Video

Dr. Erik J. Chaput on Race and the Dorr Rebellion

(Erik, could you talk a little bit about how race factored into the Dorr Rebellion?)



Race played a very significant role in the Dorr Rebellion. Unfortunately, in broader narrative accounts of the antebellum period that have been written in the last ten years or so that have mentioned the Dorr Rebellion, the issue of race has been left out of these accounts. But when you look closely at the summer and the early part of the fall of 1841 in the run-up to the People’s Convention in Providence, race played a major role.



African-Americans, primarily living in the city of Providence, gravitated towards the Rhode Island Suffrage Association. Black Rhode Islanders had been disenfranchised since 1822 and the rhetoric coming out of the Rhode Island Suffrage Association about the rights of the people, the people’s sovereignty, the right to vote, rights of citizens, all Americans as citizens—this was language that, very much, black Rhode Islanders keyed into and wanted to become connected with this organization. And early on they did play a role in a lot of the functions that the Rhode Island Suffrage Association put on in the in the spring of 1841 and the summer of 1841.



But as you get into August when it comes time to vote for delegates to the People’s Convention, blacks in Providence are prevented from going to the voting booths and casting a ballot for delegates, and immediately black Rhode Islanders become concerned that the Suffrage Association and the delegates who were finally selected to this People’s Convention, which was going to take place in the fall, were going to include a white-only clause in their constitution; that they were going to take the very broad rhetoric of the people’s sovereignty and the rights of the people and make it for white people only.



Also, really what we would call today race-baiting, a series of articles started to appear in the Providence Journal under the pseudonym Town Borne. Historians believe it to be actually Samuel Ames as the author of these articles, and Ames also happened to be Thomas Wilson Dorr’s brother-in-law, and Samuel Ames who had very little concern for the black community in Rhode Island. But what he wanted to do was really to rev up the tensions and to put the black community, and the Suffrage Association, and the abolitionists in Rhode Island at odds and to really start a fight. And he was very good at doing that in these very sarcastic and incendiary articles that he wrote in the Providence Journal under the pseudonym Town Borne.



When the People’s Convention does begin, it is quite clear that most of the delegates are leaning towards a white-only clause. In the middle of the convention a very moving, articulate, elegant petition comes to the convention floor and is handed to Thomas Dorr by a young black minister named Alexander Crummell, who later will go on to become one of the foremost black intellectuals in the 19th century. Crummell brought this petition on behalf of several blacks living in the city of Providence, including a man named Ichabod Northup. And in this petition Providence’s black community really talks eloquently about citizenship, and in terms really that we wouldn’t see again until we have a serious debate over citizenship during what we call Radical Reconstruction—the debate over the fourteenth amendment. They’re really talking about the issue of a color-blind democracy and what citizenship means and why they deserve to be a part of this new constitution that’s being drafted in this convention, and they warn the convention that they’re going to be potentially labeled as hypocrites for putting a white-only clause into that document. Unfortunately for the black community, at the end of the day a white-only clause is inserted into the People’s Constitution.



Thomas Dorr, the abolitionist Dorr, fought very, very hard against this but lost. The black community, for all the right reasons, looked to Dorr as an ally in the Convention. This is a man who received endorsements when he ran for Congress in 1837 and 1839 from William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator, from Nathan Rogers’ The Herald of Freedom, probably the two most prominent abolitionist newspapers in the country; he was a member of the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, he sat on the executive committee of that society, Dorr attended multiple conventions in New York City for the American Anti-Slavery Society. He was a well-known commodity within New England abolitionist circles, and they very much thought they had an ally in Dorr. And they did, he worked hard for their cause. He did believe that they deserved the right to vote, that labeling the People’s Sovereignty for white people only was indeed hypocritical and against the Declaration of Independence in the ideology it really was the underpinning of the Rhode Island Suffrage Association.



End of the day though, Dorr loses, but he does achieve two significant victories, I think, within the convention. Despite all the opposition to black voting that is going on in the People’s Convention, the first thing that Dorr is able to achieve is a provision in the People’s Constitution that provides jury trials for fugitive slaves. The later part of the 1830s and as you get into the 1840s, the fugitive slave issue in the United States is becoming a major constitutional and political issue. Many states, many northern states that is, had adopted what they called “personal liberty laws”. Dorr, a trained attorney and a known abolitionist, no surprise that he pushed to provide for some basic legal protections for suspected fugitives, so that certainly people who were indeed not fugitives would not be wrongfully accused and sent into slavery in the South.



