USA > Connecticut > Connecticut in transition: 1775-1818 > Part 8
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 Friends always remained few in numbers. After 1706, when the statutory laws against Quakers were repealed, they were no longer in bodily danger, yet this did not mean relief from persecution. In 1729 they were granted toleration.100 While it is probable that they generally
94 Mercury, Jan. 21, 1817.
95 Foster, Genetic History, p. 278; Caulkins, New London, p. 589; for sketch of Channing, Dexter, Biographical Sketches, IV, 183-186.
96 Statutes, p. 296; see George H. Richards, Politics of Conn., p. 20.
97 Rev. John Gardiner, Sermon (1811), p. 112.
98 Beardsley, Episcopal Church, II, 98.
99 I believe that the Republican party in Massachusetts was aided by the Uni- tarian revolt against Congregationalism. Unitarians without the pale of the law were necessarily ardent reformers, and while it is generally recognized that they deserve much credit for the disestablishment of 1833-1834, their connection with early Republicanism and its success does not seem to be duly emphasized.
100 Conn. Col. Records, IV, 546. VII, 237.
61
COMMON GRIEVANCES OF DISSENTERS
met in private homes, there was a thriving society in New Milford as early as 1742. Groton in 1770 released some thirty-five Rogerene Quak- ers from the Congregational rates. Pomfret was the seat of a fairly large society. In 1818 there appear to have been some seven societies of Friends, one society of Rogerene Quakers and two small societies of Sandemanians, and one of Shakers.101
The Catholic church was not represented in Connecticut by either priest or chapel until late in the decade of 1820.102 Its future strength was not even dimly foreshadowed. In 1816 the conversion of the Water- bury Congregational pastor, Rev. Virgil Horace Barber and family, offered a decidedly close parallel to the beginnings of the Anglican church a century earlier. An Episcopalian minister from Middletown and also one from Derby found their way toward Rome. However none of them appears to have remained within the state.103 Still there were a few Catholics here and there, for the Rev. James Dana counted seven families in New Haven in 1800.104
The Jews of Connecticut had no formal organization, nor is it prob- able that there were more than a few families.105 At any rate none of the acts of toleration would have offered them relief.
6. Common Grievances of Dissenters
The common grievance of all dissenters and the great bond of union between them was the certificate law. Around these certificates con- siderable persecution lurked. This was bound to be the case while the administration of the law and the granting of the licenses remained in the hands of justices who were invariably stanch upholders of the Stand-
101 Giddings, New Milford, p. 12; Caulkins, New London, p. 421; Larned, Windham County, II, 284; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 32.
102 Dwight, Travels, IV, 444; Tudor, Letters, p. 69; Dr. James A. Rooney, "Early Times in the Diocese of Hartford, 1829-1874," in Cath. Hist. Review, July, 1915.
103 See Anderson, Waterbury, I, 660; E. S. Thomas, Reminiscences of Last Sixty-five Years, I, 23; Stiles, Diary, III, 416; Beardsley, Episcopal Church, II, 99- 105.
104 Dana, Two Discourses (1801), pp. 65 ff. Noah Webster mentions in his diary hearing mass in the room of his class-mate, Father Thayer. Ford, Webster, I, 343.
105 Dexter, New Haven in 1784, p. 55.
62
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
ing Order. Being known as a certificate man placed one in a lower social category and in practice under a political disability. The dissenter felt this and keenly resented the method of certifying as well as the narrow interpretation of the law, which so largely counteracted the legal toler- ance. In the case of a foreigner or citizen from another state, Leland thought the choice of compulsory certification or tithe-paying espe- cially mortifying. This matter of certificates occasioned incessant agita- tion embittered by a petty persecution which united all dissenters in adherence to a sympathetic party which held out hopes of reform.106
The Standing Order must have found it difficult to understand the agitation over Congregational intolerance on seeing so many certificates issued on the most flimsy pretexts. For of the state's tolerance they con- tinually boasted. Beecher wrote:
There never was a more noble regard to the rights of conscience than was shown in Connecticut. Never was there a body of men that held the whole power that yielded to the rights of conscience more honorably.107
Taking exception to an observation of the Duke de la Rochefoucauld that Connecticut Presbyterianism was intolerant, Dwight maintained that even the irreligious were left in perfect harmony and that the Con- gregationalists had voluntarily placed all denominations on a footing with themselves.108 Certainly they were in advance of Massachusetts, but hardly of any other state,109 though it would be difficult to con- vince the dissenter that toleration had been willingly conceded on purely Christian grounds.
