CHAPTER XV

DISESTABLISHMENT

No distinction shall I make between Trojan and Tyrian.

The Federal grip upon Connecticut, one of the last strongholds of that

party, was weakening. Preceding the deflection of the Episcopalians

in Connecticut, there had been throughout New England a strong Federal

opposition to the national government and its commands during the War

of 1812. Such conduct had shattered party prestige, and when its

opposition culminated in the Hartford Convention of 1814, it wrote its

own death-warrant. The Republicans, on the contrary, had dropped local

questions of constitutional reform and religious liberty, preferring

to bend all their energies to the support of the general

government. When as a national party they humbled England and brought

the war to a victorious close, the contrast of their loyalty to state

and national interests steadily drew the popular favor. In the era of

good feeling and prosperity that followed, the great national

political parties dissolved somewhat and crystallized anew. In

Connecticut a similar change took place in local politics. In the

years immediately following the war, the Democratic-Republicans, the

majority of the dissenters, and the dissatisfied among the

Federalists, formed different coalitions that, under the general name

of Toleration, [a] opposed the Standing Order. In 1816 the agitation

for constitutional reform was revived, and after three years resulted

in the overthrow of the Federalists and the triumph of a peaceful

revolution whereby religious liberty was assured.

The conduct of the Federal party, both within and without Connecticut

from 1808 to 1815, was quite as much the real cause of their downfall

in the state as that coalition between clergy and lawyers described by

Dr. Beecher as causing the breakdown of party machinery and its

ultimate ruin. Glancing somewhat hastily at some of the most

far-reaching acts of the Federalists, we find first the Federal

opposition to the embargo that from December 22, 1807, for over a year

paralyzed New England commerce. In February, 1809, John Quincy Adams,

who had recently resigned the Massachusetts senatorship because of his

unpopular support of the embargo, informed President Jefferson that

the measure could no longer be enforced. He assured the President that

the New England Federalist leaders, privily encouraged by England,

were preparing to break that section off from the union of the states

if the embargo were not speedily repealed. This information, whether

accurate or not, so influenced the President and his advisers that the

Non-intercourse Act, applying only to France and England, replaced the

embargo, whose repeal took effect from March 4, 1809. In the following

December, Madison's administration (in the belief that France had

withdrawn her hostile decrees) limited non-intercourse to England

alone, after having vainly urged upon her a repeal of her Orders in

Council. With the embargo lifted, New England commerce revived, and

Connecticut seamen, Connecticut farmers, [b] Connecticut merchants,

together with artisans of all the allied industries that were called

upon in the fitting out of ships and cargoes, enjoyed two years of

prosperity. The period was given over to money-getting, and the

ordinary rules of national or commercial honesty were flung to the

winds. Napoleon sold licenses to British vessels to supply his

famishing soldiers stationed in continental ports, while forged

American and British papers were openly sold in London. So enormous

were the profits of a successful voyage that the possibility of

capture only added zest to the American ventures and contributed not a

little to the daring of the privateers in the years of the war. So

enriched was the state that by May, 1811, Connecticut had so far

recovered from her late financial distress that the "state owed no

debt and every tax was paid," while her exports were: domestic,

$994,216; foreign, $38,138, or a total of $1,032,354.

The ninety days' embargo of 1812, the declaration of war (June

18,1812), and the patrolling of Long Island Sound by a British fleet,

brought such desolation to Connecticut that ships again lay rotting at

the wharves, ropewalks and warehouses were deserted, cargoes were

without carriers, and seamen were either scattered or idling about, a

constant menace to the public peace. National taxes to support a

detested war were laid upon the people at a time when their incomes

were ceasing, and their homes and property were laid bare to a

plundering enemy. "A nation without fleets, without armies, with an

impoverished treasury, with a frontier by sea and land extending many

hundreds of miles, feebly defended" by fortifications old and

neglected, had rushed headlong into war with the strongest nation of

the earth without "counting the cost." Such was the opinion of the

Federalists everywhere and, at first, of the large wing of the

Republican party who preferred peace. The Federalists of Connecticut,

when they saw a small majority sweep the nation into the conflict with

Great Britain, believed the war threatened liberty of speech. They

feared military despotism, when the general government demanded the

control of the militia; and that the war would prostrate" their civil

and religious institutions by increasing taxation and loss of income."

[c] They feared "national dismemberment" when the war measures,

together with the presence of the British fleet blockading the coast,

alternately angered the people almost to rebellion against an

apparently indifferent central government, or drove them into plans

for self-defense. Much of the opposition in New England is in part

accounted for by the rebound towards Federalism which the declaration

of the war caused, and by the belief that the national election of

1812 would be a Federal victory. Though it turned out to be a defeat,

it consolidated and so strengthened that party in New England that

before the close of 1813 all the state executives were Federalists and

were arrayed against the administration. The Republicans kept their

hold upon the minority, partly by the diversion of the capital, thrown

out of the carrying trade, into privateer ventures, war supplies, and

manufactures.

At the beginning of the war, Governor Griswold, of Connecticut, backed

by both houses of the legislature, joined with Governor Strong of

Massachusetts (supported only by the House of Representatives) in a

refusal to place the militia under regular officers of the United

States army. They refused also to allow the quotas called for by

General Dearborn (under the Act of Congress of April 10, 1812), for

the expedition against Canada, to leave the state. These executives

claimed that the troops were not needed to execute the laws of the

United States, to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion,--the

only three constitutional reasons giving the President the right to

consider himself "commander in chief of the militia of the several

states." [207] By taking such a stand, the state governors assumed to

decide whether a necessity existed that gave the President his

constitutional right to call out the militia. Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge,

in his "Memoir of Governor Strong," exonerates that executive by

pleading his intense convictions of duty, his loyal patriotism, and

his later efficient aid [d] in defending the eastern coast of the

state. Mr. Lodge reminds his reader that the governor's position was

supported by the best lawyers, whom he had been at great pains to

consult concerning state and federal rights, which, at that period,

had not been so carefully examined and discriminated between as

since. The same pleas may be urged for Governors Griswold [e] and

Smith. The Connecticut legislature immediately passed an act for

raising twenty-six hundred men for state defense under state

officers. Governor Griswold's successor, Gov. J. Cotton Smith, when

Decatur was blockaded in the Thames, when the descent upon Saybrook

was made, at the attack upon Stonington, and during those months when

the enemy hovered upon the long exposed coast line, kept a large force

of militia ready for duty. The state supported these troops, for, in

the wrangle over officership, the national government refused the

promised supplies.

The New England Federalists soon found seven great reasons for party

action. They were the uncertain success of the war by land; the great

commercial distress; [f] the possession by the enemy of a large part

of Maine; the publication of the terms upon which England would grant

peace; [g] the proposed legislation in the fall of 1814, providing for

the increase of the United States army by draft or conscription; the

proposed modified form of impressment of sailors; and the bill

allowing army officers to enlist minors and apprentices over eighteen

years of age, with or without consent of parents or guardians. [h]

These measures drove the New England Federalists, at the call of

Massachusetts, to the formation of the Hartford Convention. The

Connecticut legislature approved the sending of delegates by a vote of

153 to 36 opposed. Massachusetts and Rhode Island answered with like

enthusiasm. New Hampshire and Vermont hesitated, but the counties of

Cheshire and Grafton in the former state and of Windham in the latter

sent each a delegate to the convention. Rhode Island sent four

delegates and Massachusetts twelve, of whom George Cabot was elected

president of the convention. Connecticut furnished the secretary of

the convention, and later its historian in Theodore Dwight of

Hartford. She also sent seven other delegates, namely: Chauncey

Goodrich, mayor of Hartford, and from 1814 to 1815 governor of the

state; John Treadwell, ex-governor; James Hillhouse, who had served as

United States representative and senator; Zephaniah Swift, United

States representative and later chief judge of superior court of

Connecticut; Calvin Goddard, United States representative; Nathaniel

Smith, United States representative and later judge of the supreme

court; and Roger Minot Sherman, a distinguished lawyer and member of

the state legislature. All the delegates to the Hartford Convention

were men of high character, and most of them well-known leaders of the

Federal party. The convention lasted for three weeks, and, as its

sessions were conducted with the greatest secrecy, many prejudicial

rumors and surmises arose. The Massachusetts summons had bidden the

delegates convene for measures of safety "not repugnant to our

obligations as members of the Union," and the convention acknowledged

that it found the greatest difficulty in "devising means of defense

against dangers, and of relief from oppressions proceeding from the

act of their own Government without violating constitutional

principles or disappointing the hopes of a suffering and injured

people." The secrecy, the known antagonism to the Administration, the

knowledge of New England's early disbelief in the cohesive power of

the Union, and the convention's demands and resolutions, combined to

give a bad and traitorous reputation to the Hartford Convention that

has never been absolutely cleared away.

