John James Valente, Jr.
Political parties formed in Connecticut about the mid 18th century as the result of economic, political, and religious conflict and as a reaction to rule by an establishment. The term establishment is used here as an inner circle thought of as holding decisive power in the state.
5
Political parties began to organize as a “necessary evil” to defeat their opponents. Rather than allowing their opponents to rule, each party was forced to articulate and accept the belief that their opposition could be loyal to the same government. The process in which political parties became accepted as a “necessary evil” is the focus of this study.
Political parties were deemed as “tools of the devil” by most people of the 18th century western world. In New England they were viewed as instruments of conflict in a society where consensus was revered. This desire for consensus has been labeled by historians as the commonwealth ideal that is “man was to sub-ordinate his selfish interests for the common interests of society.” In practice this ideal fell short of its goal in 18th century Connecticut as conflict arose over the Susquehannah land claims in Pennsylvania and the religious differences created by the Great Awakening. These conflicts of the 1750’s and 1760’s split Connecticut into east and west political divisions. Those east of the Connecticut River were more egalitarian in perspective than those west of the river. Composed of those active in land speculation and those who considered themselves to be New Lights, the people of the east side of the river began to question the legitimacy of civil and religious authorities. These New Lights believed that man could discover God on his own without the aid of some divine intermediary. To the Old Lights this belief was blasphemy. Ministers were God’s appointees here on earth and to discredit their duty was to discredit God Himself! This questioning by the New Lights of the establishment, planted the seed for government designed by men for men rather than government designed by instruments of God’s will (religious and civil authorities.)
6
Starting as a seemingly short lived division between families (faction) these divisions grew wider to become party divisions encompassing large numbers of people for long periods of time. This division of political parties between the east and west remained until the period before the American Revolution.
7
In the election of 1759, many New Lights were elected to the lower house, which permited political expression of New Light religious views.
8
This event reduced the conflict between the two parties until 1766, when party conflict was renewed in reaction to the Stamp Act. New Lights were dead set against the Act, whereas the Old Lights, led by Governor Fitch took a moderate stance and were willing to support the British cause. Fitch was ousted out of office and a New Light was put in his place as Governor.
9
By 1770 the issue of British support further divided Connecticut beyond the New and Old Light parties. The issue of religion was aubordinated, and new parties were created. Those who supported the British became know as Tories, and those who were against the British were known as Whigs. As 1774 approached, the British tightened control over the colonies, and some Tories became Whigs. The Whigs easily defeated their opponents in 1774. Sparked with the enthusiasm of the election, the Whigs set out to organize resistence to the Coercive Acts and to convert remaining Tories. It was the New Light party of the early 1750’s and the Whig party were the first parties imbued with a strain of anti-establishment sentiment (ex Connecticut toward the clergy, the Old Lights, and the (British)
10
Netween 1780 and 1800, there were numerous cases of anti-establishment politics which generally centered on issues of nationalism, exclusiveness, the limits of democracy, and the religious establishment.
11
There was in 1780-1790 a new type of political opposition different from earlier parties prior to the Revolution. This opposition directed itself not to the king or the Connecticut Old Light government, but rather to the state and Continental government. The political split also had a different origin. Rather than born out of religious divisions and manifested in a geographical split, political parties were separated more by occupation than by religion. The decade of the 1780’s pitted farmers against merchants and shippers.
12
State government had to increase its taxes to pay the war debt in the years following the Revolution. This increased taxation bothered farmers in Connecticut just as it was to later bother farmers in Massachusetts. In Nassachusetts their anger found a release in Shay’s Rebellion. Connecticut farmers were, fortunately, better able to channel their anger through the legislature than were their Massachusetts counterparts. In the early years of the decade farmers articulated their discontent to the legislature. They argued that since taxation was based on land, and since merchants and shippers owned little land, any increase in tax amounts would surely hurt the farmer. Furthermore, they asserted that merchants and shippers had prospered in the war and were more capable of handling tax increases than the poor farmers.
Nearly the whole of the public burden lie on the farmer; the laboring part of the people, and the merchant trader, the manufacturer, and others of faculty who are the most opulent go in manner free.
