USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 3 > Part 40
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 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53
He indicated his lack of servility by openly condemning, in February, 1806, the British practice of seizing our neutral vessels and impressing seamen from our ships. While he was not eager for war, he had the spirit to protest against these English outrages. When he heard John Lowell, a prominent Federalist, justify the attack of the Leopard upon the Chesapeake, he burst his bonds. "This," he afterwards said, "was the cause .... which alienated me from that day and forever from the councils of the Federal Party."
Not long afterwards, when Senator John Quincy Adams, out of honest conviction, voted for the Embargo, the Federal- ists exhausted the vocabulary of abuse in describing him.
They soon had their revenge. Adams's term of office as Senator was to expire in 1809. In June, 1808, almost a year before such action was necessary, the General Court chose James Lloyd, Jr., a well-known Boston merchant, as Adams's successor. The insult was so palpable that Adams promptly resigned, and, on the following day, Lloyd was elected to fill the remainder of the term. From that hour Adams was frankly and officially allied with the Republicans. It was a wise decision, for the constructive work of the Federalists was done. It has been said of them that they continued to be
APPROACH OF WAR
435
Anglican "when to be Anglican was to be emphatically un- American." Early in Madison's administration, Adams was named as Minister to Russia, in which country he arrived in October, 1809. He spent the next eight years at foreign courts and did not again participate in national politics until he returned in 1817 to be Secretary of State under James Monroe.
APPROACH OF WAR WITH ENGLAND (1809 - 1812)
During the years immediately preceding the War of 1812, the Federalists maintained their provincial and pro-British attitude. The Erskine Agreement, brought about by the Brit- ish Minister in Washington in 1809 seemed to settle all difficulties with England, but it was repudiated by the British Government and the old quarrel was revived. A new repre- sentative, Francis James Jackson, sent to supersede Erskine (1809), alleged that our government must have known that Erskine had exceeded his instructions. Madison, indignant, dismissed Jackson, who then made a tour of the northern states, where he was welcomed effusively by the Federalists. Arrogant, impudent, and tactless, he did not hesitate to appear on official occasions in Boston. It was Senator Timothy Pick- ering who, at a public dinner given to Jackson in the Ex- change Coffee House, proposed the sentiment, "The World's last hope,-Britain's fast-anchored isle !" Jackson's indiscre- tion was amazing, but not more so than Pickering's fatuous blindness to the mood of the nation at large.
In spite of the Federalists and without the approval of Massachusetts, the country was slowly drifting into war. When President Madison, affected by Napoleon's trickery in rescinding the Berlin and Milan Decrees, announced that com- mercial intercourse with Great Britain would again be sus- pended after February 2, 1811, the Federalists made a last gasp of protest. They openly stated their intention of nullify- ing this act. But the conflict was not one of embargoes : younger men, of the type of Henry Clay, were guiding the national councils, men who would not tamely endure re- peated insults. Even when the resort to arms was almost certain, the Massachusetts General Court declared that it would be inexpedient. After the formal declaration of war,
436
MASSACHUSETTS IN THE UNION
June 18, 1812, the lower House condemned the action of Congress by a vote of two to one. The historian Barry has estimated that three-fifths of the citizens of Massachusetts were opposed to war. Flags in New England were hoisted at half-mast. The usual memorials were sent in from towns throughout the Commonwealth. Nevertheless the Federalist Party had to yield to the demand of the nation. The state, after all, was linked with the central government and must acquiesce in the policy of Congress. Furthermore, when battles began to be fought, volunteers from Massachu- setts were numerous, and Massachusetts men played an im- portant part in winning the war on land and sea.
DIFFICULTIES WITH ENGLAND (1793 - 1796)
Most of the difficulties with Great Britain arose from the adoption by that sea power of a policy hostile to neutral carrying trade. From the opening of the war, England in- sisted on confiscating enemy property wherever and however it was found, and on impressing sailors from neutral vessels. The climax came when the British, irritated at the American commerce with the French West Indies, in 1793 issued orders that all neutral ships engaged in this trade should be seized. Hundreds of craft from Salem and Newburyport, peacefully going about what they thought to be legitimate business, were suddenly captured and brought before prize courts, their pas- sengers being often roughly treated. New England merchants suffered heavy losses, protests were raised, and there was even talk of war. On the other hand, always on the horizon loomed the ominous menace of the French Revolution, of Robespierre and Marat and the Reign of Terror. When a choice had to be made, the Federalists, in spite of their anger at the "mother country," stood by England.