Dissenters found a strong motive for opposition in the religious bias of the whole school system.110 Education was completely dominated by the Congregationalist Order.
A decided cry for reform in the Yale corporation had resulted in a slight loosening of ministerial control without making it less sectarian; for the ex-officio state officers were closely connected by blood and
106 Swift, System of the Laws, I, 143 ff .; Greene, Religious Liberty, PP. 372-373. 107 Autobiography, I, 342.
108 Dwight, Travels, IV, 235; Rev. Benjamin Trumbull, Sermon (1801), p. 20; Governor Treadwell, Address to the Assembly, Courant, May 16, 1810.
109 Vermont separated church and state in 1807, but New Hampshire had what amounted to an establishment until 1819. Laurer, Church and State, pp. 97 ff .; Bar- stow, New Hampshire, p. 426
110 There is a sketch of the school system in Swift, System of the Laws, I, 148 ff. Bernard C. Steiner, The History of Education in Connecticut is the standard au- thority on the state's schools.
63
COMMON GRIEVANCES OF DISSENTERS
social ties to the leading ministers. The Legislature's donation of forty thousand dollars in no way placated dissenters. As even Episcopalians were not desired on the faculty, one need not be surprised that less re- spectable dissenters were not so honored. Abraham Bishop drilled this point into the dissenter, as did other Republican leaders in their ex- hortations to their following.111 George Richards in 1817 declared that there was a rigid Saybrook-Congregational test for college officers.112 This is well outlined by Ezra Stiles in 1782 in an account of the exam- ination to which a prospective instructor submitted.113 It is scarcely likely that the practical bar had been in any way removed at a time when all efforts of the Standing Order were bent toward strengthening their redoubts. This test was abrogated in 1823 on the very eve of the chartering of the Episcopalian college.114 Even the Yale course of studies together with certain compulsory religious services was likely to deprive the conscientious dissenter of an education.
The lower schools were essentially Congregational parochial schools.115 Prior to a law of 1798, which delegated school affairs to a board of local officers and ministers, complete control of the town schools was vested in the Congregational society. The minister was apt to consider education as under his special care, examining teachers in their behavior, morals, and religious tenets. Exciting local collisions re- sulted at times in dissenting strongholds because the board of overseers exerted an "unwarranted interference with the religious opinions of teachers." 116 Apparently more attention was paid to the "moral" side of the teacher than to his preparation; for it is hardly conceivable that men who taught during the three winter months at a wage of from seven to twelve dollars a month, or women teachers during the summer months at a dollar a week, could be persons possessing other than the most elementary training.
Republicans were not far wrong in their contention that teachers must be orthodox in religion and politics. Primary schools opened with
111 Bishop, Address (1802), p. 48; Mercury, Aug. 1, 1805; Apr. 2, 1816.
112 Richards, Politics of Conn., p. 24. See Niles' Register, XIII, 194. Governor Baldwin is inclined to overlook this. New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 425. 113 Diary, III, 21.
114 New Haven Hist. Soc., Papers, III, 435; Steiner, Education in Conn., p. 239; but see Andrew D. White, Autobiography, II, 557.
115 Bates, Records of ... School District of Granby, pp. 6, 7, 11; Hughes, East Haven, p. 52; Atwater, Plymouth, p. 125; Roys, Norfolk, p. 12; Timlow, Southing- ton, p. 433; Robbins, Diary, I, 647. See Mercury, Mar. 5, 1816.
