The Life and Times of
|
|
The Life and Times of
|
|
|
Chapter Two These were but inconsiderable things in comparison with what the men of that time had to do, and it is astonishing to know how quickly and wisely they set about their work. With no loss of time, with the echoes of the war still in their ears, and hatred and revenge still disturbing the peace, the legislature and the people of Charles Town (and Charles Town was in a very special manner the mainspring of the State) set themselves to build up their country. Their commerce was destroyed, their agriculture was reduced to the planting of provisions; there was absolutely no money, and they had to furnish it, or what would pass for it, to prevent great suffering. They tried to start a bank in the very first year, — 1783, — but failed. Then the legislature issued bills of credit to a limited amount (£100,000), which it called " paper medium," and lent these bills on mortgages. The merchants, with great public spirit, came forward in a body and agreed to take these paper bills at par. They might well have expected them to turn to dead leaves on their hands (there had been such sad experiences before), but so far from it, all parties behaved with good faith, the depreciation was very slight, and the interest honestly paid was clear gain to the State. Not only were tradesmen and craftsmen thus enabled to make a fresh start in life, but the planters, borrowing money upon their lands, could get to work once more, and restore the agriculture upon which the State depended. Charles Town itself put on a new fashion, and the legislature, " taking into consideration the situation and circumstances of Charles Town, as it had then become a great place of trade, with a full population and a growing and vastly increasing commerce," decided, in August, 1783, to incorporate it " into a body politic by the name of the City of Charleston,'" — with intendants and wardens accordingly. The name was changed, but the old fashion of speech remains, and in the low country of Carolina to this day " going to town " is going to Charleston. It is impossible to help suspecting that this account of the place at that time was somewhat prospective. Eight months had not passed since the liberated town had been described as " prostrate," and a hopeful and helpful spirit must have dictated the above. In the new little city everything was astir. New societies were formed and old ones revived, — wisely, for the touch of the shoulder helps to action. The chamber of commerce and the agricultural society arose in those years, the latter established by a lottery, as Faneuil Hall had been built, not so many years before! The agricultural society offered prizes for improvements in agriculture and machinery, and concerned itself with everything pertaining to the plantation. Under its influence Michaux, the French botanist, established himself and his botanic garden in Charleston in the year 1786, and stocked it with " curious exotics as well as American species." After a time, and especially after the war debt due to the State had been paid (it amounted to the unexpectedly large sum of nearly a million and a half of dollars), three banks were founded, so that within eight years of the departure of the English the city might be said to be fairly equipped for commercial enterprise. All other interests in the State were as nothing compared with its agriculture. This had been kept alive astonishingly during the war by the women and their faithful people, but now there came gradual changes, which were to give it immense development. In one particular, indeed, it declined. Indigo, which had for more than forty years been the chief highland crop of the province (amounting in 1775 to over one million, one hundred and seven thousand pounds, worth $1.50 a pound), now had to contend in the market with the cheaper product of the East Indies, and was deprived of the " British bounty," which had done much to foster its cultivation. Moreover, the Georgians were planting cotton, which grew in the same kind of land as indigo, was much more easily made, and was not so exhausting to the soil. Slowly the old industry gave place to the new, and by 1795 Carolina also was a cotton-growing State. Eice, however, was the chief staple of the low country, and with rice Mr. Lowndes was chiefly concerned. He had lands on the Combahee, the Ashepoo, and the Santee, and his fortune was largely derived from them. Up to this time rice had been planted only in inland swamps, that is, low places formed by the sluggish streams of the low country, and watered by embanked ponds called reserves. The spots convenient for this culture were limited ; therefore the supply was limited also, although fair fortunes had been made by it, and in 1770 the export had amounted to over a million and a half of dollars. By the close of the Revolution, however, the idea had got abroad that the great body of absolutely level swamp land bordering the great rivers, and the deltas lying between their mouths, might be cultivated by the tides, and that the water might be made to do the work of the hoe. Ramsay says that a Mr. Gideon Dupont