The various commercial disputes between England and the United States, joined with the fact that Great Britain had not yet abandoned certain frontier posts and had actually at- tempted to arouse the Indian tribes against the Americans, led to the negotiation of Jay's Treaty signed in London, Novem- ber 19, 1794, but not made public until the following July. This treaty was not generally favorable to American interests ; and when Senator Mason gave it out, without authorization,
437
FISHER AMES
to the press, it was received with alarming demonstrations by the Jeffersonians.
At a meeting held in Faneuil Hall, the venerable Samuel Adams presided, and resolutions were passed denouncing the Treaty as a cowardly surrender of American rights. George Cabot wrote, "Some of our more respectable men .. . have joined the Jacobins." The leading Federalists, however, -- men of the type of Fisher Ames and Stephen Higginson and Harrison Gray Otis,-did not attend, and they soon banded together to endorse the Treaty. The Boston Chamber of Commerce declared in its favor, and conservative sentiment reached the logical conclusion that war with England might ensue and business might suffer unless the agreement, unsatis- factory though it was in many details, were ratified. As Professor Bemis well says, the Treaty "was the price paid by the Federalists for a peace which they believed indispens- able to the perpetuation of American nationality."
TRIUMPH OF FISHER AMES (1796)
It was Fisher Ames,-who had declared that "democracy is a volcano,"-who added the final dramatic touch to the proceedings. Jay's Treaty was promulgated in February, 1796, both Massachusetts Senators voting for ratification. When a bill was introduced into the House providing the necessary appropriation, Ames, who was in a state of physical collapse, finally managed to reach Philadelphia, a sick and, as he be- lieved, a dying man. A precocious and industrious student at Harvard, he had developed into an able lawyer. Vivacious, cynical, and persuasive, he was the most brilliant orator and engaging personality in the New England Federalist clique. He was also a natural actor, with a melodious voice and a gift for extemporaneous and convincing speech. With pallid cheeks and broken tones, he rose among his colleagues to plead for the Treaty, dwelling with impassioned emphasis on the frightful consequences if it were not carried out, and paint- ing a ghastly picture of the horrors of Indian warfare which might result if the frontier question were not adjusted. As he sank into his seat after a stirring peroration, everybody present was moved; and, when a vote was taken on the follow-
438
MASSACHUSETTS IN THE UNION
ing day, the House decided, by a majority of three, to make the appropriation.
This was a notable personal triumph for a man who, in his political philosophy, was the very embodiment of New Eng- land Federalism. Ames despised the "rabble" and drew his friends entirely from the "upper classes." He was honestly convinced that the best government is that of the "best peo- ple." In seventeenth century England he would have been a Cavalier ; in eighteenth-century France he would have clung desperately to the ancien régime. In the United States he was consistent in his advocacy of a strong central govern- ment; and Jefferson to him was the leader of all the powers of evil. Seldom thereafter was Ames able to participate in party struggles. Failing health kept him out of public life, and he was even obliged to decline the proffered presidency of Harvard College. He died in 1808, at the early age of fifty.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAMS, HENRY .- History of the United States of America from 1801 to 1817 (9 vols., N. Y., Scribner's, 1891-1901)-The most comprehensive study in existence of the administrations of Jefferson and Madison. No student of the period can go far without it.
ADAMS, JOHN .- The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, with a Life of the Author (10 vols., Boston, Little, Brown, 1856)-Edited by C. F. Adams. An imposing collection, rich in material bearing on the period.
ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY .- Memoirs, Comprising Portions of his Diary from 1795 to 1848 (12 vols., Lippincott, 1874-1877)-Edited by C. F. Adams. Vol. I covers from 1801 to 1809, while he was residing in the United States, and gives a full account of his resignation as Senator.
AMES, FISHER .- Works. With a Selection from his Speeches and Corre- spondence (2 vols., Boston, Little, Brown, 1854)-This gives the political opinions of an eminent and representative Massachusetts Federalist.
