USA > New York > Westchester County > Westchester county in history; manual and civil list, past and present. County history: towns, hamlets, villages and cities, Volume II > Part 7
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
70
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
For Jefferson, Hamilton had no affection, nor did he believe in the honesty of his views; but he knew that he would at least be governed by the prescribed forms of legislation, and that the alterations which his advent might cause in the policy of the government would be in conformity with the letter of the Constitution, and directed by the sanctions of legal enactment.
The success of Jefferson embittered Burr, and roused his most violent nature. He appears to have ascribed the disappoint- ment he felt, but did not venture openly to avow, to Hamilton.
Burr* had, like Hamilton, been commissioned at Peekskill by Gen. Washington, but at the very beginning of his career in the army had been excluded from the military family of Wash- ington on account of his open profligacy, and he had seen Hamilton occupying the station to which he had aspired. Pro- fessional rivalry had existed between them at the New York bar, and while, in point of mere talent, they ranked as equals, Burr saw that the universally admitted purity of Hamilton's character gave him an ascendancy against which it was vain to strive. All these causes united excited in the breast of Burr a vindictive spirit, the more furious in consequence of the necessity of repressing it.
The violence of party politics was far from being abated by the election of Jefferson to the Presidency. Hamilton was called upon to reorganize the Federal party and put it on fighting basis to contend with Jefferson's administration; he gave to the cause of his party the aid of his powerful pen, and succeeded in restoring the unity of the Federal party, which had been impaired by the impolitic acts of Adams. The admin- istration party retorted by attacks upon Hamilton's political character, and the principles of government which they accused him and his party of maintaining.
The excitement was such that the younger members of either party could not be restrained to the weapons of argument, but sought each other's blood. The eldest son of Hamilton, who had just reached man's estate, was one of the first victims of this spirit. Excited by the attacks which were continually uttered against the principles of his father, he singled out and insulted the author of a public address, in which the language of the party, ascribing a desire of monarchial government and
* Col. Burr was assigned to command a Westchester militia regiment, stationed so as to protect the lower end of the County. He served with Army four years. After retiring from the Army he resided for a time in Morrisania.
71
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
the establishment of an aristocracy to the Federalists, had been adopted with the rashness of youth and the ardor of convic- tion. A hostile meeting at Hoboken was the consequence, in which Philip Hamilton fell. The survivor of the duel, who appears to have been unwillingly forced by his political friends into a course which his conscience reprobated, was even more to be pitied than his victim; for, in spite of the support of his partisans, and the applause they lavished on his courage, he sank to the grave before the lapse of many months, a prey to feelings of remorse. It is unnecessary to say how severe was this affliction to one of Hamilton's sensibilities. The sad death of the son was a prediction of the coming fate of the father.
In 1804, when Burr was completing a term as Vice-Presi- dent, the second office in dignity within the gift of the people, he announced himself as a candidate for the office of Governor of the State of New York. By succeeding in forming a division in the ranks of the Republican-Democratic party he obtained a nomination. For his success in this election his hopes were mainly founded upon the support of the Federal- ists, who, he believed, would support him merely for the pur- pose of overwhelming their political opponents. Many Feder- alists fell into the snare, and there was at one time a proba- bility that they would unite as a party in his support, and thus insure his election. Hamilton, still believing that Burr was not a safe man to be intrusted with independent power, was decidedly opposed to the support of Burr by his political friends, and endeavored to prevent it by all the means at his command. The result of Hamilton's remonstrances was to withdraw from Burr a large part of the support on which he relied, and the election terminated in the defeat of Burr, and in the success of his opponent, Gen. Lewis.
In the open and decided opposition which Hamilton had manifested to the election of Burr as Governor, the latter saw an opening for satisfying his vindictive feelings. His ambi- tious projects were all blasted; for he had, by permitting himself to be a " bolting candidate," lost all claim on the Republican-Democratic party, while by the Federalists he was repudiated. His pecuniary fortunes were in as dilapidated a condition as his political, and he was, in fact, in that state of desperation in which the exposure of his own life would be no obstacle to a desire of vengeance.
72
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
Hamilton, on the other hand, was a fit subject for his designs. Proud of his character as a soldier, it was almost certain that he would not refuse a hostile meeting if called for on any rea- sonable grounds; while it was possible that, with a solemn sense of religious obligation, he might attempt to satisfy the point of honor by the exposure of his own life, without attempting that of his adversary. Evidence exists which proves satisfactorily that, when his friends began to fear that Burr sought his life, he de- clared that, although he might meet him, he would not fire at him.
