USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 31
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
The anti-loyalist sentiment, however, remained strong in some of the towns. Before the General Assembly had acted, many of the towns had adopted resolutions refusing the Tories the right to return. Their return to the town of Windham was prohibited as late as 1785. In other towns, tempers cooled and the more moderate attitude as reflected in the Assembly's legislation gained acceptance sooner. In the hope that it would become a powerful commercial center, New Haven early invited the Tories to return. It is said, too, that William Samuel Parsons car- ried an invitation to Tories in New York from the town of New Lon- don. The influx of Tories in New Haven was so great that in the city election of February 1784, eight Tories were elected to the common council and the popular Roger Sherman received only three more votes for Mayor than the combined votes for conservative candidates.
The policy governing the confiscation of Tory estates during the post-war period was contained in the Act of May, 1782. Estates of Tories not under mortgage or otherwise ordered to be sold were to be sold at public venue for specie payable within one year. More detailed studies are necessary before any approximate estimate can be made of the value of estates confiscated after the war, but the State records index
345
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
sixty-nine separate individuals whose estates were confiscated. If this is a reasonably accurate record, the number certainly is not large when viewed in relation to the estimated number of loyalists in the state at the beginning of the war. Although the state did not refuse to review confiscation orders, it appears that the petitioner paid the full cost of administering the estate. Although wives of those whose estates were confiscated might be permitted to retain a small plot of land with a house as dowry, however, the property was to remain under the control of the selectmen of the town and could be sold only with their consent.11
In some instances it seems that the confiscation of lands permitted the state to pay or individuals to collect debts which otherwise would have been unpaid. An illustration is the case of William Brown who owed the estate of John Winthrop 2,000 pounds which had gone unpaid for a number of years. The state, it seems clear, paid almost every type of debt including reimbursement for monies advanced during the war, notes issued for service in the Connecticut line, and such individual claims as that of a former minister of Acadia who had removed to East Hartford and whose Acadian property was lost to the enemy. Despite the annulment of Loyalist legislation in 1787, the administration of the confiscated estates continued until after the formation of the new na- tion.12
The Settlement of the Susquehanna Controversy
The war was over, however, for patriot soldier and Tory too, and old problems in interstate relations had to be settled under the new Confederation. The ability of the Confederation to settle questions aris- ing between states was tested in the settlement of the dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over the western lands. Migration from Connecticut to the western territory was slowed during the Revolution, although the settlement of Westmoreland continued until the settle- ment was virtually eliminated by the depredations of the enemy. To relieve the distressed settlers, Connecticut had organized a volunteer militia and had abated taxes. Pennsylvania had persisted in her claim to the territory and under the pressure of land speculators, the Pennsyl- vania legislature took up the dispute over jurisdiction. -
Article Nine of the Articles of Confederation provided that Con-
346
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
gress should be the last resort in all disputes concerning land. In 1781, a petition was filed with the Continental Congress asking that a court of commissioners be appointed to adjudicate the matter.13 The "peace of the two states and consequently of the whole union" depended upon an amicable settlement of the controversy.14 The commissioners and the counsel for the two states met at Trenton in November and December 1782.15 Eliphalet Dyer, Jesse Root, and William Samuel Johnson were appointed to represent Connecticut.
The records of the meeting read more like those of a conference or diplomatic meeting than a court of law. After a week of conferences, it was agreed that the commission should limit itself to the question of jurisdiction. Thus, the question of the rights of Connecticut settlers to the land they occupied should be left to future negotiations. It was decreed officially that the State of Connecticut had no right to the lands in controversy. Although it was not a part of the record, the commis- sioners agreed to recommend to Pennsylvania that she quiet the claims of the settlers from Connecticut and to recommend to the settlers that they forego their right to a Congressional hearing until the Pennsyl- vania legislature had acted. Also, there was apparently something of an understanding that Connecticut was to be compensated elsewhere in the public domain.16 The news of the decision was published in the Connecticut Journal on January 16, 1783. The Clerk of the Assembly inscribed on the roll for that day:
"Annihilated and out of Sight ;- If what the court have done, is right"'17
Westmoreland ceased to exist as a political entity. The dispute, how- ever, was not over.