13
This economic discontent of farmers was directed to the establishment of society in a post war era. Their feelings of discontent formulated the basis for an anti-establishment party. Feelings of dissatisfaction were somewhat dissipated in 1783 when a predominately agricultural lower house abated land taxes. Although anger was relaxed, the situation was still unsolved and many farmers believed they had been cheated.
Two issues which furthered the anti-establishment’s discontent and expressed their fear of nationalism and exclusiveness were the impost and the commutation. The impost was a tax initiated by the Continental government to tax imported goods. The tax was defeated by the agrarian legislature on the belief that much of the money would be used to support the officers of an “exclusive” organization the Continental army. Parochial minded anti-establishment men, furthermore, would not stand for such an action which appeared to put the authority of the Continental government over that of the state. Similar dissatisfaction brewed over the commutation which was a Continental act to pay veteran officers of the Revolution one half of their pay for five years as a pension. Hany veteran officers belonged to the Society of the Cinncinatti a society of officers who had served at least three years in the Revolution. This society “reeked” of exclusiveness and “turned off” the anti-establishment party to the commutation. Farmers were so angered by this act that they mobbed William Judd as he returned to Farmington with his pension from the commutation act. Eventually, anti-establishment forces held a convention in Middletown, organized, and later defeated Connecticut support for the act.
As the decade passed the anti-establishment party believed that their right to representation was being undermined by the establishment. This belief was justified as the Council tried to limit the number of deputies in the lower house from two to one per town. Once again, the anti-establishment party was successful in defeating this action.
Anti-establishment party members were satisfied with a tight, close-knit community and insisted that a provincial outlook was best. For these reasons they were unwilling to accept any nationalist sentiments. Indicative of this position was their refusal to both send delegates to revise the Articles of Confederation, and to ratify the Constitution. These policies forced the anti-establishment to lose its support in the lower house. Nonetheless, the anti-establishment’s party sentiments of anti-nationalism, anti-exclusiveness and fears of limits put on democracy persisted throughout the state. After the Constitution was ratified, the anti-establishment party became reticent and later changed its direction of attack.
14
In the 1790’s the Anti-establishment party centered its attack on the Congregational clergy in Connecticut. Federalists had taken over the majority of the seats in the house by 1791, due to thy reticence of the anti-establishment (now called anti-Federalist party). As the dominant party, Federalists initiated two acts which strengthened the relationship between church and state; the Certification Act and Appropiation Act. The Certification Act, argued Federalists, was designed to make it easier for dissenters to register and be exempt from the ecclesiastical tithe by simply signing in at the Justice of Peace. Before this act was passed, dissenters could register with the minister of their church. Anti-Federalists knew this was a ploy to reduce the nunber of dissenters in the state and lower the exemptions from tithes. Justices of the Peace were Federalist appointed and would control who would be able to sign in and who would not be able to sign in. Anti-Federalists organized their discontented in a society called the “Nocturnal Society of the Stelligeri.” The name was given to them by Federalists because the group met in the evening after the regular legislative session. Such an uproar was created by the issue and the Stelligeri’s statements that the Certification Act was repealed. The Appropiation Act was created to channel money received from the sale of state owned lands in Pennsylvania for support of the clergy. Once again the Stelligeri’s efforts defeated the act.
The organization of the anti-Federalists grew to such an extent that by 1800 over 100 committees of anti-establishment strength wore formed. This organization and its leaders were to be named Democratic-Republicans. Although there is no definite link between the rank and file of the anti-Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, most leaders of the anti-Federalists became leaders of the Domocratic-Republicans.
15
While political parties were developing in Connecticut they were abhorred. Some contemporaries even denied the existence of any parties in Connecticut prior to 1800. As we have seen they existed in some cases both in name and in definition. Nonetheless, attackes were waged against the creation of parties. Noah Webster, stated in 1797:
Never let us exchange our civil and religious institutions for the wild theories of crazy projectors; or the sober industriousness, moral habits of our country for experiments in atheism and lawless dcmocracy. Experience is a safe pilot, but experiment is a dangerous ocean full of rocks and shoals. Why get foreign politics divide us into partymen?
