USA > Connecticut > Connecticut in transition: 1775-1818 > Part 25
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
An act was passed, defining the office of comptroller, who was in-
49 Ford, Webster, I, 335.
50 For a review of the session, see Courant and Mercury, May-June, 1817.
226
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
structed to render a report of expenditures and receipts every May, or oftener on demand. The current report, printed on the motion of a Federalist, disproved the Republican pre-election stories that the fi- nances were in a bad way. A committee of investigation was appointed to make a complete study of the system of taxation and report in the fall. Both parties were anxious to encourage manufacturing and thereby assist in lessening emigration. Jonathan Edwards, Jr., a Federalist, agreed that, as the state was already importing food stuffs and exporting little but beef and pork, its future wealth would be in manufactures. A law was enacted exempting workmen in cotton and woolen mills from a poll tax or militia service for a period of four years, and freeing fac- tories with their machinery and five acres of land from taxation for a similar period.51
With regard to the judiciary, differences of opinion arose. All Tol- erationists were not as willing as Wolcott to perpetuate the present judges in power. A bill was suggested, postponing action for a year, with the expectation that then the Council would be revolutionized. As finally agreed, the matter was postponed six months. In the appointment of the superior court justices only Calvin Goddard was omitted from the list. This was not entirely due to a recognition of their worth, but to the assurance that the Council would not concur in their displace- ment. Over the other judicial appointments considerable party discord was displayed. Federalists were bound to intrench themselves in the judiciary, actually trying to name Federalist justices for strong Tolera- tion towns. The caucus lists from New London and Fairfield counties were defeated in the Lower House, which saw its list thrown out by the Council. At length matters were compromised by adding Republican justices to the usual quota, so the number of justices, already too large, was increased by about one hundred. The Council's opposition resulted in a bitter determination to overthrow the aristocratic Upper House.
The summer witnessed a weakening of party tension. This was ob- servable in the character of the Fourth-of-July celebrations and in the reception given Monroe on his tour of inspection of public defenses and munition plants. At New Haven the President was escorted by leaders of both parties, and even the clergy joined the citizens in doing him honor. In other towns it was the same. It was noted by Federalists that the President's "affable, unaffected and dignified deportment" impressed
51 Public Laws (1808-1819), pp. 285, 287.
227
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
everyone. It was further believed that partisan spirit was losing its past frenzy.52
The September campaign found the Federalists, the opposition party, attacking the Wolcott program. They asked: What were the Demo- cratic designs on the judiciary, that they failed to be ruled by their chief's wish? The state funds, amounting to nearly two million dollars, had been well husbanded. Would the office-seekers be as trustworthy? If there was intolerance, why was it not discovered by the saintly Johnson rather than by the skeptical Abraham Bishop? Toleration was a "mere stalking horse to power," used by federal office-holders grown rich and haughty. It was a cry to exclude from office Federalists of the Washington type. A direct tax on land would fall heavily on the farmer and ease the burden of lawyer, doctor, and manufacturer. In- stead of discouraging emigration, it would drive farmers west. Their demand for a constitution would not be well received until the consti- tution-making activities of the French had been forgotten. Freemen were advised to hesitate, for "A new constitution will put all things afloat on the ocean of visionary experiment." Let voters remember that democracy and its leaders were the same, whether under the name of Toleration, whether abroad, in the sister states, or at home.
Tolerationists centered their whole attention upon the crying need of breaking the vicious aristocratic control of the Council.53 It was the only barrier, but an impassable one, in the way of reform. A struggle would result in a deadlock. Judges, justices, administrative officials, militia officers and the like could not be commissioned. To force the hand of the Council would inevitably bring anarchy. Hence the deter- mination of the new party to elect Toleration men to the Council. Otherwise, a constitutional convention could not be even thought of. All the old charges against the Council were aired: its opposition to the war; support of the Hartford Convention; authorship of the election law; militia appointments; secret sessions and factious control of justices. Federalists defended the Council by saying that if the militia stand was wrong, it had been taken with the people's welfare in mind and was later endorsed by the voters. If it was treasonable, why did the new
52 Contemporary newspapers, June-August, 1817.
53 The Hartford Times observed: "Every bill which passed the House, in- tended either to remove popular complaints or redress public grievances, was neg- lected by the Council." Quoted in Niles' Register, XII, 240. Mercury, Aug. 26, Sept. 2, 9, 1817.
