USA > Connecticut > Connecticut in transition: 1775-1818 > Part 26
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
Freemen were ordered to meet on July 4, to elect in town meeting the usual number of representatives to the convention, which was to convene at Hartford on the fourth Wednesday in August. When the constitution framed by this body received the approval of such a ma- jority of voters as the convention should decide upon, it was resolved that it should be the supreme law of the state.72
This session also identified itself with certain reform measures.73 Acts were passed for the aid of paupers, for relief of bail, freeing Quak- ers from militia service and fines, and rating bonds and bank stock as personal property. A resolution provided for galleries in the Council Chamber, thus removing the veil of impenetrable secrecy. A suffrage act, based on similar ones in ten states, was passed, giving the vote to free males of twenty-one years who paid taxes or served in the militia, were of moral character, and residents of the town for four months.
71 Trumbull, Historical Notes, pp. 46-47. Objection to the day was silenced by Col. John McClellan who said: "He knew the fourth of July was a merry day, but he thought if the people began early in the morning they would be able to get through before they were disqualified to vote." Minutes in Courant, June 9. See Anderson, Waterbury, I, 509. There was considerable town rivalry, New Haven losing by 71 to 81, and Middletown by 61 to 87. A Republican suggested Hartford in order that the disgrace of the last convention be obliterated. Mercury, June 16.
72 It was well that none of the ratios suggested were accepted, or the consti- tution would have failed. Col. John Alsop proposed ratification by two-thirds of the towns; Calvin Butler by four-fifths; and James Stevens three-fifths. Jonathan Edwards desired a three-fifths vote of the electors. Courant, June 9; Mercury, June 16, 23, 1817.
73 Public Laws, pp. 298 ff.
CHAPTER IX
Completion of the Revolution
IN ACCORDANCE with the resolution of the General Assembly, the freemen of the various towns met on July 4, 1818, to elect delegates to the convention. The preliminary campaign evidenced party activity, but less bitterness than might be expected.1 Ultra-Federalism did not control the party's counsels. Federalist leaders accepted the revolution as an accomplished fact. Instead of offering a bootless opposition, they decided to use their strength as a check on reformists, and to preserve as far as possible the spirit of the old government. The Connecticut man was generally too practical to care to die in the last ditch. Federalist voters were urged not to refrain from voting, but to cooperate with honest Republicans in electing men of proven integrity. It was argued that the framing of a constitution was a non-partisan affair of such importance that it behooved every town to name its best man.
The election was marked by the presence of many newly enfran- chised freemen, whose votes were an important factor in doubtful towns. Naturally, they were won by the Tolerationist appeals to re- member the party which effected their emancipation.2 The result was a heavy poll.
In Hartford, where both parties were well organized, a vote of 796 was registered, amounting to fourteen and one-tenth per cent of the total population, whereas the vote of New Haven amounted to only seven per cent. Hartford's vote was so unusual that it gave credit to the charges of corruption, bribery, ballot stuffing, illegal voting, and
1 Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 51; Courant, June 21; Connecticut Mirror, June 29, 1818.
2 In Hartford there were some 85 new freemen; in New Haven, 15; in a town like Scantick, 60. These only represent what was true all over the state. Conn. Mirror, June 29, July 13; Conn. Journal, Oct. 16; Conn. Herald, June 30, 1818; Rob- bins, Diary, I, 748.
2 37
COMPLETION OF THE REVOLUTION
the rude, tumultuous conduct of both the challenged voters and the young Federalist watchers. The result was that each party elected one representative. Tolerationists were selected in New Haven without disagreeable party strife.3 Federalists foresaw their worst fears realized; conditions would henceforth be as in New York or Philadelphia. No longer could elections be carried out in quiet and decorum with such liberal suffrage qualifications. Rev. Thomas Robbins, who preached at Scantick, noted: "The Universal suffrage law is horrible." 4
While the vote resulted in returning a Toleration majority, there was a reduction in the number which that party controlled in the last session. It was a doubtful majority, estimated at first by different editors at nine, twelve, twenty-one, and thirty, out of a total of two hundred and one delegates. This discrepancy was probably due to the selection of a number of Episcopalians of unsettled political views. Federalist writers rejoiced in this falling off, while Republicans ex- plained it as a non-partisan election in which some towns selected a dele- gate from each party. In other towns, the minority concentrated on one man. For instance, in Hartford Nathaniel Terry and in New Haven Simeon Baldwin were the only active Federalist candidates.5 A strong minority at the polls and in the convention was a distinct advantage as a moderating influence. In this, as in the character of the delegates, the people had chosen wisely.