The second thing that Dorr was able to achieve, and this came out the eleventh hour in the People’s Convention, is he got a clause into the document that mandated that the white-only clause would have to be revisited—that in the first election after the formation of the People’s Government, the issue would go out to the voters as a referendum and it would vote it up or down. And that was mandatory, there was no way to get around it, it was built right into the documents. The General Assembly, the new General Assembly under the People’s Constitution, would have to do this. Dorr looked at this clause and he knew it was really the best that he could do. And he hoped that New England abolitionists would see that he worked hard for their cause. He did indeed fail but he managed to salvage a little bit and in a year or two down the line he could perhaps eliminate that notorious white-only clause.



Unfortunately, though, the New England abolitionist movement was not interested in waiting, they believed that what had happened in the People’s Convention was so, so wrong, that it needed an immediate response. And who shows up in Rhode Island to protest this document? Abby Kelley from Millbury, Mass., just North, up what is now Route 146 from Providence going toward Worcester. A very young Frederick Douglass comes to protest against the People’s Constitution. Abby Kelley’s future husband Stephen Foster from New Hampshire, along with another man named Parker Pillsbury, another prominent abolitionist from New Hampshire. They all travel to Rhode Island and participate in six anti-slavery conventions that are held throughout the state. And these conventions are designed to protest against the People’s Constitution—to speak out, to say what had gone wrong in the People’s Convention, that these delegates had taken very lofty ideals and had trampled upon them. Unfortunately for these abolitionists, as hard as they worked, and some of them risked their own lives in the winter of 1841 as you get into the early part of 1842—Abby Kelley had an ice ball thrown at her head, Frederick Douglass in one of his later memoirs that he wrote in the 1890s talked about riding in the Jim Crow car in the freezing cold—so, for considerable risk to their own personal safety, the abolitionists came to Rhode Island, but it was all for naught. The People’s Constitution was overwhelmingly adopted in late December 1841 by nearly 14,000 Rhode Islanders with only about fifty against.



So, the majority of the population, that is the white population, of the state certainly did not listen at all to what the abolitionists had to say, but as you get into 1842, the issue of race still continues to play a major role in the Rebellion. As the springtime, as you get into April and May, especially when Thomas Dorr journeys to Washington D.C., after he’s inaugurated as the “People’s Governor,” and has his parade through the streets of Providence and he goes to Washington to meet with president John Tyler, Dorr really gets a lesson in sectional politics and he gets a lesson also in the role of race in America at that point in time. White Southerners had this somewhat irrational fear that Dorr was going to spread his doctrine of the right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government all across the country, and by doing so Dorr was going to incite slave revolts. So, in this sense, Dorr came across as a white Nat Turner. This was of course absurd. Dorr had no intention whatsoever of leading a slave revolt, he was not a John Brown, but the white South—especially a lot of Southern politicians, including John Calhoun and William Preston of South Carolina—painted Dorr as a dangerous demagogue who was going to do just that. They reminded John Tyler of Dorr’s time in the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, his role on certain committees with the American Anti-Slavery Society and the annual meetings in New York. And this wasn’t long ago, this was just in the later part of the 1830s, and all of Dorr’s activities as an abolitionist got brought back up again and connected with his current movement to revise Rhode Island’s archaic governing structure. But in the hands of a very skillful politician like William Preston from South Carolina, as I said, or John Calhoun, Dorr came across as a demagogue and as a dangerous abolitionist, as a radical. And they were able to get to John Tyler and really paint Dorr as someone that he needed to stay away from. And John Tyler wanted nothing to do with Dorr, he didn’t come out to aid Dorr at all.



