USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 30
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 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
333
CONNECTICUT IN THE REVOLUTION
people. The Governor's influence was limited, and, when the Assembly met in February, it endorsed the recommendations of the New Haven convention. There is reason to suspect that the controls established were not deflationary, but rather gave legal acknowledgment to the existing price level. The delegates at New Haven acknowledged that in an effort to "avoid too great a revulsion," they fixed prices "higher than anyone will suppose they ought to be." Whereas an advance of seventy-five percent over the level of 1774 was permitted for noncritical items, greater advances were allowed in the case of enumerated articles. The price allowed for wheat was nine shillings nine pence which was an in- crease of 60 percent over the price fixed by the law repealed a mere six months earlier. In this attempt to control prices, the states touched on the general economic dilemma confronting the colonies. Prices, inextri- cably interwoven with the volume of money in circulation, under- scored the need for the states to establish a single monetary system, dis- continue emission of their own bills of credit, and introduce a taxation program which would provide for the government expenditures.110
The problems exceeded the willingness of the states to act coop- eratively. While there were still those which had not adopted price controls by May 1778 the states followed a recommendation of the Con- tinental Congress that all such laws be suspended.111 As prices con- tinued to spiral an attempt was made to develop a new formula for the regulation of prices at a meeting of commissioners of the several states at Hartford in October, 1779. The prices on products, labor, wages, and costs of transportation were fixed at not more than 20 times what they had been in 1774; articles imported were to be in proportion thereto, with due allowance for transportation and other costs; and salt and military supplies were to be completely exempted. The suggestion was endorsed by the Continental Congress on November 19, but when the commissioners met in Philadelphia in January 1780 they adjourned without taking action because it was alleged that any action would be ineffectual without the cooperation of all the states. Virginia and New York did not send commissioners. Accordingly a Connecticut Act con- tingent upon the action of the other states never went into effect.112 Meanwhile the states moved slowly toward a confederation of states which might make general regulations possible.
334
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
When a draft of the proposed Articles of Confederation was re- ceived, copies were distributed to the several towns. The matter was presented to the Assembly at its February, 1778, meeting, when Gov- ernor Trumbull urged that the Articles be adopted quickly. Two years before, Connecticut had voted for independence and had instructed her delegates to move as fast as was convenient to a permanent plan of un- ion.113 Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, was a member of the commit- tee which drafted the Articles.114 The three major issues which had confronted the Continental Congress in drafting a plan of union were the basis of representation, the apportionment of the common ex- penses, and the powers to be granted to Congress over western lands.115 Roger Sherman sought to compromise the issue as to whether repre- sentation should be based on population or whether each state should have the same number of representatives. Sherman proposed that on any question a vote of both the majority of the states and of individuals should be obtained.116 This proposal did not carry and the provision to be considered by the Assembly was that each state would have one vote in determining decisions. Connecticut's representative had helped defeat a proposal that taxation be based on the total white population, but, again had voted with the minority against the final provision sub- mitted to the states that the amount of public expense apportioned to the state should be determined by the value of all lands granted to or surveyed by individuals and of the improvements thereon. Connecti- cut's representative had argued that the number of inhabitants consti- tuted a more certain, equitable, and practical rule and, through a pro- posed amendment, Connecticut resubmitted her views.117 Although the population of North Carolina was about the same as that of Connecti- cut, the view prevailed that land in the latter would sell for five times as much.118 Connecticut pointed out that trade and manufacturing were great sources of wealth enabling the eventual support of great numbers of inhabitants. On the question of division of sovereignty between the states and a central government, Connecticut was able to draw upon a century's practice in defending her charter. Sherman had contended "there is no other legislative over the colonies but their respective as- semblies." In 1777, the majority opinion supported states' rights and the Articles were dedicated to this political philosophy.
