By
Walter Lunt
Part
one of a two-part series
Maine
achieved statehood on March 15, 1820. Historical accounts explain the
significant role of the Missouri Compromise in making that happen, but a lesser
known part of the story is the 35-year struggle that led up to that historic
day.
 |
| Map of Maine, 1790 |
Maine
became the District of Massachusetts with the adoption of its state
constitution in 1780. Rumblings in the district about Maine becoming a state in
its own right began as early as 1785.
Between
1792 and 1819, residents in the district voted six times on the question of
separation. It was not always a popular idea, even with District Mainers,
including the town of Windham.
Certain
features and characteristics clearly distinguished the district from
Massachusetts proper.
Climate was one often mentioned. Another was the geographical
separation caused by New Hampshire’s inconvenient appendage to the sea. Also,
following the Revolutionary War, the District of Maine was filling up with
immigrants from other New England states and from Europe seeking large tracts
of unspoiled land (often on property owned by land speculators).
A
unique diversity of population emerged: One people, forged by frugal habits and
independent attitudes and values, not unlike that described later by the
Frenchman Alexis De Tocqueville.
By
1785 there were clear signs of discontent within the district. Many were
convinced that Boston little understood the unique nature and economic problems
of Maine people.
Long
established seacoast towns from the Piscataqua to the Kennebec Rivers, including
Kittery, Falmouth (Portland) and Bath were engaged in shipping and
shipbuilding. As described by Ronald Banks in his 1970 book “Maine Becomes A
State,” “…Maine (had a) nearly one-crop economy… Lumber was king!” And as a
result of trade policies set by the Massachusetts aristocracy, profits were
“…channeled to Boston and surrounding towns.”
Inland,
meanwhile, subsistence farmers were happy to supplement their meager existence
by supplying seacoast merchants with timber.
From
this symbiotic arrangement, coastal towns further developed a modest prosperity
by adding insurance firms, bankers and lawyers to their growing mercantile
communities.
A
clear and separate identity from the mother state was emerging.
The
first serious attempt at separation emanated from community leaders in
Cumberland County, including Judge of Probate William Gorham and gentleman
farmer Stephen Longfellow, both of Gorham and General Peleg Wadsworth and
minister Thomas Smith (father of Windham’s Parson Peter Smith), both of Falmouth.
This group kick-started the movement by promoting the establishment of the
Falmouth Gazette, a newspaper created for the expressed purpose of advocating
separation. Oddly, some Federalists, the political party of the elite, or
“blue-bloods,” who favored a strong government, favored the notion of
separation.
 |
| The 23 star U.S. flag adopted July 4, 1820 following Maine's admission to the union |
Push-back
to the idea was immediate. Opposition came from the General Court of
Massachusetts (the legislative body) and from the coastal mercantile
communities of Maine who feared a disruption of commerce.
Undaunted,
proponents called for a convention of separatists where a list of grievances
was drawn up and presented to the general court. Among the complaints: access
to the courts and to public records required long, costly trips to Boston; trade
regulations favored the Boston port; lack of representation in the state’s
House of Representatives; a tax system that was inequitable to Maine people.
The
court thwarted the separatists’ arguments by passing legislation that corrected
most of the district’s complaints.
The
fledgling movement held several more conventions in the late 1780s, only to
adjourn due to lack of interest and from distractions caused by other
significant national events. The Falmouth Gazette, for example, devoted
considerable space to the creation of a new Constitution of the United States.
By
1791, renewed political pressure was such that the general court voted to
authorize a public vote in the district on the question of separation. As
described by author Banks, “…the stage was set for the first state-authorized
test of separation in the district… petty Federalists,” he continued, “(were)
anxious to emulate their brethren in Massachusetts, not to be their servants.”
Proponents
sprang into action, pushing hard their arguments in favor of the division: 1)
the “noncontiguousness” of Massachusetts and Maine, 2) Maine would gain two
senators in Congress, 3) government would be placed in the “midst” of the
people, 4) increased frequency of a sitting Supreme Judicial Court (the accused
might sit in jail for up to 10 months awaiting justice), 5) establishment of a
Maine-based system of taxation, 6) the incorporation of sparsely settled
plantations, now denied the right to vote (Raymond was one).
Detractors
countered that Maine had too little money and too little education and
sophistication to self-govern. Portland’s Daniel Davis responded with “…men of
common understanding and sound judgment (are found in the district) as there
are in any part of the Commonwealth.”
The
referendum was held on May 7, 1792. The vote: 2,074 in favor of separation,
2,524 against. But the results, by region, were noteworthy. Coastal communities
tended to oppose self-governance. Inland towns supported it. The probable reason:
the Federal Coastal Law, which greatly benefited Maine’s shipping interests.
Interviewed
last July on Maine Public Radio’s Morning Edition, Portland historian Herb
Adams explained the Coastal Law this way: “…if you were exporting goods by sea
you were not taxed for import duties by any state that bordered yours, and this
is so states beside each other wouldn’t tax the yahoo out of each other. Well,
that was very advantageous for Mainers. All of that meant that you could get
more than halfway down the eastern seaboard of the United States and not pay a
penny in import tax.”
Even
if the ship wasn’t delivering to a noncontiguous state, it had to stop and pay
the fee at each state, just to sail by. Shippers were as concerned with the
time-consuming stops as they were with the customs fees.
As
stated by author Banks, “After ten years and more than a dozen conventions,
separation was no nearer than when the movement first began.”
Convinced
that the future prosperity of the district depended on separation, supporters
plotted on. For reasons unclear, interest revived again in 1797. Petitions from
numerous towns requested yet another popular vote on the matter.
The
Federalists were now opposed to the idea as it became clear they would be
unable to advance politically under separation. Most regions had subscribed to
the more conservative Democratic-Republican Party policies which firmly
supported separation. York County also could not be counted on for support – it
had recently proposed a union with New Hampshire.
Fresh
and sizable numbers of inland squatters, however, assumed, probably correctly,
that they would be more likely to retain their land claims under statehood.
Amid
the changing political times, the General Court granted the District yet
another popular vote on the separation issue.
In
May of 1797, 5,201 votes were cast. The “yeas” netted 2,785, the “nays” were
2,412 (four votes were deemed invalid).
Despite
the York County opposition, the Coastal Law influence and nonsupport of
Federalists, separation, at last, had won the day. Windham voted no, 16-6
(Raymond was not yet incorporated).
But
not so fast! The general court proceeded to void the results of the election,
reasoning that the slight majority was won with a mere 5000 votes cast out of a
population exceeding 100,000.
Next
time, we learn how it would take four more popular votes before winning
statehood. The separatists would have to negotiate land treaties with the
Native Americans, settle a border dispute with Great Britain and overcome voter
apathy. And which way would the vote go in Windham and Raymond?
No comments:
Post a Comment