Webster, a Federalist, was afraid that party politics would soon be taking over the political system of the United States. He believed that Americans like Tom Jefferson were being influenced by French events and parties. Acceptance of such philosophies would ruin the unity created by the Constitution. Consensus, Webster believed, would be subverted by conflict instigated by political parties. To Webster and other Federalists of early 19th century Connecticut, conflict could only destroy a society. Federalists believed that they must defend their ideal of consensus against any encroachments.
In the early 19th century. Democratic-Republicans were concerned with issues that were very similar to those of the Anti-Federalists. Democratic-Republicans were different in that they were to become more nationalistic than Anti-Federalists. Sentiments of anti-establishment and egalitarianism persisted in the Democratic-Republican party. Anticlericalism increased as an important issue by the efforts of the Democratic-Republicans and later by the Toleration party.
In 1800, Democratic-Republicans practiced intynsive campaigning through use of electionmen, local town committees, and newspaper publicity. The former two were almost unkown in 18th century politics. Newspaper publicity was handled by the
New London Bee
and the
Connecticut Mercury
. In the campaigns of early 1800’s, Republicans often attacked Federalists with the following incisive criticism, (for other political vitriol see Appendix C):
They are in power and possession we need our whole force to oust them. They have privileged themselves and their party have made taxation extremely unequal have been intollerant to all
but one
religious persuasion have deprived Republicans of Every right have insulted and persecuted them, are now glorying in their ability to bid legislative defiance to the general government.
17
The campaigning of the Democratic-Republicans in 1800 caught the Federalists by surprise. In Congressional nominations William Hart and Gideon Granger, both Democratic-Republicans, received 14th and 18th positions respectively. Such a good showing for a first attempt left Federalist Governor Trumbull shaking in his boots. The Federalist press organized in the
Courant
retorted with a “reign of terror” on all Republican editors. By December of 1800 the assembly again had “democratic” members. The Federalists continued to organize their strength through the clergy, judges, and legislature.
A Democratic-Republican gather ing in Wallingford on March 11, 1801, celebrating the Jefferson/Burr victory inaugurated the 1801 campaign. At the gathering, Abraham Bishop made Our Clergy to the Bib1e.” The speech articulated the anit-clerical sentiment of the Democratic-Republicans. To the Democratic-Republicans, the Congregational clergy had been too involved in politics, particularly, Federalist politics. Democratic-Republicans feared the Federalist “political parsons” who inculcated the minds of their congregations with views on the right party to vote for. Angered that the clergy ran the schools, payed no taxes, and helped in elections, DemocraticRepublicans set out to attack this group. Bishop’s address also attacked the state’s lack of a constitution. He argued that the state lacked a written document which would defend liberties and define rights. Both the issue of the clergy and of the constitution were not to be resolved until 1818. The rally ended with toasts given to Republican leaders and to “the destruction of a political ministry and a state church.” Federalists who had heard of this and similar gatherings accused Democratic-Republicans of promiscuity, “adultry, incest, dissipation and debauchery.” “Scarce a fine woman was seen . . . Will no young mind be corrupted by such festivals?”
18
Jefferson’s election was helpful to the Connecticut Organization of Democratic-Republicans. In the spring of 1801, DemocraticRepublicans put up their first candidate for the polition of Governor. Though they did not prevail there, one sixth of the seats in the house were now Democratic-Republican. Patronage given by Jefferson enabled many important Democratic-Republicans to receive high paying jobs.
19
As examples: Gideon Granger was made U. S. Postmaster General for a salary of $3,000.00, Alexander Wolcott was made Middletown collector for $3,000.00, Abraham Bishop was made “collector of Fees” for $3,600.00 and Joel Barlow received a foreign mission to France. Although patronage helped the Democratic-Republican organization, it also fueled the Federalist fires of attack. Federalists discredited the Republicans as a “set of office holders and office seekers . . . using every possible exertion to destroy this state.”
