USA > Connecticut > Connecticut as a colony and as a state; or, One of the original thirteen, Volume II > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18
The distribution of the money from the land sales became a matter of controversy in Connecticut. In the same year that the sales committee was appointed, an act was introduced
229
CONNECTICUT AS COLONY AND STATE
in the legislature, that the money derived from the sales should be used in the establishment of a perpetual fund; the interest on said fund to be appropriated to the several eccle- siastical congregations for support of ministers and schools of education.
The opposition to this act was strong throughout the State ; while it passed in the lower house of the legislature it was defeated in the upper. The question was debated for two years at the town meetings, in the pulpits, and in the news- papers. The General Assembly, at the May session of 1795, passed a bill appropriating the interest of the purchase money to the support of schools in the several societies; the same to be kept according to the provisions of law. This act cre- ated the Connecticut School Fund. The fund, still intact, but largely augmented, is now performing the duties assigned it by its promoters, for a free educational system.
One of the most important participators in these early land speculations was Oliver Phelps; who, according to Stiles' "History of Ancient Windsor," was born in that town Aug. II, 1758, though most authorities give the year as 1749. He removed from his native town to Suffield; received a mer- cantile education, and engaged in business in Granville, Mas- sachusetts. During the Revolutionary War he was employed by the State of Massachusetts in the commissary department, and used his personal notes as a circulating medium. In 1789 he purchased from Massachusetts, in connection with Na- thaniel Gorham, 2,200,000 acres in the western part of New York State; he removed to Canandaigua, and opened the first land office ever established in America. Mr. Phelps orig- inated a system of townships and ranges, which with modifi- cations was generally adopted in surveying United States government lands. From his adopted town he was appointed
230
CONNECTICUT AFTER THE REVOLUTION
Judge of the Circuit Court, and elected member of Congress. He died there, Feb. 21, 1809.
Soon after the close of the Revolution, the American peo- ple throughout the country became involved in land specula- tions. The enterprising citizens of Virginia sent agents to New England to descant on the value of land, and sell fic- titious acreage in the Shenandoah Valley at a comparatively small price. The leading men of Virginia countenanced and gave the influence of their names to these unscrupulous enter- prises, and an enormous area of tangled wilderness was dis- posed of, in what is now West Virginia and Kentucky. The Virginia laws regarding land titles were extremely loose; and the public records were deficient, so that a dozen surveys cov- ered the same lands, in part or in whole. The original land titles were often taken in the name of a bankrupt, which allowed the rightful owner to evade a personal liability. If the Virginians were careless in buying, they were remarkably shrewd in selling; they flooded the Eastern market with plausible and cunning salesmen, and millions of acres were disposed of to the "overreaching" Yankees. The Connecticut people invested their hard earnings in numberless acres which proved worthless and unsalable, even undiscoverable; they became thoroughly alarmed in 1798, and the following year deputized a prominent lawyer to visit the region and ascertain their position as landowners in the South. Though their agent was a man of unimpeachable integrity and legal ability, and spent the best part of two years in a trackless wilderness, the Southern schemers had so perfected their plans that he was unable to obtain any money consideration for the large amounts invested by his Connecticut clients.
In fact, in obtaining others' goods without consideration, the Southerner has never shown himself a whit behind the Northerner.
231
CHAPTER XV CONNECTICUT IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CON- VENTION
T HE limitation of the powers of Congress under the Articles of Confederation negatived most of its usefulness. It could do nothing but ask for supplies mostly refused and make recom- mendations not acted on. This caused the non-attendance of members, which made it difficult to obtain a quorum for business, and increase the difficulty of induc- ing able men to serve. The consent of seven States was neces- sary to consider any resolution except adjournment. Without the consent of the nine States, Congress could not engage in war, enter into any alliance or treaty, fix the revenue for public defense, coin money or regulate its value, emit bills of credit, borrow money, make appropriations, levy taxes, build or purchase war vessels, or raise troops.