The Pennsylvania legislature ignored the unofficial recommenda- tions of the Commissioners, which were not made public. Instead militia was sent to drive off the Connecticut settlers. In opposition, there arose, as representative of the remnants of the Susquehanna Company, a force- ful dynamic leader from Canaan, Connecticut, John Franklin, who believed that the decision on jurisdiction did not affect individual titles to soil. From 1784 onward, Franklin was the leader of the settlement in the Wyoming Valley. Under his leadership, the settlers first appealed
347
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
unsuccessfully for the appointment of a new commission, and then pro- posed the establishment of a separate state for which Oliver Wolcott prepared a Constitution. A company of men was organized to fight the Pennamites for three years in return for which they were to receive half share in a township. Among the members of this company were Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain boys. Even the absorption of most of the territory into the county of Luzerne by Pennsylvania in 1786 did not halt the intrepid Franklin. He continued to attempt to influence legislators and anyone else who would listen, but he was fighting a losing battle. In 1795, the United States Circuit Court for Pennsylvania de- cided against the Connecticut titles in the case of Van Horne's lessee us. Dorrance. The Pennsylvania legislature passed a compromise act in 1799 and a commission was appointed to straighten out land titles. This compromise, so Julian P. Boyd suggests, might have been made earlier- had it not been for John Franklin.18
Although Connecticut settlers had to wait until 1799 for settlement of their Susquehanna claims, Connecticut had dropped the issue when the Trenton decision had been made in 1782 and had turned her atten- tion again to internal affairs.
The Continuing Nature of Government
The American Revolution did not result in any fundamental alter- ation of the basic structure of government in Connecticut. The Assem- bly simply approved the declaration of independence and absolved the inhabitants from allegiance to the British Crown. "The multitude," said Samuel Peters, "considered the General Assembly to be equal to the British Parliament."19 The legal basis of government remained the Charter of 1662 which had been granted by the Crown. When, in 1781, the Continental Congress ordered the printing of the constitutions of the several states, Oliver Wolcott believed that a detailed account of the origins and derivation of the form of government would be a matter of amusement rather than of information. To meet the Congressional or- der, Wolcott suggested that the Fundamental Orders be considered the true basis of government "with the charter only a confirmation of that constitution which was derived from the voluntary convention of the ancient rulers of the former colony."20 This presentation, which Wol-
348
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
cott believed "would give a good general view of the principles of our government," was adopted in publication.21
Nevertheless, the view prevailed generally that independence had not altered the basis of government and Benjamin Gale was far ahead of his time when he argued in 1782 that the state had abrogated the charter when it made war and that the General Assembly's unauthor- ized declaration re-establishing the charter government was expedient, but extra-legal. His call for a constitutional convention went unnoticed. The orthodox view of the time was that in 1776 the people might have called a convention but that it had not been necessary for back of the charter was the fact that the government was grounded upon the will of the people.22
With confidence in the superiority of the existing form of govern- ment, in which ultimate power resided in the legislative branch, re- forms further increased the autonomy of the General Assembly and its control over all phases of government. In October 1784 Judges of the Superior Court were made ineligible for executive and legislative posi- tions of either the state or the United States. The powers of the supreme court remained with the Lieutenant Governor and Council meeting under the Presidency of the Governor which was to serve as the court of last resort. Although this arrangement relieved the General Assembly of much of its judicial work, the power of review remained securely under the influence of the Assistants who in many instances were in effect reviewing their own decisions. Criticisms of this were so numerous that a margin of consent was gained only by the assurance that it was a plan "for the time being."23 In an obvious attempt to place the fiscal matters of the state under the control of the General Assembly, it ap- pointed a Comptroller in 1788, who was to supervise all fiscal matters of the state and render an account to the Assembly.24
In local government there was a limited reorganization. The last of the eight counties of the state, Middlesex and Tolland, were organ- ized in 1785.25 The towns of Middletown, Haddam, Killingworth, Say- brook, East Haddam, and Chatham were the original towns of Middle- sex County. Tolland, Stafford, Bolton, Somers, Hebron, Willington, Union, and Ellington were the original towns of Tolland County. Cov- entry was added to Tolland County in May, 1786.26
349
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
In the more heavily populated areas new towns were created or in- corporated. In the middle of the 18th century, Hartford, New Haven, New London, Middletown, and Norwich were among the twelve most populous cities in the country. In 1784, these towns were incorporated, and remained the only representatives of municipal government in Con- necticut until half a century later when Bridgeport was incorporated in 1836.27 Connecticut was the pioneer of municipal government in New England, for Boston was not incorporated until 1823.28