As early as 1796, over the signature "Pelham," there had appeared in

the "Hartford Courant" a series of articles written with great ability

and keen foresight as to the difficulties that would arise in making

any impartial legislation for a nation composed of parts having such

diverse economic systems as those of the North and the South. The

articles suggested the development of two nations instead of

one. During the War of 1812, various suggestions had been thrown out

by different newspapers enlarging upon the resources of New England

and hinting at a separate peace with England. There were not a few

who, upon learning of the resolutions of the convention, felt that

"Pelham" was a close adviser of its measures if not one of its

delegates. Public opinion was so wrought up by the assumed disloyalty

of the Hartford Convention that in 1815 it forced the publication of

the convention's brief and non-committal "Journal." From it little

more was learned than that the convention had resolved that the

different states should take measures to protect themselves against

draft by the national government, that New England should be allowed

to defend herself, and for that purpose should have returned to each

of her states a reasonable share of the national taxes to meet the

expense of their arming. In addition, each New England state should

set apart a certain portion of her militia under her governor to give

aid in cases of extremity should she be called upon by the governor of

another state. At the close of the convention, delegates were

appointed to proceed to Washington with these resolutions and also

with six proposed amendments [i] to the national constitution. These

demands and resolves were reinforced by the proposal that should the

Administration refuse to consider the propositions, another convention

should be held in the following summer to consider further action.

When the delegates arrived in Washington with the resolutions, of

which two state legislatures had meantime approved, the news of peace

had been declared. In the general jubilation they saw fit to leave

their message undelivered. For years the taint of rebellion clung to

the Hartford Convention, and forced its secretary, in 1833, to publish

his "History," a defense of its members and their measures. Even this

did not remove the stigma. The delegates had in their own communities

always retained their reputation for high personal character, but

politically they were irretrievably ruined by their participation in

the Hartford gathering. They had dealt their party in their states a

mortal blow, and the Hartford Convention has been well named "the

grave of the Federal party."

However much the members of the convention swathed their sentiments in

expressions of allegiance to the Union, at least until extreme

provocation should force a separation; or however much they declared

their conviction that peace, not war, should be the time chosen for

such a separation, and that, first of all, distinction should be

carefully made between a bad constitution and a bad government, and a

good constitution or government badly administered, there was no doubt

but that they proposed to push nullification to the point of active

resistance within what they considered their legal rights. They had

also proposed a set of amendments which they knew stood no chance of

meeting with approval from any number of the states. Moreover the

Hartford Convention, whatever its intentions, seriously alarmed and

embarrassed the Administration. Because of the consequences of their

policy, its members were culpable in the opinion of all who hold that,

in the distress of war, to hamper one's own government is to lend

assistance to the enemy. [j]

The war at first was not popular, but made friends for itself as it

progressed. Connecticut sailors were among the seamen that England had

impressed, and Connecticut captains had surrendered ships and rich

cargoes at the command of the mistress of the seas. But the naval

triumphs of the first year caught the popular fancy, for "not until

the Guerriere's colors were struck to the Constitution had a British

frigate been humiliated on the ocean." The victories on land were

about equally balanced. The disclosures of English perfidy in

attempting through her secret agents [k] to detach New England from

the Union before war should break out, and during the conflict, by

favoritism to Massachusetts, helped to increase the supporters of the

war policy. Further, the war brought out the latent powers of the

nation, both for defense and for prosperity. The gradual introduction

of machinery since 1800 had enlarged the small manufactories of

Connecticut, and begun the exchange of products between near

localities. But before the War of 1812 no manufacturing in Connecticut

had achieved a notable success. [l] There was invention and skill, [m]

and often profit, in the home market for the coarser products, but

there was a general tendency to prefer imported goods of finer make.

The war cut off such supplies, and the need created a paying demand

and developed an ability to supply it. The political party that

conducted the war to a successful finish developed the policy of

protection of infant industries, and the tariff of 1816 gave birth to

Connecticut as a manufacturing state. The repeal of the obnoxious war

measures, the speedy reduction of the national expenses, and the

promise of prosperity smoothed out lingering resentment. The Federal

party was virtually extinct outside of its last strongholds in New

England and Delaware. In the Era of Good Feeling following the war the

whole people composed one party, with principles neither those of the

original Federal party nor those of the original Republican party, but

a combination of both." [n]

In New England during the War of 1812, as in the Revolution, the

clergy had been the nucleus of the local dominant party, and with its

leaders had been bitter opponents of the "unrighteous war." [208]

Consequently the Congregational clergy shared in the popular

disapproval and condemnation that overtook the Federalists. In

Connecticut, for a time, the Standing Order by its affiliation with

the Federal party prolonged its control. of the state. But the tide

was turning. Dr. Lyman Beecher, Dr. Dwight's able lieutenant, made

vigorous and laudable efforts to uphold the Dwights, the Aaron and

Moses, as it were, of the waning political power. The "Home Missionary

Society," [o] Bible societies, the "Domestic Missionary Society for

the Building up of Waste Places," and the many branches of the

"Society for the Suppression of Vice and Promotion of Good Morals" [p]

did much good among those who welcomed them. Where their results were

simply those of a morality enforced by law, they caused still greater

dissatisfaction with the ruling party. [q] The union of the clergy and

lawyers was not as influential as had been anticipated in the early

days of 1812. Soon after the war the clergy adopted a less vigorous

policy, preferring an attitude of defense against calumny and a

withdrawal from politics. [r]

The elections showed the change in public opinion. At the April

election, 1814, the Federals reelected Governor Smith, while the

Republican candidate, Mr. Edward Boardman, received 1629 votes. The

following year, notwithstanding Governor Smith's reëlection, Mr.

Boardman polled 4876 votes, and the Republicans made a gain of twenty

in the House of Representatives, while in the fall nominations for

Assistants, the highest Federal vote was 9008 and that of the

Republicans was 4268. [209]

In January, 1816, "a meeting of citizens from various parts of the

state" was held in New Haven to agree upon a nomination for governor

and lieutenant-governor, which would bind together the Republicans and

such of the Federalists as were opposed to the Standing Order. Oliver

Wolcott and Jonathan Ingersll were unanimously agreed upon. Oliver

Wolcott had been living out of the state for fourteen years, and for

most of that time had not been in politics. His Republican supporters

had had time to forget him as a staunch Federalist, and remembered him

only as a man of parts who had held the secretaryship of the treasury

under Washington and Adams, and who had "opposed the Hartford

Convention; like Washington was a friend to the _Union_, a foe to

rebellion; with mild means resisted bigotry, with a glowing heart

favored toleration." [210] As he had approved the policy of the

general government since the days of Madison, he was pronounced an

available candidate. A good Congregationalist, he would not offend the

Federalists, would be acceptable to the Republicans, and would stand

to the capitalists and farmers as favorable to a protective tariff and

to more equitable taxation within the state. The prestige given him by

the executive abilities of his father and grandfather in the

gubernatorial chair also counted in his favor. The candidate for

lieutenant-governor was Jonathan Ingersoll, a Federalist, an eminent

New Haven lawyer, a prominent Episcopalian, senior warden of Trinity

Church, and chairman of the Bishop's Fund. He had had political

training in the Council, 1792-1798, and had been judge of the Superior

Court, 1798-1801, and again from 1811 to 1816. His nomination was the

price of the Episcopal vote, for "it was deemed expedient by giving

the Episcopalians a fair opportunity to unite with the Republicans, to

attempt to affect such change in the Government as should afford some

prospect of satisfaction to their united demands." [s]

The "Connecticut Herald," indignant at the Assembly's conduct in the

Phoenix Bank affair, left the Federal party and independently

nominated Jonathan Ingersoll for lieutenant-governor instead of the

regular candidate of that party, Chauncey Goodrich. The "American

Mercury," the organ of the American Toleration party, the union of

Republicans, dissenters, and dissatisfied, in order "to produce that

concord and harmony among parties which have too long, and without any

real diversity of interests, been disturbed, and which every honest

man must earnestly desire to see restored," nominated for governor,

Oliver Wolcott; for lieutenant-governor, Jonathan Ingersoll. The

Federal candidate for the executive was Governor John Cotton Smith, up

for reëlection. The Tolerationists failed by a few hundred votes to

seat their candidate for the executive, with the result that the

election of 1816 raised to office Governor Smith and

Lieutenant-Governor Ingersoll. Governor Smith received 11,589 votes,

Mr. Wolcott 10,170, while Lieutenant-Governor Ingersoll polled a

majority of 1453 over his opponent, Mr. Calvin Goddard. [t] It was the

first time that a dissenter had held so high an office. The

Federalists might have seized the opportunity to renew their former

friendship with the Episcopalians had it not been for their

stubbornness and for their old fear of Churchmen in political

office. At the October town meetings, the returns from ninety-three

towns gave a Federal vote of 7995 and a Republican of 6315 for

representatives, with a Federal majority of about thirty in the

House. [2ll]

The Federalists, realizing that the Episcopal vote was almost lost to

them, that their domestic policy was in disfavor, and that their

conduct during the war had damaged them and was leading to their

downfall in Connecticut even as in the nation, resolved upon a

desperate measure to conciliate a larger number of the dissenters.