20
Two major issues which would continue to have an impact on politics in the early 19th century were the “stand up” law and Connecticut’s lack of a constitution. The “stand up” law, created by the Federalist legislature, removed the ballot for nomination in town meetings and put in its place a vote by standing. The Federalists argued that such a law made town meeting voting more efficient. The Democratic-Republicans argued that the “stand up” law intimidated voters to the Federalist cause, because a man would have to stand up in front not only of his peers, but also his employer, creditors and others, and be seen when voting. It was not until the convention of 1818 that the law was repealed. The lack of a Constitution drew more political criticism than the “stand up” law. Federalists strongly believed that Connecticut did have a constitution; the Charter of 1662 and its statutes. They held that the written constitution that the Democratic-Republicans demanded was only necessary when rights and privileges were to be obtained from a tyrant. Democratic-Republicans on the other hand, believed that the lack of a Constitution had two major effects: 1) it left justice and the law to the interpretation of Federalist judges who would interpret statutes to the benefit of their party, and 2) it allowed government to be concentrated in the hands of an aristocratic Council. Furthermore, many Democratic-Republicans, among them John Leland (a Baptist elder) believed that a written Constitution was the only hope for disestablishment of the Congregational Church. With Leland’s aid many Baptists entered the Democratic-Republican fold to fulfill their desire for a state constitution. In 1804, Abraham Bishop, in an address at the statehouse reiterated all these Republican concerns and added that a popularly constituted government would not permit tampering with elections by the legislature and would allow districting of the state an aid to the minority party. In his statement, Bishop urged that a Constitutional Convention be called and that the Constitution issue be made part of the Democratic-Republican platform. The latter was done immediately, but the former was not to be realized until 1818. Other issues which were included in that platform were, suffrage extension, reform of taxation of the land, the extravagance of local Federalist governments, and the unnecessary political influence of the lawyers and clergy.
During the period between 1804-1806, the constitution issue was heavily debated between the parties. Federalists went so far as to remove from office judges who had agreed with the Republican assertion that there was no constitution. In particular, William Judd was removed from office for his beliefs and became a martyr for the Democratic-Republican cause.
21
Many historians claim that political parties were formed around issues which concerned foreign affairs. These historians mark the date of party formation circa 1796 after the Franco-British wars. Merchants and commercial farmers of New England, according to these historians, were most inclined to be Hamiltonian Federalists because of their desire for a centrally controlled program of economic advancement which included trade with and support of the British. DemocraticRepublicans sided with the French and their Revolutionary cause for obtaining liberty. Although foreign affairs had some influence upon party divisions, it did not, as this study points out, start them in Connecticut. Parties were rooted in Connecticut well before the American Revolution. One foreign affairs issue which did divide the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists was the Jeffersonian embargo of 1807.
22
The Jeffersonian embargo hit Connecticut hard in 1808. It hurt shipping, farming and manufacturing. It was a credit to Democratic-Repubiican organization that many votes were not lost to Federalists. Democratic-Republicans tried, with good success, to get people to support the National government. In February, 1809, however, Governor Trumbull declared the embargo unconstitutional and put state allegiance ahead of national allegiance. Trumbull argued that if the Democratic-Republicans can say that Connecticut does not have a constitution then he could question the interpretation of the national constitution.
As the Democratic national government grew stronger, the Federalists of Connecticut became more parochial in outlook. It was ironic that a group who had long carried the banner of national unity was now in the 1810’s groping towards state-rights. Indicative of this tendency towards parochialism was the rule of Governor Roger Griswold. In 1811, the Democratic-Republicans had a difficult time finding a candidate who would accept the nomination. After some delay they decided to accept Roger Griswold, a moderate Federalist, as the opponent to the incumbent Governor Treadwell. The Democratic-Republicans accepted Griswold because he showed little interest in religion. Griswold won the election, and the Democratic-Republicans hoped, until the outbreak of the War of 1812, to influence him. Griswold believed, as did many other Federalists, that the war was Mr. Madison’s war and Connecticut men need not be concerned with it.
Under the next Governor, the famous Federalist-dominated Hartford Convention was called to consider measures of Connecticut public safety in the war. Convention rhetoric was deeply reminiscent of the parochial sentiments of the anti-establishment party of the 1780’s. The Convention resolved that it was against a national draft, taxation for a militia, and in favor of the following amendments to the Constitution: two-thirds of a vote by Congress necessary to declare war, legislate embargo, and admit new states; limit the president to a single term; sucessive presidents must come from different states; no roreigner should be allowed in office; and the southern states should not count blacks for representation. The Convention did send its message to Washington but by the time it arrived the war was over.
