USA > Connecticut > Connecticut in transition: 1775-1818 > Part 21
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
117 Courant, Sept., Nov. 1814; Niles' Register, VII, 144 ff.
118 Cyrus King, speech in Congress, Oct. 22, 1814, gives a good account of New England's attitude. Willard Phillips, "An Appeal to the Good Sense of Demo- crats and the Public Spirit of Federalists" (1814). Henry Adams, Hist. of U. S., IX, 287 ff.
187
RISE OF THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY
there was difficulty in "devising means of defense against dangers, and of relief from oppressions proceeding from the act of their own govern- ment, without violating constitutional principles or disappointing the hopes of a suffering and injured people." They declared in favor of some means to protect themselves against a national draft of their citizens, to use their militia as a state or New England force, and to appropriate a reasonable share of the national tax for the maintenance of this force. Amendments were suggested, requiring a two-thirds vote of Congress to declare war, lay embargoes or admit new states; asking that the President be limited to a single term; that successive Presidents come from different states; that no foreign-born citizen be eligible to office; and that the South's representation be cut down by not counting blacks. In case of no action by the national government, another convention was to be called in the summer to consider future measures. The com- missioners sent to Washington, of whom Calvin Goddard and Na- thaniel Terry represented Connecticut, wisely neglected to deliver a message so discordant with the popular rejoicing over the peace just proclaimed.
The Hartford Convention could not shake off suspicion, not even when in defense Theodore Dwight published its journal in 1833.119 Con- necticut Federalism had been given a fatal blow, though its death was not immediate. John Quincy Adams could only account for the refrac- tory conduct of Massachusetts and Connecticut in "the depraving and stupefying influence of faction." 120 As a Republican pamphleteer wrote, it was "the foulest stain on our [Connecticut's] escutcheon." 121
Republican hopes rose with peace, for it was expected that shipping and agriculture would flourish, thus freeing the war party from re- sponsibility for the economic depression. Federalism was falling before national pride. It was arraigned by the Union at large for its provincial- ism, and charged by ardent Republicans with rampant treason. The Hartford Convention was so contemptibly regarded that even among former supporters it was "considered synonymous with treachery and
119 Greene, Religious Liberty, pp. 452-458; Church Ms. Webster, an active supporter, took a notion to study the Convention in 1835, and wrote to some of the survivors, but saw the hopelessness of a defense, for men would not credit its mem- bers. Ford, Webster, II, 123, 497-499. John Cotton Smith defended it to the end, feeling that the good name of its members alone should attest its character. Andrews, Smith, pp. 89, 95, 107; Tudor, Letters, p. 39.
120 Memoirs (Oct., 1819), IV, 422.
121 Richards, Politics of Connecticut, p. 26.
188
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
treason." 122 Republican papers printed in heavy type the names of its members on every anniversary. The American Mercury would have their names inscribed on every milestone "with the finger of scorn pointing to them." Hartford, as "the metropolitan see of Federalism," even entertained Admiral Hotham and his officers in March, 1815.123 Yet with the people at large "treason" was no longer popular. Repub- licans realized this and made splendid political capital of the fact.
John Cotton Smith was re-elected in the spring of 1815 by a vote of 8,176 to Boardman's 4,876; that is, by the lightest poll since Federalists faced an opposition. His victory was really due to Boardman's Epis- copacy, so it aroused premonitions of coming danger. In his address he stubbornly supported past policies and painfully reverted to the War as precipitous and pregnant with evil. In September the Republicans named their first assistants' list since 1810. Their high vote of 4,493 amounted to nearly half that of the leading Federalist. In the Assembly they won fifty-seven seats. Republican organizers were becoming hope- ful, for they believed this to be the full Federalist strength, and recalled that it was about the old maximum Republican vote of past years. Their problem was to reach the neutral, the former Republican and the fallen- away Federalist.124
NOTE INCREASE IN THE VOTE AND PARTY LIFE
The vote had never been large during the whole colonial periods. One of the bitterest elections, that of 1767, only resulted in 8,258 votes for governor. Stiles, Itineraries, pp. 462-465. Mckinley figures out that about one-twelfth of the adult males voted. Col. Records, XIV, 491; XV, 173; Mckinley, The Suffrage Franchise, p. 419. A town like Hamden, with 1,400 people, cast 78 votes on the ratification of the constitution, or 5.2 per cent. Blake, Hamden, p. 211. In New Haven's first city election, 1784, out of 600 men, 343 were freemen and only 70 per cent of them voted. Stiles, Diary, III, 120. The highest votes for assistants (from the Almanack and Register) : 1775, 4,325; 1794, 4,604; 1795, 2,756; 1796, 4,087; 1798, 5,513; 1799, 3,899, and 1800, 9,625. The state's population in 1790 was 237,946, and in 1800, 251,- 034. In 1784, 6,853 votes were cast for governor. Stiles, Diary, III, 120. In 1796 there were 7,773 votes (Courant, May 16) or 3.2 per cent on the 1800 census. In 1798, 7,075 votes were cast or 2.8 per cent. In Massachusetts, Weeden figured that from 1780 to 1789 only about 3 per cent of the people exercised the suffrage. Economic History, II, 865. Voting statistics are generally not obtainable, for on the secret counting of the vote ballots were destroyed, and only the result announced.