This was the Act of October, 1816, for the Support of Literature and

Religion. Briefly, it divided the balance of the money which the

nation owed Connecticut for expenses during the war, namely $145,000,

among the various denominations. To the Congregationalists it gave in

round numbers, and including the grant to Yale, $68,000; to the

Episcopalians, $20,000; to Methodists, $12,000; and to Baptists,

$18,000; to Quakers, Sandemanians, etc., nothing. [u] The Quakers were

assumed to be satisfied with their recent exemptions from military

duty upon the payment of a small tax; Sandemanians and other

insignificant sects to be conciliated by the act of the preceding

April, which repealed, after a duration of nearly one hundred and

eighty years, the fine of fifty cents for absence from church on

Sunday. The people were at last free, not only to worship as they

chose, but when they chose, or to omit worship. They had yet to obtain

equal privileges for all denominations, and exemption from enforced

support of religion. The passage of the Act for the Support of

Literature and Religion raised, as the Congregationalists ought to

have known it would, a violent protest from every dissenter and from

every political come-outer. Some of the towns in town-meetings opposed

the bill as unnecessary for the support of schools and clergy; as

wasteful, when it would be wiser to create a state fund; and as unduly

favorable to Yale, where the policy was to create an intellectual

class and not to advance learning and literature among the

commonalty. At Andover, February 1, 1817, Episcopalians, Baptists, and

Methodists met together and denounced the act because they disapproved

of the union of Church and State which it encouraged; because of

Yale's tendency to bias religion; because they all approved of the

voluntary support of religion; and because they all scorned such a

political trick as the bill appeared to them, namely, an attempt to

win by their acceptance of the money their apparent approval of the

enforced support of religion. The Baptist societies in different

towns met to condemn the measure on the same grounds, and on the

additional ones that it was unfair to the Quakers, who had no paid

preachers; to the Universalists, because they were numerically still

too small to be of political importance; and indeed to many men,

since, as every man had contributed to the expense of the war, every

man ought to be rewarded proportionally. The Methodists agreed in all

these criticisms, and were no more backward in denouncing a measure

which forced on them money they did not seek, and for a purpose of

which they disapproved. The Methodist Society of Glastonbury were most

outspoken, declaring the law--

incompatible with sound policy and inconsistent with any former

act of the legislature of the state; the ultimate consequence of

which will prove a lasting curse to vital religion, which every

candid and reflecting mind may easily foresee; and we view it as a

very bold and desperate effort to effectuate a union between

Church and State.... We are induced to believe that Pilate and

Herod, and the chief Priests are still against us,... $12,000 to

the contrary notwithstanding. Resolved--

(1) We don't want such reparation for being characterized as an

illiterate set of enthusiasts devoid of character; our clergy a

set of worthless ramblers, unworthy the protection of our civil

laws.

(2) Pity and contempt for the Legislature should be expressed for

bribery.

(3) We believe the money, if received, would be a lasting curse.

(4) The measure was intended for politics, not religion, and was

a species of Tyranny.

(5) We should use our best endeavors to have the money used for

state expenses.

(6) Thanks should be sent to the members of the Legislature who

had opposed the measure.

All Methodists were further angered by the affront put upon them by

the General Assembly, which, in spite of their known determination not

to receive the money, appointed Methodist trustees, of whom a majority

were Federalists, to receive their share of the appropriation. The

trustees accepted the money, defending their action on the ground that

they believed that their claim would become void if they did not draw

the money, and it might then be put to a worse use. But the Methodist

societies did not uphold the trustees, and "regretted the committee

imposed on us by the Legislature of the state." The chairman of the

committee, the Rev. Augustus Bolles, refused to serve, and the

societies rejected the money. [v]

As a result of the unwelcome legislation, the Republicans received the

whole vote of the Methodists for the "Toleration and Reform Ticket" of

1817, which repeated the nominations of the preceding election. The

Episcopalians of course favored the reëlection of Lieutenant-Governor

Ingersoll. One small provocation by the Congregationalists of the

First Church of New Haven--the attempt to place the odium of expulsion

upon a member who became an Episcopalian--did not tend to allay

feeling. The Toleration party were sure of the votes of the more

feeble dissenters, whose interests they promised to regard, as well as

of those of the Baptists and of such Federalists as disapproved of the

high-handed policy of the Standing Order. The Tolerationists were also

counting upon a steady increase of recruits from the Federal ranks as

soon as the appreciation of a recent attack by the legislature upon

the judiciary and its danger should become more and more

realized. Many such recruits, convinced of the necessity of

constitutional reform, had gathered at the general meeting of

Republicans held in New Haven in October, 1816, to make up the ticket

for the spring election of 1817. The campaign issue was "whether

freemen shall be tolerated in the free exercise of their religious and

political rights." It was met by the election of Governor Wolcott with

a majority of 600 votes over ex-Governor J. Cotton Smith, and by no

opposition to the reëlection of Lieutenant-Governor Ingersoll. [w] At

the same election many minor Republican officials were seated, and the

House went Republican by an assured majority of nearly two to one, the

Senate remaining strongly Federal.

Governor Wolcott's inaugural placed before the Assembly the following

subjects for consideration: (1) A new system of taxation; for, as the

governor pointed out, the capitation tax was equivalent to about

one-sixteenth of the laboring man's income. (2) Judges of the Superior

Court should hold their office during good behavior instead of by

annual appointment by the legislature. (3) There should be a complete

separation of legislative and judicial powers of government. (4)

Rights of conscience and the voluntary support of religion, though if

necessary with "laws providing efficient remedies for enforcing the

voluntary contracts for their [ministers'] support," should be

considered; and (5) Freedom of suffrage. In concluding, the governor

urged that "whenever the public mind appears to be considerably

agitated on these subjects, prudence requires that the legislature

should revise its measures, and by reasonable explanation or

modifications of the law, restore public confidence and tranquillity."

[x]

To consider briefly these various points: Taxes upon mills, machinery,

and manufactures needed to be light in order to secure their continued

existence. The necessities of war-time had created a larger market for

their products, but one that could not be continued after the close of

the war allowed European products to enter free of duty. Nor could

the factories exist if burdened with heavy taxes before the new tariff

measures of 1816 had revived these depressed industries. In

agriculture, taxes upon horses, oxen, stock, dairy products, and

increased areas of tillage handicapped the farmer. Again, the tax upon

fire-places, rather than upon houses, weighed heavily upon the poor

and the moderately well-to-do, who built small and inexpensive houses

with say three fireplaces, while the rich owners of older and more

pretentious dwellings were often rated for fewer. [y] Money was

scarce, rich men rare. So also was great poverty. There was a scanty

living for the majority. Trades were few, wages low. A farm-hand

averaged three shillings a day, paid in provisions. Women of all work

drudged for two shillings and sixpence per week, while a farm overseer

received a salary of seventy dollars a year. The children of people in

average circumstances walked barefoot to church, carrying their shoes

and stockings, which they put on under the shelter of the big tree

nearest to the meeting-house. Their fathers made one Sunday suit last

for years. The wealthy had small incomes, though relatively great. It

was whispered that Pierpont Edwards, the rich and prosperous New Haven

lawyer, had an income from his law practice of two thousand dollars

per year.