Early in June, 1804, Burr addressed a note to Hamilton, enclosing a statement to the effect that Hamilton and Judge Kent concurred in the opinion that Burr was " a dangerous man, and one that ought not to be trusted with the reins of government, etc." Burr called for an explanation from Ham- ilton. The latter saw in this demand a determination to force him into a duel, and seems to have felt the conviction that no step that he could take with honor would enable him to avoid it. Under these impressions, he called to his councils none of those devoted and prudent friends, who would have seen that the preservation of his life was the most important of all objects.
Hamilton's reply, while it exhibits the injustice of calling upon him to avow or deny so vague a charge, and interroga- tories as to the justice of inferences drawn by others from what he may have said of a political opponent during a competition of fifteen years, intimates his willingness to avow or disavow any definite opinion which he may be charged with having declared. Expressing a trust that Burr would see the matter in the same light, the reply concludes by saying that, if he does not, "he can only regret the circumstances, and must abide the consequences."
The rejoinder of Burr was properly characterized by Hamil- ton as rude and offensive. It was evident that Burr was deter- mined to compel Hamilton to fight him, even if he veiled his determination under flimsy pretences.
From the paper which Hamilton left explanatory of his course, it appears that, with perfect conviction of the impro- priety of duelling, he did not feel himself so far elevated above other political men as to be emancipated from its absurd laws; and that he believed that, in the existing tone of popular feel- ing on the subject, his future usefulness to his country would be destroyed by a refusal to fight. It doubtless did not occur to him that he who had fought beside Washington in many
73
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
battles and had been rewarded for valiant services, could not be charged with personal cowardice; nor was he aware of the deep religious feeling of a large body of the people, which would have supported one who should decline a duel from con- scientious motives, such as Hamilton sincerely entertained.
By Hamilton's desire, the meeting was postponed until the close of a court then sitting in New York. The interval was calmly and steadily applied by Hamilton to the promotion of the interests of his clients; nor did there appear any failure in his accustomed zeal, or any want of the undisturbed devotion of his mind to the consideration of their causes. Yet he must have known that his life was in extreme danger. Burr's adroitness in the use of a pistol was notorious, and Hamilton had good reasons for believing that Burr would not be satis- fied but with his blood.
The meeting took place beneath the cliff of Wehawken, and on the first fire Hamilton fell. His own pistol was discharged while in the act of falling, and obviously without any attempt at aim. The wound was not immediately fatal, and he was removed across the Hudson to the country seat of his friend William Bayard. Here he lingered, without the least hope of recovery, for thirty hours.
Burr, branded by many as Hamilton's murderer, virtually became an outcast. He was visited forthwith by a storm of indignation, beneath which he instantly sunk. Within a few months he departed, a voluntary exile from his country, and abjectly claimed to be allowed to avow allegiance to the power against whose rule he had successfully fought. On his return he was shunned even by those who had been most captivated by his popular arts; and although he resumed a place at the New York city bar, a conscious feeling of disgrace bowed down his talent and placed him in a low rank where he had before reigned almost supreme.
A writer of that early day, in speaking of the tragic death of Hamilton, said : " When the angry feelings excited by the long struggle between the Federal and the Republican parties shall have cooled, and all actors in these stirring scenes shall have retired from the stage, it requires little prescience to pre- dict that Hamilton will assume, by general consent, a first place among American statesmen, and will be held in the estimate of his patriotic services as second to Washington alone."
74
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS.
The men who framed the Constitution made no provision for nominating candidates, and, in fact, had never heard of nomi- nations. It was their intention that the electors should choose the President, uninfluenced by popular passion or prejudice. There were no parties or party organizations, and everything was left to the wisdom of the electors, who were to be chosen by the States in whatever manner the State pleased.
Before Washington's administration had ended two parties had formed, and nominating machinery was soon provided in a Congressional caucus, by which the Congressman of each party selected the candidate and the electors ratified this selec- tion. Thus the legislative department virtually chose the execu- tive in spite of all constitutional precautions to keep the depart- ments independent.
The Congressional caucus lasted until 1824, when the Jack- son men bolted the nomination of Crawford. It was in that year that Andrew Jackson was pitted against John Quincy Adams for the Presidential nomination; Jackson received a plurality, but not a majority of the electoral vote, and the matter went to the House of Representatives, where Adams received a majority of votes of Representatives, voting as States. Four years later Tennessee's Legislature nominated Andrew Jackson without reference to the Congressional caucus. His opponent, John Quincy Adams was renominated in the old way, but that was the end of the Presidential nominations by Congressional caucus. In this later year Jackson was elected.
The overthrow of " King Caucus " was popularly regarded as the greatest political reform since the establishment of the Republic.
