USA > Connecticut > Connecticut in transition: 1775-1818 > Part 24
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
The campaign charge of legislative corruption resulted in a minor reform. The Council blocked the publication of semi-annual financial reports, by means of which Tolerationists hoped to show financial defi- cits, despite the fiscal talent of the Treasurer, Kingsbury. However, transcripts were allowed to be made and printed under certain regula- tions.23 Apparently in the past the budget had been kept "a profound secret from the public." Thus a wedge was driven into the autocratic secrecy with which the people's money was handled.
An organized campaign against the Council was inaugurated in the summer of 1816. The Toleration party, assured of success in the state offices and in the Legislature, made a determined assault on the Council, which had long been regarded as the keystone of the Federalist system and the bulwark of reaction. It was in especially bad grace because of the refusal in May to publish the comptroller's accounts and the veto of a bill providing for a two-year issue of bank paper, to the amount of
20 Diary, I, 664. See Courant, Apr. 2, 1816; Rev. Dr. Shelton, Memoir of Rev. Philo Shelton of Fairfield, in Sprague, Annals of American Pulpit, V, 351.
21 Mercury, Apr. 16; Courant, Jan. 23, Apr. 16, 1816; Robbins, Diary, I, 644. 22 Courant, Apr. 30.
23 Mercury, May 28, June 4, 1816.
217
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
one-third the bank's capital, in order to relieve the lack of circulating medium.24
A series of articles by "Cato" reviewed the Council's history.25 He proposed to consider if seven superannuated men should rule the state, negativing the bills of the people's representatives. Yet he felt:
That for years past, and more especially at the present time, the will of the Council has been and is the supreme law of the state, [and] no one, who has the least acquaintance with that species of ministerial policy and manage- ment by which the state is governed, will pretend to deny.
The difficulty of investigating the source of its powers was insuperable, for they were based not upon the Charter, but upon the implied assent of the people. Custom gave no preference to either House, even in money bills. Yet their powers were by no means co-equal. Like the British Lords, the assistants were best suited to a royal foundation. They were restrained only by prudential considerations. Their tenure was secure; unlike judges, they could not even be impeached. They were responsible for the militia controversy and largely for the Hartford Convention. Cato recalled the half-forgotten desire for a written con- stitution as the only means of defining the Council's position. He saw no difficulty in drafting a constitution in a country having no legally recog- nized classes.
The question of religious toleration still remained the central issue. The opposition party described itself as a union of all parties and all sects, who detested political Congregationalism and who believed that even dissenters should receive equal privileges and a fair share of of- fices.26 Federalists described Republican-Episcopalians as certificate- Episcopalians of no influence. Again, they appealed to the friends of Washington to protect the legacies of the fathers.
Toleration politicians played a shrewd game in the September elec- tions.27 In order to break the Federalist hold on Congress, they sup- ported the last candidates on the Federalist list, one of whom at least,
24 Mercury, June 18, 1816.
25 Ibid., July 30, Aug. 6, 13, 20, 1816.
26 New Haven Register, quoted in Mercury, Aug. 27, 1816. See Courant, Aug. 20. "The government is and has been for a long time a combination of men of one sect in politics and one sect in religion, firmly bent on their own promotion and relying on the union of Church and State to bear down all opposition." Mercury, Sept. 10, 1816.
27 Albany Advertiser, quoted in Courant, June 18, 1816; Mercury, Sept. 10, Oct. 22, 1816.
218
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
Charles Denison, was an Episcopalian. In this way five new men were elected to Congress, only two being returned. As the newly elected men were only nominal Federalists, it meant really a Toleration victory. In the case of the assistants, both parties had official lists, with the Epis- copalians Asa Chapman and Dr. Johnson on both lists. That they drew the churchmen's vote was attested by their leading the list with 12,498 and 13,149 votes respectively, whereas Sherman received only 9,377, and the Republican Tomlinson won the twentieth place with 7,686 votes. Tolerationists could claim that three of their men were nomi- nated.
