Read Ebook: History of the Constitutions of Iowa by Shambaugh Benjamin Franklin

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 75 lines and 12974 words, and 2 pages

The boundary question now led a considerable number of the more moderate Democrats to oppose ratification. Prominent leaders of the party took the stump and declared that it would be better to reject the Constitution altogether than to accept the limited boundaries proposed by Congress. They declared that the "natural boundaries" as prescribed by the Constitution should not be curtailed, and called upon all good Democrats to vote down their own Constitution. Many, however, continued to support ratification, believing that the boundaries imposed by the act of Congress were the best that could be obtained under the existing conditions. Augustus Dodge, the Iowa Delegate in Congress, took this stand.

From the returns of the election it was evident that Mr. Dodge's constituents either did not take him seriously or were sure that he was mistaken in his conclusions. The Constitution of 1844 was rejected by a majority of 996 votes.

The result of the election was such as to "astound the friends of the Constitution and to surprise everybody, both friend and foe." Those who had labored for ratification throughout the campaign abused the Whigs for opposing so perfect an instrument, censured the Convention for submitting the Constitution to Congress before it had been ratified by the people, and preferred general charges of misrepresentation. The friends of the Constitution clamored loudly for a resubmission of the code of fundamental law as it had come from the Convention, so that the people might have an opportunity to pass upon it free from conditions and without misrepresentation. Within a few weeks the seventh Legislative Assembly of the Territory was to meet in regular session. The members would be asked to give the Constitution of 1844 another chance.

THE CONSTITUTION OF 1844 REJECTED A SECOND TIME

On Monday the fifth day of May, 1845, the Legislative Assembly of the Territory met in regular session. Three days later a message from Governor Chambers was presented and read to the members, whereby they were informed that the vote in April had certainly resulted in the rejection of the Constitution. "And," continued the Governor, "there is reason to believe that the boundary offered us by Congress had much influence in producing that result."

Believing that the rejection of the Constitution by the people called for some action on the part of the Assembly, Governor Chambers proposed and recommended "that the question be again submitted to the people, whether or not they will at this time have a Convention." But a majority of the Assembly were in favor of re-submitting the Constitution of 1844 as it had come from the hands of the Convention. A bill to re-submit was accordingly introduced and hurried through to its final passage.

Although the bill for re-submission had passed both branches of the Assembly by a safe majority, Governor Chambers did not hesitate to withhold his assent. On June 6 he returned it to the Council. But it is difficult to ascertain the precise grounds upon which the Governor withheld his approval, since his message deals with conditions rather than objections. In the first place he reviewed the conditions under which the Constitution of 1844 had at the same time been submitted to Congress and to the people of the Territory. Then he pointed out that, whereas a poll was taken on the Constitution according to law, no provision had been made for a separate poll on the conditions imposed by Congress. This, he thought, produced such confusion in the public mind as to cause the defeat of the Constitution. To be sure, he had proposed and was still in favor of submitting the question of a Convention to the people. But he would not now insist on such a policy. He freely admitted that the Legislative Assembly had the power to pass the measure before him. At the same time it seemed to him that, should the Constitution of 1844 be re-submitted to the people, it would simply give rise to confusion in attempts to reconcile and harmonize the various provisions of the statutes of the Territory, the act of Congress, and the Constitution.

Thus the people were again asked to pass upon the Constitution of 1844. The campaign of the summer of 1845 was very much like the campaign of the spring. All of the leading arguments both for and against the Constitution were repeated in the press and on the stump. The parties divided on the same lines as before, except that the Whigs in their opposition had the assistance of a much larger Democratic contingent.

One is surprised to find, in connection with the boundary question, little or no mention of "slavery," the "balance of power," or the "small State policy." Indeed the people of Iowa seemed wholly indifferent to these larger problems of National Politics. It is perhaps the most remarkable fact in the fascinating history of the Constitution of 1844 that, in the dispute over boundaries, the parties did not join issue on common grounds. Congress, on the one hand, desired to curtail the boundaries of Iowa for the purpose of creating a greater number of Northern States to balance the slave States of the South; whereas the people of Iowa protested against such curtailment not because of any balance-of-power considerations, but simply because they wanted a large State which would embrace the fertile regions of the Missouri on the West and of the St. Peters on the North.

