The rejected document
The Houston Constitution
"That all political power is vested in, and derived from the people only." "That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty." (1)
|
In December of 1784, in Jonesborough, a convention was held to begin the process of creating the State of Frankland. A provisional constitution was approved by the delegates, based mostly on North Carolina’s founding document, and a 19-member Constitution Committee was appointed to propose a new constitution at a convention in Greeneville in November the following year.
|
Led by the Rev. Samuel Houston, a Presbyterian minister in what is now Washington County, the committee presented their recommendations to the convention, but were dismayed when its members wholly disregarded their suggestions and approved a constitution nearly identical to North Carolina’s. Incensed, Houston and his fellow committeemen authored a public disagreement to be entered into the convention’s record and published the dissent and the proposed constitution to be circulated among the public.
“Hence, it must appear evident to the impartial reader, that the loud and bitter outcry that has been raised against the Report and its friends, is not like the friendly criticism of loving citizens, but resembles the advantages enemies take of one another, and the use they make of them when excited by malice and bitter enmity,” Houston wrote in a preamble later published in The American Historical Magazine in 1896.
Houston, a distant relative of Tennessee and Texas governor Sam Houston, believed the members of the convention misconstrued the purpose of the committee’s report, which was only as a working draft for the eventual state constitution. The committee’s document was based upon North Carolina’s existing constitution, but contained telling differences belying the nature of the men who wrote it. (2)
“Hence, it must appear evident to the impartial reader, that the loud and bitter outcry that has been raised against the Report and its friends, is not like the friendly criticism of loving citizens, but resembles the advantages enemies take of one another, and the use they make of them when excited by malice and bitter enmity,” Houston wrote in a preamble later published in The American Historical Magazine in 1896.
Houston, a distant relative of Tennessee and Texas governor Sam Houston, believed the members of the convention misconstrued the purpose of the committee’s report, which was only as a working draft for the eventual state constitution. The committee’s document was based upon North Carolina’s existing constitution, but contained telling differences belying the nature of the men who wrote it. (2)
It began with a 24-item Bill of Rights, taken nearly unadulterated from North Carolina's, which included thoughts on issues that are still debated on today’s political stage. The 17th provision referred to “a right to bear arms in defense of the state” and insisted that standing armies “are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” Section 24 of the draft set up separation of church and state, giving the legislators “no power to make any law, pact or resolve whatsoever respecting religion, or the spiritual service we owe to God; but shall confine themselves wholly to matters purely civil.” (3)
"...all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences." (6)
|
Though the Bill of Rights was identical, the system of government differed from North Carolina’s. It preserved three branches of government, but set up only one legislative body, the House of Representatives, with between 80 and 100 members based proportionally on the number of freemen in the state. The unicameral legislature was novel in the colonies and even today, where Nebraska is the only U.S. state with a single lawmaking body. Representatives were required to be at least 21 years old and landowners holding at least 100 acres or land worth at least 50 pounds. Three professions: clergymen, attorneys and physicians, were barred from legislative service. Those ineligible were men “of an immoral character, or guilty of such flagrant enormities as drunkeness, gaming, profane swearing, lewdness and Sabbath breaking,” and who would deny the existence of one living and true God, heaven and hell, that the Bible was divinely inspired and the existence of the Holy Trinity. (4) (5)
|
(1) "The State of Franklin Constitution Excerpts," The Representatives of the Freeman of the State of Frankland, 1785
(2) Nathan Baker, "Frankland Tales: The Failed Constitution of the Lost State of Franklin," Johnson City Press, December 20, 2015
(3) "The State of Franklin Constitution Excerpts," The Representatives of the Freeman of the State of Frankland, 1785
(4) "The State of Franklin Constitution Excerpts," The Representatives of the Freeman of the State of Frankland, 1785
(5) Nathan Baker, "Frankland Tales: The Failed Constitution of the Lost State of Franklin," Johnson City Press, December 20, 2015
(6) "The State of Franklin Constitution Excerpts," The Representatives of the Freeman of the State of Frankland, 1785
(2) Nathan Baker, "Frankland Tales: The Failed Constitution of the Lost State of Franklin," Johnson City Press, December 20, 2015
(3) "The State of Franklin Constitution Excerpts," The Representatives of the Freeman of the State of Frankland, 1785
(4) "The State of Franklin Constitution Excerpts," The Representatives of the Freeman of the State of Frankland, 1785
(5) Nathan Baker, "Frankland Tales: The Failed Constitution of the Lost State of Franklin," Johnson City Press, December 20, 2015
(6) "The State of Franklin Constitution Excerpts," The Representatives of the Freeman of the State of Frankland, 1785