USA > Connecticut > Connecticut in transition: 1775-1818 > 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 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32
IIO
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
$250 for seven-eighths. In 1806, $100 and $40 and $50 were the figures quoted.74 In 1809 Rev. Thomas Robbins commented on his brother's offer of $300 for a yearling lamb: "The demand for these sheep is astonishing." 75
One is not so surprised at these fabulous prices, when the price of common wool at thirty-seven and a half cents is compared with that of the merino at seventy-five cents to two dollars a pound. There was an- other advantage, for it was found that crossing merino with common sheep would double the shearing of wool. These facts became widely known through the educative efforts of agricultural societies and fairs, such as the Philadelphia Cattle Show, at which Humphreys was a com- petitor. Then there were articles on merino culture and descriptions of the shearings on the estates of Humphreys, Livingston, and other grow- ers.76 Hence the great demand and the high prices are not difficult to understand.
Connecticut was a center of the mania. Merino advertisements were in every newspaper. Auctions were announced and larger rewards were offered for the return of lost sheep than for runaway Negroes. Some felt that in wool New England had at last found her staple, that in Con- necticut wool would play the part cotton did in the South. At a Cler- mont shearing this idea was expressed in the toast: "Merino wool as common in the North as cotton in the South." 77 This was not incompre- hensible when there were estimated to be 400,000 sheep in the state in 1813.78
In 1810-1811, while Spain was sacrificing all in a crusading uprising against Napoleon, her cabanas were broken up. Thousands of sheep were eaten by the ravaging armies, flocks were stolen by the French, and thousands were exported or smuggled via Portugal into England. To obtain a war fund, the Junta commenced to sell the choicest stock. During that year it is estimated that nearly 20,000 full-blooded sheep
74 Sheep Industry, pp. 139, 143, 166 ff .; Wright, Wool-Growing, p. 23; H. S. Randall, Fine Wool Sheep Husbandry, p. 45; Sharpe, Seymour, p. 59; Courant July 11, 1810.
75 Diary, I, 414.
76 Courant, May 31, July 11, 1810; Mercury, June 28, 1810; Bishop, American Manufactures, II, 135; Sheep Industry, p. 166.
77 Mercury, June 28, 1810.
78 Courant, May 25, 1813; North American Review, I, 169; Coxe, Tables, pp. 22, 31; Mercury, July 4, 1811.
III
AGRICULTURE AND SHEEP RAISING
were introduced into America.79 Prices fell from $1,000 to $300 and finally to $100. Rams and ewes from the famed flocks of the Carthusian friars were scattered throughout New England. Spain's difficulty be- came America's opportunity. While war cut off the supply in 1812, there were plenty of sheep in the country for stock purposes, so the only result of importance was in steadying the price and increasing the woolen market. Patriotism and nationalism encouraged American wool- raising until it outgrew the infant stage.
Peace brought English competition which easily beat down patri- otism-a fact which the people found somewhat hard to reconcile with the high war prices. Politically it is not likely that sheep growing had much of an effect. As Connecticut farms were generally cultivated by their owners, there was no class of agricultural laborers to be displaced by sheep enclosures, as had been the case elsewhere. On the other hand, sheep growing introduced woolen factories and thus assisted in creating a city laboring class which was destined to become a political factor.
NOTES
I. THE OHIO FRONTIER
That men knew Ohio is not to be doubted. Yet one is surprised at the perspi- cacity of a Vermont boy quoted as having written home in 1817: "As to the people, the first settlers were a mixed multitude from all the other American States and of the most of the European Kingdoms, composed of adventurers, knaves, fools, un- fortunates, and some honest and enterprising men. There are many who have al- ways lived on the frontiers, and form a connecting link between savage and civil- ized life. The offspring of all have had their education from chance. Sojourners from every nation and climate under heaven, with all their jarring ideas of civil policy which their different forms of government could suggest, have been their teachers. People of wealth and cultivation are flocking in from every quarter." Courant, January 14, 1817.
