eminent namesake, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, with whom he is often
confounded, was of Irish descent and was descended from the elder branch
of the Carroll family, in Maryland, thus being derived from the family
of Ely O’Carroll of Ireland. About 1681 the estates of the O’Carrolls in
Ireland were confiscated to the Crown, the family being accused of being
royalists. This confiscation was the cause of the emigration of the
first ancestor of Charles Carroll, Barrister, also a Charles Carroll, to
Maryland. He accumulated a large landed estate, having friends at Court,
in the Calverts, which consisted of large tracts on the Eastern Shore,
in Frederick County, in Anne Arundel County, in and near the site of the
City of Baltimore, on Carroll’s Island, at Mount Clare near Baltimore’s
original site; and at other points. The Plains, an estate near
Annapolis, Claremont, for many years the residence of Hon. Carroll
Spence, later Minister of Turkey, and The Caves, an estate owned for
generations by the Carrolls and last held by Gen. John Carroll, which
was located in Baltimore County, were also included in the possessions
of this thrifty Gael. This Carroll was in religion a Protestant, as were
all of his descendants, including The Barrister, which gave him great
advantages politically as well as commercially, under the Colonial
Government. He was a Physician by profession and was known as Dr.
Charles Carroll. He married Dorothy Blake, daughter of Charles Blake, of
an ancient English family and had by her several children, who were
Charles Carroll, Barrister, Mary Clare Carroll, ancestress of Gen. John
Carroll of “The Cave” and John Henry Carroll, who died without issue.
At an early age, young Carroll was sent to Portugal, where he was
educated at a college in Lisbon under the immediate tuition of the Rev.
Edward Jones. At ten years of age, his parents removed him to England,
where he studied at Eton and matriculated at the University of
Cambridge, where his education was completed. Mr. Carroll afterwards
studied law at the Middle Temple, London. He returned to Maryland in
1746, where because of his thorough familiarity with general affairs
both in Europe and in this country, he made an early entrance into
public life. Thus he became one of the people’s trusty guides in the
stormy days, before and during that Revolution which accomplished so
much for the welfare of mankind. Being a talented speaker and writer as
well, he was placed on all important committees and had occasion to
prepare many public documents which were in their day influential and
are therefore historic. One of these papers, the Declaration of Rights
which was adopted by the Maryland Convention, November, 1776, was drawn
by him and is a powerful as well as uncompromising elucidation of the
rights of the people as well as arraignment of the English tyrant King
George III. He was appointed one of the Committee on Correspondence of
the Maryland Convention of 1774. The first Constitution and Laws of the
State of Maryland was also drawn by him and in August, 1775, he was
selected as one of the Committee of Safety. Mr. Carroll was also one of
the members of the Maryland Convention which assembled at Annapolis in
1775 and served on a committee which on January 12, 1776, prepared
instructions for the guidance of the first Maryland Deputies to the
Continental Congress. In 1776, he was selected President of the Maryland
convention held at Annapolis, on May 25th of that year, and was also
elected a member of the committee of Safety of that year. At this
Convention over which he presided the final acts of the separation of
Maryland from England was accomplished, in the deposition of Governor
Robert Eden and the notification of that personage that the public quiet
and safety demanded, in the judgment of the Convention, that he leave
the Province. Mr. Carroll was also an active member of the Convention
which met at Annapolis on June 23, 1776, and which declared the Colonies
free and independent States. At the Convention which assembled at
Annapolis on August 17, 1776, he was also a prominent figure and was on
August 18 chosen one of a committee to draft a Charter of Rights and a
Constitution for Maryland.
On November 10, 1776, he was elected to Congress as the successor of his
more famous relative Charles Carroll of Carrollton, by whom he was
overshadowed in reputation but not in patriotism or abilities or in
services to his country. When the State Government was formed he was
appointed Chief Justice, but he declined the honor. He was then elected
to the first Senate of Maryland, where he rendered distinguished
service. Mr, Carroll was justly regarded as being next to Daniel Dulany,
Jr., Maryland’s greatest lawyer. He was indirectly descended, as were
all of the Carrolls of Maryland, from Daniel Carroll of Ely, who
presented twenty sons all equipped and armed to the Earl of Ormond for
service under Charles I. Mount Clare, his home, was a favorite resort of
General Washington before and during the Revolution, and there is a copy
of a picture extant, showing the illustrious patriot and Mr. Carroll
going on a fishing excursion, from the latter’s mansion, their objective
point being the waters of the Chesapeake, which were easily accessible
from Mount Clare. This mansion is now incorporated in the limits of
Carroll Park, in the southwestern section of Baltimore.