228
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
party accept Jonathan Brace and Frederick Wolcott, while condemn- ing their fellow-councilors Roger M. Sherman, Griswold and Good- rich?
Party activities knew no bounds. Robbins, noting the great efforts of the reformers, prayed that "the Lord be our helper." 54 The Tolera- tionists shrewdly placed on their list five Federalists: Frederick Wolcott, the governor's brother and partner, Asa Chapman, Elias Perkins, Nathan Smith and the senior councilor, Jonathan Brace, now that Aaron Austin had withdrawn his name.55 For some reason Dr. Johnson was not in- cluded this time. Federalists ridiculed this compromise ticket whose members were guilty of long service and hostility to the late adminis- tration.
The official vote gave the men endorsed by both tickets from 19,341 to 20,2 37 votes, while the highest Tolerationist had 12,647 and the high- est Federalist a little over 10,000. The Tolerationists carried their full list. Reform could only be delayed six months at the most. In the Lower House the new party had at least 121 men out of 201, besides a few neutral Federalists 56-"a heterogeneous combination of sects, sectarians and adventurers." Robbins expressed the sentiments of the ruling cast:
Our God frowns upon us in his holy and terrible judgments. I hope and pray that we may not long be given up to the rage of the wicked. I consider it the success of iniquity against righteousness.57
Connecticut had at last capitulated after a seventeen years' siege.
54 Diary, I, 714. For Hartford activities, Mercury, Aug. 26, Sept. 3, 1817. Judge Trumbull's characterization of the Tolerationist is interesting: "It is now more than three years since a combination was formed, among the restless, ambitious, and dissolute part of the community, to seize upon all the public offices in the state and apportion them among themselves. If this combination was in some measure tacit it was nevertheless real and practical. To promote its views, a standard was raised, called Toleration, and offices were unblushingly offered to all who would resort to it. But lawyers without talents, integrity or business, quack doctors, broken merchants, idle farmers and idle mechanics, tavern hunters and gamblers, can afford to spend days, weeks, months, and years in low intrigues, in inculcating falsehoods, in preaching politics in bar-rooms, and at the corners of streets and highways, for the sake of an office with a small income; and that for this plain reason, that the time which they devote to the public use is worth nothing to them- selves." Address (1819), pp. 4, 13-14.
55 The Connecticut Journal asked: "Can three or four drops of wine render a portion of arsenic less dangerous?" Quoted in Courant, Sept. 9.
56 Courant, Oct. 14, Nov. 4, 1817; Niles' Register, XIII, 120. Towns like South- bury, Montville, New Canaan and Redding sent anti-Federalist representatives, though in those very places Republicans had long been classed with rattlesnakes. 57 Diary, I, 716.
229
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
Wolcott addressed the General Assembly in a speech so conciliatory and moderate that the Federalists hopefully believed that he was one of their own.58 Republicans were not disheartened, but took occasion to inquire if the Bible had been destroyed or the meeting-houses over- turned. Wolcott spoke eulogistically of the old republican government, cautioning lest it be too radically changed:
"It is natural and just that institutions which have produced so much honor and advantage, should be objects of veneration and attachment; and if, as may be admitted, some changes are expedient to adapt our government to the principles of a more enlightened age than that in which it was formed, and to reconcile it with the institutions which surround us, and by which our interests are necessarily affected, still we are bound to recollect, that whatever is of common concern, ought to be adjusted by mutual consultations, and friendly advice; that party spirit and sinister interests ought to be wholly excluded from influence; that it is the duty of reformers to repair and improve, not to subvert and destroy; that passion is a dangerous Counsellor; and that by the wise constitution of our nature nothing which is violent or unjust can be permanent."