335
CONNECTICUT IN THE REVOLUTION
The Connecticut delegation had seemed ready to make concessions on the question of western lands in order to secure ratification of the Articles. Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth reported to Governor Trumbull that the landless states were demanding that western un- granted lands be made the common interest of the united states. If some method such as this offered were not found for paying the soldiers, the landless states would have to pay huge sums to those who claimed the land. Sherman and Ellsworth suggested that Connecticut supply lands to the troops of Rhode Island, Maryland, and New Jersey, as well as to their own troops. Cold Yankee reasoning understood that such grants would increase the value of the land claimed by Connecticut.120 Mary- land interpreted this as an indication that Connecticut was willing to permit Congress to dispose of the western lands.121 When the issue was formally considered, however, Connecticut stood with the landed states. In a move to force Maryland into the Confederation, Connecticut en- dorsed the proposal that as many states which would confederate could do so, with the proviso that Maryland would not be excluded if she de- sired to join.122 Maryland stood by her refusal to ratify the Confedera- tion until the western lands were ceded to the central government until Virginia, in January 1781, ceded her lands north of the Ohio, and Mary- land was persuaded to ratification. The immediate fate of the Confed- eration was less dependent on the wisdom of its arrangements than upon the outcome of the war.123
The depreciated currency and its fluctuation in relation to pound sterling not only rendered it difficult to supply the army, but contrib- uted to a general economic uncertainty. Earlier efforts to get the legis- latures of the several states to draw in their non-interest bearing notes failed and the attempt to check the depreciation of the currency by regulating prices proved futile. Connecticut resolved, in January, 1779, that all bills of credit issued to May, 1778, should be paid for in gold or silver or in bills of public credit. A new issue to the amount of forty thousand pounds was authorized against the taxes of the state. To meet this and other expenses, it was agreed to borrow one million pounds on the common currency of the United States.124 Meanwhile, in an at- tempt to check the continually mounting indebtedness of the United States, the Continental Congress decided to fund the loans and paper
336
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
currency issue to December 31, 1778. Although the Connecticut As- sembly expressed its belief that $1,700,000 was more than Connecticut's just share of the $15,000,000 fixed as the annual quota of the states, the measure was approved and taxes were levied to meet the obligation.125
The practices of both enemy and ally served to complicate the fi- nancial situation further. The French entered the market and pur- chased their needed supplies with silver. The British sought to drain the available specie through trade, sending out their agents with goods available only through cash. They, also, spread counterfeit bills in the state.126 Washington considered that the finances remained in an "alarm- ing state of derangement," and that public credit had "almost arrived at the last stage."127 The Continental Congress and most of the states had entered into economic warfare belatedly and hesitantly and the effects of their efforts on procurement of supplies were not immediately noticeable. When the value of currency shrank to a ratio of 40 to one, Connecticut, in accordance with a resolution of the Continental Con- gress, March 18, 1780, agreed to take those steps necessary to reduce the amount of currency in circulation. The bills of credit which had been issued by the state were to be brought in and destroyed and in their place new bills, not to exceed five percent of the nominal value of the old, were to be issued. These bills were backed by the faith of both the state and the United States. Funds for the redemption of the old bills of credit which bore five percent interest were to be raised through taxes levied on the rateable estates of the State of Connecticut for six successive years beginning in 1780. Sixty percent of the new issues was to go to the state and the remainder was subject to the orders of the united states. The latter portion was to be credited to the state against whose funds it had been issued. The quota to be sunk by Connecticut was $22,000,000 in paper currency.128
NOTES-CHAPTER XIII
1 J. T. Headley, Washington and His Generals (New York, 1847), I, p. 109; Charles S. Hall, Life and Letters of Samuel Holden Parsons, Major General in the Continental Army and Chief Judge of the Northwestern Territory, 1737-1789 (Binghamton, N. Y., 1905), pp. 1-2.
2 John Codman, 2nd, Arnold's Expedition to Quebec (New York, 1901), p. 16.
3 John Pell, Ethan Allen (London, c. 1929), p. 77.
337
CONNECTICUT IN THE REVOLUTION
4 Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 198-218.