first suggested this, but it has been ascertained that the scheme had already to some small extent been tried. At all events, about that time when the State most needed help this new plan came. The planters set to work, and the work was enormous. Miles upon miles of splendid cypress forests, melancholy and majestic, but terribly hard to fell, covered the ground; the ground was half land and half water," the haunt of coot and hern," dear to the heart of the sportsman, but icy cold in winter and pestilential in summer. The forests were felled and the land was embanked and drained. The mighty rivers had to be kept out, and the embankments must be continuous, for a break on one man's land would drown his neighbor as well as himself. A whole system of banks and drains, cross-drains and quarter-drains, was devised; canals were dug, flood-gates and trunks (a trunk is a small flood-gate) made and put down. If the work were badly done, and the least leak occurred, the trunk " blew out," and all had to be done over again. It was a struggle of man's body and brain against the powers of nature, and sometimes nature would arise in her strength, and in a few hours of rushing flood or sweeping hurricane would destroy the fetters which man had put upon her. They were destroyed for the time, but always replaced. Of course it was years before the splendid culture was reached which we remember prior to 1860 ; when the fields with their cross-banks looked like giganic checker boards, and stretched from the river mouths to the head of tidewater; but the profits began early, and when a clever young machinist, Mr. Jonathan Lucas, came out from England with an invention for threshing and pounding (or separating the husk from) the rice, which had hitherto been done by the old flail and the hand mortar, the battle was won. The work became comparatively light and easily accomplished, the returns were great, and the planters reaped the reward of their care and labor. When General Washington visited the State in 1791, he crossed in his journey all the large rice rivers from the Waccamaw to the Savannah, and he expressed to Mr. Charles Pinckney, then governor, his admiration of what he saw. " He had no idea that the United States possessed such agricultural improvement as the tide-lands showed." I have advanced the story to show at once what gave the State its great impulse. The first mill was built in 1787, and those put up later were improvements, but wealth and comfort came early and continued for seventy years. How early it came the carefully kept account books show. From a heap of old bills is learned that in 1786 one lady orders from London "that article of luxury, a Coach," price £320; and sends a hundred tierces of rice to pay for it. A gentleman buys a pair of horses from New York for £53, and a "pair of brown geldings," which Mr. Lowndes imported from England, cost, delivered in Charleston, £200. There are smaller things mentioned, too, dresses, liveries, "sett of Mad-de-Genlis," etc., all showing easy, comfortable fortunes. While South Carolina was thus reclaiming her swamps and clearing her uplands, her sister States were not all as much at ease, and the general government, the much harassed Congress, was having a troubled and undignified existence. The letters of Adams and Jefferson show how painful was the position of the Ministers abroad. They were sneered at, and asked whom or what they represented, were twitted with the powerless-ness of Congress to enforce certain articles of the treaty of peace (with which the rights of the States conflicted), and were frightfully snubbed when they tried to borrow money, and told that their credit was not good. At home vexed questions of boundaries arose, and the settlers from Connecticut in the valley of Wyoming had very nearly endured another massacre " on Susquehannah's side," not at the hands of Indians, but of the Pennsylvania, who claimed, and gained, possession of the district. New York and New Hampshire were at daggers drawn about the Green Mountain region, and people got accustomed to seeing the militias of the different States arrayed against each other. In Massachusetts in the confused emeute known as the " Shays's Rebellion," caused by " rag " (or paper) " money," there was actual fighting, and when the ringleaders were taken and tried, it was only " executive clemency" that saved them from the gallows. Then there were many troubles about trade and navigation acts. New England, the chief shipowner, not unnaturally expected that her vessels should be privileged, and would have sacrificed all other commerce to serve her own ; and New York, quite alive to her geographical advantages, taxed everything and everybody impartially to bring coin to her coffers. There was endless confusion over discriminating duties, and differing customs. The great States, whose boundaries reached out to the Mississippi, were furious when they found that New England (advised by John Jay) wished to yield the free navigation of the great river as the price of a commercial treaty with Spain (who behaved with audacity and insolence curious to read of now) ; and the smaller States