THE DORR REBELLION.

We have seen that the relation of the citizen to the State became the subject of attention and experiment at an early period in the history of Rhode Island. Although an avowed democracy, she regarded suffrage not as an inherent right, but as a privilege dependent upon the fulfillment of certain specified conditions. Inequality of representation was a natural consequence of the unequally increased population; some towns growing faster than others, but having no more voice in legislation than they had had at the beginning of their civil existence. The right to vote was held to be an important right, and great pains were taken to secure purity at the polls. But it was evident that all the tax-payers would sooner or later claim to be voters. This question recurs from time to time in all its ramifications, and though long deferred, became at last the chief question of Rhode Island politics.

For more than two-thirds of a century she had lived under the Charter of Charles II., first as a Colony and lastly as a State. This Charter was framed in the broad and liberal spirit of Roger Williams and John Clarke, and left room for large developments in every department of legitimate thought and action.

Unfortunately what might have been brought about by peaceful discussion was gradually fanned into the fiercest flame. Providence had entirely outgrown her old rival, Newport, and yet Newport had a representation of six in the Assembly, and Providence of only four. In other towns the disproportion was equally great. The property qualification also, a freehold of a hundred and thirty-four dollars, was bitterly opposed by those who had no freehold. In 1840 seventy-two representatives were chosen. Thirty-eight were chosen from towns having only twenty-nine thousand and twenty inhabitants and two thousand eight hundred and forty-six voters, and the remaining thirty-four came from towns which had only seventy-nine thousand eight hundred and four inhabitants, and five thousand seven hundred and seventy-six voters.

Equally irritating to those who had no share in it was the right conferred by primogeniture.

For many years these questions were prominent subjects of discussion, and were even brought forward as the most important objects of legislative action. But no relief could be obtained from the Assembly, for the Assembly itself was chiefly composed of the privileged classes. From the Assembly there was but one appeal—the appeal to the people, and upon the form of this appeal lay the choice between reform and revolution. This is the event known in Rhode Island history as the Dorr Rebellion.

The first step towards action was the formation of suffrage associations, by which the public mind was excited and the popular will roused to exertion. All through the last weeks of 1840 and the first weeks of 1841, these associations were busy in guiding, kindling and stimulating the popular mind, and preparing it for decisive action. All classes were roused, for the contest was at every door, and every citizen was equally interested in the result.

The suffrage associations did their work actively and well. By the 5th of July, 1841, a mass convention was held in Providence, and the State Committee was authorized to call a convention for the formation of a Constitution. Confident of their strength the committee set themselves to their task. On the 28th of August delegates were chosen, and on the 4th of October the convention met. In this convention a Constitution was framed, and in December sent out to the people as the People’s Constitution. Fourteen thousand voters, a majority, it was claimed, of all the male adult voters in the State, cast their votes for it. It claimed to be the will of the people authoritatively expressed. There was one more step to take, the consequence and complement of all that had hitherto been done, to complete the organization by the election of officers. The 18th of April, 1842, was fixed upon for this gravest function of freemen, and Thomas Wilson Dorr, of Providence, was chosen Governor.

Votes had done all that the mere expression of opinion could do. But underlying every lawful vote was the law which gave it validity, and this law had prescribed the form and manner in which these votes became effective. It had said that while the source of all power was in the people, the people themselves in order to secure progress and guard against revolution had set limits to their authority, and told when, where and for what it should be employed.

And now it was seen that there was another government which claimed to be in sole possession of this power, and the moment that the new government attempted to perform its executive functions it found itself face to face with the old. It was evident that one of the two parties must give way or there must be a collision and bloodshed.

The first attempt of the Suffragists to organize was made at Providence on the 3d of May, and was repelled. The moral strength was with the charter government which had the chartered companies, the organized militia and a strong body of volunteers at its control. It had also the strong moral support of that clause in the Constitution of the United States which guarantees to every state a republican government and protection against internal violence. Should Federal intervention become necessary, the time and the form of it had been provided for. But it was not needed. We have seen that on the 3d of May the government of Governor, Dorr had attempted to displace the government of Governor King, and failed. On the 18th an attempt was made to seize the Arsenal, which also failed. Men who had grown up side by side in peaceful intimacy, had seized their arms under a strong political excitement, but when the moment for using them came, shrank from the fearful responsibility. Hundreds would have fought gallantly, but no one was prepared to begin. And thus when on the 25th of June an attempt was made to make a stand at Chepachet, the Suffragists gave way at the approach of the State troops, and returned to their homes without shedding a drop of blood. By the 28th of June all was over. The great body of the insurgents went quietly back to their stores and their farms. Their leader was tried for treason and condemned to imprisonment for life. But Rhode Island was not a place where so severe a punishment could be meted out to such an offence. In 1847 an act of general amnesty set him free, and in 1851 he was restored to his political and civil rights. Forgiveness went still further, and his sentence was reversed as illegal and unjust. But the Supreme Court refused to sustain this reversal as an assumption of judicial authority by the Legislature. Dorr’s early death left him no time for new aspirations.

Meanwhile a new convention for the framing of a new Constitution had been called by the regularly constituted authorities, and a new draft submitted to the people. But this also was rejected. Another attempt was made, another convention called. Argument and discussion were exhausted. The popular mind was prepared for decision. The popular will called for it. The last day of the old Charter was come. At an adjourned meeting of the convention, held at East Greenwich on the 5th of November, a final decision was reached and a Constitution unanimously agreed upon. On the first Tuesday in May, 1843, it went into operation.

And thus Rhode Island, while she adhered firmly to the principle of freedom of opinion, adhered no less firmly to the principle of law and order. The Dorr Rebellion was the resistance of law to revolution, of order to the arbitrary assumption of power. Rhode Island had begun her career by a practical profession of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. She had struggled long and hard to secure them both, and now the day of reward was at hand. Henceforth the industries of peace will bring her wealth from the land and the sea, the salubrity of her climate will raise up on her inland and on her shores a thriving and vigorous population, and while in some things she will take the lead of her sister states, in no thing will she fall far behind.