Points (2) and (3) in the governor's address were prompted by the

widespread interest created by the action of the legislature in

October, 1815, when it had set aside the conviction, by a special

Superior Court at Middletown, of Peter Lung for murder, on the ground

that the court was irregularly and illegally convened. The chief judge

was Zephaniah Swift of Windham, author of the "System of Connecticut

Laws." [z] Judge Swift appealed to the public [aa] to vindicate his

judicial character from the censure implied by the Assembly's

action. An ardent Federalist, who in the early days of statehood could

see no need of a better constitution than he then insisted Connecticut

possessed through the adoption of her ancient charter, he had long

opposed the ecclesiastical establishment which that charter upheld. In

his defense of the constitution he had maintained that "it ought to be

deemed an inviolable maxim that _when proper courts of law are

constituted, the legislature are divested of all judicial

authority_." [2l2] But when the legislature claimed as

constitutional the right to call to account any court, magistrate, or

other officer for misdemeanor or mal-administration, [ab] Judge Swift

admitted the lack of "a written constitution." He further argued that

the one "made up of usages and customs, had always been understood to

contain certain fundamental axioms which were held sacred and

inviolable, and which were the basis on which rested the rights of the

people." Of these self-evident principles one was that the three

branches of government--the executive, legislative, and judicial--were

coordinate and independent, and that the powers of one should never be

exercised by the other. "It ought to be held as a fundamental axiom,"

the judge declared, "that _the Legislature should never encroach on

the jurisdiction of the Judiciary,_ nor assume the province of

interfering in private rights, nor of overhauling the decisions of the

courts of law." Otherwise, "the legislature would become one great

arbitration that would engulf all the courts of law, [ac] and

_sovereign discretion_ would be 'the only rule of decision,--a

state of things _equally favorable to lawyers and criminals."_

[213]

With respect to the fifth point in the governor's address, the right

of suffrage, the Republicans and their allies demanded its extension

from householders haying real estate rated at $7 (40s.), or personal

estate of $134 (£40), to "men who pay small taxes, work on highways,

or do service in the militia."

In the fall of 1817, the reform party had forced the repeal of the

obnoxious Stand-Up Law, and it demanded that other restrictive

measures should be annulled. So bitter was the Federal antagonism in

the Council that during all the spring session of 1817, the

Tolerationists loudly complained that every reform measure proposed in

the House was lost in the Federal Senate. The committees to which

parts of the governor's speech had been referred for consideration did

little. That on taxation made a report in the fall recommending that a

careful investigation of conditions and resources should be made,

because, as capital sought investment, in banks, manufacturing, and

various commercial enterprises unknown to the earlier generations,

[ad] the fairness of the old system of taxation was lapsing. The mixed

committee, including several Tolerationists and having an Episcopal

chairman, that was to report upon the religious situation, gave no

encouragement to dissenters. The spring session allowed one barren act

to pass, the "Act to secure equal rights, powers, and privileges to

Christians of all denominations in this state." It enacted that

henceforth certificates should be lodged with the _town clerk,_

and permitted a come-outer to return to the society from which he had

separated. In the following spring, when an attempt was made to pass a

bill to supersede this act, it was maintained that the law of 1817

"did not effect the object or answer the desire of the aggrieved

party," for it retained the certificate clause and continued to deny

to dissenters the measure of religious liberty freely accorded to the

Established churches.

The Tolerationists were determined to carry the elections of 1818. In

the fall elections of 1817, they again had a majority of nearly two to

one in the House, and consequently the struggle was for the control of

the Senate. At the fall meetings, they placed in nomination their

candidates for senators, and all through the winter they agitated in

town meetings and in every other way the discussion of their

"Constitution and Reform Ticket." Party pamphlets were scattered

throughout the state. One of these, the most in favor, was "The

Politics of Connecticut: by a Federal Republican" (George H. Richards

of New London). At the spring elections of 1818, the Constitution and

Reform Ticket carried the day, seating the reflected governor and

lieutenant-governor, eight anti-Federal senators, and preserving the

anti-Federal majority in the House. The political revolution was

complete, and the preliminary steps towards the construction of a new

constitution were at once begun. [ae]

The governor's inaugural address specified the main task before the

Assembly in the following words:--

As a portion of the people have expressed a desire that the form

of civil government in this State should be revised, this highly

interesting subject will probably engage your [the Assembly's]

deliberations.... Considered merely as an instrument denning the

powers and duties of magistrates and rulers, the Charter may

justly be considered as unprovisional and imperfect. Yet it ought

to be recollected that what is now its greatest defect was

formerly a pre-eminent advantage, it being then highly important

to the people to acquire the greatest latitude of authority with

an exemption from British influence and control.

If I correctly comprehend the wishes which have been expressed by

a portion of our fellow citizens, they are now desirous, as the

sources of apprehension from external causes are at present

happily closed, that the Legislative, Executive and Judicial

authorities of their own government may be more precisely denned

and limited, and the rights of the people declared and

acknowledged. It is your province to dispose of this important

subject in such manner as will best promote general satisfaction

and tranquillity.

The House appointed a select committee of five to report upon the

revision of the form of civil government. The Council appointed

Hon. Elijah Boardman (Federalist) and Hon. William Bristol

(Tolerationist) to act as joint committee with several gentlemen

selected by the House. The joint committee reported that "the present

was a period peculiarly auspicious for carrying into effect the wishes

of our fellow-citizens,--the general desire for a revision and

reformation of the structure of our civil government and the

establishment of a Constitutional Compact" and "that the organization

of the different branches of government, the separation of their

powers,the tenure of office, the elective franchise, liberty of speech

and of the press, freedom of conscience, trial by jury, rights which

relate to these deeply interesting subjects, ought not to be suffered

to rest on the frail foundation of legislative will." [214]

Immediately, the House passed a bill requiring the freemen of the

towns to assemble in town meeting on the following Fourth of July "to

elect by ballot as many delegates as said towns now choose

representatives to the General Assembly," said delegates to meet in

constitutional convention at Hartford on the fourth Wednesday of the

following August (Aug. 26) for "the formation of a Constitution of

Civil Government for the people of this state." The bill further

declared that the constitution when "ratified by such majority of the

said qualified voters, convened as aforesaid, as shall be directed by

said convention, shall be and remain the Supreme Law of this State."

An attempt was made to substitute "one delegate" for "as many

delegates" as the towns sent. Upon the question in the convention, as

to what majority should be required for ratification, there was

considerable diversity of opinion. "Two-thirds of the whole number of

_towns"_ was suggested, but was opposed on the ground that

"two-thirds of the whole number of the _towns_ might not contain

one-fourth of the people." _"Three-fifths_ of the legal voters of

the state" was also suggested. In the final decision, the simple

"majority of the freemen" was accepted. Had this not been the case,

the constitution would have failed of ratification, for, as Burlington

made no returns, the vote stood 59 out of 120 towns for ratification,

with 13,918 yeas to 12,364 nays, giving a majority of but 1554.

Several causes tended to bring about an eager, an amiable, or tolerant

support of the work of the convention. Eepublicans and Tolerationists

hoped for sweeping reforms. The Federalists were divided. Many there

were who believed it dangerous for the state to continue destitute of

fundamental laws defining and limiting the powers of the legislature,

and to such as these the need of a bill of rights, and of the

separation of the powers of the government, was immediate and

imperative. The influential faction of the New Haven Federalists were

moved to modify any opposition existing among them by the proposed

change to annual sessions of the legislature with alternate sittings

in the two capitals. There were still other Federalists who accepted

the proposed change in government as inevitable, and who wisely

forebore to block it, preferring to use all their influence toward

saving as much as possible of the old institutions under new

forms. And in this resolve they were encouraged by the high character

of the men that all parties chose as delegates to the constitutional

convention.

The convention met August 26,1818, at Hartford. Governor Wolcott, one

of the delegates from Litchfield, was elected president, and Mr.

James Lanman, secretary. Mr. Pierpont Edwards was chosen chairman of a

committee of three from each county to draft a constitution. The

estimated strength of the parties was one hundred and five Republicans

to ninety-five Federalists, and, of the drafting committee, five

members belonged to the political minority. [af] An idea of the

character of the men chosen for this important task of framing a new

constitution is gained from a glance at some of the names. To begin

with, over thirty-nine of the delegates to the convention either were

Yale alumni or held its honorary degrees, and half of the drafting

committee were her graduates. Ex-Governor Treadwell and Alexander

Wolcott led the opposing parties, while their able seconds in command

were General Nathaniel Terry of Hartford and Pierpont Edwards of New

Haven. The latter still held the office of judge of the United States

District Court, to which Jefferson had appointed him. Among the

delegates, there were Mr. Amasa Learned, formerly representative in

Congress, the ex-chief-judges Jesse Root and Stephen Mix Mitchell,

Aaron Austin, a member of the Council for over twenty years until the

party elections of 1818 unseated him, ex-Governor John Treadwell, and

Lemuel Sanford,--all of whom had been delegates to the convention of

1788, called to ratify the constitution of the United States. Five

members of the drafting committee were state senators, namely:

Messrs. William Bristol, Sylvester Wells, James Lanman, Dr. John

S. Peters of Hebron, and Peter Webb of Windham. Five others,

Messrs. Elisha Phelps, Gideon Tomlinson, James Stevens, Orange Merwin,

and Daniel Burrows were afterwards elected to that office, while

Gideon Tomlinson and John S. Peters became in turn governors of the

state. James Lanman, Nathan Smith (a member also of the committee),

and Tomlinson entered the national Senate. Among the delegates, there

were nearly a dozen well-known physicians, most of them to be found

among the Tolerationists. Messrs. Webb, Christopher Manwaring of New

London, Gideon Tomlinson of Fairfield, and General Joshua King of

Ridgefield, together with Joshua Stow of Middletown (also on the

drafting committee), had been for years the warhorses of the

democracy, loyal followers of their leader Alexander Wolcott, who had

been the Republican state manager from 1800 to 1817.

