William Whipple
William Whipple was the eldest son of five children, and was born at Kittery, Maine, in the year 1730. His father was a native of Ipswich, and was bred a maltster; but for several years after his removal to Kittery, he followed the sea. His mother was the daughter of Robert Cutts, a distinguished ship-builder, who established himself at Kittery, where he became wealthy, and at his death left a handsome fortune to his daughter.
The education of young Whipple was limited to a public school, in his native town. It was respectable but did not embrace that variety and extent of learning, which is generally obtained at some higher seminary. On leaving school, he entered on board a merchant vessel, and for several years devoted himself to commercial business, on the sea. His voyages were chiefly confined to the West-Indies, and proving successful, he acquired a considerable fortune.
In 1759, he relinquished a seafaring life, and commenced business with a brother at Portsmouth, where they continued in trade, until within a few years of the revolution.
Mr. Whipple early entered with spirit into the controversy between Great Britain and the colonies, and being distinguished for the general probity of his character, as well as for the force of his genius, was frequently elected by his townsmen to offices of trust and responsibility. In the provincial congress, which met at Exeter, January, 1775, for the purpose of electing delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, he represented the town of Portsmouth. He also represented that town in the provincial congress, which was assembled at Exeter the following May, and by that body was appointed one of the provincial committee of safety. In 1776 he was appointed a delegate to the general congress, of which body he continued a member until the middle of September, 1777.
In this important situation, he was distinguished for great activity, and by his perseverance and application commended himself to the respect of the national assembly, and to his constituents at home. He was particularly active as one of the superintendents of the commissary’s and quartermaster’s departments, in which he was successful in correcting many abuses, and in giving to those establishments a proper correctness and efficiency.
“The memorable day which gave birth to the declaration of independence afforded, in the case of William Whipple,” as a writer observes, “a striking example of the uncertainty of human affairs, and the triumphs of perseverance. The cabin boy, who thirty years before had looked forward to a command of a vessel as the consummation of all his hopes and wishes, now stood amidst the congress of 1776, and looked around upon a conclave of patriots, such as the world had never witnessed. He whose ambition once centered in inscribing his name as commander upon a crew-list, now affixed his signature to a document, which has embalmed it for posterity.”
In the year 1777, while Mr. Whipple was a member of Congress, the appointment of brigadier general was bestowed upon him, and the celebrated John Stark, by the assembly of New-Hampshire. Great alarm at this time prevailed in New-Hampshire, in consequence of the evacuation of Ticonderoga by the Americans, its consequent possession by the British, and the progress of General Burgoyne, with a large force, toward the state. The militia of New-Hampshire were expeditiously organized into two brigades, the command of which was given to the above two generals. The intrepid conduct of General Stark, in the ever memorable defence of Bennington, must be only alluded to in this place. The advantage thus gained, laid the foundation of the still more signal victory which was obtained in the October following by General Gates, over the distinguished Burgoyne and his veteran soldiers, at Saratoga; since it was here proved to the militias that the Hessians and Indians, so much dreaded by them, were not invincible. The career of conquest which had before animated the troops of Burgoyne was checked. For the first time, General Burgoyne was sensible of the danger of his situation. He had regarded the men of New Hampshire, and the Green Mountains, with contempt. But the battle of Bennington taught him both to fear and respect them. In a letter addressed about this time to Lord Germaine, he re marks: “The New-Hampshire Grants, till of late but little known, hang like a cloud on my left.”
The ill bodings of Burgoyne were realised too soon, for his own reputation. The militia from the neighbouring states hastened to reinforce the army of General Gates, which was now looking forward to an engagement with that of General Burgoyne. This engagement soon after took place, as already noticed, at Saratoga, and ended in the surrender of the royal army to the American troops. In this desperate battle General Whipple commanded the troops of New-Hampshire. On that occasion, his meritorious conduct was rewarded by his being jointly appointed with Colonel Wilkinson, as the representative of General Gates, to meet two officers from General Burgoyne, and settle the articles of capitulation. He was also selected as one of the officers, who were appointed to conduct the surrendered army to their destined encampment , on Winter Hill, in the vicinity of Boston. On this expedition, General Whipple was attended by a faithful negro servant, named Prince, a native of Africa, and whom the general had imported several years before ” “Prince,” said the general, one day, as they were proceeding to their place of destination, “we may be called into action, in which case, I trust you will behave like a man of courage, and fight bravely for the country.” “Sir,” replied Prince, in a manly tone, ” I have no wish to fight and no inducement, but had I my liberty, I would fight in defence of the country to the last; drop of my blood.” ” Well,” said the general, ” Prince, from this moment you are free.”