116 Church, Salisbury, p. 39.
64
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
prayer and the reading of Scripture. Saturday afternoon was devoted to teaching the Congregational catechism, which was included in the New England primer. Sometimes dissenting children were freed from attendance, but not without considerable formality. In at least a couple of instances dissenting bodies were even given their quota of the school funds for parochial schools or given an opportunity to teach their own doctrines to their children attendant at the "Congregational, public school." 117 Not until 1818 did the Congregationalists find it necessary to establish Sunday schools, and then only because it was necessary to modify the teaching of the catechism and morals in the common schools to satisfy the dissenters and to accord with the new order.
Thus did schismatic and dissenter increase. The rigors of Calvinism drove some to take refuge in the emotional religions, others in the mystic, and still others in the liturgical church. Religion and church- going could not be maintained by inquisitional means or by the tithe- gatherer. Yet from the viewpoint of the orthodox there was something saddening in the bickerings and the factiousness which resulted when the town church was disturbed by the opposing denominations, and when the town meeting-house had given place to a cluster of rival meeting-houses.
The ecclesiastical map of Connecticut in 1818 speaks volumes. It shows that every section of the commonwealth was invaded, that there was scarcely a town without its diverse denominational societies. Dis- sent could not be said to be sectional, though the river towns and those bordering New York and Rhode Island might be described as centers. The chief value of such a chart is in demonstrating that dissent was politically Republican. By closely comparing this chart with those showing the political strength of the Republican party by towns, it will be seen that in those towns in which dissent flourished, Republican- ism advanced until it became the dominant political factor.
117 Atwater, Plymouth, p. 125; Allen, Enfield, I, 476.
1
2
1
.
1
3
2
t .
.
1
2 1.00.
N
2
2
to .
3
000.
2
2
·
1
1
2 0
1
1
LAITC/H FIELD
1
1
1
+
1
1
1
4
1
f
1
O
ttto
1.
1
+
2
1
1
N
..
O
2
++
. + +
1
2
1
to
0
2
3
3
2
-
tto4
2
tt o
-
+
2
of
1
+
-
2
- -
-+
1 NEW
1
2
2
2
too . A
2
·
+
tt ·
Z
2
tto.
+
++
4
+
t .
4
1 1
D
3
2
+
too
×
3
to·
1+
1
3
10.
3 x
Dissenting
Baptist. O
-
- - Methodist .
Sects
Episcopalian. +
Independent, Separatist X :
Quakers, Shakers,- o I
- (Universalists, Sandemanians and all others A
Number of Congregational Churches or Societies indicated by figures
MIDDLESEX
3
NEW LONDON1
X 00
tto
-
0
o X
tt .
2
1
too.c
O
ooo t
3
2
+ X
tto
3
1
FAIR FŰ
E
1
+
ECCLESIASTICAL MAP - 1818
Number of Churches or Societies in Towns indicated thus :
1
2 .
Q
C
1 1
A
3
1
2
1
+
00 X
+
o X
.
1 .
O
WIND HAM
HARIT FORD
3
3
1-
1 - O
1
to.
2
1
2
1
0
2
o
1
3
¥ o
3
to
+
2
1
3
o
0
4,00
1
+
1
2
1
,
O
3
0
D
EN
+
CHAPTER III
1. Banks and the Increase of Capital
T HE industrial life of the state was transformed during the period covered by this study. Banks were established, introducing a new sys- tem of credit. Monetary capital increased as a result of high prices, large exports, and a thriving carrying trade. Capital seeking investment found rich opportunities in the manufacturing concerns which were building factories in every section. As manufacturing became impor- tant, there developed town and city life, with their characteristic labor- ing class and problems. These changes are to be considered in this chapter.