Other major Democratic politicians, at this point Democratic senators, such as Levi Woodbury from New Hampshire, Silas Wright from New York, in private expressed their affinity for what Dorr was doing but in public they would never come out and support him. Both Woodbury and Wright were looking to get the Democratic Party nomination potentially in 1844, and supporting Thomas Dorr would ruin them certainly in the minds of the white South. And so that was simply not an option for them to support Dorr openly. And so as May rolls into June the issue of race still continues to play a role. Black Rhode Islanders are so angry at being shut out of the People’s Convention, being shut out literally of the People’s Constitution, that they decide that they’re going to support the Law & Order side, that they’re going to support the Charter authorities. And they did this in exchange, in the hopes that in the fall of 1842 when a new convention would finally be called by the Rhode Island General Assembly that they would indeed get the right to vote, and that is exactly what happened. There was a referendum on whether or not to allow blacks into the body politic in Rhode Island in the fall of 1842. And they do receive—gain back, I should say, the right to vote, and this becomes the first time and only the time in the antebellum period where blacks who had previously had the right to vote and had it taken away, had regained it. So, as a direct result, really, of Thomas Dorr’s actions and the rebellion itself, black Rhode Islanders in a very roundabout way do achieve what they had wanted all along and that is the right to vote, though it came from a group of people that they did not initially turn to for support. Initially, once again, they were turning towards the Suffrage Association and Thomas Dorr who were talking eloquently about the rights of the people and what that meant.


Raymond Lavertue on Dorr and the Anti-Slavery Movement

Dorr underwent a total transformation. He gradually moved from being a colonizationist who argued that the best condition, the best thing that could happen for slaves would be to transport them to Africa. He thought conditions there would be better than they were in the Middle Atlantic states. He thought that…he made a tremendous argument for the settlement of the city of Liberia and he thought that Liberia and the capital, Monrovia, would eventually become a magnet for the oppressed people and particularly the oppressed blacks of the world; much like America had become a magnet for the oppressed people of England, and then other European countries. He thought, he envisioned a grand migration to Monrovia. And he saw it becoming a flourishing seat of civilization. He wasn’t of the thought that they were just shooting people off, shipping freed slaves off to some, into exile. He thought it would develop into quite a flourishing haven for them and that they would be better off. He also thought that the slave owners in the South, many of them wanted to free their slaves, but a lot of the slave laws of the individual states required that if you did free a slave, the slave had to leave the state. And the settlement of Monrovia would give those more benevolent slave owners the opportunity that they needed to free their slaves.

So from 1834 you have him as a colonizationist, that was January of 1834, that Spring, Dorr goes into the Rhode Island General Assembly and begins getting involved in a number of other projects. And you don’t hear much about slavery from him until 1836, when he introduces a resolution to abolish not only slavery, not only slavery but the slave trade itself in the District of Columbia. And he called it a “national evil” that slavery was allowed to exist and that the slave trade existed and was carried on in the nation’s capital. Like a lot of Dorr’s resolutions, more progressive resolutions, it was defeated resoundingly.

In February of 1836, Dorr gets involved in a very interesting scenario. He’s still a member of the General Assembly, he’s only thirty years old at this time, and he gets involved in a debate, in the General Assembly, with Benjamin Hazard, who is this wizened, longtime member of the General Assembly and is essentially, has been Dorr’s nemesis since Dorr became a member of the General Assembly in May of 1834. Hazard introduced a series of resolutions and a piece of legislation in February 1836 into the Rhode Island General Assembly that would essentially prohibit Rhode Island anti-slavery societies. Now we’ve moved away from colonization societies and we’re talking about actual abolitionists who want to eliminate the, and free the slaves whatever the consequences are.

There were a lot of anti-slavery societies from around the country who were sending mailings, pamphlets and various publications into the South. And the Southern states and the Southern legislatures saw this as an extremely dangerous scenario. That the Northern states and the abolitionists were potentially going to foment slave insurrection in the Southern states. And the Southern states began to send memorials to state legislatures in North. And they sent a series of them to the Rhode Island General Assembly, asking that the states legally prohibit Rhode Island abolitionists from sending these mailings into the South. And Dorr immediately rose to oppose Benjamin Hazard on these resolutions. Hazard introduced three or four resolutions, but the final piece of his package was a law that would criminalize any mailing or publication that even hinted at the idea of slave insurrection as a solution to slavery. The country, in 1831, it was still, the South was still reeling from the Nat Turner Rebellion in which he rose up and about 56 whites were killed. It was sort of a random uprising and that put the South in a state of paranoia.