II. TABLE SHOWING RISING PRICES
Rev. Heman Humphrey, in the appendix of one of his sermons printed in 1816, undertook to prove to the prosperous farmers that high prices had increased the minister's cost of living and lowered his net salary. His figures bear the earmarks of accuracy, part of them being collected by a committee of his society. They show the vast increase in the value of farm products, which resulted in the encourage- ment of agriculture. Other accounts notice the great fall in value of agricultural products about 1816, probably a little later than the date of his information, some
79 Courant, Nov. 14, 1810; Mar. 27, 1811; Mercury, Sept. 27, 1810; Wright, Wool-Growing, pp. 23 ff. For lower prices, see advertisements, Courant, Feb. 18, Sept. 7, 1813.
II2
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
1774
1798
1811-1816
Wheat
$ .71
$ 1.42
$ 2.00 to 2.50
Rye
.46
.67
1.00 to
1.25
Corn
.35
.50
.83 to
1.00
Pork
3.36
6.00
8.00 to 10.00
Beef
3.00
4.17
5.00 to
7.00
Butter
.II
.17
.17 to
.25
Sugar, loaf
.17
.33
.17 to
.50
Sugar, best brown
9.00
16.00
13.00 to 22.00
Molasses, gal.
.33
.75
.67 to
1.00
Salt, bushel
.42
1.00
1.00 to
1.17
Hay
6.67
10.00
10.00 to 20.00
Wood, cord
1.50
3.00
5.00 to
6.00
Labor, day
.42
.67
.75 to
1.00
going so far as to say that the products of the farm were hardly worth the garner- ing. Dwight, Connecticut, p. 440; Mercury, Oct. 22, 1816; see also New Haven Hist. Soc., Papers, III, 201-202.
CHAPTER V
The Working Government
T HE government of Connecticut prior to 1776 was based upon the royal Charter of 1662. This Charter in substance was similar to the eleven Fundamental Orders of 1639, which had been drafted by the representatives of the river towns as their rule of government. This similarity has enabled certain writers to maintain that the Charter was royal only in form, but otherwise a restatement of republican principles. Furthermore, it has been said that the Charter was in force by virtue not of the prerogative, but of its acceptance by the General Assembly. However this may be, the Charter was regarded as the bulwark of the commonwealth's liberties, if the Charter Oak episode had real signifi- cance. Yet the simple governmental machinery provided in that instru- ment was never regarded as fundamental, but subject to modification by the General Assembly. Distance and lack of interest in the colony on the part of the home government made the bond of union between the two so loose that, aside from an extremely rare case of a disallow- ance, the colony was left to follow its own course. The commonwealth was virtually a self-governing dependency, with the dependence over- looked by the republican subjects, and the independence unrealized by the inefficient and corrupt colonial administration.
The change wrought by the Declaration of Independence and sev- erance of nominal allegiance was almost unnoticed. Statehood with full independence and sovereignty was entered into so naturally that there was no commotion or the slightest impediment in the civil administra- tion. As has often been pointed out, a change in the government was unnecessary, for Connecticut had always been republican in form. As a result of the Revolution and the appeal of the revolutionary Congress, the General Assembly formally approved the Declaration of Independ- ence, declaring that "this Colony is and of a right ought to be a free
114
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
and independent State, and the inhabitants thereof are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown." The resolution continued:
And it be enacted by the Governor, Council and Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the form of civil government in this State shall continue to be as established by Char- ter received from Charles the second, King of England, so far as an adher- ence to the same will be consistent with an absolute independence of this State on the Crown of Great Britain; and that all officers, civil and military, heretofore appointed by this State continue in the execution of their several offices, and the laws of this State shall continue in force until otherwise or- dered: And that for the future all writs and processes in law or equity shall issue in the name of the Governor and Company of the State of Connecticut; and that in all summonses, attachments, and other processes before any assist- ant or justice of the peace, the words One of his Majesty's justices of peace be omitted, and that instead thereof be inserted justice of the peace; and that no writ or process shall have or bear any date save the year of our Lord Christ only; any law usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.
Oaths of loyalty to the state were substituted for those of allegiance and supremacy. Otherwise there was no break with the past; the same policies controlled, the same class ruled.1
All the states save Rhode Island drafted constitutions, often in con- ventions selected for that purpose, and submitted them for ratification to the people or their representatives. Connecticut's unusual procedure attracted little attention and aroused no opposition. This was probably due to general recognition of the step as a mere formality, which did not essentially change the working government, based as it was on prec- edent and legislative enactments rather than on the Charter.
Interest in the proceedings remained purely academic until later, when they were made a party issue. Men of all shades of opinion were free to question whether or not there was a constitution in the approved sense of the word. Dr. Benjamin Gale, in an able pamphlet published in 1782, argued that the state in making war had abrogated the Charter and that the General Assembly's unauthorized declaration re-establish- ing the Charter government was expedient, but extra-legal, and re- garded by thinking men as only temporary. He believed that the time had come when a civil government should be established by a con- vention, holding that:
1 Conn. State Records, I, 3-4; Revised Statutes, p. I. See Stiles, Diary, II, 285; Morse, Geography, p. 165; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 75; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 40-43; Kendall, Travels, I, ch. 7.
115
THE WORKING GOVERNMENT
It ought to be a work of time, and composed of men well versed in gov- ernment, well acquainted with the laws of nature and nations, men who well understand, not only the civil, but the natural, the religious, the unalienable rights of men and of Christians. ... Our charter carefully examined ... everything retained, the advantage of which we have experienced-Every- thing expurged we have found on experience disadvantageous; the several constitutions of our sister states carefully inspected, and everything worthy of our imitation selected.
The constitutional question was first officially considered in the As- sembly in the fall and spring sessions of 1786-17872 A bill restricting the representation to one member from every town had been intro- duced. Thereupon Representative Hopkins of Waterbury questioned their authority: "It is a constitutional question. The people are the foun- tain of power, and must agree if the mode is altered. The Assembly can- not do it. It is a native right of the people." Against this James Daven- port of Stamford argued that there was no constitution, only the laws of the state, for as the Revolution abrogated the Charter, its subsequent sanction by the General Assembly had only the force of an ordinary statute. Colonel Wadsworth agreed: "I am in favor of the Bill. . . . The same body who made the Constitution can alter it at pleasure." Wads- worth was historically correct, for in the Revised Statutes of 1784 a statutory Declaration of Rights reaffirmed the act of 1776.
Dr. Gale in 1787 wrote confidentially to General Erastus Wolcott, a member of Congress, that the state had no constitution; for, as "you know ... a civil constitution is a charter, a bill of rights, or a compact made between the rulers and the ruled." This, he said, was not true in the case of the Charter, which had never been submitted to the free- men.3 In 1791 a pamphlet by "a citizen of New Haven" demanded that a convention be summoned to draw up a constitution which would be above criticism.4
A writer in the Middlesex Gazette pointed out in 1792 the absurdity of a government establishing its own constitution, and asked that steps be taken to establish a constitution or to improve the Charter. He ex- claimed:
Why has Connecticut discovered less political wisdom than her sister states? Why has its government been left the sport of chance, or to the partial corrections of the legislature; and to remain, until this time, in a
2 Connecticut Magazine, quoted in Mercury, Aug. 15, 1805.
3 J. Hammond Trumbull, Historical Notes, pp. 16-17.
4 Ibid., pp. 17-18.
I16
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
state so loose, in a form so shapeless and distorted? Why have ten years of peace, so favorable to political improvement, been suffered to pass away, without any amelioration of the system of government? Can the people be forever lulled into this calm indifference, this listless security, by the empty and groundless declaration, that they have derived from their ancestors a free and excellent Constitution of Government.5
The Litchfield Monitor in 1793 printed an address attacking the royal principles and language of the Charter and the unwarranted as- sumption of the Legislature in saddling it on the people. It criticized the insecurity of a government semi-annually subject to change at the hands of men as absolute as any "Grand Signior":
You profess republican principles, but tacitly submit to the ordinances of despotism. You hold to the rights of men, but have not established the enjoyment of them. You hold that the people are the origin of power, but have never attempted to exercise that power. . . . You have now enjoyed a number of years of profound peace; but never set yourselves to form a Constitution. A time more favorable can never be expected; a business of greater utility can never be attempted. Such is your present Constitution, that some affirm it is no Constitution at all; but a public Ordinance or an Edict; while others affect to consider it as a very good Constitution. But look about you my countrymen; take it up and view it in all its parts and properties, and see if it breathes the genuine spirit of republicanism. You will doubtless find it a conglomerated mass of heterogeneous principles. . . . A republican Constitution is a voluntary compact of the people establishing certain fundamental principles by which they will be governed.6
Only a few, however, doubted the legality of the constitution. Judge Swift in 1795 set forth the orthodox view that in 1776 the people might have called a convention, but did not deem it necessary, for, back of the Charter, their government was grounded on the will of the people. Since 1776 the tacit consent of the people in obeying the laws and fol- lowing the old forms of civil procedure had amounted to sanctioning the act of the General Assembly, even though the legality of its power might be disputed. Swift wrote:
The constitution of this state is a representative republic. Some visionary theorists have pretended that we have no constitution, because it has not been reduced to writing, and ratified by the people. It is, therefore, necessary to trace the constitution of our government to its origin, for the purpose of showing its existence, that it has been accepted and approved of by the peo- ple, and is well known and precisely bounded.7