122 American Watchman in Mercury, Oct. 25, 1815.
123 Welling, Connecticut Federalism, p. 266. See Mercury, Mar. 22, 1817; Providence Patriot, Mar. 11, 1817.
124 Based on accounts in Courant and Mercury, Apr., May, Sept., Oct., 1815, passim.
189
RISE OF THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY
Party life brought out the vote. Indeed it was not long until men were afraid that the freemen were becoming dangerously subservient to party ties and appeals. As early as 1802, the American Mercury charged that "The Federalists appear to act from no principle but that of implicit obedience to their sect." Apr. 8, 1802. The National Intelligencer warned: "Stick to your party at all events, is a maxim erroneous in theory, and mischievous in practice." Feb. 3, 1803. The Courant took up the strain: "We must stick to our party. This sentiment of false honor, or rather of blind obstinacy, has a prodigious and most baneful influence at the present day." Aug. 3, 1810. Dwight, Decisions, p. 135, pointed out to the students the dangerous tendency of emphasizing the party's rather than the nation's good. The North American Review (1817), IV, 193, in a philosophic article on the "Abuses of Po- litical Discussion," said: "We have the resolute partizan, bound hand and foot to his old friends, and a few favorite measures monopolizing truth, and yet shaming her spirit." This was the service political parties did for the early nation. Nowhere was this bringing out of the electorate as necessary as in Connecticut.
CHAPTER VII
Federal Party Organization
T HE question arises: Why was the growth of Republicanism so slow? How was it that Connecticut alone remained immune to Demo- cratic attacks? The only reasonable explanation of Federalism's con- tinued success was the strength of its organization.
It was only necessary to perfect the working methods of the organ- ized body of office-holders who made up the nucleus of the party.1 There were the state officers, the assistants, and a large majority of the Assembly. In every county there was a sheriff with his deputies. All of the state, county, and town judges were potential and generally active workers. Every town had several justices of the peace, school directors and, in Federalist towns, all the town officers who were ready to carry on the party's work. Every parish had a "standing agent," whose anath- emas were said to convince at least ten voting deacons. Militia officers, state's attorneys, lawyers, professors and schoolteachers were in the van of this "conscript army." In all, about a thousand or eleven hundred dependent officer-holders were described as the inner ring which could always be depended upon for their own and enough more votes within their control to decide an election.2 This was the Federalist machine.
Such an organization was bound to be victorious. The early Repub- licans were helpless. Only when a similar Republican organization had been created were they able to lead an effectual attack. State caucuses of leading Federalists were held. As time went on, the old custom of no printed nomination lists was broken. The names of assistants were semi- officially brought to the attention of the voters by newspaper ballots,
1 Cf. Greene, Religious Liberty, p. 436.
2 There is especially good material in the following issues of the Mercury, Jan. 29, 1801, Apr. 8, 1802, Feb. 20, Mar. 20, 1806, July 4, Aug. 4, 1808.
191
FEDERAL PARTY ORGANIZATION
signed by the chairmen of the state caucus.3 This suggested list of candi- dates was then nominated by the Federalist voters without change or slip. Nominations for Congress came to be made in exactly the same way. Town caucuses were held in inns or coffee-houses just prior to the freemen's meetings. Here the town leader carried on the work as- signed by the state chairman. His duty was to inspire the voters with such a dread of the outcome, if the enemy gained the day, that all might turn out at the polls. A dozen Federalist newspapers lent untold assist- ance by advertising the "good men," maligning their contumacious op- ponents and publishing blacker and ever gloomier accounts of a future under triumphant Republicanism.