In 1778, General Whipple, with a detachment of New Hampshire militia, was engaged, under General Sullivan, in executing a plan which had for its object the retaking of Rhode Island from the British. By some misunderstanding, the French fleet, under Count D’Estaing, which was destined to co-operate with General Sullivan, failed of rendering the expected assistance, in consequence of which General Sullivan was obliged to retreat. General Sullivan, with his troops, occupied a position on the north end of the island. One morning, while a number of officers were breakfasting in the general’s quarters, a detachment of British troops were perceived on an eminence, at the distance of about three quarters of a mile. A field piece was soon after discharged by the enemy, the ball of which, after killing one of the horses at the door, passed through the side of the house, into the room where the officers were sitting, and so shattered the leg of the brigade major of General Whipple, that immediate amputation became necessary.
During the remaining years of Mr. Whipple’s life, he filled several important offices. In 1780, he was elected a representative to the general assembly of New-Hampshire, the duties of which office he continued to discharge during several re-elections, with much honour to himself, and to the general acceptance of his constituents.
In 1782, he received the appointment of receiver of public moneys for the state of New-Hampshire, from Mr. Morris, the superintendent of finance. The appointment was accepted by Mr. Whipple, but the duties devolving upon him were both arduous and unpopular. The collection of money was, at that time, extremely difficult. Mr. Whipple experienced many vexations in the exercise of his commission; and at length, in 1784, found it necessary, on account of the infirm state of his health, to relinquish his office. About the same time that he received the above appointment, he was created a judge of the superior court of judicature. He began now, however, to be afflicted with strictures in the breast, which prevented him from engaging in the more active scenes of life. He was able, however, to ride the circuits of the court for two or three years, but owing to an affection of the heart, he was unable to sum up the arguments of council, or state a cause to the jury.
In the fall of 1785, while riding the circuit, this disorder so rapidly increased, that he was obliged to return home. From this time he was confined to his room, until the 28th day of November, when he expired, in the 55th year of his age.
The mind of Mr. Whipple was naturally strong, and his power of discrimination quick. In his manners, he was easy and unassuming; in his habits correct, and in his friendships constant. Although his early education was limited, his subsequent intercourse with the world, united to his natural good sense, enabled him to fill with ability the various offices to which he was appointed.
Few men have exhibited a more honest and persevering ambition to act a worthy part in the community, and few, with his advantages, have been more successful in obtaining the object of their ambition.
Source:
Rev. Charles A. Goodrich, Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence. New York: William Reed & Co., 1856. Pages 139 – 143. (Some minor spelling changes may have been made.)
http://colonialhall.com/whipple/whipple.php
Endnote: There is no historical evidence that William Whipple was a Christian. He is not listed as a member of any denomination, and there is no knowledge of his beliefs and faith. Nevertheless, his life spoke of his character and passion as a founding father of this nation.
WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY?
Friday, April 9th, 2010Part of our efforts in presenting early American Christian history is to know and understand the Constitution of the United States.
That being said, there is a national debate going on about recent health legislation passed by Congress. A major issue is that parts of this health bill are unconstitutional. One glaring part is about every citizen being required by law to purchase health insurance and being subject to penalties if they do not. The reply to this is the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution contains that power. The National Center for Constitutional Studies disagrees and recently issued this reply:
Background of the Power of Congress to Regulate Interstate Commerce
One of the challenges facing the states after the Revolutionary War was raising money to pay their expenses and debts. Most states knew taxing the people would be futile because the people had no money and they had just fought a war over the subject of oppressive taxation. So some states decided to set up taxes on commerce, that is, goods coming into or leaving the state, either at the ports or the inland borders. This tactic, however, tended to set states up as individual nations rather than as a common market. It would pit state against state and would lead to discriminatory taxation on certain industries.
Virginia was one of the principal offenders in this respect. While the Constitution was up before the convention of the various states for ratification, Washington wrote to Lafayette that his own state had recently tried to pass “some of the most extravagant and preposterous edicts on the subject of trade” that had ever been written.
But the other states were also gouging their neighbors with discriminatory regulations of commerce. Rhode Island , for example, met all of her expenses out of duties levied at one port where commerce had to enter from other states. New York also demanded oppressive duties on all imports coming through her major shipping channels. It was apparent that if the regulation of commerce were left to the states they would soon degenerate into isolated economic fiefs with each one using discriminatory and retaliatory regulations against surrounding states.
The question had to be resolved as to how to keep states from setting up these tariffs and regulations on goods flowing into or out of a state. To leave this to the states to solve might lead to civil war. It would certainly lead to dissolution of the union. There was no other way to keep a state from setting up these restrictions than by giving the authority to do so to a neutral entity, and that was the federal government.
James Monroe of Virginia (while serving in Congress from 1783 to 1786) had unsuccessfully tried to include the federal regulation of commerce in the Articles of Confederation. He is also credited with suggesting it for the Constitution. Madison felt it was “necessary to preserve the Union,” for “without it, it (the Union ) will infallibly crumble to pieces.”
So by the time the Constitutional Convention was held in 1787 it was clear to many of the delegates that unless the regulation of interstate commerce was placed in the hands of the national government, the states would wreck the union with their petty regulations designed to promote local prosperity at the expense of the general welfare.