The public feeling became universal, that a stronger com- pact of government was necessary to preserve the concord of the States; that they must resign a portion of their sovereign rights to a national government, which should be coercive in its powers and paramount in its functions. As early as 1780 this was advocated by Hamilton, who suggested the holding of a convention to devise a plan for strengthening the Federal Constitution. He saw like others the evils of the powerless Confederation; but he had not been through the experiences of American-born citizens, had no fear of a strong general government, and wished to give complete supremacy to Con- gress.
Through the influence of Hamilton, the New York legisla- ture in 1782 passed a concurrent resolution recommending the holding of a general convention of the States to amend the Articles of Confederation. Congress for lack of revenue was confronted with national bankruptcy, the most danger-
235
CONNECTICUT AS COLONY AND STATE
ous symptom of a political dissolution, and making foreign intervention possible.
A convention was held at Hartford in November 1780, at which the four New England States and New York were represented; it was called to devise means for the establish- ment of a state revenue for the United States, to defray the accrued interest on loans, and to give Congress the power to negotiate future indebtedness. The convention recommended that Congress should have the power to apportion taxes by the number of inhabitants of the States, rather than on the land; they recognized the lack of Congress' power of coer- cion, and deemed it dangerous to the peace and freedom of the States. These principles were embodied in a set of resolu- tions, copies of which were forwarded to Congress and the legislatures of each State. This was during the excitement attendant on the Revolutionary War, and the importance of the suggestions did not receive the recognition it otherwise would. The legislatures of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in a general way, approved of the sentiments embodied in the communication.
The power of Congress was fast disappearing. A serious blow was the veto of Rhode Island (the unanimous consent of all the States being required) on allowing it to raise a revenue by an import duty of five per cent., ad valorem, on all goods of foreign growth and manufacture. Connecticut's share of the $1,500,000 to be raised for the annual support of the national government was $132,091. She had favored the importation tax, also the limitation of the period to a term of twenty-five years. In the apportionment of national expenses, Connecticut was fifth, the amount assessed to her being exceeded by that of the States of Virginia, Massachu- setts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
236
CONNECTICUT AFTER THE REVOLUTION
The formation of the Northwest Territory, the state of trade, the navigation of the rivers forming boundaries between States, and the unsuccessful attempt to establish the independent State of Franklin, led the Virginia legislature in 1786 to appoint commissioners and extend invitations to her sister States, to nominate delegates to meet at Annapolis and consider measures for coping with these difficulties. The convention met in September 1786. New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were the only States represented. The legislatures of Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire, Rhode Island, and North Carolina appointed commis- sioners, but they failed to appear; the other States remained silent.
The delegates from New York, Pennsylvania, and Vir- ginia were in favor of considering only acts pertaining to trade and commerce, and reporting to their several State. legislatures. The commissioners from Delaware favored a similar plan, though they desired that the resolutions should be ratified by all the State deelgates. The New Jersey repre- sentatives had an enlarged plan, which contemplated the adoption of articles to meet all the "exigencies of the Union." The convention readily saw the feasibility of New Jersey's plan, but owing to the representation being partial and defec- tive, and to their wish for the opinion of every State, it was decided that the States should be invited to appoint commis- sioners to a convention at Philadelphia the following May. This was to revise the Articles of Confederation so as to ren- der them adequate to the "exigencies of the Union." These resolutions of the Annapolis convention were promulgated by Congress on Feb. 21, 1787; accompanied by recommenda- tions that the States appoint delegates to attend a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of
237
CONNECTICUT AS COLONY AND STATE
Confederation." This to Congress appeared the most prob- able means of establishing in the States a firm national gov- ernment.
The desire for a stronger centralized power of government had been increased in New England by the outbreak of Shays' rebellion : all the States except Rhode Island readily responded to Congress' invitation to appoint commissioners. At the May session of the General Assembly, William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth were appointed to attend the Philadelphia convention as commis- sioners from Connecticut. On the day set, May 14, 1787, delegates from the different States began to assemble at the State house in Philadelphia; it was not, however, until the 25th of the month, that nine States, represented by twenty- nine delegates, organized the convention for business.
