Radio Script #868

Little Talks on Common Things
November 22, 1970

Before this year 1970, the 150th anniversary of the formation of the separate state of Maine comes to an end, it is fitting that we devote a broadcast to the historical events that made Maine one of the sovereign states of the American Union.

For two hundred years, Maine had been a part of Massachusetts when, in 1785, actually two years before the United States Constitution was adopted, the first serious attempt at separation took place. At one time the area east of the Piscataqua was called the Province of Maine, but after the formal establishment of the Province of Massachusetts by the British government, in order to avoid confusion, Maine was called a district rather than a province. So in 1785 it was in the District of Maine that agitation arose to form a separate state.

During the Revolution, Massachusetts had accumulated a large debt, and the hard pressed people of Maine, most of them poorer than the merchant class of Boston, foresaw heavy taxes for years to come. The way to avoid those taxes, it was agreed, was to get out from under the Massachusetts yoke. On the other hand, opponents argued that Maine, already weak, would be further weakened by separation, and that the strong arm of the mother state was needed for Maine’s defense.

Maine population was so small and so scattered that a consensus of opinion was difficult to obtain. Until 1785 Maine had no newspaper in any of its towns. Then on Jan. 1, 1785 appeared the first issue of the Falmouth Gazette. Bear in mind that Falmouth was the old name for Portland, already Maine’s largest town. That first issue of the Gazette contained the following announcement: “Agreeable to a request signed by a large number of respectable gentlemen and presented to the Gazette, the inhabitants in the counties of York, Cumberland and Lincoln are hereby notified that as many of them as can conveniently attend, are requested to meet at the meeting house of the Reverends Smith and Deane in Falmouth on October 5, 1785, to confer on the proposal that the three counties shall erect a separate government, form a plan to collect the sentiments of the people on that subject, and pursue some peaceable method to carry it into effect.”

Opposition soon arose from officials of the Massachusetts government in Maine, and from leading merchants, who feared customs duties in Boston if Maine were not a part of Massachusetts.

At first the people in general seemed to be indifferent. They felt no oppression from Boston. Yet the advocates of separation were persistent, and on the appointed October day in 1785, 33 delegates assembled in Portland. Among them was the delegate from Winslow, Zimri Haywood. It was not, as one might suspect, representation from only a part of Maine, though only three counties were named. The fact is that in 1785 Maine had only three counties: York, Cumberland and Lincoln. All of Maine east of the Androscoggin was then in Lincoln County. The convention re-adjourned to one date after another without accomplishing more than the draft of a petition to the Massachusetts Legislature, which did not get any favorable consideration. The convention took final adjournment in September, 1787.

Other attempts were made in 1793 and 1794, but without success. After 1800 the country became divided into two major political parties, the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democrats. The Massachusetts Legislature was predominantly Federalist, as were most of the merchants and shipowners of Maine. But there was in the District a sympathetic, popular following of the Jeffersonians. So the separation issue became political — the Democrats favoring separation, the Federalists opposing it.

The situation was aggravated by the Embargo Act of 1807, which caused heavy losses to the owners and operators of Maine ships. Then followed the War of 1812, during which Maine was especially harassed by British naval operations. During that war, sentiment for separation increased within the District. Finally in 1816 the Massachusetts Legislature directed that meetings be held in all towns and plantations of Maine, on May 20, to vote on separation. The result was 10,393 votes in favor and 6,051 against. But since there were 37,828 voters in the District, the total number turning out to vote either Yes or No was less than half the voters. So Massachusetts declared the vote not valid.

However, the Legislature passed a new bill, authorizing the towns to vote again in September, 1816, and declaring that separation would be granted provided the total vote was at least 5 to 4 in favor. When those September votes were cast, the result was 11,969 Yes and 10,347 No; much less than the required 5 to 4 majority.

But the proponents of separation were determined to win their case. On June 19, 1819 they put another bill through the Massachusetts Legislature, calling for another vote in the Maine towns on July 4. That vote was overwhelmingly in favor of separation, 17,091 Yes and 7,132 No. The towns were again ordered to hold meetings on September 3, to elect delegates to a constitutional convention in Portland. That convention met in the old First Parish Meeting House on October 11, 1819, with 269 delegates.