Mr. Carroll at his death left his estates to his nephews, Nicholas and
James MacCubbin, the sons of his sister Mary Clare Carroll, on the
condition that they took their mother’s maiden name, “Carroll,” and that
only and use the coat of arms forever after. The will was dated August
7, 1781. The MacCubbins accepted the requirements of the will and their
names were changed by special act of the Legislature of Maryland in 1783
and approved by the Governor William Paca. These Carroll-MacCubbins left
a numerous progeny, which has intermarried and is connected with many of
the leading families of the State. Among the men of this branch who have
distinguished themselves in the public service may be mentioned Hon.
James Carroll, who was a member of Congress and also ran for Governor
against Governor Platt. He afterwards served as a Judge of the Orphans
Court, and was a highly educated and accomplished man. Hon. Charles
Carroll Spence of Baltimore was also a scion of the family, who became
distinguished. He represented Baltimore in the Maryland Legislature in
1845 and was later appointed by President Buchanan to effect the
ratification of a treaty between the United States and Persia.
Subsequently he was sent as United States Minister to Turkey, filling
the post with distinction. Gen. John Carroll of the Caves is also a
scion of the family and is a well known citizen of Baltimore County. He
was a member of the Maryland Legislature of 1860, when only 22 years of
age and was Chief of Cavalry in Maryland, with the rank of Brigadier
General in 1870.
DANIEL CARROLL.
Daniel Carroll was a brother of the great Archbishop and is of a
consequence somewhat overshadowed by his name and fame, and yet he was a
man who achieved considerable distinction in his day and was a worthy
member of his distinguished family. He was born in 1730 at Upper
Marlboro and was a man of high character and attainments. As soon as the
shackles placed upon the Catholics in Maryland were stricken off by the
Revolution and they were given free participation in public affairs, Mr.
Carroll was elected a member of the Maryland State Senate and was
constantly in public life, either as a member of the Senate or as a
Delegate to the Continental Congress, a representative to Congress prior
to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, or as a delegate to the
Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was also appointed by
Washington a member of the commission to select the site of the National
Capitol, serving with Governor Johnson of Maryland and Dr. David Stewart
of Virginia. He died in May, 1796, aged 66 years. Mr. Carroll was a man
of great wealth, possessing in addition to his own share of his father’s
property, also that renounced by his brother Archbishop Carroll when he
became a Jesuit. He owned considerable real estate in the District of
Columbia and in the present boundaries of Washington, D. C., including
the site of the Capitol, and also had large real estate holdings within
the corporate limits of the City of Baltimore. In fact, with Charles
Carroll of Carrollton, he owned practically all of the original site of
Baltimore.
HOW IT BECAME PLAIN “MR. PRESIDENT”[20]—DETERMINED OPPOSITION OF AN
IRISH-AMERICAN DEFEATED THE EFFORTS OF THE TITLE SEEKERS IN THE EARLY
HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC.
BY MR. EDGAR STANTON MACLAY.
I.
MANY FAVORED MONARCHIAL FORMS.
So far as the writer has been able to ascertain the United States Senate
never has officially repudiated a resolution placed on its files, May
14, 1789, to the effect that it favored a title for the President and,
inferentially, titles of commensurate degrees for the members of the
Cabinet, Congress and other Government officials down to the
Sergeant-at-arms of the Senate whom Vice-President John Adams wished to
style “Usher of the Black Rod.” It was even suggested that a “canopied
throne” be erected in the Senate chamber for Washington’s use.