In any consideration of the Federalist machine, the Federalist com- plexion of Yale and the school system must not be overlooked. At greater length, the position of the lawyers and clergy will be discussed, for these two professions formed a powerful section of the party. Their influence was far reaching and used without hesitation.
Yale College was recognized by Republicans as an important mech- anism in the Federalist machine.4 With Dr. Dwight at its head stamping out heresy, religious and political, it is not surprising that this view gained currency. Professor Josiah Meigs as a Republican was no longer capable of teaching mathematics and philosophy.5 Abraham Bishop pic- tured his alma mater as a pernicious "laboratory of church and state," in which the students were taught by men who despised liberalism be- cause of their training, nature and interests. The intensely Federalist governing body, it was urged, did its utmost to injure a party in no way hostile to learning. Yale commencements were social occasions at which the ministers and aristocrats of the state met in New Haven.6 An ora- tion, naturally orthodox and Federalist in tone, was delivered. It was said that a United States Senator and a member of the Cabinet at one time had refused to be present lest they and the national administration be insulted from the rostrum.7 Yet, in spite of the stifling attempts of "the Pope and the holy order," Republicans rejoiced that a few students
3 Elijah Hubbard and Eliphalet Terry served as state chairmen. Courant, Oct. 29, 1806; Mar. 23, 30, 1808; Aug. 20, 1809. Mercury, June 2, 1803.
4 Bishop, Oration (1804), p. 22; Bishop, Proofs of a Conspiracy (1802), p. 48. 5 Mercury, Aug. 1, 1805.
6 Stiles, Diary, III, 402, 430; Mercury, Oct. 6, 1903; Sept. 23, 1807; Sept. 27, 1809; Sept. 12, 1811.
7 Mercury, May 22, 1800; Oct. 6, 1803.
192
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
saw the light and daringly asserted themselves in a party banquet.8 That the Republican party was opposed to the college in itself was in no way apparent. Too many Republican leaders were themselves graduates for this to be the case.
Republicans, not without cause, complained of the Federalist bias given to all Connecticut schooling.º Schoolmasters were as orthodox in politics as in religion, or orthodox boards of examiners would not have passed favorably on them. Even the textbooks were Federalist in tone, Dwight's Geography, Webster's readers, spellers, grammars and dic- tionaries, Rev. Ezra Sampson's The Beauties of the Bible, and Morse's Geography; all incidentally parried the dangers of democracy. Repub- licanism may have benefited in the end by many a boy's reaction from this teaching, when he entered upon his life work.
Yet, after all, Republicanism could be diffused more readily because of the literate character of the electorate than might otherwise have been the case. Practically every native-born resident could write and read.10 Social and mechanics' libraries served as reading centers in many towns. Newspapers were plentiful, generally read and handed on to non-sub- scribers. This meant much to a new party. Hence the primary schooling, despite its objectionable characteristics, proved advantageous to Repub- lican propaganda.
As stanch upholders of the Standing Order, the legal profession was assailed on all sides by Republicans.11. As a class, they were second only to the Congregational clergy in arousing hostility. Republican lawyers were few, even including the several individuals who might justly be classed as office-seekers. The vast majority of them were active Federal- ist workers, making for the undeniable efficiency of that party. It is not difficult to account for their political persuasion. Their reputation
8 Mercury, July 26, 1804; Sept. 7, 1809.
9 Niles' Register, XIII, 194; Mercury, Nov. 24, 1808. Ellen Peck, "Early Text- Books in Connecticut," Conn. Mag., IV, 61-72.
10 Noah Webster grieved at the paucity of books and scholars, but believed that knowledge was well diffused through the laboring class. Ten Letters, pp. 22-26. Judge Reeve in his legal career knew of only one native witness who could not read. Women were generally illiterate, even those of social standing often making their "mark." Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, pp. 30-32; Tudor, Letters, p. 47; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 4; Church, Litchfield Centennial, p. 49; Benjamin Stark, "Schools of New London," New London County Historical Society, Proceedings, II, 123.
11 Mercury, Feb. 27, 1806; Aug. 22, 1811. Bishop, Address (1801), pp. 84 ff .; Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, I, 95-98.