The governor suggested an inquest of the prison at Newgate where the conditions of imprisonment were notoriously bad and inhuman. An act slightly ameliorative was the result. In this way he was a precursor of the prison reformers.59
The legislative session was characterized by a struggle between the two Houses.60 The Council was black Federalist, save the three assistants who were jointly supported by both parties; the Assembly was prepon- deratingly Tolerationist, with a speaker and two clerks of that com- plexion. The orthodox Council had no respect for a Lower House com- posed of Democrats, apostate Federalists, office-seeking lawyers and designing churchmen, with an Episcopalian minister and a Methodist elder among its five chaplains. The opposition resulted in a deadlock. The Lower House was so bitter that it defeated all measures coming from the Council in its desire to postpone business a six-month, when new councilors would be elected. Again, the Lower House refused to appoint the usual joint committees to consider the governor's recom-
58 Printed in Courant, Oct. 14. The Connecticut Journal wrote: "The Spirit of Reform has received a severe Rebuke, we hope it will flee from his presence."
59 Public Laws (1808-1819) for this session. See Noah A. Phelps, A History of the Copper Mines and Newgate Prison.
60 Courant and Mercury, October-November, 1817, passim.
230
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
mendations. In retaliation, the Council tried with a degree of success to force Federalist justices on Republican towns. This was the real crux of the difficulty.
The committee on taxation presented an excellent report.61 Their data, prepared by the selectmen of seventy-six towns, showed an aver- age town expense of eight cents on the listed dollar, outside of highway, bridge and society rates. Poll taxes amounting to three-tenths of the total tax were levied on rich and poor alike. Farmers' neat cattle, which paid another three-tenths, were rated at thirty per cent; while silver plate was rated at five per cent, capital at six per cent, bank stock three per cent, carriages twenty per cent and watches forty per cent. The land tax depended on whether the land was classed as meadow, plow or pasture, without regard to valuation. Thus cheap, unproductive lands far from a market were rated as high as or possibly higher than lands far more valuable. A single-taxer would be driven to despair at its in- equalities. The tax upon young merchants and professional men was found to be unjust, deterrent to industry and forcing progressive youths to emigrate. Equalization was entirely unknown. The committee rec- ommended an entire change, urging that bills be framed with the school fund in view, that real estate be assessed according to valuation, and that the capitation tax be greatly reduced.
The Assembly forced the repeal of the "stand-up" election law, which had served its Federalist authors well in long retarding Republi- canism.62 The question of suffrage was discussed. A revision of rules was considered. A humanitarian act was passed, freeing a family man's lim- ited personal possessions in the way of necessaries of life, and a physi- cian's horse from seizure by distraint. Senator Hillhouse's salary was re- duced, on the plea that the commissioner's duties were lighter. Little could be done in the way of constructive legislation.
At the close of the session the majority party addressed the friends of Toleration, suggesting a constitutional convention.63 As the framing of a constitution was a weighty matter, it was advised that careful study be made of the various governmental forms. The Toleration party had become the "Constitution and Reform" party, with their platform for the following year clearly stated. Regret was expressed that, while the
61 Printed Oct. 28.
62 Minutes in Courant, Oct. 28; Niles' Register, XIII, 127, 131, 193; Public Laws, p. 292.
63 Printed in Mercury, Nov. 4, 1817.
231
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
questions of taxation, militia and suffrage had been considered, little had been accomplished. However, reform, to be lasting, must be slow. With this explanation they returned safe to the people "the palladium" of authority.
In accordance with the desires of the memorialists, Cheshire in its November town meeting instructed its representatives "to use their in- fluence and procure a recommendation to the people of this state, to choose delegates to form a Constitution of Civil Government, to be sub- mitted to the People for their consideration and adoption." 64 New Haven followed in December with similar instructions to her repre- sentatives. There the best and most candid Federalists were said to have favored the resolution. In January Wallingford declared "that the Charter of King Charles II contains principles obnoxious to a Republi- can government; that its powers wert annulled by the declaration of Independence; that it never has been adopted by the people of this state as their Constitution of Civil Government; and that the Legislature have not regarded it as such, but have repeatedly modified and changed the government without any reference to that Instrument." 65 Danbury in town meeting resolved that, in view of the dangers of an uncontrolled government, steps should be taken to draft a constitution precisely de- fining all powers. No time was more propitious than the present when all was quiet. This same month witnessed similar action on the part of New London, Hamden, Windsor and Woodbury. In February meet- ings, Middletown, Suffield, Groton, Lyme, Stonington and Newtown issued similar instructions. Hartford issued a call in March; Redding, Stafford and Greenwich in April. Other towns rapidly fell into line.