Among the titles seriously considered for Washington were “His Elective
Majesty,” “His Highness, the President of the United States of America
and Protector of the Rights of the Same,” “His Elective Highness,” etc.;
while his inaugural address was referred to in the minutes of the Senate
as “His Most Gracious Speech.”
It is of record that Senators were addressed as “Your Highness of the
Senate” and Representatives as “Your Highness of the Lower House,” while
it was solemnly suggested that the proper manner for the Senate to
receive the Clerk of the House of Representatives was for the
Sergeant-at-arms or “Usher of the Black Rod,” with the mace on his
shoulder, to meet the Clerk at the door. In view of the ire aroused
between the two Houses at that time, a mallet in the hands of the “Usher
of the Black Rod,” when he met the Clerk of the House of Representatives
at the door, would have carried out the feelings of some of the Senators
better than a mace.
These are some of the apings of royalty that were seriously considered
by Congress and, on May 14, 1789, endorsed in the Senate by the very
respectable vote of ten to eight. When the British burned some of the
Federal buildings in Washington, 1814, many public records were
destroyed, so there is difficulty in determining if this endorsement of
monarchial forms was rescinded at any time from 1789 to 1814. Still,
though one hundred and eighteen years have lapsed since 1789, it is not
yet too late for the Senate to purge itself of this “dreadful” contempt
of the great American people on this subject of titles.
For some reason, best known to themselves, the members of the first
Senate decided that their session should be held behind closed doors.
House rule No. 11, as inscribed on the cover of William Maclay’s
journal, reads: “Inviolable secrecy shall be observed with respect to
all matters transacted in the Senate while the doors are shut or as
often as the same is enjoined from the chair.” The result has been that
for more than a century afterward this important chapter in our history
has remained almost a blank. Fortunate it was that Maclay, who with
Robert Morris represented Pennsylvania in the first Senate, kept a daily
record of the doings of the Upper House for the two years he was
Senator.
It appears from this journal that the first great question that
confronted Congress when it held its initial session in New York, April,
1789, was whether or not this “experiment” in government was to assume
monarchial forms. Under date of May 1, 1789, Maclay records: “That the
motives of the actors in the late Revolution were various cannot be
doubted. The abolishing of royalty, the extinguishment of patronage and
dependencies attached to that form of government, were the exalted
motives of many revolutionists and these were the improvements meant by
them to be made of the war which was forced on us by British
aggression—in fine, the amelioration of government and bettering the
condition of mankind. These ends and none other were publicly avowed and
all our constitutions and public acts were formed in this spirit.
“Yet there were not wanting a party whose motives were different. They
wished for the loaves and fishes of government and cared for nothing
else but a translation of the diadem from London to Boston, New York or
Philadelphia, or, in other words, the creation of a new monarchy in
America and to form niches for themselves in the temple of royalty. This
spirit manifested itself strongly among the officers at the close of the
war and I have been afraid the army would not have been disbanded if the
common soldiers could have been kept together. This spirit they
developed in the Order of Cincinnati, where I trust it will expend
itself in a harmless flame and soon become extinguished.”
II.
A COMMITTEE ON TITLES.
Congress was to have met March 4, 1789, but a quorum of the House of
Representatives was not had until April 1 and in the Senate not until
four days later. From this time until the arrival of President
Washington, April 23—Vice-President John Adams arriving only three days
before—the attention of Congress was taken up with preliminary matters
such as providing a home for the Executive, framing rules for
themselves, considering details of the inauguration, etc.
On April 23 Senators Oliver Ellsworth, William S. Johnson (both of
Connecticut) and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, at the instance of
Adams, were appointed a committee to confer with the House of
Representatives on titles—and thus began one of the fiercest debates in
the history of the first United States Senate. On its outcome hinged the
question whether the new government was to be monarchial in its forms or
strictly plebeian.
As a preliminary skirmish Lee, on April 23, produced a copy of the
resolution for appointing the Title Committee and moved that it be
transmitted to the House of Representatives. This was opposed by Maclay,
who records that Lee knew “the giving of titles would hurt us. I showed
the absurdity of his motion, plain enough, but it seems to me that by
getting a division of the resolution I could perhaps throw out the part
about titles altogether. Mr. [Charles] Carroll of Maryland showed that
he was against titles.” The motion, notwithstanding, was carried.