Money throughout the colonial days and the early years of the new state was scarce. Payment for imports so drained the market of specie that barter remained a usual form of business even in large towns. Sal- aries such as those of ministers were paid frequently partly in cash and partly in goods. Wages were paid in kind or in bills of credit on the country store. As the state was agricultural and its farmers were small free-holders, there were few men of wealth. Only rarely was there a man like Richard Alsop who amassed a fortune in the coast or West- India trade.1 On the whole, the country merchant was the financier of his locality, acting in the capacity of a broker either by extending credit in the way of time or by direct loans. This phase of his business was as important as and probably more remunerative than his more obvious work of exchanging West-India and foreign goods for the farmers' grain, meat, and vegetables.2 As banking houses were unknown, there was no one to whom a man desirous of undertaking a shipping or manu- facturing business could apply. It was this lack of available capital, quite
1 Field, Centennial Address, p. 153; see Edward B. Eaton, "Hartford, the Stronghold of Insurance," Conn. Mag., IX, 617.
2 Church, Address, pp. 44-45.
66
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
as much as the restrictive measures, which hindered the industrial growth of the colony. Otherwise, factories should have followed po- litical independence instead of coming a generation later in the wake of banks and modern methods of credit.
In 1791 the enactment of Hamilton's financial plan secured the na- tional rating on foreign exchanges and centralized American banking around the National Bank. Then the outbreak of the European wars cut off foreign loans. Imports were less and the drain on specie was cor- respondingly light. Exports finding a ready foreign market balanced the import debt or brought in specie. The carrying and West-India trade became sources of great wealth. As a result, the stock of ready money was tremendously increased. Banks were established and utilized con- veniently as agents between creditor and undertaker. The community was benefited industrially; the banks became prosperous and hence more numerous. Thus the endless chain worked.
Banks were essentially democratic in character, making it possible for poor men to concentrate their capital in such a way that it became productive. This was exactly what a people like those of Connecticut required: some way in which their scattered small stocks might be effectively massed so as to be available for industry.
The state was first aroused to the importance of banking in May, 1792, when the Hartford Bank and the Union Bank at New London were incorporated. The Hartford Bank was originally capitalized at $ 100,000; but a supplementary act in 1807 provided that its capitaliza- tion could be increased by an open annual subscription of $50,000, until a limit of $500,000 was reached. By 1818 its capital had mounted to the million mark.3 The Union Bank was chartered at from $50,000 to $100,000, standing at the latter figure in 1818.4 The New Haven Bank followed in October, 1795, with a charter allowing a minimum capital of $50,000 with the $400,000 provision. The doors opened for public business in 1796 with a paid-in subscription of $80,000; and by 1818, its capital had increased to $300,000.5 In October, 1795, the Middletown Bank was incorporated with a capital of $100,000. It was granted the privilege of increasing its stock to $400,000, though apparently it did
3 Statutes, pp. 73 ff .; Courant, Jan. 23, Mar. 11, 1792; Ford, Webster, I, 342, 354, 356, 526; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 50; P. H. Woodward, One Hundred Years of the Hartford Bank, the first six chapters, but especially pp. 15-20, 79-89.
4 Statutes, pp. 93-95; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 114.
5 Statutes, pp. 82-86; Barber, New Haven, p. 55; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 107.
67
BANKS AND THE INCREASE OF CAPITAL
not open until 1801. By 1812 its success warranted the increase of its capitalization to $500,000.6
The General Assembly in May, 1796, chartered the Norwich Bank with a capitalization of from $75,000 to $200,000, the latter figure being reached about 1812.7 In October, 1806, the Bridgeport Bank was in- corporated with a capital of from $50,000 to $200,000.8 By an act of May, 1807, the New London Bank was authorized with a capitalization of from $200,000 to 500,000.9 In October, 1809, the Derby Bank was chartered at $100,000 with the privilege of an increase up to $200,000. Apparently, in order to avoid too obvious an interlocking directorate, it was enjoined that none of its directors be from the board of the Derby Fishing Company, though that company was afterward allowed to hold a small limited amount of stock.10 In January, 1812, the Eagle Bank of New Haven, incorporated the previous fall at from $500,000 to $750,000, inaugurated its ill-fated, irresponsible business career.11 In 1814 the Episcopalians founded the million-dollar Phoenix Bank, with headquarters at Hartford and a semi-independent branch at Litch- field.12 When the Second United States Bank was established, it was de- cided to locate one of its twelve branches at Middletown. To such an out-of-the-way location there was considerable opposition, especially on the part of New Haven.13 The determining factor with the admin- istration was probably Middletown's Republican vote.