193
FEDERAL PARTY ORGANIZATION
was that of selfish men seeking their own interests, which assuredly were bound up with the success of Federalism. Their admission to the bar depended upon Federalist county courts. Then, to rise in his profession, a young lawyer found it advisable to be a friend of the clergy and a stanch supporter of the state's rulers, who were generally lawyers of family, of distinction or wealth.
The average attorney was apt to be a Yale graduate, then a student in a law office or a graduate of the famous Litchfield Law School, pre- sided over by Judges Tapping Reeve and James Gould.12 In any case, during the formative years of his life he was trained in an intensely Federalist atmosphere. Tapping Reeve, summoned in 1806 for seditious utterances, and the Law School, were as much a part of Connecticut Federalism as Dwight and Yale College. Legal interpretation was parti- san, for case lore was lodged in the memory or notes of Federalist judges. There were no American textbooks until, to fill the need, Swift in 1795 wrote A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut, which incidentally offered an elaborate defense of the government and past policies of the state. Ephraim Kirby, the Republican leader, commenced the private publication of legal reports in 1789. Aside from these, Black- stone and Montesquieu were the chief sources in English.13 This left the young law student dependent upon auricular law, with the result that he was confirmed in Federalist principles and convinced that only as a member of that party could he anticipate success. In brief, he imbibed Federalism in learning law.
To attack the lawyer was good political capital. This the Republican leaders realized, and this the student of the time must not overlook as one of the reasons for that party's attitude. Never had the lawyer been popular in Connecticut. Rev. Noah Atwater's advice to his son expressed the general opinion: "I should not wish you to study law. Many of the lawyers are reputable and worthy men and very useful in the com-
12 For an account of the school and its faculty, see: Hollister, Connecticut, II, 597 ff .; David Boardman, Sketches of Litchfield Bar, pp. 7-10; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 233; Loomis and Calhoun, Judicial History, pp. 460, 537; Stokes, Memorials, II, 255-260.
13 Kirby's volume, covering about 200 cases from 1785 to 1788, is considered the first of its kind issued in America, though Alexander Dallas followed the next year with one for Pennsylvania. The reports were continued by Jesse Root and later by Thomas Day, who in 1814 became the first official reporter. Loomis and Calhoun, Judicial History, pp. 143-145; Hollister, Connecticut, II, 609; Dwight Kilbourne, The Bench and Bar of Litchfield County, pp. 103 ff. For lack of texts, see: Stiles, Diary, II, 20; Swift, System of the Laws, I, 1-5.
194
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
munity. But many temptations attend their profession." 14 That these temptations were not avoided was the usual belief. Lawyers were sub- ject to a special tax, by being put in the list at fifty pounds. In 1730 their number in the colony was limited to eleven, but thirty years later Stiles counted six in New Haven County. After the Revolution their number increased until by 1800 nearly every town had at least one at- torney, with a total of about two hundred in the state.15 Republicans condemned this increase as due to the loaves and fishes rather than to business. They charged them with stirring up strife in quiet neighbor- hoods, in order to augment business among a people already notorious for their fondness for litigation.16 The cost, it was pointed out, fell chiefly upon necessitous persons, who were frequently reduced to pov- erty. Thus the poor rates were said to be indirectly raised by the ques- tionable practices of the profession.
Farmers were advised by Republicans to vote for men who lived by their labor rather than by their lungs. Until the hardy, sunburnt sons of industry, the equivalent of our "plain people," stood firm against the lawyers' monopoly, taxes and emoluments of office would continue to be the prey of this lawyer class. Editorials pointed out that the two United States Senators were lawyers, likewise the six Congressmen, eight of those in nomination for Congress, fifteen of the annual aspirants to the Council, the speaker and clerks of the Legislature, and numerous representatives. Lawyers were decried as the allies of the clergy, with whose assistance they were able to rule the General Assembly, advance their own interests and incidentally tighten their grip on the state. Fed- eralists dodged the issue whenever possible, for they were well aware of its strength with farmer and mechanic. Occasionally they retaliated with articles, showing that Jefferson's appointees were often attorneys, and that lawyers played quite as prominent a part under the Republican régime in other states. The suffrage qualification alone prevented the laboring element from registering in a decisive way their approval of the Republican contention.