23
The parochialism expressed by the Federalists in 1815 and the anti-establishment party of the late l8th century is, I believe, a reaction to a loss of national power. As each side saw that their lifestyle was undermined by an opponent with a national perspective they became defensive and turned into themselves and to their immediate locality. Traditional values were revered and intensely sought after as part of a defensive reaction, and the state government became the ultimate source of authority as the party turned into itself.
In 1815, the battle for governor pitted Elizur Boardman (an Episcopalian) and John Cotton Smith (Federalist). The campaign was fierce as each side stressed party loyalty. The type of political struggle that went on in these early years was intense, each side hoped to destroy the opponent. It took a number of years before each side realized that two parties could exist in relative harmony. This intensive struggle brought out the vote and made Connecticut a politically active state. At the end of the 1815 campaign, Elizur Boardman lost very narrowly to Smith. Federalists began to realize that their days were numbered.
Up until 1816, the Episcopalians had been the only dissenting religion willing to support the Federalists. Convinced by the growing legitinacy of the Democratic-Republicans, the Episcopalians joined their ranks and helped form the American Toleration and Reform party. The party’s main goals were the disestablishment of the Congregational church, creation of a state constitution, and a lessening of the suffrage requirements. Oliver Wolcott and Jared Ingersoll were put up as the party’s candidates in 1816. Wolcott, once hated by the Republicans as a Federalist was accepted as a result of his pro-administration stand on the war of 1812. Federalists put up Smith and Goddard with a platform that was exceedingly defensive in tone and antinational in character. The results of the election were close. Smith won the Governor’s polition, but Ingersoll (the Tolerationist) took the lieutenant governor’s polition. In a sweeping victory, eightyfive Tolerationists were elected to the lower house that year.
With a strong Tolerationist house and a Tolerationist lieutenant governor the Federalists decided to “give in” on some issues. In one particular instance Federalists decided to give state money collected by the state from the sale of Western Pennsylvania lands to dissenting churches. Although the action was designed to placate the interests of the Tolerationists, few Tolerationists as well as Federalists were pleased. Tolerationists would not be happy until disestablishment was accomplished.
In 1817, Wolcott was elected by a small margin over Smith, At hearing of this news many Federalists left politics or the state altogether. Noah Webster, for instance, left for New Hampshire and lost interest in politics. The Tolerationists still believed, however, that Wolcott was not to be given full faith. In September, 1817 he proved their fears correct when he began to stress his nonpartisanship. Wolcott was a shrewd politician whose intent was to unify both parties with efforts at compromise and nonpartisanship. These compromises dismayed the Tolerationists because they did not disestablish the church, or create a constitution. Wolcott planned, instead, to: 1) make judgeships a lifetime nonpartisan position; 2) exempt manufacturing workers from the poll tax and military service; and 3) retain the collection of tithes. Many Tolerationists could not accept Wolcott’s moderate nonpartisan politics. A Constitutional Convention became a serious consideration. The Tolerationist town of Cheshire started the ball rolling for the convention when they selected delegates. Most towns followed suit.
All seemed lost for the Federalists by 1818. They did not propose a Federalist candidate, and for the first time in Connecticut history an Episcopalian had given the Election Day address. Many Federalists were even willing to consider the need for a Constitution. The Convention was called in Hartford “to remove the disgrace created by the earlier Federalist Hartford Convention.”
24
After three weeks of deliberation the Convention reached a set of compromises which seemed to please most political views. These are some of the major resolves of the Convention: the old rights of the towns were guaranteed, representation stayed the same, the disestablishment of the church was completed, there was no display of anticlericalism, and the powers of the government were divided and worded in a simple manner so that little interpretation would have to be made by the courts. The action of these compromises may seem like simple politica to us looking at them from the 20th century, but they were difficult to make. The acceptance of compromise gave both poligical parties hope of existence, for some part of each side of their views remained intact. Never before in Connecticut’s history had such a compromise been wrought through the uses of party politics. Parties could now exist side by side without the fervent belief that the opponent must be destroyed.