The assemblage was composed of the illustrious men of the States; the selection of Washington to preside over its delib- erations was in accordance with the spirit of harmony that brought the delegates together. The commissioners from Virginia, which was the most populous State, had utilized the time preceding organization in formulating fifteen resolu- tions as a basis for a new Constitution; these were ably pre- sented by Edmund Randolph, and became known as the Vir- ginia plan. These resolutions advocated the enlargement of the powers of Congress, by establishing two branches of the national legislature. The first was to be elected by the peo- ple, and its membership to be apportioned to each State according to its quota of contribution or to the number of free inhabitants; the second was to be elected by the first. Each branch was to have the right of originating acts. To the national legislature was delegated the rights vested in Con- gress by the Articles of Confederation. They were to legis-
238
CONNECTICUT AFTER THE REVOLUTION
late on all cases to which the separate States were incom- petent, or in which the harmony of the United States might be disturbed by the exercise of individual legislation. They were to have the power to negative all laws passed by the sev- eral States contravening, in the opinion of the national legis- lature, the Articles of Union, or any treaty subsisting under the authority of the Union; and to call the national force against any State failing to fulfil its duties.
A national executive was to be elected by the legislature, to be ineligible for a second term. There was to be a council of revision, consisting of members of the national judiciary, to have a veto over any act of the national legislature. The legislative, executive, and judiciary powers of the States were required to take oath to support the articles of Union. These resolutions were referred to a committee of the whole.
On the day of the submission of the Virginia Plan, Connec- ticut's representative, Oliver Ellsworth, took his seat in the body; his colleague, Roger Sherman, made his first appear- ance the following day; Connecticut's delegation was com- pleted, June 2, with the seating of William Samuel Johnson. The first question considered was whether the government to be established should be of a federal or national character. The latter idea predominated, as it was thought it would be sanctioned by the people, who wanted something stronger than a federal form of government, which was simply a league of the States. A national government had a complete and comprehensive operation, while a federal government was a mere compact, resting on the good faith of the people.
Roger Sherman, who was one of the committee that drafted the Articles of Confederation, on the day he took his seat admitted that Congress did not have sufficient power, but thought all that was necessary was to amend the Articles of
239
CONNECTICUT AS COLONY AND STATE
Confederation. He advised enlarging their powers of raising moneys, but was opposed to nationalizing the government : he feared any radical change would not be sanctioned by the people. This seems not to have been the opinion of the con- vention; for by the vote of seven States, it was agreed that a national government should be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary body. The vote of New York was divided on the proposition; Connecticut's was recorded in the negative. That the legislative body should consist of two branches was agreed upon by all the States; Pennsylvania at first dissenting.
The position of Connecticut in the national gathering was early grasped by her sagacious representatives. In point of population, she was midway between the large and small States. Her boundaries were definitely fixed, so there could be no future extensions. She was an agricultural State, her area was subdivided into farms, which made her confines pro- portionally populated. Situated as Connecticut was, between the two seaports of New York and Boston, the attainment of her zenith would necessarily be gradual, not spasmodic. The larger States, in the formation of a new union, were look- ing for an aggrandizement of power. Connecticut having had to fight for life in the past from the encroachments of Massachusetts and New York, her representatives thought under the new system to equalize the representation, and to counteract the influence of population. Her delegates were able and noted jurists. In the early sessions, in deference to his seniority and experience, pre-eminence was given to Roger Sherman; but the avowed principles of the new school of republicanism, of which Johnson and Ellsworth were dis- ciples, marked them as leaders in connection with their elo- quence and diplomacy. Their constituency, from the first set-
240
-
CONNECTICUT AFTER THE REVOLUTION
tlement of the colony, had been used to almost universal suf- frage.