The charters granted the five cities extended similar powers and privileges to each. The limits of the cities were fixed; the power to col- lect taxes established; the offices of mayor, treasurer, clerk, sheriff, and inspector of produce were created; and city courts and councils were authorized. The common councils were empowered to pass ordinances for certain specified purposes, but the prerogative was carefully safe- guarded because no ordinance could take effect until approved in city meeting. In addition, any ordinance could be repealed by the superior court within six months after its enactment if found to be unreasonable or unjust. The mayors who presided over the council meetings were elected by the freemen of the respective cities, but held office at the pleasure of the General Assembly. This prerogative was rarely exercised, so that, in practice, the mayors held office for life. As Mayors, they re- ceived no compensation; but as Judges of the city court, they received two dollars a day.29
As new groupings of population coalesced, new towns were formed at an unprecedented rate. From 1785 to 1789, no less than twenty new towns were formed. Many of these constituted a fragmentation of es- tablished towns, others developed from existing ecclesiastical societies.30
The process of settlement was reflected in the public acts enacted to meet the demands of the people. The existent judiciary practices were in some instances inadequate and in other instances contradictory to the spirit of the post-war period. The view which prevailed earlier that Connecticut law was "derived from the law of nature and revela- tion" no longer sufficed. The common law of England was not fully applicable to the needs of the community, and, in the absence of printed reports of judicial decisions, it developed that one was frequently in contradiction with another. A law of 1785 required that the judges of
350
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the superior court write decisions whenever there was a point of law involved. In 1789, Ephraim Kirby published the first volume of what has been regarded as "the first fairly thorough-going reports of judicial decisions ever published in this country."31 Roger Sherman and Richard
ENN EHH ER
(Angell Collection)
(Courtesy Norwalk Historical Society)
NORWALK-SCHOOL BUILT ABOUT 1835 ON EAST AVENUE
Law, in 1784, assumed the responsibility of revising the General Stat- utes of the state, which had remained unchanged since 1750 except for the appendices added in 1769. Litigation had markedly increased and the rules of property had become outdated. After consideration by the Assembly, the code as revised was printed.32 Although some alterations were made in the penal code, some penalties meted out were harsh and extreme. One Moses Parker, for example, was condemned by deci- sion of Oliver Ellsworth, "to sit on the wooden horse half an hour; to
351
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
receive fifteen stripes, pay a fine of 10 pounds; to be confined to the gaol and the workhouse three months; and every Monday morning for the first month to receive ten stripes, and sit on the wooden horse as aforesaid."33 Perhaps the surest index to the state's lack of concern for its criminals is found in the disgraceful conditions at Newgate Prison which were described by Timothy Dwight as immoral and impolitic.34 An indication that the state was to continue to exercise strict control over the conduct of its residents was the act forbidding the playing of billiards or the possession of a billiard table.35
Post-War Commerce
Connecticut's commercial situation had benefited from the war. The purchases of the French and British armies, privateering, and prof- iteering had resulted in an abundance of specie in the state for the first time in its history.36 This abundance of precious metal together with the new opportunities of the post-war period provided a base for the expansion of markets as noted by Ezra Stiles. Before the war, the city of New Haven had four sailing vessels which were reduced to a single sloop of seventy-five tons of 1781. Within the next three years commerce had so increased that there were thirty-three vessels from New Haven engaged in the West Indies and other foreign trade. These vessels in- cluded one of 300 tons, and four square-rigged brigs. The rest were sloops of from sixty to one hundred tons.36a The average of 5,800 tons which cleared annually between 1785 and 1789 was twice the tonnage of the pre-war years.37 In all, Stiles counted fifty-six shops in the city at this time. Half a dozen of these had goods which he valued at three thousand pounds sterling in contrast to the seven or eight shops there during the war, three of which traded considerably and had goods valued at six or eight hundred pounds.38
The familiar signs of a post-war economy began to appear. The populace, eager for consumer goods, much of which had been denied during the war, quickly exhausted the supply of cash and bought on credit. As early as 1783, Peter Colt wrote from Hartford: "The Dry Goods Business is very much at a stand-cash grows very scarce."38a Jacob Sebor reported late in 1784 that "our sales have been as great as had been expected," but cash was scarce and it had been necessary to
352
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
dispose of part of the shipment for cash and part for three months' credit, he trusted, "in good punctual hands."39 British merchants, seek- ing the advantage of the reopened trade, overstocked, and the situation was further aggravated by European agents' forwarding unsalable items.