These charges were not without foundation; for the records of Congress show that in May, 1846, the Speaker of the House of Representatives "presented a memorial of the citizens of the Territory of Iowa north of the forty-second degree of north latitude, praying for the establishment of a new territorial government, extending from the Mississippi river between the parallel of forty-two degrees and the northern boundary line of the United States. Also a memorial of Thomas McKnight and others, citizens of Dubuque county, in said Territory of like import."

THE CONVENTION OF 1846

When the members of the eighth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Iowa met in the Capitol on the first Monday of December, 1845, they found that, as a result of the rejection of the Constitution of 1844, they were face to face with the question which for six years had confronted the pioneer law-makers of Iowa as the greatest political issue of the Territorial period. They found that the whole problem of State organization was before them for reconsideration.

It was found also that Politics had worked some changes in the government of the Territory. John Chambers, who upon the completion of his first term as Governor had been promptly reappointed in 1844 by President Tyler, was as cheerfully removed by President Polk in 1845. And the Democracy of Iowa rejoiced over this manifestation of Jacksonianism. They believed that they would now have a Governor after their own heart--a Democrat who would have confidence in the people and respect the acts of their representatives. To be sure, the first Governor of the Territory of Iowa was a Democrat; but Robert Lucas had been altogether too independent. He had presumed to point out and correct the errors and blunders of the Assembly; whereas a true Democratic Governor was one who did not lead, but always followed the wisdom of the masses.

Governor Clarke regretted the fate of the Constitution which he had helped to frame. In his message of December 3, 1845, he said: "Since your adjournment in June last, a most important question has been decided by the people, the effect of which is to throw us back where we originally commenced in our efforts to effect a change in the form of government under which we at present live.--I allude to the rejection of the Constitution at the August election. This result, however brought about, in my judgment, is one greatly to be deplored.--That misrepresentation and mystification had much to do in effecting it, there can be no doubt; still it stands as the recorded judgment of the people; and to that judgment until the people themselves reverse the decree, it is our duty to submit."

As to recommendations in reference to this problem the Governor was cautious. He favored State organization, because he thought that "the prosperity of Iowa would be greatly advanced by her speedy incorporation into the Union as a State." But he did not presume to recommend a particular course of action; he simply assured the Assembly of his hearty co-operation in any measure which might be enacted looking toward the accomplishment of the desired end, that is, the early admission of Iowa into the Union.

Confident that the people of Iowa really desired State organization and were anxious for its immediate establishment, the Legislative Assembly passed a bill providing for the election of delegates to a Constitutional Convention. This act, which was approved January 17, 1846, called for the election by the people of thirty-two delegates at the township elections in April. The delegates were directed to meet at Iowa City on the first Monday of May, 1846, "and proceed to form a Constitution and State Government for the future State of Iowa." When completed the draft of the code of fundamental law was to be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection at the first general election thereafter. If ratified by the people it was then to be submitted to Congress with the request that Iowa be admitted into the Union "upon an equal footing with the original States." Thus the Legislative Assembly forestalled the possibility of a repetition of the blunder of submitting to Congress a Constitution before it had been passed upon by the people. There was no serious opposition to the course outlined by the Assembly, for a large majority of the people were now anxious to see the matter of State organization carried to a successful conclusion.

Owing to the absence of vital issues, the canvass preceding the election of delegates was not what would be called an enthusiastic campaign. There was of course a party struggle between the Whigs and the Democrats for the seats in the Convention. But the Whigs, "aware of their hopeless minority," advocated a "non-partisan election." They clamored for a "no-party Constitution,"--one free from party principles--for they did not want to see the Constitution of the State of Iowa made the reservoir of party creeds. They contended, therefore, that the delegates to the Convention should be chosen without reference to party affiliations.

The Democrats, however, were not misled by the seductive cry of the Whigs. They proceeded to capture as many seats as possible. Everywhere they instructed their candidates to vote against banks. When the returns were all in it was found that they had elected more than two-thirds of the whole number of delegates.

Of the thirty-two delegates who were elected to seats in the Convention of 1846, ten were Whigs and twenty-two were Democrats. Fifteen of the members were born in the South, eight in the New England States, four in the Middle States, and five in Ohio. Of those born in the South six were from Kentucky, four from Virginia, three from North Carolina, one from Alabama, and one from Maryland. The eight members born in New England were four from Vermont and four from Connecticut. The oldest member of the Convention was sixty-seven, the youngest twenty three; while the average age of all was about thirty-seven years. As to occupation, there were thirteen farmers, seven lawyers, four merchants, four physicians, one mechanic, one plasterer, one smelter, and one trader.