BARRY, JOHN STETSON .- History of Massachusetts (3 vols., Boston, Phil- lips, Sampson, 1856-1857)-Vol. III, chap. VIII, covers the period from 1789 to 1811.
BASSETT, JOHN SPENCER .- The Federalist System, 1789-1801 (N. Y., Har- per, 1906)-A sound and readable account of our national history between 1789 and 1801.
439
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
BEARD, CHARLES A .- Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy (N. Y., Macmillan, 1915)-A scholarly study of the relations of political parties in the United States under Washington and John Adams.
BEMIS, SAMUEL F .- Jay's Treaty (N. Y., Macmillan, 1923)-The most thorough study yet made of this phase of American diplomacy.
BOWERS, CLAUDE G .- Jefferson and Hamilton; the Struggle for Democracy in America (Boston, Houghton, Mifflin, 1926)-A somewhat popular but well-documented and accurate treatment of the personalities and principles of the great party struggle which resulted in the triumph of Jefferson in 1800.
BRADFORD, ALDEN .- History of Massachusetts (3 vols., privately printed, Boston, 1829)-See Vol. III; chapters I-VI deal with the years from 1789 to 1811.
BURRAGE, HENRY S .- Maine in the Northeastern Boundary Controversy (Printed for the State, Portland, 1919)-A thorough study by the Maine State Historian of all the details of this complicated question. LEARNED, HENRY B .- The President's Cabinet (New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 1912)-The standard authority on any matter connected with the Cabinet, especially useful in its treatment of the formative period of our government.
McMASTER, JOHN BACH .- A History of the People of the United States from the Revolution to the Civil War (8 vols., N. Y., Appleton, 1884- 1913)-Vols. II and III of this monumental and indispensable history deal with the period from 1790 to 1812, and' have been frequently consulted in preparing this chapter.
MORISON, SAMUEL ELIOT .- The Life and Letters of Harrison Gray Otis, Federalist, 1765-1848 (2 vols., Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1913)-Vol- ume I deals in much detail with some of the incidents discussed in this chapter.
MORISON, SAMUEL ELIOT .- The Maritime History of Massachusetts, 1783- 1860 (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1921)-A delightful and scholarly monograph, indispensable for the student of this period.
MORSE, ANSON ELY .- The Federalist Party in Massachusetts to the Year 1800 (Princeton, University Library, 1909)-A carefully prepared monograph, based on contemporary newspapers and letters.
ROBINSON, WILLIAM A .- Jeffersonian Democracy in New England (New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 1916)-A valuable study of the factors underlying the struggle between Federalists and Republicans.
STANWOOD, EDWARD .- A History of the Presidency (2 vols., Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1916)-A standard work, valuable for reference purposes. Vol. I covers 1788-1897.
WARREN, CHARLES .- The Supreme Court in United States History (Bos- ton, Little, Brown, 1922)-Volume I of this brilliant work covers the period of this chapter.
WASHINGTON, GEORGE .- Diaries, 1748-1799 (4 vols., Boston, Houghton, Mifflin, 1925)-Edited by J. C. Fitzpatrick. Volume I, pp. 20-52, gives the President's own account of his tour through the eastern states.
CHATPER XV
MASSACHUSETTS STATE GOVERNMENT (1789 - 1820)
BY CLIFFORD CHESLEY HUBBARD Professor of History and Political Science, Wheaton College
POLITICAL CONCENTRATIONS (1789 - 1812)
With the defeat of the Shays Rebellion in 1787 and the rati- fication of the new national Constitution in 1788, Massachu- setts was placed definitely in the stream of conservatism and nationalism which was flowing over nearly the entire area of the new nation. How narrow the victory had been, has already been described in these pages. That the issues might easily have been determined the other way is signified by the fact that they actually were so decided in the neighboring State of Rhode Island. There the paper-money party, which in Massachusetts went down with Shays, was actually putting its program into legislation when the question arose of the ratification of the Federal Constitution. Nothing but the threat of the United States to treat it as a foreign nation could induce Rhode Island to ratify.
