View TEI
The Dorr Letters ProjectElisha R. Potter Junior to John Brown Francis: |
Introduction
Elisha Potter, Jr., wrote to his close friend John Brown Francis after receiving word of the vote on the People's Constitution. Like Francis, Potter was a conservative Democrat from the southern regions of Rhode Island. Potter's viewpoint on constitutional reform was in line with Francis' note to Goddard.
Letter
Kingston Jan. 1, 1842
Dear Sir
I enclose in this a copy of a letter I
sent to in answer to one he addressed to Mr.
Taylor & myself in relation to the suffrage revolutionary
movement. When read please enclose it to me again.
Dorrs plans have succeeded beyond his
most sanguine calculations. The next thing for them
to determine is whether they will carry it into effect by
force if necessary or whether they will wait and have it
done in a peaceable and legal manner.
A large portion of those who voted in favor of
the New Constitution are disposed to be moderate, but all
experience teaches us that parties are always governed by
the bold & forward instead of the moderate. Those who have
raised the storm may not be able to govern it.
Now as I said to Mr. Pearce my attachments
were all in favor of the old system but if the people
choose to give up that I am not in favor of stopping half
way or of having any personal property qualification.
But the people seem determined to change the old system.
It is probably settled that we must have free suffrage.
But in what way must it be brought about. Having
expressed my opinion please say how far you agree
with me.
It was reported here that Gov Fenner was
the first one who voted for it in Providence and
that you had voted for it in Warwick as well as
Mr Sprague.
Few want to hazard their popularity by
appearing to oppose the popular will. I always have
and always shall express my opinions as to the legality
of these proceedings moderately but freely. But if
I had the disposition to exert myself against it
I could not well spare the necessary time or
the expense.
Thurston it is said took strong ground in
favor of it in Hopkington.
Will it not be setting a very bad example and
encouraging erroneous notions of legal rights to have a
change of government made in this way?
The Whig party is split up, jealous & divided. The
leaders of our own party early took ground in favor of
extension. There are hundreds more now in favor of
extension if it can only be effected legally.
There has never been any concert at all so
far among those opposed to the movement. They
seem to have been under the influence of that
general apathy who commanded the forces of the Whigs in the
late elections.
If this question should ever come before Congress
would the Southern men give their support to the
doctrine that a majority of the people in numbers
(not of the legal voters) have a right to get together and
upset the government. The consequences of its adoption
& promulgation might be dangerous to them. As
Whipple said in one of his speeches on abolition, there
is a natural & necessary connection between abolition
and the doctrines upon which this present
movement is grounded.
Will the old voters elect their
Representatives in the spring? Or will they back
out entirely.
A question still nearer in time is --
What is to be done at January Session in regard to
the formation of proxes and organization of parties
for the year to come. This perhaps will control
every thing else.
The new constitution folks say they have
got over 13000 votes & about 4000 of them freemen. I think there
is something in the suggestion of the Journal about the number of
freemen. The ticket read "I am ____ qualified to vote etc." Some
may have forgotten to put in the not. In the large towns
the moderators are not personally acquainted with the freemen &
could not correct any mistakes.
Please remember me to Mrs. Francis
Yours Truly
ERP
Hon. John Brown Francis
Questions
Why do you suppose abolitionism and suffrage reform were connected?
Why do you think Potter believed that white southerners would not support Thomas Wilson Dorr's doctrine of the people’s sovereignty?