By 1787 the state was in the midst of a commercial depression. The lack of cash was everywhere evident. Traders pointed to the unfavorable conditions of the West India trade. Barnabas Deane wrote his brother, Silas, that they were almost completely shut off from the British West Indies and were greatly restricted by the French. Horse and oxen were selling for a fraction of their value and failures were occurring daily among the traders. The Deane brothers hoped to compensate for this loss of trade by keeping their distillery working. Cash was so scarce by the next year that most of their trade was carried on by barter.40 The Brit- ish restrictions on American vessels trading in the British West Indies had little effect and the half-hearted efforts of the French to protect French merchants through bounties on such articles as dried cod fish carried to the French Islands went almost unnoticed until the depres- sion of 1786-87. Then the traders pointed to these as factors which theo- retically limited their trade.41
To encourage commerce Loyalists were invited to return to New Haven and merchants of other states were invited to remove to Connect- icut.42 The ports of New Haven and New London were made free cities in May 1784. If they were accepted by the city, foreigners or residents of other states were assured of the protection of the law and guaranteed no other nor any greater taxes than the citizens of these towns.43 In 1785, a Philadelphia traveler found in Connecticut "an amazing superfluity of European goods," mostly in the hands of British merchants.44 With capital tied up in dead stocks, merchants frequently sold their goods at auction at prices below the sterling costs for the items.45 The post-war boom had resulted in an over-expansion of credit. It was then that Noah Webster wrote in the same sentence of "expensive habits" and "sham morality" and charged that the people were unwilling "to pay debts until duns, writs, lawyers, and courts, forced them to do it."46 Connecti- cut then turned to the development of post-revolutionary commercial policy.
A comprehensive tariff program was introduced in the Spring of
353
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
1784. The authority granted Congress during the war to levy a duty on all goods imported into the state was renewed, a similar duty was placed on articles imported from other states of the United States, an excise tax was placed on specific articles, and a tax was fixed on certain legal papers.47 Exceptions to the rule concerning imports makes it extremely doubtful that the regulations interfered markedly with the flow of goods. Citizens of other states who imported articles from a foreign country with the intent of bringing them into Connecticut were ex- empted. The next year, although the rate was increased from five to six percent, goods owned by citizens of the state or by others in conjunction with citizens of the state were exempted, providing proof were pre- sented that the goods were imported for sale in the state and had not been offered for sale before being offered in Connecticut.48 When it is remembered, too, that "the enforcement of laws contrary to the best interest of the mercantile groups was lax and evasion was winked at," it is apparent that the various revenue acts had the effect not of limiting trade, but of encouraging it to be directed toward Connecticut. When, in 1789, the United States Constitution made necessary the repeal of all tariff laws, the change in Connecticut could not have been more than a matter of form.49
Within the state during the war, there had been a shift of the cen- ters of trade from the cities along the Sound to the towns of the interior which were more secure from the enemy. These new centers continued to develop in the post-war period. On the basis of war profits, there had developed in Hartford an influential group of merchants in which Jeremiah Wadsworth was the central figure. This group was eager for new ventures. In the eastern part of the state, primarily through the leadership of the Trumbulls, Norwich continued to be a center of trade. Litchfield, as had Hartford, benefited from the war, and in 1785, Ben- jamin Talmadge purchased a share in the company owned by Miles Beach. In the same year, Talmadge, with his brothers, formed the B. Talmadge Company. Litchfield lacked an outlet to the Sound, but this did not prevent Talmadge from trading in Hartford, Boston, and New York, and from expanding his interest and that of his associates in all av- enues of trade and speculation.50
354
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Agriculture
