the old government; and then the assembly adjourned. The regular legislature met at Newport on May 4, and the governor immediately appealed to the President to intervene, but again Tyler replied that he could not interfere until resistance to the execution of the laws became too serious for the State authorities to overcome.*

The first trouble occurred on the night of May 17. Dorr sent some militia to seize a couple of field pieces belonging to the artillery company. Governor King King immediately summoned the Providence militia, ordered the militia outside the city to report at once, armed and equipped for service, and issued a proclamation to the citizens requesting them to repair to the State arsenal and take up arms.‡ Dorr decided to forestall Governor King and, about two o'clock on the morning of the 18th, set out with about 200 followers and some field pieces, intending to capture the arsenal.

When the demand that the building be surrendered was refused, Dorr ordered the cannon to open fire. Twice the attempt was made, but both times the powder flashed in the pan, for some of Dorr's own men had disabled the cannon. His followers then began to desert, and when daylight came Dorr and 50 men were all that remained. Tired of the farce, all of the officers of Dorr's government and 18 members of the Assembly resigned, and by nine o'clock on the morning

* Niles' Register, vol. lxii., p. 179. † Ibid, p. 165.

of the 18th Dorr was in full flight toward Woonsocket.* When the regular Assembly met for its general session at Newport, a constitutional convention was called and then the Assembly adjourned to Providence. On June 25 an act was passed establishing martial law, and Governor King promptly issued his proclamation to that effect. After his flight Dorr visited New York and secured the services of some 20 men with whom he shortly afterward went on to Connecticut. On his arrival there Dorr was informed that 500 of his followers had assembled at Chepachet, Rhode Island, in the northwestern part of the State. Hastening thither, Dorr found that some 200 men had gone to fortify Acote's Hill near the centre of the village. On the 26th a force of State troops marched against him, but, without awaiting the attack, his men dispersed and Dorr for the second time became a fugitive.|| He remained in hiding for some weeks, and on June 29 a reward of $5,000 was offered for him. In October he returned to the State, gave himself up for trial, was convicted of high treason in March of 1844, and sentenced to prison for life. But he was not doomed to undergo the sentence. In November of 1842 a new convention had been held by the regular authorities at which a constitution

Ibid, p. 195.

† Ibid, p. 277.

Ibid, pp. 276-277, and vol. lxvii., p. 362. Ibid, vol. Ixii., p. 278.

was framed to overthrow the charter government.*

This constitution was adopted by the people on November 21-23, 1842, and became operative in May of 1843; and suffrage was practically made universal. After the adoption of the constitution sympathy for Dorr grew rapidly, and in 1845 the Assembly directed that he be liberated on condition that he take the prescribed oath of allegiance. Dorr refused to do this, but the agitation for his release continued, "Liberation Societies " were formed, and at the spring election of 1845 a governor was elected on a platform pledging the pardon of Dorr. In June, exactly a year after his imprisonment, Dorr was released; in 1851 his civil and political rights were restored by the Assembly; and in 1854 the decision of the supreme court of the State was reversed and annulled. The proceedings of the State government were held legal by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Luther vs. Borden, argued by Webster and decided by Taney. It must be said for Dorr that but for the menace of civil war the suffrage would never have been extended; but after the offer of the "Landholders' Constitution," he and his party became inexcusable disturbers of public order, risking bloodshed for the question of the legal theory under which

For text see Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, vol vi., pp. 3222-3235. See also Greene, Short History of Rhode Island, p. 317. Ibid, vol. lxvii., p. 191.

137

the rights of suffrage should be held.*

Meanwhile, in New York, the antirent agitation still continued. In the spring of 1844 the legislature appointed a commission to investigate the grievances of the Van Rensselaer tenants. A meeting between the tenants of seven western townships of Albany County and the commissioners resulted in no action on the part of the legislature, but the people could not be quieted. Discontent spread on the east side of the Hudson, associations of "down-renters" being formed in every settlement of importance. Soon the lawless element turned to violence and began to resist the

Francis Bowen, The Recent Contest in Rhode Island, in North American Review (April, 1844); C. S. Brigham, The Dorr War, in Field, Rhode Island at the End of the Century, vol. 1., chap. xx.; E. Burke, Interference of the Executive in the Affairs of Rhode Island, House of Rep. Doc. 546; W. Jones, The Transition of Providence from a Commercial to a Manufacturing Community; I. B. Richman, History of Rhode Island, chap. xiv., pp. 285-307; D. King, Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr; C. E. Merriam, History of American Political Theories, chap. v.; A. M. Mowry, The Constitutional Controversy in Rhode Island in 1841, in Report of the American Historical Association for 1894, and The Dorr War (1901); C. H. Payne, The Great Dorr War, in New England Magazine, new series, vol. ii.; J. S. Pitman, Report of the Trial of Thomas W. Dorr for Treason; E. R. Potter, Considerations on the Rhode Island Question; S. S. Rider, The Nine Lawyers' Opinions, in Rider's Historical Tracts, no. ii.; J. S. Stiness, Civil Changes in the State; Frieze, Concise History of the Efforts to Secure an Extension of the Suffrage in Rhode Island (1842); House Reports, 546, 581, 28th Congress, 1st session; McMaster, vol. vii., pp. 165–178. See also the documents submitted by President Tyler in his message of April 9, 1844, to the House, in Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. iv., pp. 283-307.