To summarize: in the beginning of the year 1792, a Connecticut bank was unknown; in 1818 there were ten state banks, besides the branch of the National Bank, with a capitalization of from $3,000,000 to $3,500,000.14 This was an astonishing transformation. Here was
6 Statutes, pp. 72-82; Brainerd, Middletown, p. 6; Field, Statistical Account, p. 41.
7 Statutes, pp. 90-92; Caulkins, Norwich, p. 331; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 148.
8 Statutes, pp. 70-73; Orcutt, Stratford, I, 597.
9 Statutes, pp. 86-89; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 144.
10 Public Laws, pp. 17-21, 109; Mercury, Nov. 9, 1809.
11 Public Laws, pp. 65-69; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 107; Barber, New Haven, p. 55; New Haven Hist. Soc., Papers, III, 176; Courant, Nov. 6, 13, Dec. 25, 1811; Woodward, Hartford Banks, p. 129.
12 Public Laws, pp. 148-153; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 50; Hart, Episcopal Bank, pp. 104 ff.
13 Field, Statistical Account, p. 41; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, p. 274; Courant, Nov. 21, 1816; Aug. 12, 1817; New Haven Resolutions (1816).
14 Warden, Statistical Account, II, 30, accurately gave the number of banks as eleven with a capital of $3,500,000.
68
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
plenty of money for investment in internal trade, in turnpike com- panies, factories, and in western lands.
The bank charters had all the appearances of being democratic in character and essentially public-serving in purpose. This was to be ex- pected, for banking petitions had to be sanctioned by the Legislature. In time, certainly after 1800, the banking acts became less democratic.15 Shares of stock fluctuated from $100 to $400; and there was no longer a limitation to the number of shares a person or a corporation could hold. This provision had also been struck out of the old charters on their revision. No longer was six per cent interest on loans defined as the maximum. Clauses giving an advantage in the corporation manage- ment to small over against large shareholders were modified so that voting strength depended on the number of shares. Subscriptions were open to all investors. As, however, the managers of the lists were se- lected by the Legislature from the promoters, and as bank stock was regarded as gilt-edged and a rising investment,16 there was no doubt favoritism.
This charge was well substantiated in the case of the Phoenix Bank, in which friendly members of the General Assembly were fortunate in drawing shares, while others were said to be invariably unsuccessful. The defenders pointed out that, as there were seven applicants for every one of the 10,000 shares, all could not be served. Furthermore, they argued that the opposition came from the banking interests, which were afraid of competition.17 Bank stock was rapidly becoming a choice investment for men of money rather than an advantageous pool for the savings of farmer and mechanic. This was the more true inasmuch as bank stock was not even listed for taxation until 1805; and stock owned by non-residents was not taxed for another eight years.18 Is it to be wondered at that men questioned this partiality?
If one may draw a conclusion from the recriminations in the Phoe- nix Bank episode, stock seldom found its way into the hands of what came to be the wealthy banking circle, save those shares which were used to gain legislative favor. From the beginning, it might be pointed
15 Statutes, pp. 74, 78, 82, 85-86.
16 Bank stock paid 7 or 8% after 1804, and 91/2% by 1813, though United States Bank stock was bearing only 3 to 6%. Henry F. Walradt, Financial History of Con- necticut, pp. 34-35.
17 For an account of the Phoenix scandal, see Courant, Sept. 13, 1814; Six Num- bers on Banking, p. 15; Hart, Episcopal Bank.