All the resolutions were somewhat similar in tone, calling for a written constitution accurately defining and separating the powers of government, and plainly guaranteeing the rights of citizens. Here we have republican purity of government illustrated in the town meeting as the original source of authority. While all Federalists were not op- posed to the proposed convention, the party as an organization voted against the constitution resolutions. Federalist towns naturally voted down such revolutionary resolves.
Newspaper articles and widely circulated pamphlet literature con- tinued to mold public opinion. A splendid series of essays, moderate in tone, appeared to quiet Federalist fears with the motto: "It is the duty
64 Beach, Cheshire, p. 260.
65 Mercury, Jan. 27, 1818.
232
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
of Reformers to repair and improve, not to subvert and destroy." While it was taken for granted that there was no legal constitution, it was agreed that a writing down of the old and established principles was advisable. The ardor of reformers was checked by recalling Cromwell's career and the French Revolution. The written portions of the British constitution were then considered to demonstrate the need of certain fundamental, permanent principles, even where the constitution was unwritten. The writer defined as essential: A bill of rights; barriers against corruption or the abridgment of the franchise; ample protection of the public money; and a provision preventing a repetition of the late hostility to the national government. His dispassionate, clear pres- entation of the subject won for him a wide hearing, and indubitably impressed thoughtful freemen.
"An Address to the people of Litchfield County" by "Solyman Brown" was earnestly recommended by reformers to the people of that "benighted section." 66 George H. Richards, a Federal-Republican of New London, published an essay, "The Politics of Connecticut," con- taining a plain statement of the arguments for a written constitution, which would establish religious and political equality.
Constitution and reform men were puzzled at the Federalist failure to nominate men for governor and lieutenant governor. A few of the deepest Federalists cast ballots for Timothy Pitkin as a protest. Wolcott received 16,432 votes and Ingersoll a couple of thousand less. Reform assistants were elected by a wide margin. For the first time there was a real contest for the office of treasurer, the Republican Isaac Spencer, Jr., receiving 8,383 votes to 7,673 for Kingsbury. As neither had a majority, Spencer's appointment depended upon the General Assembly. Thomas Day was re-elected secretary without opposition. The real interest centered in the representatives, for in their choice the freemen spoke for or against the constitution. One hundred and thirty-two Tolerationists were seated to sixty-nine Federalists. The issue was de- cided; Federalism was broken; the state was revolutionized.67
General Election Day (May 14, 1818) marked an epoch. President Day declining to preach, his alternate, the Episcopalian rector of New Haven, Rev. Harry Croswell, officiated. As an Episcopalian historian writes, this was a bold departure to those "who fondly imagined, that
66 Mercury, Jan. 27, 1818.
67 Mercury, Apr. 7, 21, May 19, 26, 1818; Robbins, Diary, I, 738.
233
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
they had a monopoly of all the religious and civil power in the state." 68 The sermon rang out with the text: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things of God. It was a powerful plea for Christian toleration, spiritual ministers, and a vigorous assault on politi- cal preachers. Less than a hundred ministers appeared at the banquet. Fewer came each year until finally the day lost its religious character in the routine of vote-counting.