So Dorr in response to Hazard’s acquiescence to the Southern memorials to the legislature asking them to deal with the Northern abolitionists, Dorr immediately rose in response and he used a dual argument. He said, at some point he said, “I’m not technically an abolitionist,” but he made it very clear that he sympathized with what the abolitionists were attempting to do. He didn’t think they would be successful. This is 1836 now, so he’s not quite a colonizationist anymore nor is he an abolitionist. He didn’t think the abolitionists would be successful, in fact, he thought they would probably do more harm than good, because with the mailings pouring in and the South in a state of fearful paranoia, the potential existed for slave owners to treat their slaves more severely, to enact tougher slave codes and slave laws. Dorr essentially thought the abolitionist movement would backfire. He thought the abolitionists were well-intentioned and he thought if there were a chance of success that he would join them heartily. He called…but his key argument, along with the moral evil of slavery—and he thought slavery was a blight, he used the term “blight,” not just on slaves themselves but on slave owners. He thought that it degraded both classes.—But his key argument in opposing Hazard’s resolutions on silencing the abolitionists was that it was an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And that this ran counter to everything that Rhode Island had stood for and been founded on. Roger Williams came here, he was exiled from Massachusetts with, the founding platform of his whole philosophy was freedom of expression, freedom of conscience. So, Dorr opposed Hazard not on the grounds that slavery should be abolished, but on the grounds that those resolutions were silencing people who had a right to say what their conscience led them to say.

Between February and May 1836, Dorr released a public address, a public invitation for Rhode Island abolitionists to come to the Newport State House in June of 1836 and speak before the General Assembly and air their grievances. And on the very day that they were gathered outside, numbers and numbers of, and the number isn’t clear, but a lot of people gathered to speak and voice their concerns about not just the right to address abolition, but just to have their say in front of the General Assembly. Benjamin Hazard basically introduced another resolution and some of his allies, to get the hearing postponed, again, until October 1836. So while however many people are gathered, waiting to be heard, they’ve now been told they were going to be silenced and not get their chance. And Benjamin Hazard said, “Let them put it in writing and submit it, and we’ll put it into the Journal of the General Assembly.” Dorr, I think in a hint, in a foreshadowing of what was to come, tried to outmaneuver Hazard by securing the use of the State House the next day so that the people he had invited by a public proclamation could have their time to speak. And he introduced a resolution into the General Assembly asking for the use of the Newport State House for one day, possibly a few subsequent days, so that anyone who wanted to be heard, could be heard. And unfortunately, again, the General Assembly, led by Benjamin Hazard, the old nemesis, voted down Dorr’s resolution and the abolitionists were not, did not have their chance to speak against Hazard’s resolutions. So that brings us up to October 1836.

By 1837, Dorr has lost his seat in the Rhode Island General Assembly. It wasn’t related to his position on abolition or freedom of speech. But he’s out of the legislature, but he’s not out of involvement in the public debate over the issue. And at some point between 1836 and 1837, and it’s not clear when or how the transformation occurred, Dorr has essentially become an abolitionist. In 1837, he gets an invitation from James G. Birney, the corresponding secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, asking Dorr if he would be an agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society. And Dorr’s reply was that, “while I sympathize with the cause completely and I see the abolition movement as the last hope for our enslaved countrymen, I think that my best, the best use of my talent is here in Rhode Island working on the suffrage movement.” So, again you see the transformation from a colonizationist, to someone who thinks abolition has no chance and can possibly do more harm than good, to someone who thinks it’s the last, best hope for our enslaved countrymen. And Dorr continues, while he says he wants, he needs to stay in Rhode Island and work for the suffrage movement and help the disenfranchised, which becomes his ultimate destiny, and why we’re here talking about him, he becomes intimately involved with, essentially, the giants of the American abolition movement. By December 1838, Dorr has made a complete transformation from colonizationist to full-fledged abolitionist who thinks that it’s the last hope for Americans and for what he calls his “enslaved countrymen.” At that point, December 1838, Dorr’s involvement with the anti-slavery movement, at least actively and publicly, subsides as he turns his attention towards running for Congress as a Democrat in 1839. What he would have done as a member of Congress, a Northern, anti-slavery Democrat in Congress in 1839, we can only speculate on but I think it would have been very interesting. And then in 1840, the suffrage movement begins and Dorr’s time is occupied for the next couple of years with that. And that essentially dominates the last fourteen years of his life until he dies in 1854.

But it’s interesting that unlike Lincoln—right through his presidency into the Civil War, Lincoln is still talking about the colonization movement. Lincoln never became what you would consider an abolitionist. He was searching for any solution. Dorr arrived at the solution and I think the process is interesting. Unfortunately, we don’t know what happened. Probably, Dorr was open to new ideas. People think he was dogmatic and unchangeable and unyielding. And that’s very far from the truth. As we see, he was open and receptive to new ideas and he became involved with the people from the American Anti-Slavery Society. And he was obviously convinced that abolition was the way to go. And it eventually paid dividends, but not for another 23 years.