5 Ibid., pp. 195-96.
6 Ibid., p. 191.
7 Conn. Col. Rec., XV, pp. 14-18, 37-40, 51-52, 88-89, 99, 101-102. David Wooster, Joseph Spencer, Israel Putnam, Benjamin Hinman, David Waterbury, Samuel Parsons, Charles Webb, and Jedidiah Huntington were named commanders of the first through eighth regiments respectively. See Hall, Parsons, pp. 1-2.
8 Curtis P. Nettels, George Washington and American Independence (Boston, 1951), p. 145.
9 William Cutter, The Life of Israel Putnam: Major-General in the Army of the Amer- ican Revolution (New York, 1847).
10 Ibid.
11 Nettels, Washington, p. 145.
12 Headley, Washington, pp. 110-15; Cutter, Putnam, pp. 161-84; Douglas Southall Free- man, George Washington, A Biography, IV (New York, 1951), pp. 16-17.
13 Charles Coleman Sellers, Benedict Arnold, The Proud Warrior (New York, 1930), pp. 25-45; Codman, Arnold, pp. 16-20.
14 Nettels, Washington, pp. 53-54, 100-12, 127; George L. Clark, Silas Deane, A Connecti- cut Leader in the American Revolution (New York, 1913), pp. 21-37; Lewis Henry Boutell, Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago, 1898), pp. 85-95.
15 Nettels, Washington, pp. 160-64.
16 Ibid., p. 160; Codman, Arnold, pp. 1-311.
17 Cutter, Putnam, pp. 197-99; Freeman, Washington, IV, pp. 1-76.
18 Quoted in Nettels, Washington, p. 203.
19 Ibid., p. 206.
20 Ibid., pp. 201-215; Freeman, Washington, IV, pp. 3-6, 12-16.
21 Ibid., p. 76.
22 Ibid., pp. 4-5, 60-61.
23 Hall, Parsons, pp. 48-50.
24 Ibid., pp. 48-50; Nettels, Washington, p. 216.
25 Ibid., Freeman, Washington, IV, pp. 135, 270; Hall, Parsons, pp. 63-78, 192.
26 Conn. Col. Rec., XV, pp. 410-16.
27 State Records, I, pp. 3-5.
28 Freeman, Washington, IV, p. 208.
29 Ibid., pp. 12-13, 26.
30 Hall, Parsons, p. 90.
31 Freeman, Washington, IV, p. 367.
32 Ibid., p. 409.
33 State Rec., I, pp. 84, 86, 88, 585-99.
34 Ibid., pp. 120, 123, 162, 167, 183-84, 191; Nicholas Cooke to Trumbull, April 8, 1777, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, II, p. 37.
35 Ibid.
36 Hall, Parsons, p. 93.
37 Ibid., p. 93; Sellers, Arnold, pp. 144-50.
38 State Rec., I, p. 214; Simon Deane to Mrs. Elizabeth Deane, April, 1777, Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., XXIII, p. 99.
39 Trumbull to Washington, May 4, 1777, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, X, pp. 59-60.
40 Hall, Parsons, pp. 61-65, 93-94.
41 Freeman, Washington, IV, p. 409.
338
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
42 Washington to Trumbull, May 23, 26, 1777, and Trumbull to Washington, June 12, 1777, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, X, pp. 65-70; Washington to Parsons, May 17, 20, 1777, quoted in Hall, Parsons, pp. 95-99.
43 Washington to Putnam, July 1, 1777, Mass. Hist. Soc. Papers, Ser. 5, Vol. 10, p. 76.
44 Washington to Trumbull, July 1, 7, in ibid., pp. 77, 80; Trumbull to Washington, July 28, 1777, in ibid., p. 89; Gates and Washington to Trumbull, Aug. 4, 1777, in ibid., pp. 90-92; Freeman, Washington, pp. 443-44; Jedediah Huntington to Joshua Huntington, Sept. 13, 1777, Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., XX, p. 360.