The May session of the Legislature was of vital importance in the history of the state. The expectations of the reformer must be satisfied, but in a way to quiet Federalist fears. Wolcott's address cautioned mod- eration at every turn:
I presume that it will not be proposed by any one to impair our institu- tions, or to abridge any of the rights or privileges of the people. The State of Connecticut, as at present constituted, is, in my opinion, the most venerable and precious monument of republican government, existing among men. . . . The Governors and counsellors have been elected annually, and the repre- sentatives semi-annually elected by the freemen, who have always consti- tuted the great body of the people. Nor has the manifestation of the powers of the freemen been confined to the elections. They have ever been accus- tomed to public consultations and deliberations of intricacy and importance. Their meetings have been conducted with the same order and decorum as those of this assembly. ... The support of religion, elementary schools, paupers, public roads and bridges-comprising about eight-tenths of the public expenses-has been constantly derived from taxes imposed by the votes of the people; and the most interesting regulations of our police have been and still are enforced by officers deriving their powers from annual appoint- ments.
The Charter had always been regarded as "the palladium of the liberties" of Connecticut, and justly so, he felt, for by it the king's claims to the territory were surrendered to the people. He continued:
Considered merely as an instrument defining the powers and duties of magistrates and rulers, the Charter may justly be considered as provisional and imperfect; yet it ought to be recollected that what is now its greatest defect was formerly a pre-eminent advantage, it being then highly impor- tant to the people to acquire the greatest latitude of authority, with an ex- emption from British interference and control. .. . If I correctly comprehend
68 Beardsley, Episcopal Church, II, 164. Robbins observed: "Mr. Croswell the churchman . . . preached and read service. It was pretty barren. None but a Congregational minister ever preached before and never ought again." Diary, I, 742. The Courant, Nov. 11, 1817, noticed the "novelty."
2 34
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
the wishes which have been expressed by a portion of our fellow citizens, they are now desirous, as the sources of apprehension from external causes are at present happily closed, that the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial authorities of their own government may be more precisely defined and limited, and the rights of the people declared and acknowledged. It is your province to dispose of this important subject in such manner as will best promote general satisfaction and tranquillity.69
This portion of the governor's address was referred to a select com- mittee of five from the Assembly. Although the Council had been re- formed, the Republicans displayed a sensitiveness in maintaining the dignity of the House. Their committee reported a general desire, which should be granted, "for a revision and reformation of the structure of our civil government and the establishment of a Constitutional Com- pact." The political happiness the committee considered to be due to other causes rather than "to any peculiar intrinsic excellence in the form and character of the government itself." Barriers must be raised against legislative encroachment stouter than those provided by the frequency of elections, which might be abolished by an arbitrary power. It was advised that "the organization of the different branches of government, the separation of their powers, the tenure of office, the elective fran- chise, liberty of speech and of the press, freedom of conscience, trial by jury-rights which relate to these deeply interesting subjects ought not to be suffered to rest on the frail foundation of legislative will or discretion." Concluding, the committee observed that the time was aus- picious and that the experience of other states would guide them.
This report aroused an interesting debate.70 The Federalists, while few in number, were among the ablest and most aggressive members. Aaron Austin saw no necessity for change because the people had long lived happily under the present government. He refused to admit that there was no constitution-part was written and part unwritten. Con- necticut had the best of the American constitutions, just as that of England was the most excellent in the old world. Jonathan Edwards, Jr., considered the present constitution framed by the people in 1639, merely ratified by Charles and indirectly assented to by the people, as the best in the world. A written constitution was valuable only to de- fine privileges extorted from a tyrant, or as a compact between sov- ereign states. While the majority must rule, a revision of the oldest and
69 Mercury, May 19, 1818; Trumbull, Historical Notes, pp. 44-45.
70 See Mercury and Courant, June 9, 1818; cf. Trumbull, Hist. Notes, p. 49.
235
SUCCESS OF THE REFORM PARTY
purest constitution would not be advantageous to the people. Others felt that there had not been sufficient demand or that the busy season should be given to agriculture, not constitution-making. At any rate, there could be no danger, one advanced, for did not the federal con- stitution guarantee a republican government?
Among the Republican members, Enoch Burrows, James Stevens, G. Hubbard, S. A. Foote and H. W. Edwards rehearsed the trite old arguments. However, the majority wasted little time in debate. They simply forced through the resolution calling for a constituent con- vention.71
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.