The method of procedure in the convention was to report from time to

time a portion of the draft of the constitution, of which each article

was considered section by section, discussed, and amended. After each

of the several sections had been so considered, the whole article was

opened to amendment before the vote upon its acceptance was

taken. When all articles had been approved, the constitution was

printed as so far accepted, and was again submitted to revision and

amendment before receiving the final approval of the convention.

While the constitutional convention was in session, the Baptists and

Methodists resolved that no constitution of civil government should

receive their approbation and support unless it contained a provision

that should secure the full and complete enjoyment of religious

liberty. [2l5] And it was known that the Episcopalians were ready to

second such resolutions. These expressions of opinion were of weight

as foreshadowing the kind of reception that many of the towns where

the dissenters were in the ascendant would accord any constitution

sent to them for ratification.

In the convention both the old Federal leader and the old Democratic

chief objected to the incorporation in the constitution of a bill of

rights. Governor Treadwell opposed it on the ground that such

_"unalterable"_ regulations were unnecessary where, as in a

republic, all power was vested in the people. Alexander Wolcott

objected that such a "bill would circumscribe the powers of the

General Assembly" and also because of his disapproval of some of its

clauses. [216] When the draft of fourth section was under discussion,

namely that "No preference shall be given by law to any religious sect

or mode of worship," the Kev. Asahel Morse, a Baptist minister,

offered the substitute,--

That rights of conscience are inalienable, that all persons have a

natural right to worship Almighty God according to their own

consciences; and no person shall be compelled to attend any place

of worship, or contribute to the support of any minister, contrary

to his own choice.

The substitute was rejected, and after some discussion, the wording of

the section was changed by substituting "Christian" in place of

"religious" and this change retained in the final revision. [ag]

The seventh article, "Of Religion," was the subject of a long and

earnest debate.

Sec. 1. It being the right and duty of all men to worship the

Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe, in

the mode most consistent with the dictates of their own

consciences; no person shall be compelled to join or support, nor

by law be classed with or associated to any congregation, church

or religious association. And each and every society or

denomination of Christians in this State, shall have and enjoy the

same and equal powers, rights and privileges; and shall have power

and authority to support and maintain the Ministers or Teachers of

their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for

public worship, by a tax on the members of the respective

societies only, or in any other manner.

Sec. 2. If any person shall choose to separate himself from the

society or denomination of Christians to which he may belong, and

shall leave written notice thereof with the Clerk of such society

he shall thereupon be no longer liable for any future expenses,

which may be incurred by said society.

The Federalists contested its passage at every point, and succeeded in

modifying the first draft in important particulars, but could not

prevent complete severance of Church and State, nor the constitutional

guarantee to all denominations of religious liberty and perfect

equality before the law. To the first clause as reported--"It being

the right and _duty_ of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the

Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, in the mode most

consistent with the dictates of their consciences"--Governor Treadwell

objected that "Conscience may be perverted, and man may think it his

duty to worship his Creator by image, or as the Greeks and Romans did;

and though he would _tolerate_ all modes of worship, he would not

recognize it in the Constitution, as the _duty_ of a person to

worship as the heathen do." Mr. Tomlinson afterwards moved to amend

the clause to its present shape, "The duty of all men to

worship... and their right to render that worship." Governor Treadwell

objected that the same clause went "to dissolve all ecclesiastical

societies in this State. That was probably its intent as

Messrs. Joshua Stow and Gideon Tomlinson had drafted it. The former

answered all objections by asserting that "if this section is altered

_in any way_, it will curtail the great principles for which we

contend." [ah]

The first section was finally adopted by a vote of 103 to 86, while a

motion to strike out the second section was rejected by 105 to 84. On

its final revision it read:--

Sec. 1. It being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being,

the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right

to render that worship in the mode most consistent with the

dictates of their consciences; no person shall, by law, be

compelled to join or support, nor be classed with, or associated

to, any congregation, church, or religious association. But every

person now belonging to such congregation, church, or religious

association, shall remain a member thereof, until he shall have

separated himself therefrom, in the manner hereinafter

provided. And each and every society or denomination of

Christians, in this state, shall have and enjoy the same and equal

powers, rights and privileges; and shall have power and authority

to support and maintain the ministers or teachers of their

respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for

public worship, by a tax on the members of any such society only,

to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any

such society meeting, warned and held according to law, or in any

other manner. [ai]

During the last revision of the constitution Mr. Terry had offered the

two amendments that continue the old ecclesiastical societies as

corporate bodies. [217]

The draft of the whole constitution was read through for the last time

as amended and ready for acceptance or rejection, and put to vote on

September 15, 1818. It was passed by 134 yeas to 61 nays. The

constitution then went before the people for their consideration [aj]

and ratification. For a while its fate seemed doubtful; but by the

loyalty of the Federal members of the convention and their efforts in

their own districts the whole state gave a majority for

ratification. The southern counties, with a vote of 11,181, gave a

majority for ratification of 2843; the northern counties, with a vote

of 15,101, gave a majority _against_ ratification of 1189. [218]

The Toleration party as such had triumphed, and they felt that they

had won all they had promised the people, for they had secured "the

same and equal powers, rights and privileges to all denominations of

Christians." They had also cleared the way for a broader suffrage and

for the proper election laws to guarantee it. At the last two

elections the Republicans in the Toleration party had carefully

separated state and national issues, and had in large measure forborne

from criticism of the partisan government, insisting that the people's

decision at the polls would give them--the people--rather than any

political party, the power to correct existing abuses. The Republicans

also insisted that the Tolerationists, no matter what their previous

party affiliation, would with one accord obey the behests of the

sovereign people. But when the constitution was an assured fact the

Republicans felt that the Federalist influence had dominated the

convention, and the Federalists that altogether too much had been

accorded to the radical party. Nevertheless it was the loyalty of the

Federal members of the convention that won the small majority for the

Tolerationists and for the new constitution, even if that loyalty was

founded upon the belief, held by many, that the choice of evils lay in

voting for the new regime.

The constitution of 1818 was modeled on the old charter, and retained

much that was useful in the earlier instrument. The more important

changes were: (1) The clearer definition and better distribution of

the powers of government. (2) Rights of suffrage were established

upon personal qualifications, and election laws were guaranteed to be

so modified that voting should be convenient and expeditious, and its

returns correct. (3) The courts were reorganized, and the number of

judges was reduced nearly one half, while the terms of those in higher

courts were made to depend upon an age limit (that of seventy years),

efficiency, and good behavior. Their removal could be only upon

impeachment or upon the request of at least two thirds of the members

of each house. Judges of the lower courts, justices of the peace, were

still to be appointed annually by the legislature, and to it the

appointment of the sheriffs was transferred. [ak] (4) Amendments to

the constitution were provided for. (5) Annual elections and annual

sessions of the legislature, alternating between Hartford and New

Haven, were arranged for, and by this one change alone the state was

saved a yearly expense estimated at $14,000, a large sum in those

days. (6) The governor [al] was given the veto power, although a

simple majority of the legislature could override it. (7) The salaries

of the governor, lieutenant-governor, senators, and representatives

were fixed by statute, and were not alterable to affect the incumbent

during his term of office. (8) And finally, _the union of Church and

State was dissolved_, and all religious bodies were placed upon a

basis of voluntary support.

Among the minor changes, the law that before the constitution of 1818

had conferred the right of marrying people upon the located ministers

and magistrates only, thereby practically excluding Baptist, Methodist

and Universalist clergy, now extended it to these latter. While

formerly the only literary institution favored was Yale College,

Trinity College, despite a strong opposition, was soon given its

charter, and one was granted later to the Methodists for Wesleyan

College at Middletown. Moreover, the government appropriated to both

institutions a small grant. The teaching of the catechism, previously

enforced by law in every school, became optional. Soon a normal

school, free to all within the state, was opened. The support of

religion was left wholly to voluntary contributions. [am] The

political influence of the Congregational clergy was gone. "The lower

magistracy was distributed as equally as possible among the various

political and religious interests," and the higher courts were

composed of judges of different political opinions.

The battle for religious liberty was won, Church and State divorced,

politics and religion torn asunder. The day of complete religious

liberty had daw'ned in Connecticut, and in a few years the strongest

supporters of the old system would acknowledge the superiority of the

new. As the "old order changed, yielding place to new," many were

doubtful, many were fearful, and many there were who in after years,

as they looked backward, would have expressed themselves in the frank

words of one of their noblest leaders: [an] "For several days, I

suffered what no tongue can tell _for the best thing that ever

happened to the State of Connecticut."_

FOOTNOTES:

[a] Party names were "American," "American and Toleration,"

"Toleration and Reform."