Among the delegates were men of all classes and shades of political and religious tenets.6 There were men like Governor Treadwell, Jesse Root, Col. John McClellan and Aaron Austin, who epitomized in them- selves the old order and religious fear of innovation. Timothy Pitkin and Nathaniel Terry represented the moderate Federalists. Among the original Democrats were men like "Boss" Alexander Wolcott, Pierrepont Edwards, Joshua Stowe, James Stevens, David Tomlinson, Christopher
3 Material on the election from the Conn. Journal, Conn. Herald, Courant and Mercury, issues of July 7, 14, 21, 1818.
4 Diary, I, 748.
5 In New Haven, while James Hillhouse was a candidate, all efforts were cen- tered on the election of S. Baldwin. The New Haven Register wrote of Hillhouse, referring to his removal of the graveyard from the green, "as a most desperate and ferocious prosecutor of the most desperate and ferocious deeds. God forbid that the destroyers of the sepulchres of our fathers should ever receive the suffrages of our sons." See Conn. Journal, June 30, July 7, 1818.
6 Trumbull, Historical Notes, pp. 52-53; Morgan, Connecticut, III, III ff .; Robbins, Diary, I, 749. Dexter's Biographical Sketches is valuable in tracing the careers of members who were Yale graduates.
238
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
Manwaring. Nathan Smith and Governor Wolcott stood as the fore- most Tolerationists. Congregationalists of the Saybrook type sat with dissenters and infidels and in proximity to a Baptist and Methodist elder or two. Lawyers and ex-judges predominated, yet there were at least a dozen physicians. Seated with plain farmers were men of wealth like Treadwell, Wolcott, Mitchell, Tomlinson, Peter Webb, Pierrepont Edwards, Oliver Burnham, and Patrick Clark. A few were federal office-holders. Some forty were recipients of Yale degrees, with here and there a graduate from Princeton, Brown or elsewhere. Seven mem- bers had served in the convention which ratified the United States Con- stitution. A few had seen service in the unreformed Council, and nine were members of the Toleration Council. Several had served in Con- gress, two were governors. A few were high in militia circles or were distinguished as veterans of the Revolution. Others were to win high places in state and national life.
It was a representative gathering. In many cases its members were widely known and intimately acquainted with the state's needs. They understood and appreciated its past history, and foresaw something of its future. The majority were inspired with toleration. Such a body was well prepared to draft a constitution which would be acceptable to their people and able to stand the test of time. It would be a constitution in which reform was touched with justice, moderation and toleration.
On August 26, 1818, the convention assembled at the State House in Hartford.7 As the required two-thirds of the delegates were present, the meeting was called to order by Jesse Root of Coventry, who was distinguished as the oldest man present. James Lanman, a Republican lawyer from Norwich, was elected clerk on the third ballot. Governor Wolcott, representing Litchfield, was honored with the presidency. The officers sworn, the next business was the examination and attestation of the members' election certificates.8
A resolution was then adopted, inviting the various ministers of the city to serve as chaplains, for all sessions were to be commenced with prayer. The sheriff was instructed to act as the officer of the conven- tion. A committee of five-Judge Nathaniel Terry, Hon. Timothy Pit-
7 Federalists trusted that the motives of the second Hartford Convention would be as pure as the first. Toast in Conn. Journal, July 7. Robbins felt concerned about their proceedings, but hoped that "God will guide them and preserve them from evil." Diary, I, 755.