In the afternoon it was agreed to have six regular standing Committees. These were: On Boundaries and Bill of Rights; On Executive Department; On Legislative Department, Suffrage, Citizenship, Education, and School Lands; On Judicial Department; On Incorporations, Internal Improvements, and State Debts; and On Schedule.

It is unfortunate that only the barest fragments have been preserved of what was said in the Convention of 1846. The official journal and a few speeches are all that have come down to us. The debates could not have been very long, however, since the entire session of the Convention did not cover more than fifteen days. The discussion for the most part was confined to those subjects upon which there had been a marked difference of opinion in the earlier Convention or which had received attention in the campaigns of 1845. Indeed, the fact that Boundaries, Incorporations, Banks, Salaries, Suffrage, Executive Veto, Elective Judiciary, and Individual Rights were among the important topics of debate is evidence of a desire on the part of the Convention to formulate a code of fundamental law that would not meet with the criticisms which were so lavishly heaped upon the Constitution of 1844.

THE CONSTITUTION OF 1846

The Constitution of 1846 was modeled upon the Constitution of 1844, although it was by no means a servile copy of that twice rejected instrument. Both codes were drawn up according to the same general plan, and were composed of the same number of articles, dealing substantially with the same subjects. The Constitution of 1846, however, was not so long as the Constitution of 1844 and was throughout more carefully edited.

It is, moreover, interesting to note that while the Constitution of 1844 prescribed in general outline a system of county and township government, the Constitution of 1846 left the whole matter of local government to future legislation.

THE NEW BOUNDARIES

While the people of the Territory of Iowa were preparing for and holding a second Constitutional Convention, and while they were debating the provisions of the new Constitution of 1846, Congress was reconsidering the boundaries of the proposed State. The matter had been called up early in the session by the Iowa Delegate.

Mr. Dodge, having been re-elected, returned to Washington with the determination of carrying out his instructions so far as the boundary question was concerned. And so, on December 19, 1845, he asked leave to introduce "A Bill to define the boundaries of the State of Iowa, and to repeal so much of the act of the 3rd of March, 1845, as relates to the boundaries of Iowa." The original copy of this bill, which has been preserved in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, bears testimony to Mr. Dodge's fidelity to promises made to the people; for the description of boundaries therein is a clipping from the Preamble of the printed pamphlet edition of the Constitution of 1844. In discussing the question later in the session he referred to his pledges as follows: "I know, Mr. Chairman, what are the wishes and sentiments of the people of Iowa upon this subject. It is but lately, sir, that I have undergone the popular ordeal upon this question; and I tell you, in all candor and sincerity, that I would not be in this Hall to-day if I had not made them the most solemn assurances that all my energies and whatever influence I possessed would be exerted to procure for them the fifty-seven thousand square miles included within the limits designated in their original constitution. It was in conformity with pledges that I had given them personally, with instructions which I knew I had received from them at the ballot-box, that I introduced, at an early day of the present session, the bill imbodying the boundaries of their choice."

It was not, however, until March 27, 1846, that Mr. Stephen A. Douglas, from the Committee on the Territories to whom Mr. Dodge's bill had been referred, reported an "amendatory bill." This bill, which was introduced to take the place of the original bill, rejected the boundaries of the Constitution of 1844 and proposed the parallel of forty-three degrees and thirty minutes as the Northern boundary line of the new State. It was committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, wherein it was discussed on the eighth of June and reported back to the House. On the ninth of June the amendatory bill was taken up by the House and passed. It was reported to the Senate without delay, but was not passed by that body until the first day of August. On the fourth day of August the act received the approval of President Polk.

The most important discussion of the bill was in the House of Representatives on the eighth day of June. An attempt was made to reduce the State on the North. Mr. Rockwell, of Massachusetts, moved to amend by striking out the words "forty-three and thirty minutes" where they occur and inserting in lieu thereof "forty-two degrees." He understood from a memorial which had been presented to the House that the people in the Northern part of the Territory did not wish to be included within the proposed boundaries.