46 William Samuel Parsons to Gov. Clinton, Oct. 9, 1777, quoted in Hall, Parsons, pp. 115-16; Parsons to Trumbull, Oct. 9, 1777, ibid., pp. 118-19.
47 Ibid., pp. 121-22.
48 Trumbull to Washington, April, 1779, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, X, p. 135. 49 Hall, Parsons, pp. 247-51.
50 State Rec., III, pp. 129, 132, 157, 163, 221.
51 Freeman, Washington, pp. 179-96.
52 Washington to Trumbull, Sept. 13, 1780, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, X, pp. 191-94, 238.
53 Freeman, Washington, pp. 196-222; Hall, Talmadge, pp. 56-66; Hall, Parsons, pp. 304-16; Sellers, Arnold, pp. 225-48.
56 State Rec., III, pp. 559-64.
57 Freeman, Washington, V, pp. 158-59, 231; Hall, Parsons, p. 318.
58 Freeman, Washington, V, pp. 164-66.
60 Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. to Jonathan Trumbull, July 13, 26, 1781, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, III, pp. 247-48.
61 State Rec., IV, pp. 12-14.
62 Hall, Parsons, p. 386; Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. to Trumbull, Aug. 2, 1781, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, III, pp. 256-57.
63 Freeman, Washington, V, pp. 286-396; Hall, Parsons, pp. 389-93.
64 Frances Manwaring Caulkins, History of New London (New London, 1852), pp. 545-72.
65 State Rec., IV, May, 1782; Hall, Talmadge, p. 74.
66 Benjamin Huntington to Trumbull, July 30, 1782, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, III, p. 369; State Rec., IV, pp. 28-88.
67 Joseph Trumbull to Silas Deane, July, 1775, Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., XXIII, P. 7.
68 Nettels, Washington, pp. 190-92.
69 Zeichner, Years of Controversy, p. 207 and pp. 171-72, 173, 190-91, 198, and 203; Conn. Col. Rec., XIV, p. 392, note.
70 Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 207-209; Nettels, Washington, pp. 191-92. For a discussion of the activities of the Loyalists in Connecticut see W. H. Siebert, "The Refugee Loyalists of Connecticut," Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal So- ciety of London, 1916-17, X, pp. 75-92.
71 State Rec., I, pp. 4-8.
72 Ibid., pp. 160, 166, 451, 490.
73 Ibid., pp. 34-5, 158-59.
74 Ibid., p. 254.
75 Ibid., pp. 227-28.
76 Epaphroditus Peck, "The Loyalists of Connecticut," Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ. (New Haven, n. d.), p. 22.
77 State Rec., II, p. 20.
78 Ibid., I, pp. 412-13.
79 Ibid., III, pp. 181, 240, 243, 254.
339
CONNECTICUT IN THE REVOLUTION
80 Ibid., pp. 291, 385.
81 Ibid., V, p. 123.
83 Conn. Col. Rec., I, p. 82.
84 State Rec., I, p. 396.
85 Ibid., p. 462; Conn. Col. Rec., I, p. 72. 86 State Rec., II, pp. 395, 473-77.
87 Ibid., III, p. 147.
90 Clark, Deane, pp. 252-53; Samuel Peters to Silas Deane, Aug. 12, 1789, Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., XXIII, pp. 245-56; Nettels, Washington, pp. 230-33.
91 Conn. Col. Rec., XIV, pp. 415-16; ibid., XV, pp. 14-15, 113, 119, 315, 415-16. 92 Ibid. and p. 123.
93 Ibid., p. 597.
94 Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, II, p. 8.
95 Ibid., p. 10, note.
96 State Rec., I, pp. 604-605.
97 State Rec., I, pp. 528-29.
98 State Rec., II, pp. 17, 222-23, 267-68.
99 Trumbull to Washington, Dec. 27, 1779, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, X, p. 150. 100 Ibid., and Washington to Trumbull, Jan. 14, 1780, in ibid., p. 154.