The contest for representatives was keen. Hartford cast 804 votes, by rounding up over a hundred new freemen or negligent voters through the efforts of ward leaders. Federalists were returned as of old. This rounding-up of voters was so successful that similar steps were taken by both parties in other towns.28 In the Assembly Tolerationists numbered about eighty-seven to one hundred and fourteen Federalists. This session selected presidential electors, Ingersoll being successful but Wolcott failing with only eighty-eight votes. His vote offered a prac- tical test of the party's strength.29
That the Federalists were worried, their conciliatory policy in the October session amply demonstrated. In no other way can one account for the passage of the Bonus Act than as a political move to conciliate the disgruntled dissenter. This was "An Act for the support of Litera- ture and Religion," appropriating the sum of $14,500 due from the na- tional government for disbursements made for military defense in the late war.30 It provided that one-third should be distributed among the Congregational societies in proportion to their tax lists; one-seventh to the trustees of the Bishop's Fund; an eighth to the Baptists, through a committee of trustees named by the Legislature; a twelfth to Methodist trustees similarly appointed; a seventh to Yale College; and the re- mainder, of about a sixth, to remain in the treasury. It was a compromise act in the guise of religious philanthropy. Federalist leaders hoped to win back the Episcopalians with this donation to the Bishop's Fund in lieu of their share of the Phoenix Bank bonus, out of which they be-
28 Courant, Sept. 17, Dec. 17, 1816; Mercury, Sept. 24, 1816.
29 Mercury, Nov. 5, 1816.
30 Public Laws (1808-1819), p. 279; Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 36; Hollister, Connecticut, II, 515; Beardsley, Episcopal Church, II, 123, 161; Courant, Apr. I, 1817. It was described as "An act to encourage Episcopalians to vote for us-to increase the salaries of the faculties of Yale College, etc." Mercury, Mar. 4, 1817.
219
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
lieved themselves defrauded. The college could not fail to be satisfied, after having received the largess of $20,000 from the Phoenix fund. The donation to the minor sects could not have been expected to do more than placate them and incidentally to demonstrate the fairness and broad toleration of the rulers. Compromises seldom satisfy, and the Bonus Act proved no exception.
No group was pleased. Even the Congregationalists felt that they had not received their full share. To be officially rated as if they amounted to only a third of the population was not flattering. The Episcopalians were not to be so easily conciliated, for they did not re- gard this grant as fairly apportioned or as a restitution for the failure of their bonus. Federalism could not satisfy them, for the new party was too willing to further their interests. Yet they did not fail to accept their share, which was invested in gilt-edged bank stock.31 Baptists and Meth- odists voiced dissatisfaction in harsh protests.32 They believed that the Legislature had violated decorum in appointing their trustees, some of whom refused to serve. They rated themselves as more numerous than the Episcopalians, who shared largely in Federalist good-will. To accept their quotas would be inconsistent with professions of no state aid for religion, no forced contributions for Gospel support. The Baptists, Methodists and Episcopalians of Andover united in protest against the political trickery of the act. The Goshen Methodists resolved that they desired no state aid from those who considered them wandering luna- tics. Burlington Methodists refused it as an insulting bribe; the Baptists of Groton and New Haven objected to such aid. Preston and Danbury protested in town meetings.
At first both Methodists and Baptists disdainfully refused the dona- tion, but the conflict between principle and interest was of short dura- tion. In February, 1818, the Methodist trustees, protesting against the amount, agreed to accept the money rather than allow it to remain in the treasury. Their action was censured by many of the denomination. The New Haven and Granby societies went so far as to petition the Legislature to be allowed to return their share to the treasury, which was readily granted. The Baptist trustees did not accept their share until June, 1820.33 In defense of the humbler sectaries, it can be said
31 Hart, Episcopal Bank, pp. 4, 5, 11.
32 Courant, Jan. 21, 1817; Mercury, Nov. 12, 19, Dec. 24, 1816; Jan. 7, 21, Mar. II, 25, 1817; Greene, Religious Liberty, pp. 468 ff.
33 Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 36; Mercury, Feb. 17, Mar. 3, June 16, 1818.
220
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
that they did not benefit by the grant until after the severance of the church and state connection.
The result of the act was an increase in sectarian bickerings. As a political bribe it brought disgrace upon the party offering it and served Republicans to prove Federalist corruption. The attempt failed in every- thing save in convincing the opposition that Federalism was fearful of its downfall.