The adoption of the new and more nationalistic Constitution did not immediately dissolve all the old antagonisms among the States or within the States; and the history of our country is concerned largely with those antagonisms. In the period dealt with in this chapter, conflicting sectional interests in the United States gave rise to the question of State rights within the Union. On the other hand, interests which were internal within the States resulted in the gradual development of political parties, dividing on national issues.
This result is illustrated in Massachusetts. In the beginning of the new national government, during the administrations of Washington and Adams, the State was on the side of nationalism and put forth arguments accordingly, in refutation of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.
440
441
SUMMARY OF POLITICAL PARTIES
Later, when the national government was in the hands of southern and agricultural interests, commercial New England took its stand for State rights, and once went to the extent of publicly claiming the right of secession. The arguments and theories evolved at that time were amazingly at variance with those urged a few years before.
Within the State of Massachusetts internal differences of interest slowly produced definite political parties. The old Tory and Whig division had long before disappeared with the expulsion from the country of the conservatives, who in many instances lost their property by confiscation. Also, with the downfall of the Shays movement of 1786, distinction between the commercial seaboard and the agricultural interior was gradually diminished. That result was hastened by the emigration to Vermont and elsewhere of many hundreds of the discontented elements who had made possible the Shays Rebellion.
In the meanwhile three parties developed in Massachusetts, or rather, three factions; for the political machinery which is usually associated with a political party was lacking. Its place was taken by personal leadership, over one group by Hancock; over another by Bowdoin; and over the third by James Warren and Elbridge Gerry. Hancock's party was dominant so long as he lived; but it went to pieces a few years after his death. Bowdoin's group became the Federalist Party; while the Warren-Gerry faction developed into the Republican or Democratic Party in Massachusetts.
SUMMARY OF STATE POLITICAL PARTIES (1783 - 1824)
The Hancock group had no particular characterization. Its leader, although himself rich, did not appeal so much to people of his own class as he did to the general run of the population. He was a skillful politician, with the means and the willingness to keep himself before the public. He distributed with care the patronage at his disposal, chiefly petty judgeships. He had an astute judgment which few politicians possess; it told him when to withdraw as well as when to assert himself. It was this foresight which led him to resign when he saw the Shays Rebellion approaching, and thus to escape the unpopularity which was certain to attach to the Governor, whichever side
442 MASSACHUSETTS STATE GOVERNMENT
he chose. Bowdoin stepped into the breach and put down the rebellion. This courageous action killed him politically, and Hancock was enabled to come back into the office, which he thereupon held until his death in 1793.
Hancock's greatest asset, however, was the reputation for patriotism which he had acquired, rightfully or wrongfully, during the Revolution. After his death this same memory of past patriotic services enabled the old Hancock party to put Samuel Adams into office for a few years. His reputation for patriotism was unquestionably deserved; nevertheless he had neither the wealth nor the political skill of Hancock, and his faction speedily ceased to exist.
Early in the Revolution appeared a more conservative element which eventually found means of common action through the Federalist Party. The leadership of this party was chiefly in the "Essex Junto," a group of some twenty men chiefly of the mercantile class in the county of Essex. The principal voting strength of the party, however, lay in the central part of the State, known as "Old Hampshire." This section had been settled shortly after the seacoast in the Puritan days; and now, with the drawing off of the elements which had supported Shays, it became extremely conservative. It was the last section of the State to give up Federalism, although it furnished but few of the leaders of that party.
The Republican party was of slower growth in Massachu- setts. This was the name adopted by those who supported Jefferson, although the designation "Democratic," which a great national party uses to this day, was coming pretty gener- ally into vogue by the time of the War of 1812. The parts of the State in which this party was strongest seem to have been those into which there was the greatest influx of popula- tion. This is difficult to prove, however, since accurate population statistics were not kept in those days. The election returns indicate that Middlesex and Norfolk counties in the east, Berkshire county in the west, and the district of Maine were the regions where the Republican votes were largest.