The result was the Constitution of Maine, duly ratified by the people and submitted to the Congress of the United States, with the outcome that Maine became a separate state of the Union in March, 1820. The Constitution of Massachusetts, formulated in 1785, served as a model for the Maine Constitution, assuring the very liberties later written into the national amendments that we call the Bill of Rights. However, the Maine Constitution differed from its Massachusetts model in several respects. It provided for a more equitable representation in the state legislature; it placed no property requirement on the right to vote; it did not provide for a lieutenant governor; and it put the wild lands under full value assessment, not one-third value as provided in Massachusetts.

It is interesting to note some of the issues that were fought out in that constitutional convention in 1819. First came the decision to call Maine a state, not a commonwealth. The old timers contended that, if Commonwealth was right for Massachusetts, it was also right for Maine. But the people from the smaller Maine towns considered commonwealth too high-toned a word. They preferred the simpler title State of Maine, and they won out.

Then came the question whether Maine ought to be the name after all. Judge Cony of Augusta preferred the name Columbia, pointing out that no state of the Union had yet been named for the discoverer. “What idea, either great or distinguished”, he asked, “can we attach to the name Maine? We do not even know why our land was so called by the early explorers. On the other hand, the name Columbia is attached to all that is noble.” Judge Thatcher of Biddeford thought differently. He said: “The territory now to be made into a new state is already known throughout the world as Maine.” Thatcher won, and a large majority favored the title State of Maine.

Long controversy accompanied the question of size of the House of Representatives in the Legislature. Massachusetts had granted one representative to every incorporated town and had grouped unorganized territory into representative districts. Maine did not want to go so far. Judge Cony wanted the initial number to be 100, never to exceed 200. Final decision was that at first the House should have from 100 to 200 members; then the first legislature should, not later than August 1, 1821 fix and apportion the representatives, not to exceed 200 in total, and that when the number should reach 200, the people should decide whether to make further increase. Then came the problem of how to apportion the representatives in that first legislature. After long debate, it was decided that each town of 1,500 inhabitants should be entitled to one; of 3,750 to two; of 6,250 to 3; of 10,500 to 4; of 15,000 to 5; of 20,250 to 6; and of 26,250 to 7; and that no town should have more than 7 representatives. Towns of less than 1,500 people were to be grouped into convenient districts.

As for the State Senate, it is interesting to note that Judge Cony proposed exactly the same number we have today, 32 members. Finally adopted was the vote that the Senate should have not less than 20 nor more than 31; and that the senatorial districts should conform to county lines, with the number of senators from each district determined by population.

Just as today, there was in 1819 a sharp difference of opinion about the wisdom of having an executive council, but those who favored it won out, after conceding that there should be no lieutenant governor.

When it came time to set up a state militia, there was sharp debate about exempting Quakers from that service. Samuel Redington from Vassalboro, a town heavily populated with Quakers, made a strong speech for their exemption, in which he said: “It is contended that we would have no one to defend us if all men were Quakers. On the contrary, we should then so conduct ourselves that no one would attack us. Having lived among Quakers for 40 years, I know they are a very different kind of people from what I once thought them. They pay their taxes for other purposes, but they cannot discharge a military assessment. They do not wish their property or their lives to be defended at the cannon’s mouth. In reality, however, they pay more than the equivalent of military service. They support their own poor, which alone is more than the military equivalent. No poor Quaker has ever applied to the town for relief. They also support their own schools and they receive no public lands from the legislature.”

Rev. Thomas Francis of Leeds opposed exempting the Quakers. He said: “To do so would establish a principle which we, in our very Bill of Rights, have forbidden, namely, the preference of one religious sect over another.” Judge Thatcher said it was not safe to leave to the conscience of individuals whether they would obey the law.

At last, by a vote of 162 to 14, it was decreed that “persons of the denominations of Quakers and Shakers, justices of the Supreme Court, and ministers of the gospel may be exempted from military duty”.

Now our time is up, but next week I shall conclude this discussion of Maine’s constitutional convention. Besides telling you about some other controversial issues, I shall tell something about the men who composed that momentous convention.

Year: 1970