138

sheriff. In July of 1844 the sheriff of Rensselaer County, while on his way to serve a writ, was met by a band of one hundred tenants disguised as Indians, who seized him, burned his papers, tarred a couple of his deputies, and sent his posse back to Troy. A regular agrarian war was now instituted; the tenants and all the rabble always ready for outrage on any pretext began a reign of terror-flogging, tarring and feathering, boycotting, and generally ill-using all who took leases, dealt with landlords, or in any way obstructed the agitation to compel the lords of the manors to sell their lands to persons occupying them as tenants. For some time no one was seriously injured, although several of the " up-renters" had been fired at from behind logs and trees. At Grafton, Rensselaer County, however, when a farmer named Elisha Smith, who had bought lumber from a leased farm, attempted to take it to market, a quarrel arose and Smith was shot dead. Shortly afterward at a gathering of down-renters at Claverack, Columbia County, a man who had spoken against the proceedings and had refused to cry, "Down with the rent! was shot. For this crime several persons were arrested, indicted, and sent to the Hudson jail. Efforts to rescue them were made, but the sheriff gathered a posse and surrounded the jail.

The down-renters then became so defiant that the Hudson authorities called upon the governor for troops. About 300 were sent from Albany and

New York, and other companies in the Hudson River towns were directed to be in readiness to go at a moment's notice. This frightened the downrenters, who thereupon withdrew. In a few weeks the troops were sent home.*

During 1845 Delaware County was the scene of several similar disturbances, the sheriff being tarred and feathered and his papers destroyed, and several farmers being maltreated. Silas Wright had become governor in January of 1845, and almost immediately after his inauguration called for legislation. Two acts were placed on the statute-books-one forbidding persons to appear in disguise and providing punishment for such an act; and the other giving authority to the governor to keep order in any turbulent county by loaning State arms to the sheriff, by putting the county under martial law and, if necessary, by ordering State troops into it to maintain order. The Indians, however, continued as active as before, and during the summer of 1845 brought matters to a crisis in Delaware County. At Andes, in that county, some property had been levied upon for nonpayment of rent, and the sheriff, under-sheriff, a constable and a lawyer went there to sell the property. On August 7, as the under-sheriff was driving up some cattle to be sold, he was surrounded by the Indians and murdered in cold blood. This threw the whole State into excitement. Re

wards were offered for the leader of the Indians; the sheriff with an armed posse scoured the countryside, arresting all those suspected of complicity in the murder; the county was declared in a state of insurrection and troops were sent into it; and in a short time more men were under arrest than the jail could hold. The trials, held in August, resulted in the imprisonment of one for two years, one for ten years, four for life and seven for seven years, and the imposition of a sentence of death on two. Besides, 30 were fined, 39 who pleaded guilty were released under suspended sentences, and 60 who were indicted fled from justice.

The cause of the anti-renters, fomented by agitators and newspapers, had been an issue in State politics for years. The Whigs, seeing that they controlled the legislative delegations of eleven counties, in 1846 nominated for the governorship their chief legislative champion, John Young, against the existing incumbent, Silas Wright, and Addison Gardner for lieutenant-governor. With the aid of the anti-renters Young was elected, and in January of 1847 he pardoned all those who had been sentenced, pronouncing their offences "political.' He also recommended State suits against landlords to try titles. The

139

anti-renters refused to support all of the ticket headed by Young, and in the election of 1848 again refused. Alive to the value of this body of voters, the legislature directed the attorney-general to bring a test suit against Harmon Livingston. The decision, rendered in November of 1850, was in favor of Livingston; but the struggle of twelve years and the ruin of property values had wearied the landlords, and the decent tenants were perhaps ashamed of their breach of contract. The landlords, therefore, offered to sell the farms, and as the tenants were. willing to buy, the great patroonships and patents were rapidly broken up. In the meantime there was a mass of litigation and several cases were brought up before the court of appeals. In October of 1852 that tribunal declared that, according to the constitution of 1846, the agreements were in restraint of alienation of titles in fee, and therefore reservations of quarter-sales were void. As this left the landlords no right which could oppress the tenants and the latter nothing to oppose except the payment of honest debts, the anti-rent agitation died out.*

140

Population and important cities

The "

South-Early anti-slavery sentiment

Education

Libraries

Perhaps the most important and interesting town in the South at that time was New Orleans, being the port of ingress and egress for all the Mississippi River trade, which even then amounted to many millions of dollars. Many changes had taken place since the French transferred Louisiana to the United States. From a little town of 8,000, the city had grown to more than 102,000 by 1840. New Orleans was then one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the country, so much so that the various nationalities began to quarrel among themselves, and in 1831 the legislature had to divide the city into three distinct municipalities. The first of these was bounded by Canal, Rampart and Esplanade boulevards, comprising the limits of the city laid out by Bienville. It included. the Cathedral, the Orleans Theatre, the famous St. Louis Hotel, the custom house, two great markets, the cabildo, and the Catholic cemetery. The population was mixed-French, Spanish, Italians, Creoles, and a few

English and Americans. The houses were built chiefly after the French fashion-the streets were narrow, and the whole quarter had a French aspect. On the river-bank below the first municipality lay the third, the most dilapidated part of the city, everywhere displaying signs of poverty and distress. The houses were decayed, the side-walks in a state of ruin, grass grew in the filthy streets, and the walls of antiquarian dwellings were topling over into the river. Above the first municipality was the second, or the American quarter. There the streets were paved, quays built, and blocks of buildings erected. There were water works and gas works, a number of cotton presses, several daily newspapers, St. Patrick's Cathedral, and the St. Charles and Veranda hotels. Jealous of the second municipality, the old city, or the first municipality, began to erect banks, business houses and other buildings, the finest of which was the St. Louis Hotel.