But now Adams precipitated matters by asking how he should direct a
letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and called on the
Senators for enlightenment. There was a manifest disinclination to
interfere, but the Vice-President persisted until the question was
pointedly put as to whether the Speaker should be styled “Honorable.” It
was passed in the negative and the first victory against titles was
scored.
It was only a few days after this, May 16, that a letter was received in
the Senate addressed “His Excellency, the Vice-President.” Adams said
that he supposed that it was intended for him but was improperly
directed. “He asked the opinion of the Senate, laughingly, and concluded
it was against all rule. I [Maclay] said that until we had a rule
obliging people to be regular we must submit to their irregularities,
more especially of this kind. Mr. Morris said the majesty of the people
would do as they pleased. All this I considered as sportive. But Adams
put a serious question: Should the letter, so directed, be read? John
Langdon [Senator from New Hampshire] and sundry others said yes, and
read it was. It proved to be from Loudon, the printer, offering to print
for the Senate.”
III.
POWERFUL LEADERS SUPPORT TITLES.
That Adams was honest in his belief in titles, insignia of rank and
outward exhibitions of authority, and that he took a leading part in the
effort to establish them in the new government, is more than probable.
In 1829 John Randolph of Virginia recorded: “I was in New York when John
Adams took his seat as Vice-President. I recollect that I was a school
boy at the time, attending the lobby of Congress when I ought to have
been at school. I remember the manner in which my brother was spurned by
the coachman of the then Vice-President for coming too near the
‘scutcheon of the viceregal carriage.’” In a letter to [James] Madison,
Jefferson wrote that the question of titles had become serious in the
two Houses. “J. Adams espoused the cause of titles with great
earnestness. His friend, R. H. Lee, although elected as a Republican
enemy to an aristocratic Constitution, was a most zealous second.... Had
the project succeeded, it would have subjected the President to a
serious dilemma and given a deep wound to our infant Government.”
Under date of June 12, 1789, Senator William Grayson of Virginia wrote
to Patrick Henry: “Is it not still stranger that John Adams should be
for titles and dignities and preëminences, and should despise the herd
and the ill-bred? It is said he was the _primum nobile_ in the Senate
for titles for the President.” “Even Roger Sherman” [Congressman from
Connecticut], wrote John Armstrong to General Gates, April 7, 1789, “has
set his head at work to devise some style of address more novel and
dignified than ‘Excellency.’ Yet, in the midst of this admiration, there
are skeptics who doubt its propriety and wits who amuse themselves at
its expense. The first will grumble and the last will laugh, and the
President should be prepared to meet the attacks of both with firmness
and good nature.”
That there existed a strong sentiment against titles can be surmised
from a caricature that appeared in New York about the time of
Washington’s inauguration. It was entitled “The Entry” and was “full of
very disloyal and profane allusions.” Washington was depicted riding on
a donkey. Colonel David Humphreys [Washington’s aide-de-camp] was
represented as leading the animal and “chanting hosannas and birthday
odes.” In the background the devil is represented as saying:
“The glorious time has come to pass
When David shall conduct an ass.”
IV.
PRECEDENTS FAVOR TITLES.
It should not be forgotten, however, that Adams, Lee and other advocates
of titles were powerfully supported in their position by precedents. It
was shown that in almost every other detail Americans had adopted
English and German—then the dominating races in the thirteen
colonies—methods of procedure. The postal service was based on imported
lines, our dollar was copied from the Bohemian “thaler,” colonial
jurisprudence had its main inspiration in British law. Churches and
custom-houses were conducted much the same as in the old countries.
The very fact that opposition to any elaborate form of divine service
being connected with Washington’s inauguration was overruled shows how
closely the founders of the “new” government followed Old World
examples. It appears that the inauguration had been planned with a view
to excluding the clergy in their official capacities and, in all
probability, this programme would have been carried out had not the
ministers in New York protested. Here again precedents from motherlands
carried the day. When, at the eleventh hour the “sacrilege” was called
to the attention of the Right Reverend Provoost, Episcopal bishop of New
York, he cautiously replied that the Church of England “had always been
used to look up to Government upon such occasions.” “The question of
holding services on the day of the inauguration,” records Ebenezer
Hazard, “had been agitated by the clergymen in town.... The bishop
thought it prudent not to do anything till they knew what Government
would direct. If the good bishop never prays without an order from
Government,” wrote Hazard, “it is not probable that the kingdom of
heaven will suffer much from his violence.”