looked with envy upon the almost boundless claims of New York and the Old Dominion. The far Southern States were happier. Georgia was planting cotton, and improving rapidly, and neither she nor South Carolina had any ships to quarrel over. They furnished cargoes and collected duties with equal satisfaction from Old or New Englanders. In South Carolina there was some trouble, which did not. go very far, over paper money, but bounded as she was by powerful neighbors, she knew that there was no hope for her of territorial expansion. It did not trouble her much, for she also knew that in her soil and climate there lay possibilities of wealth which would occupy and suffice her people for generations to come; provided, that she could get slave labor in abundance. This labor might be cut off; this was the cloud, as yet a very small one, on her horizon. This was not a pleasant condition of things for States supposed to live under a " league of friendship," as the Articles of Confederation were called. New England threatened secession on the one hand, and Kentucky on the other, and it seemed as if the kingdoms of Europe were to be gratified by the falling to pieces of the young Republic. Things had come to such a pass that there were but few dissentient voices when, Virginia, as became her, taking the lead, circulars were sent to all the different States, requesting them to send commissioners to meet and discuss matters concerning the public weal. Then met that convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, pronounced by the highest authorities to be the most wonderful work ever wrought by man's brain, but which was adopted by the States with great hesitation and "small majorities. In Virginia, Massachusetts, and South Carolina the opposition was decided, but in Carolina the fight was fought not so much in the convention of ratification itself as in the state legislature which met the preceding January. The great peculiarity of this debate was that it was fought by one man
against ten or more, and those ten the ablest men in the State. The
attitude of Mr. Lowndes in this great controversy is like nothing so much
as that of the boy who, setting his back to a tree, dares the whole school
to come on. Of course the boy loses the fight, we .know beforehand that it
mKst be so, but he hopes, trusting to his strong right arm, and we praise
his pluck and prowess. The whole story is told in "Elliot's Debates," and
I do not know more interesting reading. They cared little for commercial relations, and still less for diplomatic ; but they knew that they had fought and suffered for seven years to shake off the authority of the king, and they had no mind to construct for themselves a government which should be as powerful as any king. These men looked, in peace as in war, to the gallant Sumter as their chief; he was present in the legislature but did not speak. They found a spokesman in Rawlins Lowndes. The debate was opened by speeches from Charles Finckney and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, cousins, and both members of the Constitutional Convention; the former said to have been the youngest man there. They explained and advocated their work. Then Mr. Lowndes rose and spoke. His whole argument was based upon the conviction that in politics as elsewhere interest would guide, and the strongest would prevail. He did not think the rights of minorities sufficiently guarded. He objected strongly to the two thirds representation in Congress, not considering it at all equal to the rule of the Confederation, which required nine States. " Was it consonant with reason, with wisdom, with policy, to suppose that in a legislature where a majority of persons sat, whose interests were greatly different from ours, we had the smallest chance of receiving adequate advantages ? Certainly not." He objected to the great powers given to the Senate; especially to the treaty-making power, which was to be supreme, " anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State notwithstanding." He declared that " in the known world " no ruler could do so much. Colonel Charles Cotesworth Pinckney answered, " That the Honorable gentleman's arguments were ad captandum, and did not coincide with the honorable fair mode of reasoning he in general made use of." He, Mr. John Eutledge (also of the Federal Convention), and the speaker, Mr. John Julius Pringle, all eminent lawyers, poured forth a flood of legal lore on the point of treaties. Dr. Ramsay, who was to be the historian of South Carolina, and Mr. Ralph Izard also spoke. Mr. Lowndes answered " that he hoped gentlemen would consider that his
antagonists were mostly gentlemen learned in the law, who were capable of
giving ingenious explanations to such points as they wish to have
adopted." He then reiterated his objections to the two thirds
representation and to the article on treaties, and observed that he "
believed that the gentlemen who went from this State to represent us in
Convention [i. e. Messrs. John Rutledge, C. and C. C. Pinckney, and Major
Pierce Butler], possessed as much integrity and stood as high in point of