In the preliminary work of the convention, as a committee of the whole, Connecticut's delegates took an active part; though their earlier views were changed by the debates and intercourse with the other members of the body. Sherman, in speaking of the membership of the first branch of the national legislature, advocated that they be chosen by the State assemblies; and that "the people should have as little to do as possible about government, as they lacked informa- tion, and were liable to be misled." The vote of Connecticut was divided on the proposition. Sherman still insisted that it was vital to the existence of State governments, and if it was the desire to abolish that form of government, the election ought to be by the people.
On the great question of suffrage, it was the express desire of the convention that representation should be based on pop- ulation. The New England States and Pennsylvania were opposed to the enumeration of slaves, considering them merely personal property. The real issue was not in national but local representation. The same principle had to be applied in both cases ; and in State affairs if only whites were counted, the predominance of power would be given to the poor dis- tricts which held few slaves, instead of the rich ones which held many. This the planting interest would not suffer; and the final compromise was a means of keeping the local power in the hands of the planter aristocracy. Three-fifths of the slaves were to be counted in apportioning representation.
The position of Connecticut in the convention was clearly defined on June 10, when Sherman introduced his famous res- olution that representation in the lower branch should be pro- portionate, not equal. This placed Connecticut in conjunc-
241
CONNECTICUT AS COLONY AND STATE
tion with those who represented the populous jurisdictions. The proposition was carried by the vote of seven States. To counteract this step, and to restore her prestige with her for- mer allies, on the same day a motion was made by Sherman. and seconded by Ellsworth, that in the second branch of the legislature, each State should have a vote. This resolution became the rock of contention, and was known as the "Con- necticut proposition." It was voted down, and the conven- tion adopted a resolution that the membership of the Sen- ate should be determined by proportional suffrage.
Mr. Paterson, of the New Jersey delegation, on June 15, presented for the consideration of the convention a series of nine resolutions, which were known as the New Jersey plan. They differed from the Virginia Plan, in that they favored only one branch of the legislature, whose power was derived from the States; instead of one executive head, it favored sev- eral. This became known as the State Sovereignty plan. Al- though it utterly failed, it formed the basis of a compromise, which brought the Connecticut representatives prominently before the body.
Hamilton, who had remained silent during the convention, introduced on June 16 a plan of government leaning toward aristocracy; and advocated that the membership of executive, judiciary, and Senate, should be for life or good behavior.
The report of the committee of the whole was taken up in detail on June 20. Ellsworth's proposition, that the national government should consist of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary body, was unanimously adopted. To pacify the fears of New Jersey and Delaware, the word "national" was dropped. Ellsworth moved as a substitute that "the govern- ment of the United States" be adopted; this was concurred in by a majority. That the legislature should consist of two
242
WILLIAM SAMUEL JOHNSON
CONNECTICUT AFTER THE REVOLUTION
branches was opposed by Sherman : while he admitted that in State legislatures two branches were necessary, he did not con- sider it so in the confederacy of States. Referring to the Articles of Confederation, of which he was one of the orig- inators, he declared that Congress had carried through a war as well as any government could.
It was on the 21st of June that William Samuel Johnson made his maiden speech in the convention. He contrasted the New Jersey and Virginia plans of government, and favored the preserving of the distinct individuality of the States; in order to do this, he agreed that they must have equal votes in the general council. Sherman yielded to his col- league, and Connecticut voted for two branches of the legis- lature; also that the election of the members of the first branch should be by the people.
The Connecticut delegation was opposed to a three-years' term for representatives. Sherman preferred annual elec- tions, but would be contented with biennial. He thought the representatives ought to return home and mingle with the people; that an extended stay at the national capital would cause them to acquire habits of thought differing from their constituents. It was the foresight of common-sense which enabled the man who, Jefferson declared, "never said a fool- ish thing in his life," so faithfully to portray the legislators of the United States in the twentieth century.
The proposition favored by Delaware and Connecticut, that each State should pay its own representatives, was defeated in its incipiency.