Mr. Douglas said that he was now in favor of the new boundaries as proposed by the Committee on the Territories. He declared that the boundaries of the act of March 3, 1845, "would be the worst that could be agreed upon; the most unnatural; the most inconvenient for the State itself, and leaving the balance of the territory in the worst shape for the formation of other new States." As to the memorial from Dubuque recommending the parallel of forty-two degrees, Mr. Douglas said that he was aware of the influences which produced it. The people of Dubuque "wished either for such an arrangement as should cause Dubuque to be the largest town in a little State, or else to make it the central town of a large State."

Mr. Rathburn, of New York, was opposed to the lines laid down in the bill. He favored less extensive boundaries because he desired to preserve "the balance of power" in the Union by the creation of small States in the West. He "was against making Empires; he preferred that we should have States in this Union."

Mr. Vinton, of Ohio, said that in the last session of Congress "no question except that of Texas had excited more interest in the House." He did not think that the people of the Territory should decide the question of boundaries; and he asserted that "if Congress was willing to let the people of Iowa cut and carve for themselves, he did not doubt that they would have their State extend to the mouth of the Columbia."

The strongest speech, perhaps, in the whole debate was that of the Iowa Delegate. Mr. Dodge reviewed the history of the boundary dispute and pointed out that both he and the people of Iowa had pursued a firm and honorable course. He showed that many of the States were as large as or even larger than the proposed State of Iowa. Referring to the boundary proposed in the act of March 3, 1845, he said: "It will never be accepted by the people of Iowa." But he produced letters to show that the Iowa Convention of 1846 were willing to accept the compromise boundary proposed in the bill under discussion. "Thus, sir, it is now apparent that, if the House will pass the bill reported by the Committee on Territories, it will put an end to this question. The convention of Iowa have met the advances of the Committee on Territories of this House."

From the Journal of the Iowa Convention of 1846, it appears that when the Committee on Preamble and Boundaries made their report on the morning of the second day of the Convention they recommended the compromise boundaries which had already been proposed by the Committee on the Territories in the National House of Representatives. But when the report was taken up for consideration several days later an amendment was offered which proposed to substitute the boundaries as described in the Constitution of 1844. On a test ballot the vote of the Convention stood twenty-two to eight in favor of the amendment. This was on the eighth of May. Six days later a resolution instructing the Committee on Revision to amend the article on boundaries so as to read as follows was adopted by a vote of eighteen to thirteen:

"Beginning in the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river, at a point due east of the middle of the mouth of the main channel of the Des Moines river; thence up the middle of the main channel of the said Des Moines river, to a point on said river where the northern boundary line of the State of Missouri, as established by the Constitution of that State, adopted June 12th, 1820, crosses the said middle of the main channel of the said Des Moines river; thence westwardly, along the said northern boundary line of the State of Missouri, as established at the time aforesaid, until, an extension of said line intersects the middle of the main channel of the Missouri river; thence, up the middle of the main channel of the said Missouri river, to a point opposite the middle of the main channel of the Big Sioux river, according to Nicollet's map; thence up the main channel of the said Big Sioux river, according to said map, until it is intersected by the parallel of forty-three degrees and thirty minutes north latitude; thence east, along said parallel of forty-three degrees and thirty minutes, until said parallel intersects the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river; thence down the middle of the main channel of said Mississippi river to the place of beginning."

These were in substance the compromise boundaries which were first proposed in Congress by the Committee on the Territories on March 27, 1846. Their precise description, however, was the work of the Iowa Convention. Congress promptly adopted this description in the Act of August 4, 1846, by striking out the words of the bill then pending and inserting the language of the Iowa Convention as used in the Preamble to their Constitution.

THE ADMISSION OF IOWA INTO THE UNION

When submitted to the people the Constitution of 1846 was vigorously opposed by the Whigs who insisted that it was a party instrument. Their attitude and arguments are nowhere better set forth than in the address of Wm. Penn Clarke to the electors of the counties of Muscatine, Johnson, and Iowa. Mr. Clarke had come to the conclusion, after reading the proposed code of fundamental law, that its ratification would "prove greatly detrimental, if not entirely ruinous to the nearest and dearest interests of the people, by retarding the growth of the proposed State, in population, commerce, wealth and prosperity." This conviction led him to oppose the adoption of the Constitution of 1846.

Secondly, Mr. Clarke opposed the adoption of the Constitution of 1846 because of the provisions in the eighth and ninth articles. He maintained that the article on State Debts was "tantamount to an inhibition" of the construction of Internal Improvements by the State government; while the article on Incorporations aimed to prohibit the people from making such improvements.