character as any gentleman that could have been selected ; he also
believed that they had done everything in their power to secure us a
proportionate share in the new government, but the very little we had
gained proved what we may expect in the future." He then passed to the
question of the slave trade, which had been limited to twenty years. He
objected strongly to this limitation, and thought for his part this trade
could be justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice,
for certainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a
better was to fulfill every part of those principles; and he reminded
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney that in a speech not long before he had said,
" that as long as an acre of swamp land remained unreclaimed in South
Carolina he should resist restricting the importation of
negroes." This drew down a storm of argument from all the " Constitution men." Some of the statements made and convictions expressed sound strange enough today, but Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who had fought this point, inch by inch, in the Federal Convention, spoke out boldly, as was his wont. He was, he said, "of exactly the same opinion as when he had spoken before, but that the religious and political prejudices of the Middle and Eastern States, and the inconsistent opinion of Virginia, had controlled them " (in convention). After much difficulty the freedom of importation was granted for twenty years, and " only granted by the assistance of the delegates from the Eastern States, as a bargain for their trade." He did not think it a very poor bargain because " we have a security that the general government can never emancipate the slaves, for no such authority is granted, and it is admitted on all hands that the general government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution, and that all rights not expressly granted are reserved to the States. We have obtained a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which we haid not before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property that it was in our power to make. We would have done better if we could, but on the whole I do not think them bad." There were many other speeches, all on the one sideL the opposition mute. Mr. Lowndes made yet anotiher effort; praised the Confederation and the men who had made it, for the large amount of liberty which it secured to the States, and the prosperity which they had enjoyed under it. He discussed the question of electing a President, and said that "there was one man to whom all America looked up, and for whom he most heartily should vote, but when his term of office was over, where should they find another who could unite ninety-six votes in his favor ? " He touched on some minor points, and protested that " although he had been accused of obstinacy in holding out against such a formidable opposition, he could sincerely assure the House that he was as open to conviction as any gentleman on that floor." In conclusion he thanked the House for permitting him to take up bo much of its time: the importance of the subject must be his excuse. If the proposed Constitution should be sanctioned by the people, it should have his hearty concurrence and support. He had been originally against a Declaration of Independence, and also against the installment plan, but when they received the approbation of the people, it became his duty as a good citizen to promote their due observance. He also thanked the gentlemen on the other side of the House for the candid, fair manner in which they had answered his arguments. Popularity was what he had never courted, but now he spoke merely to point out the dangers to which his fellow-citizens were exposed, dangers which were so evident that when he ceased to exist, he wished for no other epitaph than to have it inscribed on his tomb, " Here lies the man who opposed the Constitution because it was dangerous to the liberties of America." This was too much for Mr. John Eutledge. Hitherto the debate had been carried on in the most courteous manner, the speakers generally prefacing their remarks with complimentary phrases, " the great abilities and experience of the honorable gentleman," and so on; but John Rutledge had been chairman of the committee that framed the Constitution, and he could not hear it so abused. He sprang up and made a fiery little speech, " Often he had listened with pleasure to the honorable gentleman, but now he wondered at his wasting the time of the House — that his boasted Confederation was not worth a farthing, and if Mr. Chairman was intrenched in such instruments up to his chin, they could not save him from one national calamity," — etc., etc. He wound up, having apparently talked himself into good humor, by saying that the " honorable gentleman's allusion to obstinacy reminded him of what had been said of another gentleman once a member of that House — ' It has been imputed to me that I am obstinate: it is a mistake, I am not so, — but I am hard to be convinced.'" Mr. Rutledge sat down, and Mr. Lowndes, probably feeling that anything would weaken the force of his (own) last