{326}
_Attitude of the Federalists, Real and Imputed--The Convention at
Hartford--Its Popular Reputation--What General Scott did not say at
Chippewa._
|When a destructive war had been carried on for two years, when
recruiting was slow, and the Government heavily in debt, and yet no way
appeared but to fight it out, it might have been expected that harsh
criticism of the policy of the Administration, coming from the party
that had steadily opposed the war, would subject that party to the
charge of being unpatriotic and untrue to the Union. It might also have
been expected that an opposition which had become chronic could not but
become in some respects unjust. So when the Federalists in 1814 were
flooding the Legislatures of New England with memorials on the conduct
of the war, they could hardly restrain themselves from overdrawing the
picture of its failures, or from representing the condition of things
before the war as rather more paradisiacal than anybody had suspected.
And on the other hand, they were accused not only of {327}rejoicing
in defeats of the national arms, but of plotting a separation of New
England from the other States, with a view of ultimately making her
again a part of the British Empire. That there were some Federalists who
contemplated a dissolution of the Union as a possible remedy for certain
difficulties, is quite probable, for such views were at that time not
confined to either party. The contingency of disunion was frequently
discussed by men of both parties. But that anybody seriously
contemplated a reunion with England, there has never been any evidence
worth considering. The story was gotten up by the Administration party,
in order to cast odium upon the Federalists; and the occurrence most
freely used to give color to it was the Hartford Convention, which
unfortunately sat with closed doors, and thus was easily misrepresented
as a treasonable gathering.
In the third year of the war the hand of the enemy had fallen heavily
upon the coast of New England, and at the same time an unpleasant
feeling had arisen from the refusal of the United States Government to
pay the militia that had been in service under State officers. In this
crisis, the Legislature of Massachusetts, on the 16th of October, by a
vote of 260 to 90, passed a series of resolutions, the fifth of which
authorized the calling of a con{328}vention to confer "upon the
subject of their [the New England States] public grievances and
concerns; and upon the best means of preserving our resources; and of
defence against the enemy; and to devise and suggest for adoption by
those respective States such measures as they may deem expedient; and
also to take measures, if they shall think it proper, for procuring a
convention of delegates from all the United States, in order to revise
the Constitution thereof, and more effectually to secure the support
and attachment of all the people, by placing all upon the basis of fair
representation." The letter addressed to the governors of other States
set forth the general objects of the proposed conference to be, "to
deliberate upon the dangers to which the eastern section of the Union is
exposed by the course of the war, and to devise, if practicable, means
of security and defence which may be consistent with the preservation of
their resources from total ruin, and adapted to their local situation,
mutual relations, and habits, and not repugnant to their obligations as
members of the Union."
In response to this call, a convention of twenty-six delegates met at
Hartford, Conn., December 15th, and sat for three weeks. All sorts of
absurd rumors as to the purpose of the Convention were set {329}afloat,
and the President so far participated in the vague fears thus excited,
or pretended to, as to station a regiment of troops in Hartford.
On the 5th of January, 1815, the Convention adjourned, and published a
long report, wherein were set forth the difficulties that the country
labored under, and methods proposed by the Convention for adjusting
them. These were first discussed at length, and then summarized in a
series of resolutions: That unconstitutional drafts of militia should
be prevented; that the New England States should be empowered to defend
their own territory against the enemy; that representatives and direct
taxes should be apportioned among the States according to the number
of their free inhabitants; that a two-third vote of Congress should be
required to admit a new State; that embargoes for more than sixty days
should be forbidden; that a two-third Congressional vote should be
required for the interdiction of commercial intercourse, or for the
declaration of offensive war; that naturalized citizens should not be
eligible to Federal offices; that the President should be ineligible
for a second term, and should not be chosen from the same State twice
in succession; and, finally, that if these ends were not attained, and
peace not concluded, another convention should be held in Boston in the
following June. {330}This ought to have been plain enough for anybody
to understand; and yet allusions to "the old blue-lights of the Hartford
Convention," as a synonym for treason, have come down to our own day.
Its popularity as a bugbear has never been exceeded. So great was its
influence in this regard, that it caused General Scott to remember
something which had never taken place. In his account of the battle of
Chippewa he says: "And now the New England States were preparing to
hold a convention--it met at Hartford--perhaps to secede from the Union
--possibly to take up arms against it. Scott's brigade, nearly all New
England men, were most indignant, and this was the subject of the second
of the three pithy remarks made to them by Scott just before the final
conflict of Chippewa. Calling aloud to the gallant Major Hindman, he
said, 'Let us put down the Federal Convention by beating the enemy in
front. There's nothing in the Constitution against that.'" * There can
be no question as to the intrinsic pithiness of this remark; but if
Scott made it, he must have been somewhat of a prophet, for the
battle of Chippewa was fought on the 5th of July, and the call for the
Convention was not issued till October. This shows the danger of writing
* Scott's Memoirs, vol. i., page 133.
{331}memoirs half a century after the events of which they treat.
The great news from the South, and the tidings of peace, followed so
quickly upon the adjournment of the Convention that its labors went for
nought, its members were subjected to merciless ridicule, and the new
convention proposed for June was never held.