Fourthly, the Constitution should be rejected because it contains no provision securing to the people the right to elect their township and county officers. Furthermore, it is "entirely silent with reference to county and township organization."

Fifthly, Mr. Clarke argued against the adoption of the Constitution because "not a single letter can be stricken from it without calling a Convention." He declared that the Democrats, after incorporating into the Constitution "partizan dogmas," so formulated the article on Amendments as to make their creed permanent.

In the closing paragraphs of this remarkable arraignment of the proposed Constitution, Mr. Clarke referred to local interests in connection with the location of the State Capital. Iowa City, he said, had been founded "with a view to its being the permanent Capital of the State." But the new boundaries, proposed by the Committee on the Territories, would, if adopted, threaten the permanency of the Iowa City location. Indeed, Mr. Clarke went so far as to intimate that the relocation of the Capital was a part of Mr. Dodge's program in connection with the solution of the boundary problem. Curtailing the State on the North and extending it at the same time to the Missouri on the West meant the ultimate shifting of the Capital to the Raccoon Forks. Mr. Clarke concluded the prophecy by saying that "to quiet the center, we shall probably be promised a State University, or something of that character, and then be cheated in the end."

Such were the leading objections to the ratification of the Constitution of 1846 as urged by the Whigs in the press and on the stump. They were supported by the more conservative Democrats who protested against the article on Incorporations and the article on Amendments. A large majority of the people, however, were impatient for the establishment of State organization. For the time they were even willing to overlook the defects of the proposed Constitution. Many voted for the instrument with the hope of remedying its imperfections after admission into the Union had once been effected.

The Constitution of 1846 narrowly escaped defeat. At the polls on August 3, 1846, its supporters, according to the Governor's proclamation, were able to command a majority of only four hundred and fifty-six out of a total of eighteen thousand five hundred and twenty-eight votes.

On September 9, 1846, Governor Clarke, as directed by the Territorial statute of January 17, 1846, issued a formal proclamation declaring the ratification and adoption of the Constitution. In the same proclamation, and in accordance with the provisions of the new Constitution, the Governor designated "Monday, The 26th Day of October Next" as the time for holding the first general election for State officers. The returns of this election showed that the Democrats had succeeded in electing Ansel Briggs, their candidate for Governor, by a majority of one hundred and sixty-one votes. The same party also captured a majority of the seats in the first General Assembly.

Following the directions of the Schedule in the new Constitution, Governor Clarke issued a proclamation on November fifth in which he named Monday, November 30, 1846, as the day for the first meeting of the General Assembly. On December second the Territorial Governor transmitted his last message to the Legislature.

It was on Thursday morning, December 3, 1846, that the Senators and Representatives assembled together in the hall of the House of Representatives in the Old Stone Capitol to witness the inauguration of the new Governor. Here in the presence of the General Assembly Judge Charles Mason, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory, administered the oath of office to the first Governor of the State of Iowa.

The act of admission declares that Iowa is "admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever," and provides that all the provisions of "An Act supplemental to the Act for the Admission of the States of Iowa and Florida into the Union" approved March 3, 1845, shall continue in full force "as applicable to the State of Iowa." The conditions contained in the provisions of this act, which had been substituted by Congress in lieu of the provisions of the Ordinance submitted by the Convention of 1844, were finally accepted by the General Assembly of the State in an act approved January 17, 1849.

THE CONVENTION OF 1857

Throughout Iowa there was a very general feeling of satisfaction with the new political status which came with the establishment of State government and admission into the Union. Having outlived the conditions of Territorial government the pioneers of Iowa now entered into the new political life without regret. They rejoiced over the fact that they were recognized as a part of a great Nation. They appreciated the significance of the change. Nor were the pioneers of Iowa strangers to National political life. As settlers on the Public Domain they were in a very special sense children of the Nation. They had always cherished the inheritances of the "Fathers." But now the days of dependence were over. Henceforth this people of the frontier would strengthen the whole country with their own political ideas and ideals. They would, indeed, help to vitalize the Politics of the Nation with the provincial spirit of Western Democracy.

On the other hand, the people of Iowa did not accept their new State Constitution without reservations. Wm. Penn Clarke's address had been widely read and his arguments were accepted not alone by the Whigs. In fact the Constitution of 1846 had not been adopted altogether on its merits. The people were anxious to get into the Union, and they voted for the Constitution as the shortest road to admission. They meant to correct its errors afterwards.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet