USA > Connecticut > Connecticut in transition: 1775-1818 > Part 18
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
On March 9, 1803, another Republican festival was held at New Haven.40 Apparently the Wallingford gathering was regarded as a success in propagating Republican principles and in winning votes. Two dissenting elders conducted the religious observances. Pierrepont Ed- wards, chairman of the Republican state committee, was the orator of the day. At the banquet the usual toasts were heard. 41 The Courant ad- mitted that about fifteen hundred persons attended, but no fine ladies and few men of worth, for the gathering was held in contempt by mer- chants, sea captains, and respectable mechanics. The bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church refused to attend, possibly, the editor assured his readers, because he remembered a prayer of his church: "From privy conspiracy and sedition-Good Lord deliver us." The mere fact that Bishop Jarvis was invited was in itself a significant bid for Episcopalian support. It was to be a forlorn hope for several years, partly because of the aristocratic tendencies of this very bishop. In
38 Courant, Apr. 9; Mercury, May 20.
39 Courant, Sept. 27, Nov. 8; Mercury, Sept. 23, Nov. 4, 1802.
40 Mercury, Mar. 3, 17, 24, 1803; Courant, Feb. 9, Mar. 16, Apr. 6, 1803.
41 "The State of Connecticut-May its civil rights soon have constitutional bounds-its professional men be confined within their limits, and its courts be re- duced from annual dependence on Suitors and Advocates." Mercury, Mar. 17.
160
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
answer to its rival's description of the assemblage as a ragged throng, the American Mercury declared that those who sat on the stage alone were worth more "than Dwight's whole corporation" by a hundred thousand dollars. This the Courant agreed might well be; for the corpo- ration was made up of ministers of small means and members of the Council who were elevated by the people because of assured merit. The festival was well advertised, thereby giving prominence to democratic principles and occasioning more controversial and personal attacks.
The New Haven celebration opened the April campaign. The ex- tension of the suffrage, which had been defeated in the last session, the necessity of a constitution, the position of lawyers and clergy, the ex- travagance of the local government, and the unfair system of taxation were brought before the people. Rev. Jonathan Bird denounced things Republican in a sermon, only to find himself and his kind valiantly at- tacked by General Hart. The author of the "Porpoises" articles, sup- posedly Bishop, argued that taxation which was in no way based on valuation, but upon the century-old plan of dividing all property into classes and did not include the newer forms of wealth, was grossly un- fair to the poor man. Yet all attempts to revise the faulty system, such as had been accomplished in Massachusetts, were defeated by the special interests. That, he contended, was bound to be the case while the state contented itself with "the unauthorized farce" of a constitution under which perfect beings, but not the frail men of the work-a-day world, might live. His attack on lawyers must have lost force in view of the published list of leading Republicans who were bred to the law.42
Both parties were determined to muster their full strength. With a "stand-pat" program Federalists found it doubly hard. Yet they were able to impress unthinking voters with the dangers ahead. An anony- mous address, probably by Noah Webster, appealed for the re-election of the old officers: "Citizens of Connecticut! Will you also add to the long list of republics basely ungrateful?" Republicans urged the defeat of the enemies of the national government,43 the friends of Alien and Sedition laws, of armies and navies. It was pointed out that Republican
42 Mercury, Mar. 3, 31; Courant, Apr. 6, 1803.
43 Daggett vigorously denied this in a review of the state's relations with the national government since 1776. Address (1803). Cf. J. Q. Adams's charge that Senator Tracy and other ardent New England Federalists looked toward separa- tion; and denials in 1829 by James Gould, James Hillhouse, John Cotton Smith, S. Baldwin, Col. Tallmadge and Calvin Goddard. Henry Adams, Documents Relating to New England Federalism, pp. 93 ff., 342, 354 ff.
161
RISE OF THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY
economy had already saved the voter enough so that he could afford the monetary loss of attendance at the polls.
Party activity was attested by a record vote of 22,446 for governor, Trumbull receiving 14,375. Yet, as it represented only a trifle less than nine per cent of the population, the Republican contention that a goodly proportion of residents were non-freemen rather than inactive freemen seems close to the truth. About three-quarters of the Legislature were Federalist and nearly four-fifths of the towns. Only forty Republican representatives were elected, and in every county save Tolland their vote showed a decrease.44 Apparently the Republican plan of districting the state and appointing district and town committees had failed. They denied despondency, consoling themselves with the reflection that they had forced the Federalists to bring out in carriages their reserves of aged men and invalids, and that they had driven parsons to preach pulpit politics. Party life was indeed bringing out the vote, Federalists ex- horting men by pointing out the hardships Washington used to undergo to attend an election. As Fisher Ames wrote to Theodore Dwight: "The best men among the Federalists are forced out in self-defence,-the im- mortals of the Persian army or sacred band of Pelopidas." 45 General Election was a glorious Federalist celebration, ministers even from the neighboring states gathering to rejoice in the constancy of Connecti- cut. 46
The September campaign was less spirited.47 A celebration in honor of the acquisition of Louisiana had been held in August in Litchfield to instill Republicanism into that county. The purchase, from the financial rather than constitutional side, was attacked by the Federalists, who saw corruption in a vast expenditure for bogs, mountains and Indians, which would cost Connecticut alone $750,000.48 Republicans were taxed with injecting the religious issue because they had supported the Baptist petition, which sought a religious disestablishment. Senator Uriah Tracy issued a manifesto in defense of the Council as the state's true anchorage to Washingtonian principles, and in condemnation of the Republican list as irresponsible men secretly advanced.
44 Courant, Apr. 20, May 18; Mercury, May 12, 19, 1803.
45 Fisher Ames, I, 335-336.
46 They were forced to admit that this cost the state $117.50, in the face of Democratic charges. Courant, May 18, June 22, 1803.
47 Alexander Wolcott's address to the freemen, and Burr's visit to confer with Generals Hart and Wilcox, were the noteworthy features. Courant, Sept. 14, 1803. 48 Courant, June 1, Aug. 10, Sept. 11, 1803.
162
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
A large vote was polled in September, 1803, the assistants' nomina- tion being led by Goodrich, with 11,438 votes to Asa Spalding's 6,815. For the Assembly, Republicans claimed sixty-three men out of a total of two hundred and three.49 At any rate the opposition party had no reason to be downhearted.
The spring elections of 1804 proved most unsatisfactory to the Fed- eralists. A dropping off of a fifth in the vote struck the Federalists es- pecially hard, so that Trumbull's majority was less by about twenty- three hundred. Seventy-eight Republican representatives were elected, from forty-seven towns. Apparently the Federalist appeal against the Virginian rule supported by discontented persons and foreigners had lost force. Jefferson's administration, by its moderation and prosperity, made absurd the old fears with which Federalism inspired its adherents. As the Independent Chronicle reviewed the situation: "In Connecticut truth and reason are pervading the mass of the people. A hallowed jeal- ousy is shaking their bigoted assemblies and the pontifical chair of the clergy totters beneath them." 50
In honor of the Louisiana purchase, a Republican celebration was held at Hartford, May 11, 1804.51 All of the leaders were present at the banquet to hear Abraham Bishop discuss the state's constitutional his- tory. He contended that in practice the lack of a popularly constituted government had resulted in the concentration of all power in the hands of the Council, or rather in the hands of seven lawyers, who made up a working majority of that body. He dwelt upon the dependence of the courts and impressed his audience with the view that Federalism and reaction could not prevail under the changes which a constitution would bring about. Bishop suggested: "That the people be convened to form a constitution which shall separate the legislative, executive and judicial powers,-shall define the qualifications of freemen, so that legislators shall not tamper with election laws, and shall district the state so that freemen may judge of the candidates for their suffrages."
This idea met with such immediate favor that the general committee published his speech as a campaign document. Connecticut was de-
49 Spalding was a graduate of Yale and the Litchfield Law School, and a promi- nent lawyer of Norwich. At the time of his death, 1811, he was about the wealthiest man in the eastern counties. Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 149; Mercury, Aug. 22, 29, Oct. 20, 1811.
50 In Courant, Mar. 15. See Conn. Herald, June 12; Mercury, Apr. 19, 26, May 7, 24; Courant, Apr. 4, May 16, 1804.
51 Mercury, Apr. 12, May 17, 1804; Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 25.
163
RISE OF THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY
scribed as an "elective despotism or rather elective aristocracy." 52 Bishop did not originate the idea of calling a convention, but he realized its political value. While not of a creative mind, he was an astute poli- tician. As a matter of state welfare it was regrettable that the consti- tutional question had become political; but from the purely Republican standpoint, the merger was a master's stroke.
The New Haven meeting, August 29, 1804, marked a milestone in Republican affairs.53 A call had been sent out by a general committee of Republicans, headed by Pierrepont Edwards, which declared that the state was without a constitution and that obviously change would not originate with those in power, for rulers will not willingly diminish their own powers. There need be no alarm, it was said, for the intention was simply to advance the movement for a written constitution, setting forth principles of right government, favoring no class or party, guar- anteeing equal privileges to all, and preventing the present concentra- tion of power. Delegates chosen by democratic caucuses in ninety-seven towns took seats in this somewhat irregular convention. This body affords an excellent example of a political convention drawing up a platform. William Judd was named chairman of this secretly conducted gathering. Resolutions were passed that, as the state was without a con- stitution, an address should be drafted and widely published, advising "that it is expedient to take measures preparatory to the formation of a constitution." Henceforth the calling of a convention became the cardi- nal Republican plank.
The address to the freemen commenced with the usual platitudes, that all men are created equal, that certain natural rights are inalienable, and that government should be grounded in the consent of the gov- erned.54 Since 1776, when the Legislature usurped the people's sov- ereignty, there was no law that any legislature could not revoke. All the other states, save Rhode Island, had drawn up constitutions, and the four new states had done likewise. Evidently it was not a question of party politics, but a universal desire to secure in a written contract the results of the Revolution. These constitutions did not violate existing privileges, but defined civil and religious rights, separated the powers of
52 Mercury, Aug. 16, 1804.
53 For an account of the convention: Mercury, Aug. 9, Sept. 6; Courant, Aug. 22; Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 27; Larned, Windham County, II, 223; Church Ms .; Judd's Address.
54 Mercury, Sept. 6. It was printed as a handbill for free distribution. Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 28.
164
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
government, limited the departments, and established in the people the power of amendment. To allow a legislature to rule, bound only by its own pleasure, was dangerous folly. With a constitution, one religious denomination could not bind another, nor the legislative branch of gov- ernment make dependent the judiciary; nor could suffrage privileges be curtailed. If everything had gone well and all was secure, then let the voice of the people maintain the present establishment.
To Republicans, the majority party in the nation, it seemed "that the government appeared to favor the ruling class, to tend toward aristocracy and the embarrassment of democracy, to oppose the central government, support a prejudiced judiciary, and to concentrate all powers in the face of warning precedents." In times of party strife a constitution was invaluable, for whichever party was in control would use its position to hinder the opposition. Nor was there any danger of a party constitution, even though parties were not actually balanced, for reliance could be placed in the good sense of the people. They would see that: "It will not be an instrument full of innovations, nor will it be a departure from what the experience of other states and of our own has proved to be useful. You will have no new experiments to try; all this business has been made intelligible in our country as the art of ship- building." Let all men consider the question and vote accordingly. Let the people assert themselves and provide a constitutional government based on their needs and the experience of sister states or at least them- selves re-establish the charter of Charles II.
The New Haven Address surcharged the air with the constitutional question. Newspapers prior to the freemen's meeting emphasized the arguments for or against the constitution, almost to the exclusion of other news. Federalists pictured the danger of change: to repeal the age- sanctified institutions of the fathers would be disgraceful. Connecticut was the oldest republic. Its foundation lay in popular election. Innova- tion was but a plan of the Virginians to overthrow a last obstacle to their universal sway. The constitution was the people's, for through their elected Legislature they had sanctioned the Charter, which was royal only in name. Even the judiciary found supporters. In practice it was not so dependent and after all it was a dependence upon the people.
On the eve of the September election, 1804, David Daggett anony- mously replied to this Address in a pamphlet entitled Count the Cost.55 He knew the spirit of his people, and selected his title and arguments
55 Address (1804), pp. 1-5, 9-13, 17-21; Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 28.
165
RISE OF THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY
accordingly. Would the change of government be worth the cost? The writer claimed that he had no desire for office, but only for good gov- ernment, intimating that such was not the case with those whom he chal- lenged. He dwelt at length upon the diffusion of knowledge, the support of religion, schools, colleges and libraries, the mild laws, the benefi- cent influence of the clergy, anything but the issue at hand. All of these would fall before the violence of party, before office-seeking dema- gogues, the dethroners of religion and morals. This "mischievous and alarming project" of a new constitution was a Jacobinical plot. Elo- quently he pictured the French Revolution at its worst, suggesting that human nature was everywhere alike. "Jacobinism" in sister states should cause wise men and property owners to hesitate. His was a strong plea to a conservative people. The small farmer, whose knowledge and out- look on life were bounded by his own stone fences, cowered before the warning cry of "Count the Cost."
The appeal was effective. Still its tone was unfortunate and hardly excusable even when judged according to the blindly partisan standards of the time. Bishop's charges were similarly overemphasized and often unkindly personal, but they were at least over his own signature. In pal- liation it must be recalled that the Republicans had a positive platform with real abuses to remedy and reforms to initiate, while the Federalist leaders were maintaining a difficult defensive. In this form the question was submitted to the voters. The party lines were so sharply drawn that when a freeman cast a Republican ballot he knew that he was voting for a written constitution and vice versa.
The autumn election was interesting as a decisive test of strength. The hardest fight was made to elect representatives, for in them lay vic- tory or defeat for the constitution. With a secret ballot, it would have been a true referendum. The vote was large: Hillhouse headed the Fed- eral list of assistants with 12,348, and J. Bull the Republican with 7,920. In the Assembly the "Virginians," as the Republicans were derisively termed, had sixty-three members, a falling-off of fifteen. Fairfield County, which in the spring had been Democratic by a fair majority, was only saved to the party by thirty-seven votes. New Haven County slipped into the Federalist column with only a hundred and sixty-five votes to spare. The freemen had decided at the polls on their "corona- tion day." 56 That the Federalists were willing to accept the fruits of victory was shown in their treatment of the five justices.
56 For votes, Mercury, Sept. 13, Nov. 1; Courant, Sept. 26, Oct. 1, 1804.
166
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
The justices' case came as an aftermath of the convention at New Haven. Among those who joined in the declaration that Connecticut had no constitution were five justices of the peace, of whom Attorney William Judd was the only man of importance.57 His case was aggra- vated, in that he had acted as chairman of the meeting. A veteran of the Revolution, he was long a magistrate, and for years represented Farm- ington. That Connecticut had a constitution was part of the Federalist Bible. Hence the General Assembly, seeing its prestige attacked, deter- mined to punish the justices who alone could be reached. The Council declared that for justices to subscribe to the view that the constitution of the state was null and void and continue in office was highly im- proper. The matter was then taken up by the Assembly, which ordered them before its bar by a strictly partisan vote of 125 to 43. David Daggett and Asher Miller were instructed to look up the precedents.
Daggett led in the prosecution, arraigning as a trumpet-call of sedi- tion the New Haven appeal addressed to the people instead of to the legitimate authorities.58 The Charter of Connecticut was above the king and independent of England's existence. The Federal government sim- ply took the crown's place. The General Assembly in 1776 was com- posed of men versed in the laws and customs, who were intent on per- petuating the constitution by passing a formal declaration to that effect. Republicans had deduced no proof that in the Assembly of 1776 the ex- istence of a constitution was questioned; yet if such was the case, it was done in a legal, not a seditious manner. Daggett here was guilty of cunning reasoning, even if he did not consciously warp the truth. He demanded that the commissions of the justices should be revoked and committed to men who acknowledged and cherished the government of Connecticut.
Pierrepont Edwards while conducting the defense was interrupted by General Hart, who observed that argument would be unavailing, as the majority had the will and power to pass the measure. On being called to order by Daggett, Hart intimated that he trusted that men might talk or at least think freely in the House. His mention of parties need cause no stir, he added, for party lines were as distinctly marked as county boundaries. Thereupon, Daggett and Holmes called for his reprimand, which was given, the sense of the House being taken. The
57 Jabez Tomlinson and Agur Judson of Stratford, Hezekiah Goodrich of Chatham, and Nathaniel Wanning of Windham.
58 Based on Church Ms .; Mercury, Nov. 15, 22, Dec. 6; Courant, Dec. 19, 1804.
167
RISE OF THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY
Hart affair attracted considerable attention as proof of Federalist tyr- anny and its strangle-hold upon the state.
The commissions were finally revoked by a partisan vote of 123 to 56. A minority protest signed by twenty-four of the bolder Repub- licans sustained the justices, pointing out that they knew of no consti- tution, nor do thousands of our citizens. The records have been ex- amined in vain, if the term means the same as in other states. A constitution can only be formed by the people. That the government was legal they did not deny. If the compact of 1639, the royal Charter, and the provisional revolutionary government, all subject to legislative changes, were to be considered the constitution, then the justices were wrong. This would be preposterous in a republic, though it holds in England or on the continent.
Judd died shortly afterward, leaving a manuscript defense, which some of his friends saw through the press.59 He wrote that they-
Did not mean to declare, as has been unjustly charged upon us, that this state is without a government, or that the government of this State is an usurped government; for we hold that a constitution and a government are two distinct things.
All states have governments, he declared, but few have constitutions. Blackstone might describe the English government as a constitution, but he believed with Washington that in America a constitution ema- nated from the people and "that no act or instrument deserves the name of a constitution, unless it be adopted by this supreme power ... vested in the people." As a constitution should define and limit the powers of government, it should be as far above the statutory laws as the laws are above the people. For years it has been doubted even by legislators whether Connecticut had a constitution. Recently Federalists have dug up the compact of 1639, on seeing that the regal Charter and statutory law would not satisfy the people, but overlooked the fact that New Haven had no share in that instrument. We have no constitution, he
59 Mercury, Nov. 29, 1804; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 73-74. Ten thousand copies were printed for circulation. Simeon Baldwin wrote from Washington, Nov. 26, 1804, to Daggett: "You may depend upon it much is calculated here from that event and that address. . . . It is considered as an artful thing and we do not know to whom to impute it. ... We know it was not Judd's .... Some of it we impute to Bishop, but we do not own him the author of the whole, we think it more art- fully and guardedly done than his writings usually are. Our friends here are alarmed for the steady habits of Connecticut. Do relieve our anxiety and let us know the effect." Ms. Letter, Yale University Library.
168
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
argued, as Federalists well know, with their artful cant about pious ancestors, the destruction of land titles, marriage contracts, and French Jacobinism. He then cited Hamilton and Montesquieu as witnesses of the danger of a tyranny where all powers of government are alike centered in one body. The Council's negative gave it full control over all judges and justices, who, to make matters worse, were often repre- sentatives, thus giving the Council a powerful influence over the As- sembly. He gave statistics to prove that three-quarters of the late repre- sentatives came under the Council's patronage list. The election law originated in the Council and was enforced in town meeting by the magistrate. Even the Lower House, he thought, needed a constitution to guarantee its own rights. Again, if the supreme power lay in the peo- ple in 1639, why not at the present time? There never could be a better time to discuss the question, for all was in a state of peace and pros- perity. As a last stroke, he appealed to the sovereign people, if their servants should be impeached for addressing them upon a matter of vital, public interest. His arguments were telling, appealing in moderate lan- guage to the common sense of the electorate. Their effectiveness was in- creased by an appended sketch which recounted his patriotic service, honest loyalty to the people and the harsh treatment of a malicious majority, which drove him sorrowing to the grave.
Judd became a Republican martyr. His memory was toasted and his courage extolled, along with the living justices. Their trial was con- trasted with the fairness of that of Judge Chase, who was not prose- cuted and tried by the same men. Here was the weightiest proof that a constitution was needed as a safeguard against a party bent only on perpetuating its power, by keeping the people under the yoke of a royal charter. Judd had fought in vain a seven-years' war against tyr- anny, it was remarked, only to succumb, still fighting the people's bat- tle against the laws of the king's charter. The partisan character of the courts was demonstrated. Republicans were not wanted as Connecti- cut's magistrates.60
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.