The composition of the second branch of the legislature was brought before the convention on June 29. It was intro- duced by Dr. Johnson, who made a forcible argument. He pointed out that States were districts of people, comprising
243
CONNECTICUT AS COLONY AND STATE
one political society; that as States do exist as political bod- ies, governments are formed for them in their political capac- ity as well as for individuals; that they require means of self- defense; and while their interests are homogeneous with the people, they should be considered as political entities. There- fore, while the people by districts should be represented in one branch of the legislature, the other should represent the States. Ellsworth immediately proposed that in the second branch of the legislature, each State should have an equal representation; this was combated by Baldwin of Georgia, who was in favor of the upper house representing the relative wealth of their constituents. Ellsworth's motion was lost by a vote of six to five.
From this time on, the motion for equal representation in the upper house was brought forward by the delegates from Connecticut. The smaller States, wishing to strengthen their forces, introduced a motion requiring the attendance of the delegates from New Hampshire. The persistency of Connec- ticut's delegates, in keeping the "Connecticut plan" before the convention, of State equality in the upper house and pro- portionate representation in the lower, nearly caused a disrup- tion of the convention. This was prevented by the influence of Franklin, who, true to his New England birth, counseled that the sessions of the body should be opened with prayer. His phlegmatic calmness countervailed the Southern impetu- ousity, and harmonized his Northern associates. He advo- cated referring the matter to a committee. Sherman agreed, saying that "such a committee is necessary to put us right." The convention on July 2 therefore referred the "Connecti- cut proposal" to a committee of one from each State. The body adjourned for three days to await their report. Ells- worth was Connecticut's representative on the committee;
244
CONNECTICUT AFTER THE REVOLUTION
Baldwin of Georgia, another member, was also a native of the State; in the Pennsylvania delegation was Jared Inger- soll, likewise born in Connecticut.
The day after the eleventh anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the committee reported in favor of the "Connecticut proposal." What influences were brought to bear in the committee room will forever remain secret : perhaps simply common-sense, and seeing at once what others saw later. The report met with a storm of opposi- tion. Madison, Wilson, and other delegates of the larger States, could hardly control their indignation. Connecti- cut's delegates, with her faithful allies, stood firm; and when, on the 7th of July, they were joined by the commissioners from North Carolina, victory was assured. The convention was more at liberty to proceed to arrange the further details of the Constitution.
Thus was Connecticut's great work accomplished. Her delegates, however, lent their forensic eloquence and legal ability to subsequent debates. But the leadership they had asumed from a sense of duty was dropped as soon as the occa- sion which called for it was past. The Constitution was signed by Sherman and Johnson; the unavoidable departure of Ellsworth before the adjournment of the convention is the reason his signature does not appear upon the document.
The State convention called to ratify the Federal Consti- tution met at Hartford, Jan. 4, 1788. Matthew Griswold was chosen presiding officer. The delegates were addressed by Oliver Ellsworth, Governor Huntington, Richard Law, and Oliver Wolcott. The Constitution was ratified Jan. 9, by 128 to 40; in the ratification, Connecticut was the fifth State. New Jersey, Delaware, and Georgia gave a unani- mous consent; Pennsylvania was carried by 46 to 23. Re-
245
CONNECTICUT AS COLONY AND STATE
viewing the vote of the convention in detail, we find that the learned Johnson, the reserved Huntington, and the astute Hosmer, at the head of their resident county delegations, were able to record a unanimous vote for ratification from Fairfield, New London, and Middlesex counties. The dele- gates from Hartford County, at whose head was the able Ellsworth, voted 28 ayes to 6 nays, and two nil dict; the neg- ative votes were from the towns of Enfield, Granby, Sims- bury, and Suffield. The result in Sherman's home county, if universally followed, would have deprived the people of the United States of a Constitution that has been able to adapt itself to many changed conditions. The vote of New Haven County was 9 ayes to 13 nays, and one nil dict. The towns of Branford, Durham, East Haven, Guilford, North Haven, Wallingford, Woodbridge, and Cheshire divided, were opposed to the ratification. The cause of this vote is hard to determine. New Haven was not less loyal than her sister counties; neither can it be attributed to lack of enterprise or progress, or that her people were satisfied with the Articles of Confederation, and wished no change.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.