Originally the electoral vote was frequently divided, the electors really exercising the freedom of choice which the Con- stitution gives them. Until 1804 the man who got the second highest number of votes was elected Vice-President. Since then the electors vote separately for President and Vice-President. Under the old system in 1796 fourteen men received votes for President. Three of the fourteen, Aaron Burr, George Clinton and John Jay (of Westchester County) were from New York.
Before 1800 it was the general custom for the State Legisla- tures to choose the electors, and it was not until 1828 that the Presidential electors were chosen in nearly all the States by
75
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
popular vote. As late as 1876 the Legislature of the State of Colorado chose the three Presidential electors to represent that State. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent any State Legislature naming its own electors without appeal to the people, provided such a method of election is prescribed by the State laws.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS.
Under the United States Constitution as originally practiced there were no National Conventions. The Constitution provided for a series of State Conventions which should elect a President by a majority vote, and on their failure to give any candidate a majority the House of Representatives then balloted on the five highest, afterward reduced by Constitutional amendment to the three highest.
The theory of the Constitution enacted in Section 3 of Article 2, and amplified in the twelfth amendment, was that the people of each State should choose as many of their most distinguished citizens as electors as was "equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress," and that these electors shall consult together and if possible agree on who should be President and who should be Vice-President of the United States.
Forty years elapsed between the adoption of the Constitution and the time of holding the first National Convention.
While the Constitution contemplated the creation of a Presi- dential convention in each State, it never provided for two conventions in each state or for all the State conventions to meet as one in a national convention. The mode of procedure now observed by political parties in the nomination of Presi- dential candidates is a condition, a scheme of government never contemplated either by the drafters of the Constitution or by the political generation succeeding them. Under the present system, instead of the people of each State selecting " their most distinguished citizens as electors," the office of Presiden- tial elector has become a dummy political function, with its duties as perfunctory as those of a machine. No instance is now known where a Presidential elector uses the independent judgment which the Constitution confers upon him, where he ever refused to vote for the candidates nominated by the National Convention of his party; nominations in which prob- ably the electors had no voice, not being present at the nomi- nating convention.
76
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
The Constitutional plan provides that no one except electors, or Representatives in Congress in case electors cannot agree, can vote directly for any candidate for President, nominated by either of the political parties.
It has been frequently suggested that the Constitution should be so amended as to permit a direct vote of the people in choos- ing the President and Vice-President of the United States.
The early National Conventions were hardly more than con- ferences, the first having been held in 1831, by supporters of Henry Clay for President. There are many men living who can remember when the introduction of a National Convention into the Nation's political life was considered a great innovation. As years grew the National convention became an established political institution, with no laws except its own laws, with no power except voluntary consent, yet as effective in enforcing decrees as the Government of the United States or the govern- ment of any other nation.
The National Convention is the most distinctly original Ameri- can contribution to the art of government. It is a product of evolution and it has no legal status.
National Conventions, of all parties, held every four years, are called by a National committee of the party organization, which meets, names the time and place for holding the conven- tion, fixes the number and qualification of delegates and issues the call for the convention.
The unit in the Democratic convention is the State; in the Republican convention, the Congressional district. Hence, a Democratic State Convention can instruct all the delegates from that State to vote for a particular candidate. A Republican State Convention can instruct only the number of delegates elected by that convention as delegates-at-large, and each Con- gressional district can instruct its own delegates as it pleases. This decision was promulgated with considerable force in the Republican National Convention in 1880, when an attempt was made (against the protest of W. H. Robertson, of Westchester County) by State leaders to ignore the wishes of Congressional districts in New York State and vote the whole State as a unit for the third time nomination of General Grant. The individual vote of every delegate in the Republican National Convention is counted. Democratic National Conventions recognize the unit rule by which, when so authorized by a State convention, a majority of the delegates from that State can vote the entire
77
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
delegation as a unit; thus forty-six delegates from New York State can cast New York's ninety votes. In a Democratic National Convention the votes of two-thirds of the delegates are necessary to nominate a candidate. In a Republican National Convention a majority of delegates can nominate.
The two-thirds rule was adopted by the first Democratic National Convention held in 1832, in order to give a semblance of unanimity in the nomination of Martin Van Buren, of this State, for Vice-President. The supporters of John K. Polk revived it in 1844 in order to defeat Van Buren's renomination for President. The rule has been adhered to in every Demo- cratic National Convention since that time. Its purpose is often defeated, however, by the unit rule, which makes it actually possible for a little more than one-third of the delegates to nominate the candidates through the simple process of allow- ing a bare majority of one in each State delegation to vote the majority.