Emphasis was on Maintaining a Free Flow of Commerce Among the States
Giving the national government the power to regulate interstate commerce, as a constitutionally delegated power proved to be the answer to maintaining a common market among the states. The commerce clause has consistently served as a barrier to the suppressive efforts of individual states to favor their own industry or economy. In more than 2,500 cases which have been brought before the state and federal courts, tax laws, license laws, and regulations of an infinite variety enacted by state legislatures have been held invalid as interfering with the free flow of interstate commerce.
As Economics Professor Gary Galles of Pepperdine University recently wrote: “The Commerce Clause was designed to take that abusive power from the states by giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce; ‘regulate’ meant ‘to make regular or normal’ or ‘to remove impediments….” ( Washington Times , March 27, 2010)
As with most constitutional provisions, the United States was the pioneer in discovering the advantages which the free flow of commerce among its several states contributed to national economic prosperity. Australia followed the opposite policy until 1900, when she conceded that provincial or state barriers to commerce were repressive. Brazil , Canada , and other nations with modern constitutions have generally followed the American Constitution in this respect.
It is crucial to note that, in the Founders’ formula, the whole power to regulate interstate commerce dealt only with matters to ensure the free flow of goods, or in other words, transportation of interstate commerce, not with any control over the production, manufacturing, or sale of goods going interstate. As W. Cleon Skousen explained:
As Justice George Sutherland pointed out in Carter v. Carter Coal Co.:
Changing Emphasis from Commerce to Regulate
In the decades following the passage of The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and usually under the pressure of war and depression, the Supreme Court twisted or reversed traditional cases on interstate commerce and introduced the unconstitutional doctrine that the federal government may regulate anything that affects interstate commerce directly or indirectly. (For a list of cases, see The Making of America , pp. 403-408) One must ask: “What doesn’t affect interstate commerce indirectly?” This has resulted in usurpation of power in the form of sweeping federal regulations over nearly every aspect of American life. These doctrines include:
Anything affecting the “current of commerce” from manufacturing to distribution is under federal authority.
Commerce includes all aspects of selling, trading, and trafficking, as well as interstate transportation. Therefore, the federal authority extends to every aspect of commercial activity connected with interstate commerce.
The federal government can regulate any activity which affects interstate commerce either directly or indirectly. It can therefore fix prices, wages, working conditions, health conditions, and the retirement of employees.
All interstate industries automatically come under federal authority for the purpose of intervening in strikes and labor relations. As the Supreme Court said: “When industries organize themselves on a national scale, making their relation to interstate commerce the dominant factor in their activities, how can it be maintained that their industrial labor relations constitute a forbidden field into which Congress may not enter when it is necessary to protect interstate commerce from the paralyzing consequences of industrial war?” This now includes all major industries in the country.
A Graphic Example – the American Hamburger!
In 1980, U. S. News and World Report published a Pictogram entitled, “Your Hamburger: 41,000 Regulations.” It reads:
In a cut-away graphic, the report gave several examples, two of which are: “Ketchup—to be considered Grade A fancy, it must flow no more than 9 centimeters in 30 seconds at 69 degrees Fahrenheit” and, “Pickles—Slices must be between 1/8 and 3/8 inches thick.” ( U. S. News and World Report , February 11, 1980, p. 64) (This Pictogram can be viewed at www.nccs.net/seminars . Scroll down the right side to Webinar Archives – Part 3, let it load, then slide over to 1 hour and 20 minutes into the presentation.)
Mandatory Health Care Invents even more
Authority in the Interstate Commerce Clause
As stated earlier, the proponents of the Health Care legislation recently passed by Congress and signed by the President cite the Commerce Clause as authority for doing such a thing. As we have just shown, any honest student who reads the Founders’ must admit there is no authority in the Constitution for such legislation, but, of course, the proponents like to cite Supreme Court cases to show how the authority has been added to the “living constitution” by the federal judiciary.
However, in citing court cases, no one can cite a single case in the history of the United States where it has been held constitutional for the federal government to require every person in this country to purchase a product or a service. This is exactly what this new legislation requires. Furthermore, it provides for a penalty to be paid if such health insurance is not purchased. This provision is so far beyond any authority in the history of this country, that it is difficult to envision even the Supreme Court of today approving such laws. The lawsuits are being filed. People are challenging. States are challenging. It seems that if by some irrational means the majority of the court does go along with this edict, which is far beyond even a liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause to this point, there may be wholesale numbers ready to invoke the following paraphrased idea in the Declaration of Independence:
Surely, this will push modern Americans to the point we reached in 1776.[2]
[1] National Center for Constitutional Studies, 37777 West Juniper Road, Malta, ID 83342; www.nccs.net
[2] Background of the Power of Congress to Regulate Interstate Commerce, by Earl Taylor, Jr.
Posted in Commentary, Constitutions, Declaration of Independence | 2 Comments »