8 Journal, pp. 10-11; Minutes in Mercury, and Conn. Journal, Sept. 1, 1818.
239
COMPLETION OF THE REVOLUTION
kin, historian and statistician, Senator Stephen Mix Mitchell, Federalists, and Hon. Amasa Larned and James Stevens, Tolerationists-was named to consider the rules which should govern the debates. Their report was accepted without objection, save by Treadwell who would in- crease the quorum to more than a majority. A compromise spirit was seen in the unanimity with which this report was reviewed, although the committee was Federalist in point of majority and weight.
James Stevens introduced this resolution: "That this convention do deem it expedient to proceed at this time to form a Constitution of Civil Government for the people of this State." A desultory debate followed. Jesse Root and Governor Treadwell, leaders of the "extreme right," argued earnestly against proceeding on the assumption that the state was without a constitution, as a presumptuous sinning against the fathers. Timothy Pitkin, waving aside sentiment, supported the motion, which was shortly adopted. This inaugurated the real work.
On the following morning the question was discussed as to whether the constitution should be drafted in committee of the whole or by a select committee. It was agreed that twenty-four members, three from every county, be delegated to frame and report a constitution. Dr. Sylvester Wells, a Universalist, Timothy Pitkin and Elisha Phelps, the latter a Republican attorney, represented Hartford County; Nathan Smith, Tolerationist attorney and brother of the member of the Hart- ford Convention, William Bristol, a wealthy Republican attorney, and William Todd, an ardent young Congregationalist lawyer, New Haven; Moses Warren, Amasa Larned and state's attorney James Lanman, New London; Judge Pierrepont Edwards, James Stevens and Gideon Tom- linson, a young Republican, Fairfield; Peter Webb, an early Republican merchant, George Learned and Edmund Freeman, both graduates of Brown and Baptists, Windham; John Welsh, a Republican of means, Judge Augustus Pettibone and Orange Merwin, Litchfield; Joshua Stowe, William Hungerford, a Republican recently out of college, and Thomas Lyman, Middlesex; Daniel Burrows, an illiterate Democrat, Asa Wiley, a stout Federalist, and Dr. John S. Peters, a Republican, Tolland.
This committee was fairly representative, though the minority was only awarded five places.9 Chairman Edwards was easily first among the Tolerationists, just as Timothy Pitkin stood out as the recognized leader of the Federalists. Twenty-two towns were represented, only
9 Cf. Trumbull, Historical Notes, p. 53.
240
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
New Haven and Hebron winning two places. Judging from the number of men of political and professional prominence or on the threshold of splendid careers, care had been taken to select men of worth.
Among the twenty-four were twelve Yale graduates, one from Princeton and two from Brown. This is noteworthy in view of the Re- publican attacks on Yale and its favored position. The interests of the college were amply secured. At least fourteen were lawyers, three of whom were leaders at the bar besides those holding judicial offices. Edwards and Learned were veterans of the convention of 1788. Bristol, Wells, Peters, Lanman and Webb were Republican councilors. Tomlin- son and Peters were destined to become governors; three later became United States Senators; and five, members of Congress. Pitkin, Edwards and Learned had already served in Congress. Joshua Stowe, said to be a pronounced unbeliever,10 represented the type of local politician. Wil- liam Hungerford, the last survivor of the convention, was notorious among those without religion. Dr. Peters had long been termed atheist. This did not prevent the Congregational clergy from offering prayers for him on learning how he defended their society fund. Nathan Smith was there to watch Episcopalian interests. The five Federalists repre- sented a more or less orthodox Congregationalism. Republicans upheld the various forms of dissent. Hence all interests were guarded.
The committee submitted the preamble and a bill of rights on the next day. This celerity would be hard to understand if one did not learn that both the preamble and bill were nearly an exact replica of those in the Mississippi constitution, adopted the year previous.11
The preamble adopted by the convention without debate declared that:
The people of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government, do, in order to more effectually define, secure and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges, which they have derived from their ancestors, hereby,
10 The Conn. Journal (Mar. 10, 1819) wrote of Stowe: "While in the conven- tion, he openly avowed that in his opinion the government had no more right to provide by law for the support of the worship of the Supreme Being, than for the support of the worship of the devil." Stowe sued for libel, and was awarded dam- ages. 3 Conn. Reports, p. 325.
