The Rise and Development of the Gerrymander
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Ube IHniverettB of GbtcaQo FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERRYMANDER A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OP THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY (*'•. BY ELMER C. GRIFFITH, Ph.D. SOMETIME FELLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ', PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE IN WILLIAM JEWELL COLLEGE CHICAGO SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY 1907 Zhc mniversitB of Gbica^o FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERRYMANDER A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY BY ELMER C. GRIFFITH, Ph.D. SOMETIME FELLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ; PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE IN WILLIAM JEWELL COLLEGE CHICAGO SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY 1907 Copyright, 1907 ELMER C. GRIFFITH PREFACE Aside from the one case of the gerrymander in Massachusetts which gave rise to the term itself, but little has been written col- lectively upon the . general subject, at least prior to the famous decision of the courts in the state of Wisconsin. For this reason the material herewith presented had to be gained by patient and careful research throughout the records of the various states and territories considered. There had been no fixed starting-point, previously determined, which would suggest the probable origin. The elaborate completeness and successful skill displayed in manip- ulating the districts in Massachusetts in 1812 was the best of proof that the practice had antedated that time. It seemed that in all probability the gerrymander had had a growth that had culminated in the case which to-day does not deserve its distinction. The researches for this investigation have, therefore, gone into the early history of our nation, into and beyond, and have sought to pene- trate the details of elections in colonial times, recognizing that the social, religious and political practices observed in national history have had antecedents and connection with the customs of the earlier period. It became necessary to consider representative government from its inception in America. The looseness with which the term "gerrymander" has been frequently used, so as to include political corruption of various sorts, has materially added to the difficulty of this study. Since the beginning of the art of gerrymandering, districts have continued to be thus formed, even to the present time. This mono- graph does not propose to cite and examine each appearance of the practice in -recent decades. Such a work would involve but little more than a catalogue of instances, becoming tiresome by their similarity. In recent years a new element, not essential to this study, was introduced when the courts set aside unjust apportion- ments. Such legal decisions, however, may be expected as a logical result of legislation herein noted or as rising from similar legislation subsequently enacted. 3 4 PREFACE The writer has sought to follow the workings of the gerrymander from its origin to the time when it became throughly established in the body politic of this country. The reasons for concluding this study with the year 1840 will be given more fully in the follow- ing pages. It will be impossible and unnecessary to devote the same attention and space to each occurrence of the gerrymander. Material is not equally abundant in all states and at all times. The so-called gerrymander, sometimes referred to as the only instance prior to 1812, which Patrick Henry has been accused of devising, is considered in detail, since the conclusions reached herein are different from those of other writers, and for the additional reason that the case has been made conspicuous by biographies of Patrick Henry. I desire to make grateful acknowledgment of the valuable assist- ance given me by Professor J. F. Jameson and by some members of the faculties of history and political science of the University of Chicago, and by Mr. A. B. Adams. I am also indebted to my old- time college professor, Henry M. Whitney of Branford, Conn., for his careful and helpful reading of the monograph. Let me also acknowledge the professional courtesies of the librarians of the Newberry Library, the Wisconsin State Historical Society, the Library of Congress, the Maryland State Historical Society, the Pennsylvania State Historical Society, the New Jersey State Library at Trenton, the New Jersey State Historical Society at Newark, the Lenox Library, the New York State Library at Albany, and the University of Chicago Library. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page . Preface ; 3 CHAPTER I. Introduction 7 CHAPTER II. The Discussion, Origin and Definition of the term Gerrymander 15 (a) Unwarranted Charge of a Gerrymander in Maryland in 1816—Note 16 (b) Illustration of Essex District 18 CHAPTER III. The'Gerrymander in Colonial Times 23 1. Pennsylvania Assembly Districts, 1705 26 2. North Carolina Legislative Districts, 1732 28 CHAPTER IV. The Gerrymanders from the Time of the Revolution to the Year 1812 . 