[b] Three fourths of Connecticut's exports were products of

agriculture.

[c] "All institutions, civil, literary and ecclesiastical, felt the

pressure, and seemed as if they must he crushed. Our schools, churches

and government even, in the universal impoverishment, were failing and

the very foundations were shaken, when God interposed and took off the

pressure."--Lyman Beecher, _Autobiography_, i, 266.

[d] The Massachusetts militia were placed under General Dearborn,

August 5, 1812.

[e] Governor Griswold died Octoher, 1812, and was succeeded in office

by Lieutenant-Governor John Cotton Smith.

[f] The direct tax laid July 22-24,1813, by the national government,

was apportioned in September, as follows: To Massachusetts,

$316,270.71; to Rhode Island, $34,702.18; and to Connecticut,

$118,167.71, divided as follows (which shows the relative wealth of

the different sections of the state), Litchfield, $19,065.72;

Fairfield, $18,810.50; New Haven, $16,723.10; Hartford, $19,608.02;

New London, $13,392.04; Middlesex, $9,064.20; Windham, $14,524.38; and

Tolland, $6,984.69. Duties were levied upon refined sugar, carriages,

upon licenses to distilleries, auction sales of merchandise and

vessels, upon retailers of wine, spirits, and foreign merchandise;

while a stamp tax was placed upon notes and bills of exchange.--See

_Niles Register_, v, 17; _Schouler_, ii, 380. The tax in

1815 was $236,335.41.--_Niles_, vii, 348.

[g] Briefly, an independent Indian nation between Canada and the

United States; no fleets or military posts on the Great Lakes, and no

renunciation of the English rights of search and impressment.

[h] The April (1815) session of the Connecticut legislature passed an

"Act to secure the rights of parents, masters and guardians." It

declared the proposed legislation in Congress contrary to the spirit

of the Constitution of the United States, and an unauthorized

interference with state rights. It commanded all state judges to

discharge on habeas corpus all minors enlisted without consent of

parents or guardians, and it enacted a fine, not to exceed five

hundred dollars, upon any one found guilty of enlisting a minor

against the consent of his guardian, and a fine of one hundred dollars

for the advertising or publication of enticements to minors to enlist.

[i] "Amendments: (1) Restrictions npon Congress requiring a two thirds

vote in making and declaring war, (2) in laying embargoes, and (3) in

admitting new states. (4) Restriction of the presidential office to

one term without reëlection, and with no two successive Presidents

from the same state. (5) Reduction of representation and taxation by

not reckoning the blacks in the slave states. (6) No foreign born

citizen should be eligible to office.

[j] "They advocated nullification and threatened dissolution of the

Union."--J. P. Gordy, _Political History of the United States_,

ii, 299.

[k] The President in March, 1812, sent to Congress the documents for

which he had paid one John Henry $50,000. The latter claimed to be an

agent sent from Canada in 1809 to detach New England Federalists from

their allegiance to the Union. Congress by resolution proclaimed the

validity of the documents. The British minister solemnly denied all

knowledge of them on the part of his government. The American people

believed in their authenticity, which belief was confirmed during the

war by the distinct favor shown for a while to Massachusetts, and by

the hope, openly entertained by England, of separating New England

from New York and the southern states.

[l] Manufactures in Connecticut (abridged from the U. S. marshal's

report in the autumn of 1810, cited in _Niles' Register_, vi,

323-333) were represented by 14 cotton mills, 15 woolen mills. (By

1815 New London county alone had 14 woolen mills and 10 cotton.) These

had increased to 60 cotton in 1819, and to 36 woolen. Flax cloth,

blended or unnamed cloths, and wool cloth,--all these made in

families,--amounted to a yearly valuation of $2,151,972; hempen cloth,

$12,148; stockings, $111,021; silks (sewing and raw), $28,503; hats to

the value of $522,200; straw bonnets, $25,100; shell, horn, and ivory

in manufactured products, $70,000. Looms for cotton numbered 16,132;

carding machines, 184; fulling mills, 213, and there were 11,883

spindles.

In iron, wood, and steel: 8 furnaces, with output of $46,180; 48

forges, $183,910; 2 rolling and slitting mills, 32 trip-hammers,

$91,146; 18 naileries, $27,092; 4 brass foundries, 1 type foundry,

brass jewelry, and plaited ware, $49,200; metal buttons, 155,000

gross, or $102,125; guns, rifles, etc., $49,050.

Among other manufactories and manufactures there were 408 tanneries,

$476,339; shoes, boots, etc., $231,812; the tin plate industry,

$139,370; 560 distilleries, $811,144; 18 paper mills, $82,188;

ropewalks, $243,950; carriages, $68,855, and the beginnings of

brick-making, glass-works, pottery, marble works, which, with the

state's 24 flaxseed mills and seven gunpowder mills, brought the sum

total to approximately $6,000,000.

Still the great impetus to manufacturing, which completely

revolutionized the character of the state, followed the Joint-stock

Act of 1837, with its consequent investment of capital and rush of

emigration, resulting in later days in a development of the cities at

the expense of the rural districts.

[m] Gilbert Brewster, the Arkwright of American cotton machinery, Eli

Whitney, with his cotton gin and rifle improvements, and John Fitch,

with his experiments with steam, are the most distinguished among a

host of men who made Yankee ingenuity and Yankee skill proverbial.

[n] "Era of Good Feeling, 1817-1829. The best principles of the

Federalists, the preservation and perpetuity of the Federal

government, had been quietly accepted by the Republicans, and the

Republican principle of limiting the powers and duties of the Federal

government had been adopted by the Federalists. The Republicans

deviated so far from their earlier strict construction views as in

1816 to charter a national bank for twenty years, and to model it upon

Hamilton's bank of 1791 which they had refused to re-charter in

1811,"--A. Johnson, _American Politics_, pp. 80, 81.

[o] "This was for the support of missions outside the state. The

Domestic or State Home Missionary Society undertook the buiding up of

places within the state that were without suitable religious care. The

former finally absorbed the latter when its original purpose was

accomplished. Then, there was the Litchfield County Foreign Mission

Society, founded in 1812, the _first _auxiliary of the American

Board, which began its career in 1810, and was incorporated the same

year that its youngest branch was organized."--Lyman Beecher,

_Autobiography_, i, 275, 287-88 and 291.

[p] Organized in New Haven in October, 1812, with Dr. Dwight as

chairman. Members of the committee upon organization included nearly

all the prominent men of that day, both of the clergy and of the

bar. A list is given in Lyman Beecher, _Autobiography_, i, 256.

[q] "We really broke up riding and working on the Sabbath, and got the

victory. The thing was done, and had it not been for the political

revolution that followed, it would have stood to this day.... The

efforts we made to execute the laws, and secure a reformation of

morals, reached the men of piety, and waked up the energies of the

whole state, so far as the members of our churches, and the

intelligent and moral portion of our congregation were

concerned. These, however, proved to be a minority of the suffrage of

the state."--Lyman Beecher, _Autobiography_, i, 268.

"In Pomfret the Justice of the Peace arrested and fined townspeople

who persisted in working on Sunday, and held travellers over until

Monday morning."--E. D. Lamed, _History of Windham_, ii, 448.

[r] "The odium thrown upon the ministry was inconceivable. ... The

Congregational ministers agreed to hold back and keep silent until the

storm blew over. Our duty as well as policy was explanation and

self-defence, expostulation and conciliation."--_Autobiography_,

i, 344.

[s] "Aristides," March 26, 1826, and "Episcopalian," March 13, issues

of the _American Mercury_.

"When the Episcopal Church petitioned the legislature in vain, as she

did for a series of years, for a charter to a college, he (the

Rev. Philo Shelton of Fairfield) with others of his brethren

_proposed a union with the political party, then in a minority_,

to secure what he regarded a just right. And the first fruit of the

union was the charter of Trinity (Washington) College, Hartford. He

was one of a small number of clergymen who decided on this measure,

and were instrumental in carrying it into effect; and it resulted in a

change in the politics of the State which has never yet been

reversed."--_Sprague's Annals of American Pulpit_ (Episcopal), v,

35.

[t] Total vote for governor 21,759. Mr. Goddard received 9421

votes.--J. H. Trumbull, _Hist. Notes_, p. 36.

[u] The law apportioned one third of the money to the

Congregationalists; one seventh to Yale; one seventh to the

Episcopalians; one eighth to the Baptists; one twelfth to the

Methodists, and the balance to the state treasury.--Cited in

_Connecticut Courant_, November 8, 1816. _Acts and Laws_,

pp. 279, 280.