5 Quoted in Mercury, Apr. 4, 1805.
6 May 23, quoted in Mercury, Oct. 24, 1805.
7 System of the Laws, I, 55, 56 ff.
117
THE WORKING GOVERNMENT
The constitutionality of the government was generally regarded by Swift as proven. When party strife became bitter, to argue that there was no constitution in the modern sense branded one a Jacobin.
Such were the current constitutional theories. It is now necessary to consider the working government of the state, which was far removed from the written Charter-constitution.
The chief executive was the governor, with the title of "His Ex- cellency." 8 The position was one of great respectability and honor, having wide influence but little actual power. The governor was elected annually by the freemen of the state voting secretly in town meeting. The votes were forwarded to the secretary of state and counted on the general election day by a committee of the General Assembly. If a can- didate received a majority he was declared elected, otherwise the Gen- eral Assembly named the governor. While the term of office was nom- inally a year, in practice it was for life or during good behavior, for throughout the whole history of the state from John Winthrop to Oliver Wolcott, there had been but seventeen occupants of the office, and during the eighteenth century only three governors had failed of re-election.9 While there was no religious test, the steady habit of the state had been to elect no ungodly man or dissenter, but a representative of one of the old families and occasionally the son of a former governor.
During the colonial period Connecticut had a wholesome fear of too powerful an executive. The lesson of an Andros had been well taught and the difficulties of sister colonies with royal governors had not passed unnoticed. Hence in 1776 the executive was allowed to remain weak in comparison with the legislature.
The Connecticut governor was not, as in many states, a separate branch of the government. He had no veto power, being but an ex officio presiding member of the Upper Chamber or Council. Aside from calling extra sessions on fourteen days' notice, he had no power to ad- journ or prorogue the General Assembly. The governor assisted in the formalities of Election Day, opening the Assembly with an address, which advised certain policies and gave an account of the state's prog- ress since the last meeting. Thanksgiving Day and the annual fast, being
8 For a discussion of the governorship, see: Conn. State Records, I, 52, 229; II, 86; Statutes, pp. 201, 257, 258, 296, 423, 504; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 60, 63, 65, 85-87; Kendall, Travels, I, 20; Dwight, Travels, I, 228, 237, 248, 257; Nelson P. Mead, Connecticut as a Corporate Colony, pp. 21-24; New Haven Hist. Soc., Papers, III, 65.
9 Wolcott for misrepresentation; Fitch because of the Stamp Act; Griswold because of advanced age. Dana, Two Discourses, pp. 43-44.
I18
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
determined upon by the Assembly, were formally announced by the governor. As commander-in-chief of the state militia, he appointed an adjutant-general and a couple of aides, signed the commissions of offi- cers approved by the General Assembly, and possessed ill-defined powers of dismissal. He signed the commissions of justices of the peace, and was himself an honorary ex officio justice throughout the state. From 1793 to 1808 the governor sat twice a year as president of the court of errors. He had no pardoning power save the right to reprieve a criminal until the next General Court or Assembly. His patronage amounted to nothing but the right to name ad interim turnpike com- missioners and the petty notaries public. Hence it would be impossible for an ambitious man to build up a personal following through his ap- pointive power, as could be done in some states.
In brief, the governor's powers were restricted to the lowest work- ing minimum, just enough to permit the smooth administration of busi- ness and to allow him to serve as the communicating medium between the state, the central government and the other states. It was pointed out that the executive need not be powerful, for Connecticut was a member of a federation of states, with many delegated powers in the hands of the federal government. There would then be less danger of a conflict with the central government.