The Massachusetts representatives in the national govern- ment were mostly Federalist for twenty years after the adoption of the new Constitution in 1789. The Hancockian Party, after an attempt to make its leader President, which
ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL METHODS 443
never had the slightest chance of success, confined its activities to State politics. It was not until 1797 that the Federalists were able to capture the governorship. They kept it for ten years and then lost it to the Republicans until the eve of the War of 1812. During this period the Federalists were in the majority in southern New England. After the War of 1812 the Federalist Party found itself out of tune with the new rival forces of nationalism and democracy. In 1814 the national Federalist party lost the important elections in New York, and could not hold either of the New England States of New Hampshire or Vermont. Nor would these States send delegations to the Hartford Convention of 1814. At that time only four States in the Union were Federalist. After the war, the party died almost immediately in Rhode Island, and lingered only a little longer in Connecticut and Delaware. In Massachusetts, however, chiefly due to the large majorities rolled up in the Connecticut Valley section of the State, Federalist governors were elected until 1823. The defeat of the State ticket in the election of 1824 ended the existence of the Federalist Party as an organization in Massachusetts, its last stronghold.
ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL METHODS (1780 - 1820)
The party and political history of Massachusetts can be understood only when the obligations and inhibitions of the State Constitution of 1780 on elections are kept in mind. From 1780 to 1820, and beyond, State elections for governor, lieutenant governor, and senators took place annually in town meetings held the first Monday in April. For the House the choice need not be on the same day, if made at least ten days previous to the last Wednesday in May. The votes for the legislature were counted in the first instance by the governor and council, although the legislature itself had final decision. The legislature of which the membership was confirmed thus counted the returns from the various town clerks for governor and lieutenant governor. In reviewing both the original votes and the town clerks' returns there was abundant opportunity for ambiguity and hence for political juggling by the legisla- ture. Majority votes were required; and if not obtained, the elections were thrown into the legislature under complicated
444 MASSACHUSETTS STATE GOVERNMENT
rules as to candidates who had received a certain number of votes in the original election.
Representation in the House was by towns, each town having at least one representative. Towns containing over 150 "rateable polls" were entitled to an additional representa- tive for each 250 over the 150. All the representatives, even in Boston, were elected by the town meeting on a general ticket. This fact made the "Boston seat" important since winners there obtained a large block of votes, and Boston elected Federalist representatives every year from 1801 to 1824 inclusive.
The towns had to pay their own representatives, which accounts for the frequent refusal of the small towns to elect in years when they were not much interested in matters before the legislature. Travel expense, however, was paid by the State.
The senatorial districts were set up and bounded by the legislature. The constitution permitted the General Court to make and determine and alter the senatorial districts. Although not the law, it became the custom for no senatorial district to cross a county line, and it was the violation of this custom by the Democrats which later on led to the con- troversy over the gerrymander in 1812. The State constitu- tion also permitted the legislature to create group districts entitled to more than one senator, not to exceed six.
The new government regularly took office on the last Wednesday in May, and this "General Election" was always made much of in Boston. Although the legislature met in May, most of the important business was put over until the winter session.
The governor's message at the opening of the legislative session was until 1825 replied to by each of the houses. In the years when one or both branches of the legislature were of a different political complexion from that of the governor, these replies were often lively, and to this day they constitute some of our best sources for the study of Federalist or Repub- lican political philosophy.
Nominating methods were not prescribed. At first political slates were advertised in the newspapers as having been made up by the recognized leaders of the party. For the Federalists
MOHN HANCOCK
Original by Copley
Courtesy of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston JOHN HANCOCK
445
JOHN HANCOCK AS GOVERNOR
this group was the Essex Junto. Later use was made of the caucus, a meeting of the party members in the legislature, to whom were often added prominent members of the party from outside.
After defeat in the national campaign in 1800, the Federal- ists in Massachusetts developed an efficient but complicated party organization, which was so deep underground that it was not known until recently disclosed by Morison in his life of Harrison Gray Otis. By a process of selection through the legislative caucus, extralegal committees were set up for the various kinds of districts in which elective officers were chosen.
The principal administrative control was in a "Central Com- mittee of the State" consisting of seven men, usually all Bostonians. As in our own time, such committees frequently were able to control the nominations made by the primaries or conventions. In the system inaugurated by the Federalists there was no popular control of nominations except in the one instance of the Boston ward committees which were chosen by ward caucuses. Presumably it was this arrangement which gave the so-called "Middling Interest" its opportunity to revolt against the leadership of the Federalist party in its declining years. On the whole the Federalist system of party control was designed in accordance with the Federalist philosophy, that power properly belonged in the hands of the leaders.
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.