[v] The first installment, $50,000, was paid into the Treasury in

June, 1817. The Methodists, and later the Baptists, accepted their

share, but not until political events had removed some of their

objections.

See the _Mirror_, February 16, 1818. It was not until 1820 that

the final acceptance of the money took place.

J. H. Trumbull, _Hist. Notes_, p. 36, foot-note, gives the

following figures. By November, 1817, $61,500 had been received and

apportioned: Congregationalists, $20,500.00; Trustees of the Bishop's

Fund, $8,785.71; Baptist Trustees, $7,687.50; Methodist Trustees,

$5,125.00; Yale College, $8,785.71, and a balance still unappropriated

of $10,616.08.

[w] Legal returns gave Wolcott 13,655

Smith 13,119

Scattering 202 13,321

------ ------

334

"The correction of errors increased the majority to 600, which the

Federalists conceded.--J. H. Trumbull, _Hist. Notes_, p. 38,

footnote.

[x] Governor Wolcott's speech, _Connecticut Courant_, May 20,

1817; also _Niles' Register_, xii, pp. 201-204.

[y] "In our climate, three fireplaces are occasionally necessary to

the comfortable accommodation of every family."--Governor's speech.

[z] Published 1795.

[aa] A vindication of the calling of the Special Superior Court at

Middletown... for the trial of Peter Lung... with observations, &c,

Windham, 1816.

[ab] The legislature had also interfered with decisions regarding the

Symsbury patent. See E. Kirby, _Law Reports,_ p. 446.

[ac] A summary of the Connecticut constitution, taken from _Niles's

Register,_ asserts that the General Court has sole power to make

and repeal laws, grant levies, dispose of lands belonging to the state

to particular towns and persons, to erect and style judicatories and

officers as they shall see necessary for the good government of the

people; also to call to account any court, magistrate, or other

officer for misdemeanor and maladministration, or for just cause may

fine, displace, or remove, them, or deal otherwise as the nature of

the ease shall require; and may deal or act in any other matter that

concerns the good of the state except the election of governor,

deputy-governor, assistants, treasurer and secretary, which shall be

done by the freemen at the yearly court of election, unless there be

any vacancy by reason of death or otherwise, after an election, when

it may be filled by the General Court. This court has power also, for

reasons satisfactory to them, to grant suspension, release, and jail

delivery upon reprieves in capital and criminal cases.

The elections for the assistants and superior officers are annual; for

the representatives, semi-annual. The sessions of the General Court

are semi-annual. The Governor and the speaker have the casting vote in

the Upper and Lower House, respectively.

The Superior Court consists of one chief judge and four others, and

holds two sessions in each county each year. Its jurisdiction holds

over all criminal cases extending to life, limb, or banishment; all

criminal cases brought from county courts by appeal or writ of error,

and in some matters of divorce.

The county court consists of one judge and four justices of the

quorum, with jurisdiction over all criminal cases not extending to

life, limb, or banishment, and with original jurisdiction in all civil

actions where the demand exceeds forty shillings. Justices of the

Peace, in the various towns, have charge of civil actions involving

less than forty shillings, and criminal jurisdiction in some cases,

where the fine does not exceed forty shillings, or the punishment

exceed ten stripes or sitting in the stocks. Judges and Justices are

annually appointed by the General Court, and commonly reappointed

during good behavior, while sheriffs are appointed by the governor and

council without time-limit and are subject to removal. Recently

county courts determined matters of equity involving from five pounds

to two hundred pounds, the Superior Court two hundred pounds to

sixteen hundred, and the General Assembly all others.

Probate districts, not coextensive with the counties, exist, with

appeal to the Superior Court.

In military matters, the governor is the captain-general of the

militia, and the General Court appoints the general officers and field

officers, and they are commissioned by the governor. Captains and

subalterns are chosen by the vote of the company and of the

householders living within the limits of the company, but must be

approved by the General Court and commissioned by the governor before

they can serve. All military officers hold their commissions during

the pleasure of the General Assembly and may not resign them without

permission, except under penalty of being reduced to the ranks.--

_Niles' Register,_ 1813, vol. iii, p. 443, etc. Corrected

slightly by reference to Swift's _System of Laws._

[ad] Banks and insurance companies began to organize about 1790 to

1810.

[ae] In 1818, for the first time, a dissenter, Mr. Croswell, rector of

Trinity Church, New Haven, preached the Election Sermon.

[af] Messrs. Pitkin, Todd, G. Lamed, Pettibone, and Wiley. Of these,

the first had been twenty times state representative, five times

speaker of the House, and for thirteen years had been representative

in Congress.

[ag] The first seven sections of the Bill of Bights according to the

final revision are:--

Sec. 1. That all men when they form a social compact, are equal in

rights; and that no man, or set of men are entitled to exclusive

public emoluments or privileges from the community.

Sec. 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and

all free governments are founded on their authority, and

instituted for their benefit; and that they have, at all times, an

undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of

government, in such a manner as they may think expedient.

Sec. 3. The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and

worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all

persons in this state; provided, that the right, hereby declared

and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of

licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the

peace and safety of the state.

Sec. 4. No preference shall be given by law to any Christian sect

or mode of worship.

Sec. 5. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his

sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of

that liberty.

Sec. 6. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the

liberty of speech or of the press.

Sec. 7. In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth

may be given in evidence; and the jury shall have the right to

determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court.

[ah] Mr. Trumbull asserts that "writers and historians are in error

when attributing to Mr. Morse of Suffield (the Baptist minister

aforementioned) the drafting of the Article on Religious Liberty. The

drafting committee were Messrs. Tomlinson and Stow, and the first

clause, as reported, seems to have been taken with slight alteration

from Governor Woleott's speech to the General Assembly, May, 1817,

namely, 'It is the right and duty of every man publicly and privately

to worship and adore the Supreme Creator and Preserver of the Universe

in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.'"

--J. H. Trumbull, _Notes on the Constitution_, pp. 56, 57.

[ai] The second section remained unchanged.

[aj] Seven hundred copies were distributed among the towns.

[ak] By later amendments, judges of the Supreme Court of Errors and

the Superior Court are nominated by the governor and appointed by the

General Assembly. Judges of probate are now elected by the electors in

their respective districts; justices of the peace in the several towns

by the electors in said towns; and sheriffs by their counties.

[al] By amendment of 1901, the vote for governor, lieutenant-governor,

secretary, treasurer, comptroller, and attorney-general was changed

from a majority to a plurality vote, the Assembly to decide between

candidates, if at any time two or more should receive "an equal and

the greatest number" of votes.

[am] "It cut the churches loose from dependence upon state support--It

threw them wholly on their own resources and on God." "The mass is

changing," wrote Dr. Beecher. "We are becoming another people. The old

laws answered when all men in a parish were of one faith."--Lyman

Beecher, _Autobiography,_ i, pp. 344, 453.

[an] Lyman Beecher.

APPENDIX

NOTES

CHAPTER I. THE EVOLUTION OF EARLY CONGREGATIONALISM.

1, H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as seen in Literature, p. 49.

2, Robert Browne, A True and Short Declaration, p. l.

3, H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as seen in Literature, p. 70.

4, Report of Conference April 3, 1590, quoted in F. J. Powicke, Henry

Barrowe, p. 54.

5, W. Walker, Creeds and Platforms, p. 12.

6, Ibid., pp. 14, 15; also H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as seen in

Literature, pp. 96-104.

7, Robert Browne, A Treatise on Reformation without Tarrying, pp. 4,

7,12.

8, Robert Browne, A True and Short Declaration, p. 7; Book which

Sheweth, pp. 117-148.

9, Robert Browne, Book which Sheweth, Questions 55-58.

10, Ibid., Def. 35-40; Henry Barrowe, Discovery of False Churches,

p. 34, and The True Description in Appendix IV of F. J. Powicke's

Henry Barrowe.

11, Robert Browne, Book which Sheweth, Def. 53 and 54.

12, Henry Barrowe, Discovery of False Churches, p. 48.

13, Henry Barrowe, Discovery of False Churches, pp. 166, 275; Robert

Browne, Book which Sheweth, Def. 51; A True and Short Declaration,

p. 20; The True Confession of Faith, Article 38.

14, H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as seen in Literature, pp. 221,

232; also John Brown, Pilgrim Fathers of New England, pp. 22-25.

15, The True Confession, Art. 39.

16, "The Seven Articles," of which the following is the text:--

(1) "To ye confession of fayth published in ye name of ye Church

of England and to every artikell thereof wee do w'th ye reformed

churches wheer wee live & also els where assent wholly.".