Dr. Erik J. Chaput on Women and the Dorr Rebellion

(Eric, can you talk a little bit about the role of women in the Dorr Rebellion?)

Women played a significant role in Thomas Wilson Dorr’s attempt at constitutional reform in Rhode Island between 1841 and 1845. Women also played a significant role in opposing Dorr’s efforts to alter and abolish Rhode Island’s form of government. The recent update to the Dorr Rebellion Project website focuses in on women who were deeply connected to the Rhode Island Suffrage Association and personally to Thomas Wilson Dorr.

We have uploaded a series of letters from the Dorr Correspondence at the John Hay Library at Brown University, that highlight the activism of women who worked tirelessly on behalf of Dorr in terms of promoting his agenda in regards to Suffrage extension and Constitutional Reform. Women also worked tirelessly in the wake of Dorr’s failed attempt to alter Rhode Island’s form of government in June of 1842. Women worked for the release of Dorrite prisoners. They were very much connected to aiding them in prison and securing their release from prison. They formed associations. There was the Ladies Free Suffrage Association, the Ladies Benevolent Suffrage Association, as well. There’s a multitude of organizations that women became connected to. They were very active in terms of fundraising, in terms of keeping Dorr’s agenda alive while many of his followers were in prison. Women worked tirelessly throughout 1842 and 1843 to keep the cause alive. They were in communication with Dorr while he was in exile in New Hampshire. Indeed, when Dorr returned to Providence in the Fall of 1843, women were there to greet him.

He went, of course, he went on to trial in Newport. He was tried and convicted for treason against the State of Rhode Island and then subsequently imprisoned in this new state prison in Providence, on the cove in Providence. And women, again, tried to keep his cause alive. Catherine Williams, in particular, worked behind the scenes to ensure that Dorr’s mother Lydia would receive correspondence from her son, as her son sat in prison. Catherine Williams, Abby Lord, Anne Parlin, Frances Whipple Greene, worked throughout 1844 and into 1845 to secure Dorr’s release from prison.

These letters are all represented on this new update to the Dorr Rebellion Project website. They really show an often-neglected period of Antebellum history, that is, women who were very much connected to the Democratic Party. These were not abolitionist women. All too often our focus in on women in the Antebellum period — we look at women who were working tirelessly in the side of abolition and temperance and were connected somewhat to the Whig party. This is indeed a different group of women in Rhode Island. And of course, their efforts, they were very vocal, they were very political. All this predates the convention in 1848 in Seneca Falls by four or five years.

So, it’s a significant period for students and teachers to dive into, through these letters, through the head notes, through the textual essay that accompanies this. And they also can look at the very close relationship Dorr had with his mother Lydia while in prison, on another part of the website.

Dr. Patrick T. Conley on the Law and Order Constitution

That constitution was described in 1901 by Arthur May Mowry as quote, “liberal and well adapted to the needs of the state.” That 1843 constitution—and we use 1843 because it went into effect in May 1843—it was the Law & Order Constitution that was drafted by the Law & Order Convention in the concluding months of 1842 after Dorr had been vanquished and had gone into exile. That constitution was productive of an incredible amount of internal strife in Rhode Island. But nonetheless, Mowry’s view expressed in his book The Dorr War in 1901 prevailed for three quarters of a century, and when I wrote Democracy in Decline: Rhode Island’s Constitutional Development From the Beginning Through the Dorr Rebellion in 1977, one of my principal points was to refute that notion.

That 1843 constitution had a number of major defects. The principal defect was the dual standard for suffrage. If you were native-born and a male you could vote without the ownership of property. If you were a—or without the ownership of real property. If you were a naturalized citizen you needed a freehold, real property, in order to be able to vote, hold office, serve on juries and perform other civil functions. So that the dual standard made that constitution the most nativistic in America from the moment of its inception. And it was placed there mainly because of the animus of the leaders of the Law & Order party against the expanding Irish Catholic population that was migrating to Rhode Island in the early 1840s. And that real estate requirement for naturalized citizens remained in effect until 1888 until the Bourn Amendment was adopted, which was still discriminatory but that is another story. So, I was very much disturbed by Arthur Mowry’s shall we say, “the sweeping under the rug” of that particular defect. He made almost no mention whatsoever of the ethnocultural and religious tensions that existed in 1842 and ’43 that helped lead to the defeat of the People’s movement.