words, made no reply. This was the last time that these two men, both working for the same ends, but ever since the elections for the first Congress in opposition, ever met in debate. Mr. Eutledge's son, years afterwards told his wife that his father had always considered Mr. Lowndes his most formidable antagonist, "not that he feared him, or any man, but when he was going to speak against' old Rawlins' he always thought beforehand of what he was going to say." Mr. Lincoln, of "Ninety Six," then rose, and modestly disclaiming the ability to speak in that assembly, yet in the name of his constituents, whom he praised, as has been said above, "returned hearty thanks to the gentleman who had so nobly opposed this Constitution, it was supporting the side of the people; if any one ever deservedthe title of man of the people, he, on that occasion, did." Colonel Mason offered a vote of thanks to Mr. Lowndes for upholding the cause of the opposition, " by the desire of several gentlemen, members of this House," and also thanked the gentlemen on the other side for explaining their views so fully that they (the country members) could go home and make all things clear to their constituents! So all ended peacefully at last and the legislature adjourned, after agreeing to call the convention to meet in Charleston in May. In that convention Mr. Lowndes refused to serve. The people of St. Bartholomew's were anxious to send him, but he refused firmly. He knew that he had failed, and accepted defeat. In the convention the fight was short and slight in comparison. General Sumter made a gallant effort to gain a postponement until September, hoping to secure another convention and perhaps a Southern Confederacy, but the tide was too strong and the point was defeated. The Constitution was then adopted by a vote of 140 to 78, and ratified by the State in May, 1788. Mr. Lowndes has been much praised and much blamed for the part he took in this struggle — probably both praise and blame depend on the latitude whence it comes. Mr. Bancroft calls him " querulous," which is hardly a descriptive epithet, and Mr. Fiske calls him " silly," for his praise of the old Confederation; yet few men have called Patrick Henry " silly," and Henry used almost the same language in the Virginia Convention which met soon after. He says, " I represent their feelings (of the people of this commonwealth) when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy, being brought from that state of full security which they enjoyed to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago the minds of our citizens were in perfect repose," etc. " The Confederation, in my opinion, merits the highest encomium; it carried us through a long and dangerous war, it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation," etc.; "and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy ? " etc. The truth was that Lowndes and Henry were speaking for Virginia and Carolina; the Confederation had worked well for them, as their peace and prosperity showed. No impoverished State could have made the magnificent gift of lands to the Union which Virginia made in 1789. No impoverished State could have made the progress which Carolina had done, actually causing her to be taunted for her wealth (by the member for Delaware) in the Federal Convention. They were fighting like Harry of the Wynd, each " for his own hand." The present writer has no political opinions, and is absolutely impartial, — as she must needs be, seeing that her two great-grandfathers led the opposing hosts. Yet, looking at things in the light of accomplished facts, she can but see that although undoubtedly Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was right when he said " it was the best we could do," Mr. Lowndes was also right when he pointed out the dangers. Within a very few years the Jay treaty drove the South to such wrath that Judge Iredell, of North Carolina, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, says in his letters that the " sentiments publicly expressed by Mr. John Eutledge, on the subject of the treaty, which procured his rejection by the Senate as Chief Justice, although nominated by General Washington, were shared by almost every man south of the Potomac; even by those personally friendly to Mr. Jay, and stanch Federalists. "Of other points: the two thirds majority did overwhelm the South; the Supreme Court, with Judge Taney at its head, could not enforce the fugitive slave law, when public opinion of the North decided against it; and the " reserved rights of the States " could not protect slavery when a "military necessity " demanded its abolition. Even now, when that vexed question is forever at rest (and no one can desire its revival), there is dread of overcentralization, and few States would like to " try a fall" with the creation of their own hands at Washington. This was Mr. Lowndes's last appearance in public life: he refused all
offers for the legislature, etc., and devoted himself to his family, his
friends, and his affairs, in which he was always active; there are
memoranda of lands purchased within a short time of his
death. |
|
|
|
