The Baptists have been mentioned but not described. They are unique among religious groups in Connecticut in that they participated in both the struggle for religious pluralism and the struggle for political openness. They were the first dissident religious group to associate with the dissident political party nationally known as Democratic-Republican and usually referred to in Connecticut simply as the Republic Party. The Republican Party in Connecticut at its formation in the 1790’s was scorned by almost everyone of means or education or religion. It was associated in their minds with the
canaille
of the French Revolution, the Rabble who were desirous of overthrowing the people who ruled (and deserved to rule!) and establishing an uncouth society for the common man instead. It also made them think of the free-thinking atheists who were dangerous because many were intelligent and wealthy and hence subversive.
27
Similarly, the Baptists were looked down on. Everything about them smacked of people’s democracy. Their preachers were generally men who possessed sincerity of belief rather than academic wisdom, but this seemed to them closer to Biblical religion than university trained ministers. Their local organization showed egalitarianism in their allowing women an equal voice in church decisions and in the absence of any kind of ranking device such as a church seating arrangement. Baptists themselves tended to be artisans in the towns or farmers in the frontier-like areas of the State. In 1800 there were fifty-nine Baptist societies with 4,663 members, and during their struggle against “taxation without representation” they were a force to be reckoned with, even though many of them did not have the right to vote in State affairs. Nor, as dissidents, did they have any say in Congregational Church circles in regard to the imposition of the church taxes which they had to pay unless they chose the burdensome certificate process, which they despised. They did not want to be “tolerated,” rather, they wanted every church body to be separate from the state, each supporting itself by voluntary contributions.
Baptists sent petitions regularly to the General Assembly pointing out the injustice of the system. By 1802 they began working with and through the Republican Party.
28
Within a few years they were joined by the Methodists, whose itinerant preachers also appealed to the working class. Methodists, too, earned the disdain of the Establishment because of this and because of the large outdoor revival meetings which were popular among them. By 1818 there were about 5,600 Methodists and almost 7,500 Baptists in the State.
29
The religious dissenters fought for the separation of church and state, while the Republican Party’s two chief goals were the extension of the suffrage and a reform of the tax structure.
30
Combining their goals and led by leaders who could express them, the opposition established itself as a formidable political force, gradually gaining control by election of about one-third of the seats in the General Assembly. The crucial battle was joined in 1804 when they centered their campaign on a State Constitution, now realizing that a root-to-branch overhaul of the System had to be made and, more importantly, that Connecticut had never really had a Constitution at all.
31
[For a discussion of the rise of political parties in Connecticut, 1783-1818, see Unit V in this volume..
Roger Sherman in 1789 had said that Connecticut wanted no national bill of rights, and Oliver Wolcott, Sr., in 1787 avowed that he looked to his own state to protect his rights.
32
“A Bill of Rights” was part of the revision of the laws in 1784. It was, however, mere statute law, lacking the fundamental primary of a constitutional basis. Certainly there was no court which was strong enough to make decisions based on it. Connecticut in 1784 was not fertile ground for equal rights for all men to take root. In like manner, the next generation resisted the demand for a State Constitution after 1800, since any new plan of government would surely admit more partners into government than the Standing Order wanted. It had seemed more expedient simply to cross out all references to the King in the old Royal Charter of 1662 and then continue in the General Assembly to make changes as were deemed necessary, submitting none of them to a vote of all the people. So, instead of using their new freedom as a state to set about writing a modern plan of government, it made sense for Connecticut’s legislature to resolve, as they did in 1776,
that the ancient from of civil government, containing the charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the people of this State, shall be and remain the Civil Constitution of the State under the sole authority of the people thereof, independent of any King, or Prince whatever. . .
33
Chart B helps to show how the government of Connecticut in 1800, which had sprouted, statute by statute, from the Royal Charter over a 140-year period, functioned so similarly to the government provided by the Fundamental Orders. There was still no separation of powers. The governor had a minimum of executive power on his own but had a lot of judicial and legislative power in combination with the representatives and assistants. The members of the Council had great legislative power (meeting separately from the representatives since 1701) and in effect had a veto power, since only seven Council votes could stop any law passed by the two hundred members of the lower House. Until 1807 the Council was also the Supreme Court of Errors. The representatives in conjunction with the Council possessed the supreme power in the State. They had the power to regulate the judicial system, make laws regarding religion, and decide how long Assembly sessions were to last. Not every adult male became either an admitted inhabitant or a freeman; still only a small proportion of adult males found it worth while to participate in state elections.
34
Chart B
(figure available in print form)
CHART C.
Some aspects of the Judicial System of Connecticut in 1800
(Note: This branch existed only in laws passed by the Legislature.)