A second major defect in that constitution was what might be called the “rotten borough senate.” The agricultural interests that had formerly been Democratic and Jacksonian, and Jeffersonian before that, were protected in that constitution in that each municipality regardless of population had one vote in the state senate. That was established under that constitution, and that meant that the rural areas of the state, the agrarian interest, had an effective veto over state legislation. And that was important because in those days the General Assembly by far was the dominant branch of government. The governor had very few constitutional powers. And so the senate was able to check reform if it chose to do so by virtue of the over-representation of the agrarian interest. And that prevailed down beyond the midpoint of the 20th century.

It was not until the United States Supreme Court in the reapportionment case of Reynolds v. Sims in the 1960s, that “one man, one vote” rule was made binding upon the states and that “rotten borough” system that had been created in 1843 was finally vanquished. You have a situation for example as late as 1920 where the town of West Greenwich, in that census having a population of slightly over four hundred, had one senator, and Providence, which reached the population of 267,914 by the middle of that decade, had one senator! So it was a tremendous disproportion and that is why later on the Republican boss, Charles R. Brayton, secured the enactment of a statute in 1901, called the Brayton Law, which vested the appointive and financial powers of the state in the state senate. Because that was the last bastion of Republican, agrarian control once Democratic governors started to be elected by general suffrage.

Another very undesirable provision that wasn’t eliminated until the 1890s was the absence of a secret ballot. The People’s Constitution provided for one, the Law & Order Constitution did not, which meant that the workers in the various mill villages had to vote under the supervision and surveillance of their employers, who often were of a different political persuasion and a different economic perspective. Also, a major defect was the amendment procedure; those Law & Order folks that drafted that 1843 constitution wanted to make sure that change would not come easily. And so they established the most cumbersome constitutional amendment procedure in America. To amend the constitution, it required a vote of a majority of the whole number of each house of the General Assembly, a general election intervening! So you had to do it twice with a general election in between, and then a sixty percent vote of the electorate, which as a result of the nativistic suffrage clause was a restricted one. And then, number five, there was no provision in that constitution for the call of future constitutional conventions. And so it was a very difficult—and for a while with a conservative Supreme Court analyzing the constitution, impossible—to get a constitutional convention called in Rhode Island to reform the basic law of the state.

Very happily, and probably the most significant thing I have ever done in politics or government, was when I served in the 1973 constitutional convention as an elected delegate and as the elected secretary of that convention, because I introduced a provision which is now article fourteen of the Rhode Island Constitution that, in essence, embraced the provisions of the People’s Constitution allowing for constitutional conventions to be called. In fact, even placing that before the people by referendum every decade as to whether or not they chose to call one to reform the basic law of the state. And I also introduced the People’s Constitution amendment procedure where amendments to the constitution can be effected now by a vote of the General Assembly and by a majority vote of the electorate at a general election. And so in a way I took some pride not only as a historian, but also at the time a political official that was able to carry into effect some of the provisions of the People’s Constitution and override the illiberal features of the constitution of 1843 that had endured for a century and a third. So, I am not a fan of that Law & Order Constitution.

And as a result of the nativistic provisions that were contained therein there was an awful lot of ethnocultural strife—Yankee versus Celt—during the 1840s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and onward. And as a matter of fact the individuals who were in power, particularly Henry Bowen Anthony, who was the editor of the Providence Journal during the Dorr Rebellion, and became a governor, and then a founder of the Republican Party, and a United States senator, was so determined to preserve that real estate requirement for voting that he helped to enshrine in that 1843 constitution, that he altered the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When it was originally introduced, Henry Wilson wanted to expand it so that it wouldn’t just deal with race, or color, or previous condition of servitude, but what would also ban discrimination in voting on the basis of education, property holdings, nativity. And Anthony said, “No way, you put that in the Fifteenth Amendment and I’ll make sure when it comes to Rhode Island, Rhode Island will refuse to ratify!” And with a number of the Southern states not enthusiastic about the Fifteenth Amendment, with California and Oregon not enthusiastic, because of the Chinese question there, every single state of the North was necessary to get that amendment ratified. So, even the Constitution of the United States took on a different form as a result of the hostility of the Law & Order leaders towards the Irish Catholic immigrants and their determination to make them second-class citizens.