101 State Rec., II, p. 222.
102 Ibid., III, p. 13.
103 State Rec., III, pp. 39, 72.
104 State Rec., III, pp. 172, 519-20.
106 Conn. Col. Rec. XV, p. 283.
107 State Rec., I, pp. 62-63. 108 Ibid., pp. 97-100, 120, 123, 366, 372, 583-620.
109 Ibid., p. 614.
110 Ibid., pp. 521-22, note, 524-28.
111 Ibid., II, pp. 12, 134.
112 Ibid., pp. 415, 562, 568, 578.
113 Conn. Col. Rec., XV, pp. 410, 416.
114 Merrill Jensen, The New Nation, A History of the United States During the Con- federation, 1781-89 (New York, 1950), p. 126.
115 Ibid., p. 138.
116 Ibid., p. 143.
117 Ibid., pp. 147-49.
118 State Rec., I, p. 552.
120 Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth to Gov. Trumbull, Oct. 19, 1778, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, II, pp. 290-91.
121 Jensen, New Nation, p. 204.
122 State Rec., II, 231-32.
123 Jensen, New Nation, pp. 225-38.
124 Ibid., V, pp. 122, 234, 355, 419, 477-81, 562-78, 599-607, 611.
125 Ibid., II, p. 177.
126 Trumbull to Washington, Aug. 31, 1780, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, X, p. 202. 127 Washington to Trumbull, Oct. 31, 1780, ibid., pp. 206-12.
128 Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth to Trumbull, March 20, 1780, ibid., Ser. 7, III, p. 26; State Rec., II, pp. 516-20; Robert Morris to Jonathan Trumbull, May 19, 1782, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, III, pp. 344-48.
Chapter XIV The Aftermath of War
I NDEPENDENCE HAD NOT RESULTED in any fundamental alteration of government, and victory, for the most part, brought only those changes dictated by an expanding population. A con- fidence in the future was suggested by post-war economic activity. Yet, before the decade ended, the economy was so affected that it provided an articulate minority with motivation to demand that a hesitant as- sembly send delegates to the Constitutional Convention, where the Connecticut delegation played a "small, but important part." The newly-won freedom in the first months after the war was translated by the populace into opposition to the return of the Tories, to the or- ganization of the Society of the Cincinnati, and to half-pay for officers of the Revolution.
The Veterans of the Revolution
The veterans emerged from the American Revolution conscious of their potential influence and convinced of the justness of their demands for recognition of their services. The people, however, feared the special privileges which soldiers might claim and protested strongly the provi- sion for compensating officers for military service.
Early in the war, Washington, faced with half-filled regiments, in- complete quotas, and incompetent commanders, had supported half-pay for officers in retirement as necessary "for the salvation of the army."1 When the proposal had been made to Congress, however, it stirred "the most painful & disagreeable question" which had "ever been agitated in Congress."2 Connecticut was among the three states strongly in opposi- tion to the proposal. Representatives from Connecticut had agreed that something must be done for the army, but had found that the proposal
34I
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
submitted was repugnant to their principles and had feared that the measure would further depreciate the currency.3 At first, the proposal that the officers receive half-pay for life had been passed. Upon recon- sideration, however, the period for payment was reduced to seven years. Then in 1780, an unwilling Congress reversed itself and granted half- pay for life, only to commute this at the end of the war to full pay for five years.4
In Connecticut, a general campaign of defamation followed, in which town meetings were assembled to pass denunciatory resolutions. Men in Congress and the State Assembly were denounced as tyrants; the people, it was asserted, were in danger of slavery. Four statewide con- ventions were held between September 1783 and March 1784. By this time, government had found a champion in Noah Webster, who charged that the convention was a nest of vipers which disturbed the tranquility of the government to answer selfish purposes and asserted that "every attempt to keep alive the present jealousies . . . must be treason against the state." Webster believed the dissatisfaction arose from "hot headed ignorance" and that the failure of the Congressional proposal would mean the failure of the Confederation. He sensed the trend toward a government with coercive powers although he underestimated the la- tent fears of anything suggestive of a professional army.5
Fears that the military might achieve a dominant influence were given point by the organization of the Society of the Cincinnati in 1783. This organization, partly social and partly political, was inspired by the belief that officers should unite to promote their ideas effectively. Each officer was to contribute a month's pay to a charitable fund and mem- bership in the organization was to pass to the eldest male descendant of a founder.5ยช It is estimated that there were about 200 members in Con- necticut, even though it was in this state that the organization met its strongest opposition.6