In the light of these facts it is not strange that we find Adams, Lee
and others turning their eyes to procedures of the Old World for
guidance in the matter of titles. To be sure, the Constitution not only
declared that no titles of nobility shall be granted by the United
States but that employès of the Government, of whatever degree, shall
not accept them from any foreign potentate. Yet there was a large
question as to what kind of title might have been meant; whether a
patent of nobility with landed estates to be handed down from generation
to generation—which, undoubtedly, was the “evil” aimed at by the framers
of the Constitution—or a mere title of courtesy as “Mister” or “Mr.” or
“Sir” used in ordinary correspondence. Congress had met to put the
Constitution in operation and had the power to construe doubtful
passages. Broader interpretations of the articles have been made than
those proposed by the titleists.
Adams had spent much time in Europe and had been impressed with the
effect of formalities, titles, wigs, gowns, etc., on the “common”
people. That he was correct, in some degree, in his advocacy of these
forms is attested by the fact that gowns have come more and more into
use in the administration of the judiciary of some states and in the
Supreme Court of the United States while, in the general run of
commerce, liveries—the insignia of station or rank—are getting to be the
rule rather than the exception.
V.
FORCING THE FIGHT ON TITLES.
Acting with his usual energy, Adams forced the fighting on titles from
the start. He arrived in New York on Monday, April 20, and by Thursday,
April 23, he had the Title Committee appointed; and the discussion of
titles occupied most of the time of the Senate from then until May 14,
when it was finally disposed of. Pending the inaugural, April 30, the
subject lay in abeyance. On the morning following, May 1, the Senate met
at 11 o’clock. At the conclusion of “prayers” was the reading of the
minutes and almost the first words were “His Most Gracious
Speech”—referring to Washington’s inaugural address. Adams frankly
admitted that these words had been inserted at his instance by Samuel
Otis, the secretary of the Senate.
Maclay records: “I looked all around the Senate. Every countenance
seemed to wear a blank. The Secretary was going on. I must speak or
nobody would. ‘Mr. President, we have lately had a hard struggle for our
liberty against kingly authority. The minds of men are still heated;
everything related to that species of government is odious to the
people. The words prefixed to the President’s speech are the same that
are usually placed before the speech of his Britannic Majesty. I know
they will give offense. I consider them improper. I, therefore, move
that they be struck out and that it stand simply address or speech as
may be adjudged most suitable.’
“Mr. Adams rose in his chair and expressed the greatest surprise that
anything should be objected to on account of its being taken from the
practice of that Government under which we had lived so long and happily
formerly; that he was for a dignified and respectable government and, as
far as he knew the sentiments of the people, they thought as he did;
that, for his part, he was one of the first in the late contest [the
Revolution] and, if he could have thought of this, he never would have
drawn his sword.
“Painful as it was, I had to contend with the Chair. I admitted that the
people of the colonies had enjoyed, formerly, great happiness under that
species of government but the abuses of that Government under which they
had smarted had taught them what they had to fear from that kind of
government; that there had been a revolution in the sentiments of people
respecting that government, equally great as that which had happened in
the government itself; that even the modes of it were now abhorred; that
the enemies of the Constitution had objected to it believing there would
be a transition from it to kingly government and all the trappings and
splendor of royalty; that if such a thing as this appeared on our
minutes, they would not fail to resent it as the first step of the
ladder in the ascent to royalty.
“The Vice-President rose a second time and declared that he had
mentioned it to the Secretary; that he could not possibly conceive that
any person could take offense at it. I had to get up again and declare
that, although I knew of it being mentioned from the Chair, yet my
opposition did not proceed from any motive of contempt; that, although
it was a painful task, it was solely a sense of duty that raised me.