The General Assembly:
|
the highest court of appeals
|
|
equity jurisdiction over $5000
|
|
special divorce cases
|
The Supreme Court of Errors:
|
-The Council (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, 12 Assistants)
|
|
-bound by precedent, decisions issued in writing
|
|
-cases heard on appeal
|
|
-members of this court elected as Assistants: not all of them are lawyers
|
|
-members might also be appointed as Superior Court judges
|
|
-established in 1784 to relieve the General Assembly of most of its judicial work
|
|
-in 1807 it was abolished and the Superior Court expanded from 5 to 9 judges to handle this work
|
The Superior Court:
|
-five judges (increased to eight and one Chief Justice in 1807)
|
|
-appointed annually by the General Assembly
|
|
-the State divided into three circuits
|
|
-Court held twice a year in each county with one judge presiding
|
|
-any judge may decide to bring a case before all five (or nine)
|
|
-heard all criminal cases involving life, limb, or banishment
|
|
-some examples of cases: blasphemy, atheism, Unitarianism, statutory divorces, perjury, burglary, horse-stealing, forgery
|
|
-could issue writs of
mandamus
to lower court
|
|
-could issue writs of
habeas
corpus
|
|
-heard equity cases up to $5000
|
|
-heard all criminal cases appealed from lower courts
|
|
-heard all civil cases on appeal if more than twenty dollars
|
The probate Courts:
|
-thirty judges in as many districts
|
|
-appointed annually by the General Assembly
|
|
-probated wills and appointed guardians
|
The County Courts:
|
-five judges in each of eight counties
|
(Common pleas)
|
-appointed annually by the General Assembly
|
|
-heard all criminal cases except those heard by Superior Court
|
|
-heard all civil cases about fifteen dollars
|
Justices of the Peace:
|
-about seven in each town
|
|
-appointed annually by the General Assembly
|
|
-in charge of local elections
|
|
-in 1801 had a voice in admitting freemen
|
|
-named tavern-keepers
|
|
-“bound men to keep the peace”
|
|
-apprehended suspects
|
|
-heard criminal cases involving fines of not more than seven dollars
|
|
-some examples: drunkenness, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, debts, unlicensed taverns, unlawful lottery tickets
|
|
-no appeals could be taken in cases of swearing and Sabbath-breaking
|
|
-heard civil cases of no more than fifteen dollars
|
The following were the chief Republican criticisms of the government of Connecticut as it functioned in the year 1800:
-
1. There is no independent judiciary. The legislature in certain cases acts as a judicial body, and each year it appoints all the judges and justices of the peace. See Chart C for a picture of the main parts of the judicial system. It can be seen that a great many people dependent for their careers on the good will of the legislature.
-
2. There is no effective executive power. Laws passed by the General Assembly are also carried out and enforced by it. The governor is not a power in his own right and certainly not able to be a check against the Assembly’s power.
-
3. The General Assembly clear;y has too much power. It acts as the legislature; it creates the judicial power and exercises some of it; and it is responsible for seeing that the government functions effectively. The governor must have some power over against the Assembly, and there must be a court which can pass on the constitutionality of the laws the legislature enacts.
-
4. The suffrage is far too limited. Most of those enfranchised are of the Standing Order, and admission to the rank of freeman is controlled by them as if they give a gift instead of recognize a right. All men must fight, when it is necessary, and all are taxed, but not all men can vote.
-
5. There is plural office-holding and too great a possibility of conflict-of-interest situations. Council members, for example, can be judges of the Superior Court, and those who are lawyers find themselves arguing cases before judges they have to decide about re—appointing. In addition, the legislature’s power to review certain cases further injects politics into the legal process.
-
6. The system of electing Council members tends toward the continuing in office of the incumbents. Twenty are nominated in the towns in October, and names are introduced orally. In April twelve are elected from a list with the incumbents at the top arranged by seniority, even though names below theirs receive more votes in October. The idea of giving each freemen twelve ballots to use is really bad, because if he has saved any for after the incumbents are voted on, it is clear he is not a team player.
-
7. All elections should be by secret ballot.
-
8. Council deliberations should not be secret; the people should know how the individual members voted and how large any dissenting vote might have been.
-
9. Council members should not be elected a large; this gives a disproportionate weight to the larger towns and cities, and it means that large areas of the State are not actually “represented” by a voice in the Council. The State should be divided into twelve districts, each with its own member.
-
10. Some feel the legislature is too large; some feel the seats should be apportioned according to population; some feel that two sessions and two elections are unnecessary.
-
11. The state has no right to regulate the amount of freedom that religious groups should have. To bolster up one particular religion is especially odious. In addition, members of the so-called dissenting sects should have a fair share of State offices.
-
12. Therefore, a constitution is needed, a plan of government written by a group of people other then the legislature and approved by all the people.
35
The law which made it mandatory for freemen to nominate Council members orally was called the “Stand-up Law” and was passed by the Assembly in 1801. The act was seen as a sort of last straw by certain fence-sitters who began to swing to the opposition. It was characteristic of moves made by the Federalist Party (the Standing Order) during the last years in power designed for the simple purpose of holding on to the old sovereignty. The anti-nationalistic attitude of the Hartford Convention of 1815 brought disrespect towards those Connecticut men (all Federalists) involved in it. An other death-knell was sounded when the Episcopalians finally made common cause with the opposition under the umbrella of the Toleration Party beginning in 1816. They had stuck with the Federalists until they were convinced they simply were not going to further any of the causes the Episcopalians were interested in. The final nail was pounded in the coffin when respected Federalists like Roger Griswold and Oliver Wolcott, Jr., took the middle road, disavowing the hard line. By 1817, Wolcott was elected governor, and the opposition took control of the Assembly. The next year the Council was taken from the Federalists, and a Constitutional Convention met to plan a new government. That very year the work of the convention wa finished but approved by the just-expanded electorate of the state.
36