Oliver Wolcott and Jonathan Ingersoll were again the Toleration candidates. The Federalists named Smith and Ingersoll, hoping thereby to prevent definitive Episcopalian break, to blur past memories, and to win back the substantial Episcopalian vote. The April, 1817, campaign was vigorously conducted, for it was generally felt that the political crisis had been reached. Tolerationists were hopeful; Federalists were depressed, yet fighting hard.34
The Toleration party again featured its policies of church separa- tion and no "religious test" for office.35 Reform, they warned, would not be dangerous. They announced: "Sovereignty belonged to the peo- ple and offices were not held in fee simple." The secret handling of the state's finances was again attacked. Appropriations and disbursements were made in a way to puzzle a lawyer, as the recently issued reports were so artfully specious as to be worthless. The whole system of taxa- tion was reviewed. No state, it was said, suffered from higher or more unequal taxes. Land still remained the chief source of taxation; newer forms of wealth, capital, stock, and bank shares were not listed, or if so at a low rate. In this way, the farmer paid about three times his rightful share, for a twenty-dollar cow was taxed as much as $233 worth of bank stock and a two-thousand-dollar farm as high as $50,000 in money or stock. Arguments of this nature were listened to by the farmers, already discontented with their lot. As a parting campaign shot the story was printed that the state, being deeply in debt, would levy an assessment of ten cents on the dollar. This campaign lie was not without results de- spite Treasurer Kingsbury's sharp denial. Men were not allowed to for- get the Hartford Convention or the aristocratic rule of the Council.36
Chairman Hillhouse issued the Federalist statement, emphasizing the two-century-old constitution of the fathers, which had withstood every
34 Courant, Mar. 4, 11, Apr. 1; Mercury, Mar. 11, 1817; Robbins, Diary, I, 699. 35 The New Haven Register saw Federalists "feeling their way to office through the broad alleys of their meeting houses." Quoted in Mercury, Feb. 25, 1817. 36 Mercury and Courant, March-April, passim.
22I
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
tempest. Religion must be supported, if only for the welfare of the state. No portion of the globe experienced greater tolerance. Then fol- lowed the usual commendation of the college and schools; and misrepre- sentation of the principles and intentions of the "revolutionary fac- tion." 37 An "Old Freeman" pathetically feared that "this state so long the nursery of morals, science and literature, so long the abode of peace, regularity and piety, will become the scene of discord, confusion, and every evil work-and her offices of government, cages of unclean and hateful birds. . . . Shall Connecticut be revolutionized, now, after having triumphantly withstood every attack for twenty years-after the rest of the world has become sick of revolutions, and are coming back as fast as they can to the good old way?" 38
Connecticut cast by far its heaviest vote, Wolcott receiving 13,655 votes to Smith's 13,119, or, when corrections were made, a majority of about 600 votes. It is probable that nearly every freeman voted. Yet only ten per cent of the white inhabitants were represented. This would suggest the number of free residents who, under the existing laws, were disfranchised. Ingersoll was not opposed, nor were the offices of Treas- urer Kingsbury and Secretary Day contested. In the Assembly the Tol- erationists had a heavy majority.39
The political map, based on the vote for governor, shows the Toler- ation strength in dissenting towns, in shipping centers; and the party's inroads into the conservative country towns. Even Litchfield and Wind- ham counties were affected. If the map brought out the large Toleration minorities in Federalist towns, the result would be more marked.
The election of Wolcott signified the entrance of a new era, new men and new ideas. Yet there lingers half a feeling of regret that the old order had to give way. John Cotton Smith was the last of the Puri- tan governors. His eulogist said: "It was the honour of Governor Smith to close worthily the long line of chief magistrates in whom the princi- ples of the former era were represented, and to shed around the last days of the old Commonwealth, the lustre it had in the times of Haynes, Winthrop and Saltonstall." 40 To ardent Federalists, his retirement to his estate in Sharon marked the end of Connecticut's golden age. Smith,
37 Courant, Mar. 4, 1817.
38 Ibid., Mar. 25, 1817.
39 Mercury, May 13, 1817; Niles' Register, XII, 128, 144; Robbins, Diary, I, 702.
40 Andrews, John Cotton Smith, pp. 40-41. See Hollister, Connecticut, II, 517. Smith lived until 1845 on his thousand-acre estate, engaging in religious work.
