Two only were convicted of capital offences; but they were pardoned by the president. Thus ended the "whisky rebellion of 1791." The government had maintained its constitutional power; the people throughout the whole country were happy; and from thence they had increased confidence in the strength and permanency of the Union. After the quelling of that rebellion, they had the fullest faith in the stability and perpetuity of the American political and religious institutions. Their whole confidence in the realisation of prosperity, seemed to be united in the actual existence of a consolidated nation.

THE DORR REBELLION OF 1842.

The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations received its charter from Charles II., in the fourteenth year of his reign; and the state continued under that charter (excepting the formality of using the king's name) until November, 1842. This charter was considered by the democratic party, in the early part of 1842, as insufficient to meet the wants of the people. The state was under the control of the whig party. The elective franchise was limited to the holders of a certain amount of

Under the law of

real property, and to their eldest sons. this property qualification, not more than one-third of the citizens were qualified voters; and, besides, the representative apportionment was fixed without respect to population. Thomas Wilson Dorr, a politician of Providence, for some five years endeavoured to get the state to adopt a constitution. In the legislature he only obtained seven out of seventy votes in favour of the proposition.

He

found that the change could not be effected through the legislature, and he then resorted to popular agitation. Meetings were held in different parts of the state, and the people manifested the greatest zeal for the measure. The citizens, unqualified under the royal charter to vote, were quite anxious to have themselves placed upon an equal footing with the property citizens at the elections. The advocates of the constitution were called the " suffrage party," and the opponents the "charter party." The suffrage party succeeded in gathering large conventions, and a popular resolve in favour of the new organic government. Ultimately elections were held, by authority of the popular but illegal assemblies, for delegates to a convention to frame a constitution. These delegates met, and after preparing their suffrage constitution, submitted it to the popular vote. It was ratified by 14,000 votes, which was a majority of the citizens of the state. The charter party condemned the proceedings, and denounced them as treasonable and highly seditious. The state government proceeded with great energy to arrest the agitation and the illegal government. It declared the transactions of the suffrage party to be not only illegal, but fraudulent; and that the popular vote alleged was principally made up by the conspirators. In the meantime Dorr was elected governor by the suffrage party, and he claimed to be at the head of the legal government. An election for representatives of the suffrage party, to meet in Providence in May, 1842, took place, at which some 7,300 votes were cast. About the same time the charter party held an election, polling some 5,700

votes. Samuel W. King was governor under the charter. The two governments met on the same daythe suffrage party at Providence, and the charter party at Newport. Dorr attempted to seize the archives of the government, and to dispossess the charter authorities. The excitement throughout the state was intense, and both parties appealed to arms. The national government considered the charter party as the legitimate power, and the suffrage men were declared to be rebels. Governor King declared martial law, and called out the militia. The greater part of the state forces belonged to the suffrage party, and the governor's forces were not sufficient to maintain his power. After adopting these measures, he appealed to the president of the United States to aid him in the suppression of the insurrection. The constitution of the United States made it obligatory upon the president to grant the aid. Both of the parties in Rhode Island were active in organising military forces, though the suffrage party was deficient in arms. Governor King marched to meet the rebels; but they dispersed, and thus prevented a serious collision. Dorr attempted to seize the arsenal, but was unsuccessful. He assembled his men at other places; but on the approach of the charter forces, they dispersed. Before the end of May, 1842, the contest was over. charter party triumphed, and Dorr took refuge in Connecticut. A reward of 4,000 dollars was offered for his apprehension by the state of Rhode Island. Dorr returned to the state-was arrested, tried, and found guilty of high treason. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for life; but was pardoned in 1847, and restored to his civil rights.

The

CHAPTER XIII.

Secessionary Acts of the States; the Hartford Convention; the Nullification of South Carolina; and other National Excitements.

THE HARTFORD CONVENTION OF 1814.

In June, 1812, war was declared against Great Britain by the United States. Never did a country enter a like struggle with as little popular desire, and as feebly prepared. In the New England states it was energetically opposed, because, principally, they believed it would prove destructive to their commerce. Popular meetings were held in the different northern states, and the war was denounced. The legislatures assembled, and bitter were their denunciations. Massachusetts seemed to have led several of the northern states in what was then considered the "abominable treason." The committee appointed by the legislature of that state, in February, 1814, upon the "national question," reported

"We believe that this war, so fertile in calamities, and so threatening in its consequences, has been waged with the worst possible views, and carried on in the worst possible manner; forming a union of wickedness and weakness which defies, for a parallel, the annals of the world. We believe, also, that its worst effects are yet to come; that loan upon loan, tax upon tax, and exaction upon exaction, must be imposed, until the comforts of the present, and the hopes of the rising generation are destroyed. An impoverished people will be an enslaved people. An army of 60,000 men, become veteran by the time the war is ended, may become the instrument, as in former times, of destroying even the forms of liberty.

It will be as easy to establish a president for life by their arms, as a president for four years by intrigue. We tremble for the liberties of our country. We think it the duty of the present generation to stand between the next and despotism."

The committee had no doubt of the unwarrantable conduct of the administration, and of the right of the state to resist the enforcement of the unconstitutional laws. They said

"The power to regulate commerce is abused when employed to destroy it, and a voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty of the states was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. We spurn the idea, that the free, sovereign, and independent state of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, or to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this state oppressed by cruel and unauthorised enactments, this legislature is bound to interpose its power, and to wrest from the oppressor his victim. This is the spirit of our Union; and thus has it been explained by the very man who now sets at defiance all the principles of his early political life. The question, then, is not a question of power or right, but of time and expediency."

It was proposed that the legislature should appoint delegates to meet others from the New England states, in convention, to determine upon the course best to be pursued by the states dissenting from the national policy. It was to be "a conference between those states, the affinity of whose interests is closest, and whose habits of intercourse, from local and other causes, are most frequent ; to the end that, by a comparison of their sentiments and views, some mode of defence might be adopted, suited to the exigencies of those states." The legislature of Connecticut was equally severe upon the national government.