Closely tied to the increased commercial activity was the course of Connecticut agriculture in the post-war period. During the war there were bitter complaints of the high cost of food-stuffs and it is greatly to be feared that a large share of the profits went to those who held the army contracts. These persons, such as Jeremiah Wads- worth, by virtue of the capital accumulated, to a very large extent made up the merchant trader class in the reconstruction period. Eager to capitalize on the post-war demand, they flooded the market with European goods until the supply of specie accumulated during the war had been exhausted.51 The historic search for a cash crop to supply ex- change for foreign goods was renewed with intensity. The cultivation of flax had increased during the century and had become something of a special crop in Fairfield County, yet it alone could not balance the for- eign trade.52 To supplement flax, encouragement was given to the pro- duction of raw silk and hemp. A subsidy of ten shillings per hundred was given for the planting of white mulberry trees and a bounty of three pence was granted for each ounce of raw silk produced. For the cultivation of hemp, a credit on assessed taxes was authorized at the rate of forty shillings per acre, except that if any great quantity were sown, the exemption should be increased fourfold.53 A century and a half of extracting subsistence from the naturally thin soil had left few of the nutrients especially necessary for grains. When coupled with the loss of labor through war enlistments and post-war readjustments and the in- crease of population, the state rapidly was becoming incapable of pro- ducing its own foodstuffs. Agriculture was not able to provide a balance for the foreign trade.
Settlement of the War Debt
The most vexing of the post-war problems was the settlement of accounts between the state and the congressional government. The pro- portion of the debt to be assumed by each of the states, according to the Articles of Confederation, was to be determined by the proportion of the valued and surveyed land and the buildings and improvements on such land in each of the states.5+ The amount of Connecticut's obliga-
355
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
tion was to be met in part through retirement of old bills of credit and redemption of new issues. The plan of 1780 for the retirement of the bills of credit was not generally effective, and Connecticut, which did not remit any of the new bills, therefore, did not discharge her debit to the United States. It appears from a document filed by Oliver Wolcott in 1787 that, during the period from January 1780 to August 1783, up- wards of $8,000,000 in continental bills were retired.57 Yet, when, in 1782, Robert Morris was pressing for the discharge of the debt, it was stated that new bills had not been issued because they could not be issued on a par with gold and silver. In fact, the state had taken ad- vantage of the depreciated currency to retire the bills and bolster the financial structure of the state.58 Morris, who was favored by the Con- necticut delegation in Congress, argued that "principles of both reason and justice" called for the redemption of the paper and appealed for the settlement of the accounts.59 Connecticut agreed to an adjustment of the quota, but suggested that another method might serve as well as that outlined by the Articles of Confederation as a means of deter- mining the quota. The proposal for basing quotas on the population of the several states was submitted in the form of an amendment the next year, but was defeated.60 It remained that accounts between the states and the United States Congress would be adjusted under the plan which had been developed early in 1782 by a commissioner, ap- proved by the state to which he would be sent.61 The accounts were confusing and some of the commissioners were slow and methodi- cal and drew the criticism of the commissioners appointed by Connecti- cut to work with them.62 The irritation of the General Assembly at the long delay in the settlement of the account is evident in the order to Oliver Wolcott, in 1786, directing that he prepare a written presenta- tion of his progress in the business, and what impediment, if any, ob- structed progress. In May 1787, he was ordered to prepare a statement of accounts and claims of the state against the United States. When Wolcott was named State Comptroller in 1788, the state's delegates to Congress assumed responsibility for settlement of the debts.63 The loose accounting methods of the Treasurer, and the many different kinds of issues and their varying values made an exact audit impossi- ble.64 Under Hamilton's financial plan, the Federal Government as-
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.