a toleration of others. 1 " He stated that the form of an oath ought to be governed by the religion of the person taking it. In administering an oath it was only necessary to inquire if the person taking it believed in a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments." 7 O n the morning of the discussion in regard to religion, Iredell, by chance, saw a pamphlet in which the author stated as a very serious danger that the Pope of Rome might be elected president; 1 3 8 but he proceeded to show how utterly unwarranted w a s such a fear. Spencer, the leading anti federalist debater, was an advocate for securing every inalienable right, and in particular that of worshipping God according to the dictates of conscience. 139 He thought that no one religion should be established and he opposed religious tests for he felt they were the foundation of persecutions in all countries. He said a religious test would exclude conscientious persons, but no test could bind a vicious person. 135

Elliot, o f . cit., vol. iv, pp. 193, 196.

136

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 194.

137

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 198.

138

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 195.

139

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 200.

j 8