222
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
of the blood of John Cotton, was unable to breast the new times. He was happier in his religious seclusion from which he was to witness during the next thirty years the complete transformation of Connecticut into a modern state.
The Courant observed: "The retirement of Governor Smith from office may have produced regret; but it is a regret accompanied by the redeeming recollection that faction and falsehood are his only ene- mies." 41 The Connecticut Mirror concurred with similar expressions. The Beechers thought only of God's Church. Happily for himself, Dr. Dwight had not lived to see his defeat.42 The brilliant Dr. Nathan Strong, who had none of the "mad and shameful spirit of proselytism," died the year before.43 Robbins fatalistically consoled himself: "We deserve the divine judgments and are now called to bear them." 44 Gen- eral Humphreys was about to pass away. Noah Webster had already removed to Amherst and had seemingly lost his former interest in poli- tics. The old generation was passing away. It is an interesting historical speculation to wonder if only with its death and the rise of the new generation could reform and new measures come to pass.45
"The Democrats are on tiptoe," wrote an observer. "What they will attempt when the legislature meets no one can tell. I think in Governor Wolcott they have got a Tartar and will not find him exactly the man they wish." 46 While the Fourth was somewhat non-partisan, a few toasts expressed the views of Tolerationists: "Oliver Wolcott-Gover- nor of the State, not of a Party"; "Connecticut-Emerging from the fogs of political delusion." Naturally, Republicans rejoiced, but probably not to the same extent as if it had been less of a conservative victory. There was little expression of a discreditable glee which would lacerate Federalist feelings.
Outside Republican opinion was decidedly jubilant. The Boston Yankee wrote of Connecticut: "This old and constant sinner in the walks of federalism has renounced her political heresy, and returned to the bosom of the American family." The Baltimore Patriot declared: "The sweet and pacific voice of toleration, so worthy the name of re-
41 Courant, May 13, 1817.
42 Autobiography, I, 344.
43 Funeral Sermon by Rev. Nathan Perkins.
44 Diary, I, 700.
45 Cf. Arthur T. Hadley, Undercurrents in American Politics, p. 13.
46 Gilman, Norwich, p. 113; Robbins, Diary, I, 709; Mercury, July 15, 23, 1817.
EN D
LITCHFIELD
O T Q
WIND CHE M
HARTFORD
NEW
LONDON
NEW
HYA
MIDDLESEX
F
VOTE FOR GOVERNOR - APRIL 1817
Republican Towns Federalist Towns
223
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
publicanism, is now heard where before nought but the hoarse and hateful accents of persecution and illiberality resounded." The Boston Patriot saw in Wolcott's election the destruction of the sheet anchor of Federalism's last hope.47
Governor Wolcott's address to the General Assembly evidenced a breadth and depth of understanding of which the late governors were quite incapable.48 Wolcott expressed moderate views, encouraging co- operation and compromise. To the surprise of his opponents, there was "nothing of that frothy, bombastic jargon" which they narrowly as- cribed to Republicans, so that they wondered if after all he was not a Federalist. They convinced themselves of Republican dissatisfaction. But the future, with its Wolcott administration of ten years, was des- tined to prove them in the wrong. He was the people's rather than a party governor.
His views of the rights of conscience are worthy of quotation:
It is the right and duty of every man, to worship and adore the Supreme Creator and Preserver of the Universe, in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; and no man or body of men have, or can acquire, by acts of licentiousness, impiety, or usurpation, any right to disturb the public peace, or control others in the exercise of their religious opinions or worship. . .
There are no subjects respecting which the sensibility of freemen is more liable to be excited to impatience, than in regard to the rights of con- science, and the freedom of suffrage. So highly do the people prize these privileges that they have sometimes ascribed to unfriendly motives towards particular sects and denominations what was sincerely intended to secure an equality of rights to every portion of the community.
When people are so wrought up, he advised, prudence will cause the Legislature to investigate the grievances. This was indeed a moderate statement.