The Republican National Convention, held in the year 1912, will be composed of 1,072 delegates, from all States and Ter- ritories. In the Democratic National Convention there will be 1,094 delegates, representing all sections of the country. The difference in number of delegates attending conventions is due to territorial representation. In the Republican Convention Alaska, New Mexico and Arizona are allowed six delegates, while others, including the Philippines, have but two each. The Democratic Convention allows six delegates to all territories, Alaska, Arizona, District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Mexico and Porto Rico. In other respects the basis of representation is the same in both conventions, every State having two delegates to each electoral vote.
Not only is heard the desire for a direct vote by which to elect the President and Vice-President of the United States, but a stronger demand comes for the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, instead of by the State Legislatures, as is now the law.
In 1912 Congress finally passed necessary resolutions provid- ing for the submission to the States of an amendment to the Constitution that will take from special interests and the few the selection of United States Senators, and transfer the power to the people for direct action. In most cases this will call for constitutional changes in the several States.
78
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
Advocates of the movement, who are confident of getting these additional States, say that the United States Senate can- not be taken out of the hands of machine politicians or special interests except by the primary route. All experiences, they claim, show that the best government is attainable only through popular action.
When Congress calls a convention to propose an amendment, that amendment does not become a part of the Constitution until three-fourths of the States have ratified it.
The political State nominating conventions are conducted similar to the political National Conventions; mode of proced- ure, rules governing, etc. The State Committee of the party fixes the time and place for holding the convention.
Candidates for all State offices, not appointive, are placed in nomination by these State Conventions.
Elections for State officers are held in even years; terms being for two years each. County and municipal officers are elected throughout the State in odd years.
In early years the officers of this State were appointed, not elected, and no nominating convention was deemed necessary. The mode of selecting public officers in this State has varied. Under the Constitution of 1777 the State Assembly selected a Council of Appointment from the Senators, and the Governor had " a casting voice but no other vote " in this council, which ruled the State. At the time the Constitution of 1821 was adopted, 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their com- missions from this Council. For many years the politics and government of New York State were largely controlled by three great families, the Clintons, the Schuylers and Livingstons.
The Constitution of 1821 abolished the Council of Appoint- ment and provided that the Legislature should elect the chief State department officers. It was not until the Constitution of 1846 was adopted that the election of these officers was vested in the people under manhood suffrage, and it was under this Constitution that the political party nominating convention became a firmly established institution. Each change had for its object the extension of the principles of democracy to give the people at large more and more power over the selection of their servants.
The introduction of the nominating convention into our political system increased to a vast degree the power, it is said, of leaders who combine to constitute what is termed the
79
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
" political organization," directing the management and shap- ing the policy of their political party, and, incidentally, exer- cising considerable influence in the choice of candidates.
That there is considerable objection to the prevailing mode of selecting political candidates, is manifest by the strong influ- ences now being used to effect a change. Governor Hughes and those in sympathy with him, maintain that the only way to get an honest expression from the people as to their choice of men to fill the various public offices, State or local, is by a " direct primary vote." Advocates for the primary vote are against the convention, influenced by party leaders, making nomina- tions. It is believed by many people that this wide-spreading movement to democratize the nomination of candidates for public office is inevitable.
Does the new movement not look like going back to first principles, to the days of town meetings, when the people them- selves did the choosing of public officers, and it was a " govern- ment by the people ?"
In the Presidential election of 1908 the following political parties took part: The Republican, the Democratic, the Prohi- bition, the People's, the Socialist, the Independent, the Social- ist Labor.
" POLITICAL BOSSES."
The term " Political Boss " is not a new one in this State. This gentleman may appear in different forms, but nevertheless he appears prominently all through the State's political history.
To-day we hear of corporate influences controlling " political bosses," of the bosses controlling the political party " organi- zation," and the organization controlling the little politicians, who are, like those " higher up," in it, in many instances, for personal profit, regardless of the people's interests.
Back in the early days of the Nation the corporate interests were not as formidable as now. The " trusts " were then not as trustful as now. Steel, sugar, lumber and similar products, as trusts, had not their growth; they were not big and strong enough to, by aid of " spot cash," elect United States Senators, and even elect Presidents.
When politics began to take on shape, immediately following the Revolutionary period, it was the " family influence " that the aspiring politician had to look up. New York was too
80
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
directly descended from the patroons and too intimately con- nected with England's " family methods " not to illustrate the workings of family in politics.
As early as 1666 New York city had its " political boss," in one Thomas Delawall, who was at that time Mayor of the city, member of the Governor's Council and Collector of Cus- toms. He was not "a poor pothouse politician," but a man of wealth and standing in the community, the owner of large parcels of land in the then distant new Harlem and in the lower section of Westchester County. He was Mayor again in 1671 and in 1678; in fact he could be Mayor as often as he desired. In 1675 the " Boss " yielded to " family influ- ence " and had his son-in-law, William Dervall, chosen Mayor.
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.