Background
Robert Rantoul Jr. was born on August 5, 1805 in Beverly, Massachussets, and in his brief life did much to further the political and moral convictions of his parents, Joanna (Lovett) and Robert Rantoul, 1778-1858.
(This is an EXACT reproduction of a book published before ...)
This is an EXACT reproduction of a book published before 1923. This IS NOT an OCR'd book with strange characters, introduced typographical errors, and jumbled words. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
https://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Speeches-Writings-Robert-Rantoul/dp/1174391278?SubscriptionId=AKIAJRRWTH346WSPOAFQ&tag=prabook-20&linkCode=sp1&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1174391278
Robert Rantoul Jr. was born on August 5, 1805 in Beverly, Massachussets, and in his brief life did much to further the political and moral convictions of his parents, Joanna (Lovett) and Robert Rantoul, 1778-1858.
He was graduated from Phillips Academy at Andover in 1822 and from Harvard College in 1826.
To the practice of law, which he began in Salem in 1829, he brought erudition, skill in debate, and, above all, moral conviction.
After 1838 he practised in Boston, but he never identified himself with the wealth, power, and society of that city. Without directing the policy of the Democratic party in Massachusetts, he played an important part in it. Jackson's bank veto, the removal of the deposits, the independent treasury, and free trade found in him a vigorous and intelligent champion.
He was given a recess appointment as collector of the customs for Boston in 1843, was rejected by the Senate in 1844, but on Feburary 3, 1846, was confirmed in another recess appointment, as district attorney for Massachusetts. He began his humanitarian struggles when, as a member of the judiciary committee of the state legislature, 1835-39, he advocated in a comprehensive and widely cited report the abolition of the death penalty on the grounds of expediency and humanitarianism. After a notable legal contest, the Massachusetts supreme court upheld in 1842 his reasoning in the defense of the journeymen boot-makers, who had been charged with unlawfully conspiring to compel their employers to recognize collective bargaining.
That same year he also defended some of the Rhode Islanders indicted for revolutionary attempts in connection with the Dorr rebellion. A liberal Unitarian, he was a thorough-going advocate of religious tolerance and spoke in the legislature in support of a bill for the indemnification of the Ursuline convent in Charlestown, after it had been destroyed by a mob.
He was also one of the earliest advocates of the lyceum and tax-supported public schools. From 1837, when the Massachusetts state board of education was established, until 1842 he was one of its most effective members.
His influence was largely responsible for defeating, in 1836, the petition of Boston bankers and merchants for the chartering of a ten-million-dollar bank. He also attacked the claims of Harvard College to an exclusive control of transportation over the Charles River bridge and insisted on the rights of the people to build and use freely their own bridges and highways. He became interested, about 1845, in business enterprises in the Mississippi Valley. Although his project for a timber and mining corporation in Minnesota involved him in financial ruin he successfully carried through the Illinois legislature a liberal charter, which he himself had drawn up, for the Illinois Central Railroad. If he was inconsistent in his attitude towards corporations, it was partly due to his enthusiastic belief that the welfare of the different sections of the country depended on the maximum free interchange of commerce, which would be accelerated by liberal favors to railroads.
Although his political career was sometimes hindered by his espousal of unpopular causes, it was his opposition to the extension of slavery that led to his election to the Senate in 1851 to fill Webster's unexpired term. In 1851 the coalition between the Free-Soilers and Democrats sent him to the federal House of Representatives. For his political independence and especially for his opposition, on constitutional grounds, to the Fugitive-slave Law he was unseated from the National Democratic Convention in 1852.
His early death was a great loss to the anti-slavery Democrats and to the humanitarian causes in which he had interested himself.
(This is an EXACT reproduction of a book published before ...)
By speeches and articles he did much to popularize this cause, which he thought would elevate the people and insure them against unjust exploitation by aristocracy and wealth. Against the will of party leaders he supported the fifteen-gallon liquor law and advocated the furtherance of temperance by education and moral suasion. He also favored the punishment of the retailer who sold liquor to persons known to make an improper use of it. In lectures and speeches, in newspaper articles, and on the floor of the legislature this reformer attacked special privileges for corporations. He insisted on the necessity of careful inquiries into charters and specific limitations on the powers they granted to their incorporators. Indeed, he never tired, during his entire career in the legislature, of denouncing corporations for stimulating over-speculation and the creation of fictitious wealth.
Members of the class at Harvard remembered him for his facility and rapidity of mental action, for his frankness and independence, and for his modest, scholarly tastes.
On August 3, 1831, he married Jane Elizabeth Woodbury. They had two children.