11 Conn. Journal, Sept. 1, advised its readers to compare this with the consti- tution of Mississippi, drafted August, 1817. See Niles' Register, XIII, 54; Mercury, Sept. 16, 1817.
241
COMPLETION OF THE REVOLUTION
after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of civil government.
Here was a recognition of the past and a pronounced religious spirit.
The bill of rights aroused a heated debate.12 Treadwell saw no need of a full declaration, for they were not contending with an aristocratic body or a tyrant. Such a bill, he considered, would only tend to abridge the power of the people. If some guarantee was necessary, it should be decided in committee of the whole. Alexander Wolcott arose in opposi- tion. He believed that the government of the fathers was truly demo- cratic, being at fault only in administration. He was opposed to altera- tion, unless definite benefits were to be derived. A multiplying of ordinances would only embarrass the Legislature, for "the virtue of the people was our best security." He would define the present system in a general way with all details left to legislative enactment. He defied any man to erect a tyranny amid an enlightened people or draft a con- stitution which should preserve liberty by mere paper rules. A legisla- ture which subverted the liberties of the people could not be re-elected. There was no need of drawing up a code of laws to govern their own representatives. Superfluous he considered clauses guaranteeing trial by jury, habeas corpus and the right of assemblage, when these were rights never questioned. Guarantees against excessive bail, compensation for property acquired for public uses and quartering of militia, were as unnecessary as uncertain. Always to put the military in strict subordi- nation to civil tribunals might in practice be found bad. Had not An- drew Jackson been compelled to silence the civil authorities on grounds not of law but of safety? "In a Constitution," he shrewdly remarked, "he would recognize none but great and general principles. He would adopt few." Such moderation on the part of the most notorious Jacobin was astonishing.
Aaron Austin, who had served nearly a quarter of a century in the Council, confessed himself in accord with Wolcott. Judges Root and Mitchell saw no necessity of such a bill. Root observed that government could be traced back to God's established rules and grounded on this pure source if man in his depravity had not disregarded them: "A pure Republic is that in which the people govern themselves." As this had
12 Journal, pp. 17-21, 74-77. The New England Galaxy noted that it was similar to the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights quoted in Mercury, Nov. 3, 1818. See Baldwin in New Haven Hist. Soc., Papers, V, 211 ff.
242
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
been the case since 1639, he was opposed to any infringement of the people's rights.
The declaration was then reviewed by sections. As Alexander Wol- cott observed, many of its provisions were superfluous. Two proposals of this nature were struck out. One had provided that no citizen should be exiled or prevented from emigrating on any pretext. The other de- clared that no person should be molested for his opinions on any sub- ject, nor suffer civil or political incapacity in consequence thereof. Other provisions quite as unnecessary were allowed to remain. If future students were only able to study the past through the bill of rights as preventive legislation, they would arrive at strange views regarding the liberty, republicanism and history of the state.
Other clauses provided that there should be liberty of speech, writ- ing and publication with libel responsibility; that no law curtailing liberty of speech or press should be enacted; that libel cases should be tried by jury; that the home should be secured from unreasonable searches; that the accused in criminal prosecutions should have a hear- ing, a fair trial, impartial jury, speedy justice, and in capital cases a grand jury presentment; that no person should suffer arrest save accord- ing to law; that no excessive fines or bail be levied; that habeas corpus be guaranteed; that no person be attainted by the Legislature; that the right of assemblage and petition be maintained; that no hereditary hon- ors or emoluments be granted; that there be no quartering of troops save in war; and that jury trial remain inviolate. None of these princi- ples had been violated, with the possible exception of democratic charges of unfair jury trials. The military power had always been sub- ject to the civil, and the right of bearing arms had not been questioned. Some of these rights were guaranteed by the United States Constitution, while others were sacred by the common law. Their inclusion can be accounted for only because such a bill of rights was deemed democratic and necessary according to the political philosophy of the day.