Opposition to the society raged through the press and found other avenues of expression. It was argued that the order placed an undue financial burden on the citizenry, that it began a pension fund which implied that officers had served for mercenary reasons, and that it sought to set up a badge of distinction within the community. Typical of the feeling was an open letter to the state society which declared "You must
342
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
WARREN-CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH AND OLD MEETING HOUSE
be stupid ... to imagine such absurdities can be palmed off upon the people without detection." Members were urged not to "plunge a dag- ger into the bosom of the country" which gave them existence. The Middletown Convention which had been called to protest the soldiers' pay proposal found it ominous that the Cincinnati had arisen simul- taneously with the grant of the five years' pay. Finally, the lower house of the General Assembly added its protest. In 1784, when the delegates of the Cincinnati assembled in Philadelphia, Connecticut representa-
343
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
tives reported that the Order was in disfavor in their state. The Con- necticut society would not agree to a change to abolish inherited eligi- bility, honorary membership, or correspondence among members; to require application to the legislature for a charter; and to reduce the society virtually to a charitable organization.7
Public disfavor subsided quickly, and prominent citizens, such as James Danna, David Humphreys, Joel Barlow, Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., and Ezra Stiles extolled the virtues of the organization. The last prophe- sied that the "fraternity will figure beyond any that was ever instituted in any part of the world." Humphreys became Vice President of the organization and Trumbull its Secretary. Others in public life accepted honorary membership.8
As a social organ the society made its first grant to distressed mem- bers in 1789. Politically and economically, the society was a strong con- servative force. Although it did not take a formal stand on the ratifica- tion of the constitution, Jeremiah Wadsworth worked assiduously for its passage and when the new government was begun several of the society's leaders, such as Wadsworth, Benjamin Talmadge, and Jona- than Trumbull, Jr., were high in the government's service. The strength of the society was eventually lost, and, in 1804, the Connecticut branch, mortified that the General Assembly would not grant a charter of in- corporation, disbanded.9
The Loyalists
Although conservatives and radicals had united in opposition to the British, in the post-war period the re-emergence of a conservative group, identifiable in the Society of the Cincinnati, was paralleled by the re-emergence of a cohesive radical faction. The contrast between two elements was evidenced in the question of state policy in regard to loyalists. The conservatives generally favored a speedy reconcilia- tion with the loyalists, while the radicals strongly opposed the re- turn of the Tories. The different attitudes became pointed when, in January, 1783, the General Assembly granted permission to Richard Smith, a Massachusetts merchant who had been proscribed there as a Tory, to take up residence in Connecticut. The Assembly was quickly besieged with protest from residents throughout Connecticut and New
344
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
England. The scope of the problem quickly broadened to include the whole of the Tory question in Connecticut. Concurrently with the Smith issue, the Assembly had to decide what to do with those Tories who had remained with the British during the war and now wished to return to Connecticut. The radicals held the view that those who had voluntarily remained with the British had sacrificed their rights to the privileges of the state and should not be permitted to return. Those who could convince the civil authorities of their patriotism (i.e., that their absence had been involuntary) would still have been denied the right of franchise by the radicals, until, after seven years, they might receive the approval of three-fourths of the inhabitants of the town in which they resided. The conservatives countered with the argument that the Tories would add to the economic and commercial well-being of the state. The radicals could not muster a sufficient number of votes in the May, 1783, session of the General Assembly to prevent the passage of a bill repealing all acts directed against Tories during the war except the Confiscation Act.10
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.