18 Walradt, Financial History, pp. 28-29.
69
BANKS AND THE INCREASE OF CAPITAL
out, the directors and promoters were men of large property. They either were or soon became political leaders or bosses, though the latter term may be objectionable.
Among the leaders of the Hartford Bank were Oliver Ellsworth, Oliver Phelps, Colonel Jeremiah Wadsworth, John Morgan, John Cald- well, Ephraim Root, Nathaniel Terry, and Andrew Kingsbury. Ells- worth was a framer of the Constitution, long a judge of the state su- perior court, later Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Minister to France in 1799, and an associate of Robert Morris and Alex- ander Hamilton.19 Phelps was a millionaire land speculator. Colonel Wadsworth, a commissary-general during the Revolution, at its close was estimated to be worth from 60,000 to 80,000 pounds sterling. He was the largest subscriber to the Bank of North America, and in 1785 was elected president of the Bank of New York, and later a director of the National Bank and a silent partner in a large shipping business. For several years he was a member of Congress and long a member of the Council.20 Morgan, Caldwell, and Terry, the latter a son-in-law of Wadsworth, were men of means, municipal office-holders and for years Hartford's representatives in the General Assembly.21 Root was a prom- inent lawyer, and Kingsbury was known as state treasurer and for his prominence in church missions.22 Jedidiah Huntington, president of the Union Bank, was of a family prominent in church and state. Joseph Alsop was a controlling figure in the Middletown Bank. The New Haven Bank was fathered by men like David Austin, Elias Shipman, and Isaac Beers, Federalist leaders of New Haven, though later Abraham Bishop, the wealthy Republican boss, was included in its directorate. The Derby Bank had among its leading spirits William Leffingwell, David Daggett, and a stand-pat Federalist Assistant, Charles Sherman of the well-known family. David Tomlinson, the Tolerationist, was added when he became influential enough to win a place in the Council. The Eagle Bank had a select directorate: Senator James Hillhouse, The-
19 Mercury, Sept. 5, 1805; Conn. Mag., IX, 891 ff .; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, P. 92; Woodward, Hartford Bank, pp. 40-42. For Phelps, see ibid., pp. 47, 71 ff.
20 Conn. Mag., IX, 891; Pease and Niles, Gazetteer, pp. 51-52; Woodward, Hartford Bank, pp. 31-34.
21 Woodward, op. cit., pp. 34-35; Dexter, Biographical Sketches, IV, 514.
22 Dexter, Biographical Sketches, IV, 234; Woodward, Hartford Bank, pp. 40, 65. Lists of directors are available in the incorporation acts and in the annual Almanack and Register, which gives lists of office-holders, of clergy, of church and fraternal societies. A comparison of these lists gives a clear insight into the control by the ruling class.
70
CONNECTICUT IN TRANSITION: 1775-1818
odore Dwight, Simeon Baldwin, Frederick Wolcott, Speaker Sylvanus Backus, Roger M. Sherman, President Timothy Dwight, Abraham Bradley and the Episcopalian politician, Charles Denison.
A stronger combination in church and state or a group of more con- firmed office-holders would be difficult to pick. The New London Bank nearly did so, when it could point out Elisha Denison, Edward Chappell, Zephaniah Swift, Roger Goodrich, Elias Perkins, a Republi- can leader, and Calvin Goddard, all of whom had graced the Council chamber or were represented in that body by their immediate family. Ebenezer Huntington and Asa Fitch of the Norwich Bank were men of wealth and prestige. As the Phoenix Bank was essentially a Republi- can and Episcopalian bank, its directors were chiefly from among the wealthy members of the Toleration party. Its stockholders were headed by such men as Jonathan Edwards, who invested $90,000, no mean sum for a man of his lineage; Samuel Pitkin, $20,000; S. Griswold, $20,000; Eli Haskell, $30,000; and Roswell Moor, $20,000.23 Even these amounts demonstrated growing wealth, for $6,000 had been the largest subscrip- tion to the Hartford Bank.
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.