Other sections of the bill were quite relevant. The first section de- clared "that all men when they form a social compact are equal in rights; and that no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community." That is, there was no longer to be a Standing Order. The second section declared "that all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit, and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their
243
COMPLETION OF THE REVOLUTION
form of government in such manner as they think expedient." 13 This embodied the Republican contention that a constitution should be of the people, not by grace of royal gift. In this form it was acceptable to the Federalists, for they had always maintained that the old government had practically, if not nominally, been grounded on popular sover- eignty. Yet it was the right of revolution which had been called into question by the treatment of the five justices and by the opprobrium cast upon Republicanism.
The third section ordered "that the exercise and enjoyment of re- ligious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in this State; provided that the right hereby declared and established shall not be construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State." The next section enacted that "no preference shall be given by law to any Christian sect or mode of worship." The term "Christian" had been substituted for "religious." While all religious forms consistent with morality and law were given legal protection, Christianity was emphasized as the state's belief. There is a hint of discrimination against the Hebrew and possibly the Unitarian.
The second article separated the powers of government into execu- tive, judicial and legislative departments.14 Fairchild argued in favor of this division, which was in effect in all the other states and the national government. It would obviate the danger of further conflicts. In his opinion they had long been approaching this ideal of separation, so that it was not such an innovation. Treadwell, Root, and McClellan feared that the additional powers given an independent executive would be dangerous in case the governor lacked talents and correct judgment. Treadwell could not assent to the withdrawal of the governor from the Council, of which he had always been a constituent part. However, the article was passed without a yea and nay vote.
A corollary, offered by the committee, provided that "no person or collection of persons, being one of those departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted." Had this been accepted,
13 It is interesting to compare this with Hooker's sermon of May 31, 1638, in which, after pointing out that the choice of public magistrates belongs to the peo- ple, he declared: "They who have the power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power, also, to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place into which they call them." Conn. Hist. Soc., Collections, I, 20.
14 Journal, pp. 20-22.
244
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
an artificial division would have been created, preventing any overlap- ping of powers. In the working constitution the theory has badly broken down.15 However, the doctrinaire division was advantageous in prevent- ing future concentration of power, which had been a chief weakness. The governor was given a separate identity and the judiciary independ- ence.
The convention then proceeded to the third article, which related to the Legislature.16 The committee's plan of annual sessions alternately at Hartford and New Haven was at first rejected, but on reconsideration accepted. The change was advisable, for it meant an economy in time and money. A single session could easily pass the necessary legislation. Six-month terms and semi-annual elections had been a source of democ- racy and protection, but with the growth of the party system and in- crease in population, they were becoming of doubtful value.
An amendment was offered, providing for a reapportionment of town representation. The committee report only modified the existing system by suggesting that in some towns the representation should be cut down to one member. Fairchild would give towns under 2,500 peo- ple one representative and those over, two representatives. James Stevens suggested 4,000 as the line of demarcation between large and small towns. Henry and Nathaniel Terry were impressed with the justice of the principle, but opposed its adoption on grounds of expediency. As there were only forty-four towns with a population over 2,500 and seventy-six under, the Assembly would be cut down to one hundred and sixty-four members. Using "4,000" would cut the representation down to one hundred and twenty-four, as there were but four towns whose population was above that figure. One of these was Stamford, which Stevens represented.
Conservatism ruled. The small towns had no intention of passing a "self-denying ordinance." Yet such a reapportionment was badly needed, and every future year up to the very present has increased the injustice of the system of representation.17 Pocket-borough conditions, noticeable in 1790, were becoming marked by 1820, because of the shift-
15 Baldwin in New Haven Hist. Soc., Papers, V, 212.
16 Journal, pp. 22 ff.
17 Baldwin in New Haven Hist. Soc., Papers, V, 228 ff .; Frank Putnam, "What's the matter with New England?" in New Eng. Mag. (N. S.), 37: 267-290; M. B. Cary, The Connecticut Constitution.
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.