30 1. Virginia Senatorial Districts, 1776 31 2. Virginia Congressional Districts, 1788 32 (a) Map of the Fifth District of Virginia 38 3. Virginia Electoral Districts, 1788 41 4. New York Congressional Districts, 1789 42 5. Restrictive Clause in the State Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1790. 43 6. Restrictive Clauses in the State Constitutions of Tennessee and Ken- tucky, 1796, 1799 46 7. Virginia Congressional Districts, reputed, 1792 46 8. New Jersey Congressional Districts, 1798 47 9. Pennsylvania Electoral Districts, 1800 51 10. Pennsylvania Congressional Districts, 1802 53 11. Massachusetts Congressional Districts, 1802 55 12. New York Congressional Districts, 1802 57 13. New York Congressional Districts, 1804 58 14. New York Congressional Districts, 1808 59 15. New York Congressional Districts, 1809 59 16. New York Senatorial Districts, 1809 60 CHAPTER V. The Gerrymanders of the Years 1812 and 1813 62 1. Massachusetts Senatorial Districts, 1812 62 (a) Consideration of Massachusetts Senatorial Districts, 1794 63 (b) Map of Essex and Worcester Districts, 1812 68 5 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2. Massachusetts Assembly Districts, 1812 70 3. Massachusetts Congressional Districts, 1812 72 4. Massachusetts Electoral Districts, 1812 7.5 5. New York Congressional Districts, 1812 77 6. New Jersey Congressional Districts, 1812 79 7. False Charge Against Maryland, Electoral Districts, 1812 82 8. Virginia Congressional Districts, 1813 82 9. New Hampshire Senatorial Districts, 1813 83 CHAPTER VI. The Gerrymanders from 1814 to 1840 : 88 1. Massachusetts Senatorial Districts, 1814 88 2. Massachusetts Congressional Districts, 1814 89 3. Massachusetts Senatorial Districts, 1816 89 4. New Hampshire Senatorial Districts, 1816 91 5. Maryland Electoral Districts, 1816 92 6. Maryland Legislative Districts, 1816 94 7. Alabama Constitutional Restriction, 1822 95 8. Massachusetts Proposed Constitutional Restriction, 1820 95 9. New York Proposed Constitutional Restriction, 1821 97 10. Vermont's Attitude, 1822 97 11. Maine's Attitude, 1820 98 12. Massachusetts Congressional Districts, 1822 99 13. New Hampshire Congressional Districts, 1824 99 14. Massachusetts Representative Districts, 1824 100 15. Virginia Constitutional Convention, 1829-1830 102 16. Maryland Electoral Districts, 1832 104 17. Massachusetts Congressional Districts, 1833 105 18. Connecticut Senatorial and Congressional Districts, 1829-1835 109 19. Michigan's Constitutional Provision, 1835 113 20. Pennsylvania Legislative Districts, 1836 114 21. Pennsylvania Constitution Favorable to Rural Districts, 1837-1538.116 22. Ohio Congressional Districts, 1842 118 CHAPTER VII. Summary 120 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The gerrymander is a political device of far-reaching effect. It sets aside the will of the popular majority. It is a species of fraud, deception, and trickery which menaces the perpetuity of the Repub- lic of the United States more threateningly than does, perhaps, the injustice of unjust taxation, for it deals more fundamentally with representative government. An absolute monarchy may be decidedly unfair, unreasonable, and may violate every principle of enlightened government without being subject to the charge of inconsistency with its general purpose. But the government of a people who are enjoying political freedom must be administered according to well- recognized and equitable principles. If this is done, it matters not how legislation is effected. The citizens may assemble en masse, as in a town-meeting, to enact direct legislation; they may send to the seat of government representatives to whom they have delegated their civic powers; or they may agree to allow the majority to exer- cise the functions of lawmakers by invoking the initiative and referendum. Whatever the form may be, when once the govern- ment of the United States or any part thereof has been determined and established it should not be altered without the consent of the people secured without any deception. Any political trick or fraudulent practice which stealthily seeks to destroy established principles of republican government is a flagrant wrong that threatens the perpetuity and stability of our political institutions. Men are aroused to drastic action when they conclude that their rights have been usurped. The stuffing of ballot-boxes and the swearing to false election returns may result in temporary anarchy. Such practices are to be deplored not only because of the attendant evils but as indicating the inability of men honorably to abide by the workings of self-imposed laws. A far greater danger to democracy than the foregoing arises from the corrupt form of legislation which results in a gerrymander. 7 8 THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERRYMANDER To produce this injustice the machinery of government is evoked. The law which establishes the districts is passed with the deliberate design of elected lawmakers. This evil is insidious because it is cloaked -under the guise of law. For that particular reason it is anarchistic in its effect. A political injustice is given the stamp of government and is embodied in a law.