47 Quoted in Mercury, Apr. 25, 1817.
48 Courant, May 20, 1817; Niles' Register, XII, 201 ff .; Greene, Religious Lib- erty, pp. 472 ff. National Intelligencer, May 22, said: "The speech is evidently the production of a master of the pen, and a man who knows the world. . .. Tho' a certain bigotry has characterised the councils of the state of Connecticut, hereto- fore, and a cool indifference to the national interests, which required the agency of reform, we should have been sorry to see it too rudely employed; for there are some institutions and habits, almost peculiar to Connecticut which, so far from dis- turbing we should be glad to see imitated and emulated in other sections of our country."
224
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
A review of the election laws he commended to the Assembly, with the observation that the purity of the ballot had been guaranteed by our fathers. As evidence of this, every freeman was oathbound to give his suffrage in conscience, with only the commonwealth in mind. Even to solicit votes or hand a freeman a ballot was a penal offense. He would have the Legislature see if, under the present system of voting, this ancient sacred character of the franchise was maintained, and act ac- cording to their findings. He pleaded for an independent judiciary, in which supreme judges should hold for life or good behavior. This was a reform which every honest Federalist favored. In no place was Wol- cott's conservatism better attested, for he advised that the change be made immediately, and justice raised above partisanship at a time when the judges were of such a high type.
The problem of emigration received his close attention:
An investigation of the causes which produce the numerous emigrations of our industrious and enterprising young men is by far the most important subject which can engage our attention. We cannot justly repine at any improvement of their condition. They are our relatives and friends who in the honourable pursuit of comfort and independence, encounter voluntary toils and privations, and the success of their efforts affords a most exhilarat- ing subject for contemplation. Still it is certain that the ardour for emigra- tion may be excessive, and perhaps the time has arrived, when it will be wise in those who meditate removals, to compare the value of what they must relinquish, with what they expect to acquire. On our part it is important to consider whether everything has been done which is practicable, to render the people contented, industrious, and frugal, and if causes are operating to reduce any class of citizens to a situation which leaves them no alternative but poverty or emigration, in that case to afford the most speedy relief.
This, "fortunately for the people," could only be attained by mak- ing it to their interest to remain. Free circulation of capital and credit and the removal of taxes upon skill and industry were suggested meas- ures.
His intimate knowledge gave added weight to his views on manu- facturing. Manufacturers were becoming non-partisan if the unanimity of their support signified anything. He predicted that the interest of state and nation was bound up in their development. Wealth had de- clined, agriculture languished, commerce was falling off, and factories, which employed many men, were suffering from depression. Hence it was urgent that the state second the efforts of the central government in giving relief to industry.
225
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
In the matter of taxation he had long been professionally interested.49 He prefaced his recommendations with the remark that his views were the same as when he presented his report to Congress on the exhausting effects of unequal forms of taxation with particular reference to New England. His suggestion had been approved and enforced by Congress, and its value had been tested by time. He advised a systematic revision which should be based on ample data derived from a thorough study of conditions. The mode in vogue was more unequal and far more in- jurious than was generally recognized. The capitation tax worked a hardship on the day laborer, who without property paid a sixteenth of his income in taxes. Heavy assessments on horses and oxen, which were only aids in the creation of wealth, injured the farmer. Taxes on neces- sities were burdensome to the poor. The fireplace tax while small was unfair, for often the humble cottager paid as much as his wealthy neigh- bor in a splendid old mansion. Assessments on mills, machinery, manu- factures, commercial investments, profits of trades, and professions, were liable to serious objections unless the tax was nominal for the sake of statistics. Otherwise, it would cause a depression of industry and tend to drive men of skill and talents outside the state.
Wolcott's address, outlining the Toleration program, was immedi- ately taken under consideration by the Assembly. Every subject was referred to a committee of the Lower House, though custom had al- ways favored joint committees. The Lower House took this occasion to show its antagonism to the Federalist Council. This antagonism was embittered by the Council's veto of a bill repealing the infamous "stand-up law" and guaranteeing the secrecy of the ballot in its old- time purity.50
Little change was made in the certificate laws, save that certificates were to be lodged with the town clerk rather than the clerk of the settled society. All denominations were given equal privileges in taxing their members for Gospel support, though in the case of the Congrega- tionalists the state was a party to its collection. A clause allowing a per- son to certificate from one society to another of the same denomination was defeated, lest it result in the demoralization of societies. This act had an Episcopalian impress, for Republicans, Baptists and Methodists would never have retained the tithe.
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.