The chief criticism was that certain towns monopolized the office: for instance, Hartford had furnished seven out of a total of twenty- three governors. This localization was due to the advantage which in- fluential men, who were apt to be from the chief towns, had under the system of election. The dissenter was grieved that none of his class could achieve the distinction. The Republican disliked the undemocratic idea of repeated re-elections, but the most penurious could not object to the salary of $1,000, which was considered small enough to guard against the cupidity of an office-seeker.10
Some executive power was lodged in the hands of governor and Council, but here the governor's identity was completely submerged in the Council.11 Together, they appointed a sheriff for every one of the eight counties, and a quartermaster-general of the militia. They could lay temporary embargoes on the export of goods, enforce sani-
10 "Connecticut's governmental expenses are brought within the narrowest point of parsimony, salaries are provident to a proverb." Mercury, Aug. 5, 1802.
11 Statutes, p. 201, index; Kendall, Travels, I, 22; Dwight, Travels, I, 248; Mead, Corporate Colony, pp. 24-27.
119
THE WORKING GOVERNMENT
tary rules in case of contagious diseases, and grant briefs for charitable collections.
The lieutenant governor,12 addressed as "His Honor" and having a salary of $600, was an ex officio member of the Council and a justice of the peace throughout the state. In the absence of the governor he acted in his place. From 1741 to 1785 the lieutenant governor had the added honor of being chief justice of the superior court. From the time of Governor Joseph Talcott (1741) to 1818, he succeeded the governor, so faithfully did the electorate reward their officials.
The state treasurer18 was also annually elected, although in practice his tenure was for life. The treasurer was under a $5,000 bond to pre- serve scrupulously the state's revenues in the way of taxes, duties on writs, fines, and forfeitures, and to present his accounts on demand for auditing. An auxiliary officer, called a comptroller, was created by the General Assembly in 1788 to superintend the finances.14 Apparently this was an attempt on the part of the Legislature to obtain more direct control over the budget, for the annually appointed comptroller was merely an agent of the General Assembly.
The secretary of state 15 completes the list of central executive offi- cers. Here was another annually elected official whose administration was longer than the average reign of a sovereign. Indeed the tenure smacked strongly of heredity. Hezekiah Wyllys was succeeded by his son and grandson, the three covering a period of years from 1712 to 1810. Thomas Day, succeeding, served from 1810 to 1835. To con- sider such an office as elective is difficult. It is not surprising that its occupants regarded the secretaryship as a personal possession. The sec- retary acted as clerk of the Council, custodian of the state records and papers, keeper of the seals, and supervised the printing of the laws. The position was one of honor with a considerable degree of influence.
The appointment of sheriffs was the chief administrative function of the governor and Council. To the Council alone was the sheriff re-
12 Conn. State Records, I, 52; II, 86; Statutes, pp. 201, 296, 493, 504; Dwight, Travels, I, 229, 237; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 63, 83; Johnston, Connecticut, pp. 80-81.
13 Statutes, index; Conn. State Records, II, 86; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 60, 89. Joseph Whiting and son served 1679-1749, Andrew Kingsbury, 1794-1818, and Isaac Spencer, 1818-1835.
14 Statutes, pp. 188-190; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 90; Loomis and Calhoun, Judicial History, pp. 121-123.
15 Statutes, pp. 30, 589; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 88; Loomis and Calhoun, Judicial History, pp. 199 ff.
120
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
sponsible. As the connecting link between the central and local gov- ernment, he was a power in the locality. He was invariably a stanch adherent of the ruling order. His duties were defined by statute rather than by English precedents, and did not include the judicial work of his English counterpart. Bonded at $1,000, he had custody of jails and prisoners, and was empowered to appoint deputy sheriffs, summon a posse comitatus, call out the militia on request of members of the Coun- cil, and exercise the duties of a water bailiff.16
The General Assembly was composed of an upper and a lower chamber, a Council and the Assembly.17 With a weak executive and a dependent judiciary, the legislative branch became supreme. Its powers were not limited by a written constitution, nor in any way except by statutes, which it might revise or repeal at will. The Revolution had freed the General Assembly of the royal disallowance, its sole check, so that it closely approximated the British Parliament, save that the latter body had to be guided by an ill-defined royal prerogative and century-long creations of precedent and custom. The federal constitu- tion limited the state sovereignty, but not that of the Legislature in state affairs.
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.