14 Yale Pamphlets (1802), Vol. 59, No. 7.
15 Loomis and Calhoun, Judicial History, pp. 184 ff .; Dwight, Decisions; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, and The Almanack and Register, give the number for each town; Dwight, Travels, I, 250; subscription list for Swift's work. The Mercury estimated the number of lawyers at 191 in 1803, and 299 in 1807, issues of Mar. 31, 1803; Mar. 26, 1807.
16 Dwight, Travels, I, 250; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 13; Stiles, Diary, III, 221; Robbins, Diary, I, 349; Morse, Geography, p. 158.
195
FEDERAL PARTY ORGANIZATION
Dwight severely criticised these Republican tactics as not merely a popular appeal, but as an attempt to win the younger unsettled lawyers. Ultimately the policy was successful, aided by a liberal use of federal patronage. At any rate the Toleration-Republican party was not to prove unkind to legal men of Republican sympathies.
Above all other men subject to the virulence of Republican scribes and orators were the Congregational clergy. To understand the occa- sion for this, it is necessary to consider the status of the ministry.
The Congregational clergy of Connecticut was the favored, priv- ileged class of the colonial period.17 Their polls and estates were exempt from taxation. Stringent laws secured the advantages of their position and assisted in augmenting the respect shown by their charges. They were the established ministers; other clergymen were but dissenting preachers tolerated in part, but never respected. It was the Congrega- tional clergyman who controlled the parish school, who instructed the children of all faiths in religion and morals, who acted as school visitor and examined the fitness and morals of the teacher. It was the Congre- gational clergyman who prayed at the freemen's meeting and who often aided in conducting the vote. The Congregational clergy, not dissenting ministers, occupied positions of honor at the General Elections. Every town had at least one clergyman, who often was the only college man in the vicinity, aside from a possible lawyer and a medical man of doubt- ful education. No other professions were recognized. The greatest of these was the minister, who might act as physician or be called in to settle legal disputes. His social position was secure. He stood with the magistrate, the squire, and the opulent general merchant. To magistrate and minister was the hat doffed.
The minister was called by the leading members of the congrega- tion. With them he stood on the best of terms, thereby making his liv- ing permanent for all practical purposes. Long tenure increased his in- fluence and power so that he often became a pope in his parish, his power depending upon his calling rather than upon his personality. He preached a severe Calvinism which appealed to the fear rather than to the reason of his hearers. He encouraged church-going by demanding the enforcement of the Sabbath laws, and mended morals by an inquisi- torial scrutiny. In the poorest parishes and in the frontier districts he
17 Cf. Anderson, Waterbury, I, 525; Bronson, Waterbury, pp. 315 ff .; Porter, Historical Address (1840), p. 45. Stiles, Sermon (1783), p. 73, and Diary, I, 54, minimize this power.
196
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
was obliged to farm in order to eke out a living, and to practise also a judicious economy. Yet, generally speaking, his salary was relatively fair when compared with the incomes of those about him, the physician, the magistrate, or the schoolteacher. His clerical duties consisted of two forty-five minute Sunday sermons, catechising the young, visiting the sick, attending funerals and convocations, and entertaining passing com- pany. His most arduous work was in connection with the collection of the dissenters' tithes. Generally speaking, he did nothing for literature. President Dwight excused this on the grounds of small libraries and poor livings.18 On the whole his work was not onerous. In large towns the Congregational ministers stood in the first rank as social leaders, and in the small towns the solitary clergyman brooked no equal.
Congregational clergymen were patriots during the Revolution. As such they did not discourage the persecution of the Anglican church- men of Tory sympathies. Hence their power was not weakened after the War, any more than was that of the aristocratic element. They stood again with the ruling class in a demand for the Constitution and a strong, stable, central government. Later, Republicans honestly be- lieved that the clergy had only aided in overthrowing the king in order to usurp his power.19
The years following the Revolution lessened the autocratic sway of the clergy and challenged the forces of reaction, in so far that there was granted a nominal toleration to all sects, a lay representation on Yale's board of directors, and a theoretical belief in religious freedom engendered by the Constitution. Again, as economic and political life developed, the local clergyman's influence diminished. Other men were becoming educated; the college was becoming something more than a mere divinity school. Lawyers were gaining in influence. Yet the change in the minister's position was too gradual for the opponents of these steady habits, whose eyes could scarcely detect the progress of the movement.
David Daggett, disclosing more frankness than cleverness, called attention to the waning light of the minister in 1787:
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.