(2) "And as wee do acknowlidg ye doctryne of fayth theer tawght so

do wee ye fruites and effeckts of ye same docktryne to ye

begetting of saving fayth in thousands in ye land (conformistes &

reformistes) as ye ar called w'th whom also as w'th our brethren

wee do desyer to keepe speirtuall communion in peace and will

pracktis in our parts all lawful thinges."

(3) "The King's Majesty wee acknowlidg for Supreme Governor in his

dominion in all causes, and over all parsons [persons] and ye none

maye decklyne or apeale his authority or judgment in any cause

whatsoever, but ye in all thinges obedience is dewe unto him,

either active, if ye thing commanded be not against God's woord,

or passive yf itt bee, except pardon can bee obtayned."

(4) "Wee judge itt lawfull for his Majesty to apoynt bishops,

civill overseers, or officers in awthoryty onder hime in ye

severall provinces, dioses, congregations or parishes, to oversee

ye churches, and governe them civilly according to ye Lawes of ye

Land, uutto whom ye ar in all thinges to geve an account and by

them to bee ordered according to Godlyness." (This is not an

acknowledgment of spiritual--superiority or authority, only the

recognition that as church officers were also magistrates, the

king could appoint them as his civil servants.)

(5) "The authority of ye present bishops in ye land wee do

acknowlidg so far forth as ye same is indeed derived from his

Majesty untto them and as ye proseed in his name, whom wee will

also therein honor in all thinges and hime in them."

(6) "Wee believe ye no sinod, classes, convocation or assembly of

Ecclesiastical Officers hath any power or awthority att all but ye

same by ye Majestraet given unto them." (Intended to be a denial

of Presbyterianism.)

(7) "Lastly wee desyer to geve untto all Superiors dew honour to

preserve ye unity of ye spiritt w'th all ye feare God to have

peace w'th all men what in us lyeth and wherein wee err to bee

instructed by any." (Text of Points of Difference and Seven

Articles in W. Walker, Creeds and Platforms, pp. 75-93.)

CHAPTER II. THE TRANSPLANTING OF CONGREGATIONALISM.

17, The Commons prayed, "that no man hereafter be compelled to make or

yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without

common consent by Act of Parliament. And that none be called to make

answer, or to take such oaths, or to be confined or otherwise molested

or disputed concerning the same, or for refusal thereof. And that no

freeman may in such manner as is before mentioned be imprisoned or

detained."--Extract from the Petition of Right. See J. R. Green, Short

History of the English People, pp 486, 487.

18, E. H. Byington, The Puritan in England and New England, pp. 486,

487.

19, See Gott's Letter in Bradford's Letter-Book, Mass. Hist. Soc.,

iii, 67,68.

20, G. L. Walker, History of the First Church in Hartford, p. 154.

CHAPTER III. CHURCH AND STATE IN NEW ENGLAND.

21, Thomas Hooker, Survey of Church Discipline, chap. 3, p. 75; also

Mass. Col. Rec., iii, 424; J. Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 6, 7.

22, J. Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 6, 7; Plymouth Col. Rec., ii,

67; Mass. Col. Rec., i, 216, iii, 354; Hartford Town Voter, in

Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., vi, 32; Conn. Col. Rec., i, 311, 545.

23, Plymouth Col. Laws, ed. 1836, p. 258; Conn. Col. Rec., i, pp. 96,

138, 290, 331, 389, 525.

24, J. Cotton, A Discourse about Civil Government in a New Plantation

whose Design is Religion (written many years since), London, 1643,

pp. 12, 19. (This is a misprint in the title-page, for the author was

John Davenport.)

25, Mass. Col. Rec., i, 87.

26, J. Cotton, Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, pp. 50, 53.

27, Mass. Law of 1636; Conn. Col. Rec., i, 341.

28, Conn. Col. Rec., i, 525.

29, G. F. Ellis, Puritan Age in Massachusetts, p. 34.

30, Winthrop, i, 81.

31, Mass. Col. Rec., i, 142.

32, Winthrop, i, 287; H. M. Dexter, Ecclesiastical Councils of New

England, p. 31.

33, J. A. Doyle, Puritan Colonies, ii, 70.

CHAPTER IV. THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM AND THE HALF-WAY COVENANT.

34, C. Mather, Magnalia, ii, 277.

35, Horace Bushnell, in Discourse on Christian Nurture, p. 25.

36, Cotton Mather, Magnalia, ii, 179.

37, Results of Half-Way Covenant Convention, Prop. 4. See W. Walker,

Creeds and Platforms, p. 296.

38, W. Walker, Creeds and Platforms, p. 295. See Question 7, of

Results.

39, Conn. Col. Rec., i, 386, 426.

40, Conn. State Papers (Ecclesiastical), vol. i, Doc. 106. Quoted in

the Church Review and Ecclesiastical Register, x, p. 116.

41, Beardsley, Hist, of the Church in Connecticut, i, 101; Perry,

Hist, of Epis. Church in the United States, i, 283, 284.

42, Conn. Col. Rec., i, 437, 438.

43, G. L. Walker, Hist, of First Church in Hartford, p. 200.

44, Record of the United Colonies, i, 506.

45, G. L. Walker, Hist, of First Church in Hartford, p. 209.

46, L. Bacon, Coatr. to Eccl. Hist, of Connecticut, p. 29.

47, E. Stiles, Christian Union, p. 85; J. A. Doyle, Puritan Colonies,

ii, 69; Conn. Col. Rec., i, 545; ii, 290 and 557.

48, Conn. Col. Rec., vii, 33; viii, 74.

CHAPTER V. A PERIOD OF TRANSITION.

49, Thomas Prince, Christian History, i, 94.

50, Preface to Work of the Reforming Synod.

51, C. Mather, Magnalia, Book v, p. 40.

52, C. Mather, Ratio Discipline, p. 17.

53, C. M. Andrews, Three River Towns, p. 86. See also Bronson, Early

Government, in New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, iii, 315;

Conn. Col. Rec., 290-293, 321, 354.

54, Conn. Col. Rec., v, 67.

55, L. Bacon, Contr. to Ecel. History, p. 33.

56, Conn. Col. Rec., v, 87.

CHAPTER VI. THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM.

57, Saybrook Platform.

58, L. Bacon, Thirteen Historical Discourses, pp. 190, 191.

59, S. Stoddard, Instituted Churches, p. 29.

60, Trumbull, Hist, of Connecticut, i, 406; T. Clap, Hist, of Yale

College, p. 30.

61, Trumbull, Hist, of Connecticut, i, 406.

62, L. Bacon, Thirteen Historical Discourses, p. 190.

63, H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as seen in Literature, pp. 489,

490.

64, Conn. Col. Rec., v, 87.

65, Ibid., v, 50.

66, A. Johnston, Connecticut, p. 232.

CHAPTER VII. THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM AND THE TOLERATION ACT.

67, John Bolles, A Relation of the Opposition some Baptist People met

at Norwich in 1761.

68, Ibid., p. 7.

69, Quaker Laws. The New Haven Laws against Quakers deal thus

fiercely:--

"_Whereas_ there is a cursed sect of heretics lately risen up

in the world, which are commonly called Quakers, who take upon

them that they are immediately sent of God and infallibly assisted

by his spirit, who yet write and speak blasphemous opinions,

despise governments and the order of God, in church and

commonwealth... we do hereby order and declare

"That whosoever shall hereafter bring, or cause to be brought,

directly or indirectly, any known Quaker or Quakers, or other

blasphemous heretics, into this jurisdiction, every such person

shall forfeit the sum of 600 pounds to the jurisdiction, except it

appear that he wanted true knowledge or information of their being

such... and it is hereby ordered that what Quaker or Quakers

soever come into this jurisdiction, from foreign parts or places

adjacent, if it be about their civil, lawful occasions to be

quickly despatched among us, which time of stay shall be limited

by the civil authority in each plantation, and that they shall not

use any means by words, writings, books, or any other way, to go

about to seduce others, nor revile nor reproach, nor any other way

make disturbance or offend. They shall upon their first arrival,

or coming in, appear to be brought before the authorities of the

place and from them have license to put about and issue their

lawful occasions, and shall have one or more to attend upon them

at their charge until such occasions of theirs be discharged, and

they return out of the jurisdiction which if they refuse to do,

they shall be denied such free passage and commerce and be caused

to return back again, but if this first time they shall offend in

any of the ways as before expressed, and contrary to the intent of

this law, they shall be committed to prison, severely whipped,

kept to work, and none suffered to converse with them during their

imprisonment, which shall be no longer than necessity requires,

and at their own charge sent out of the jurisdiction."

For a second offense, they were to be branded, as well as to be

committed to prison. For a fourth offense, they were to have their

tongues bored through with hot irons. Their books, papers, etc., were

to subject their possessors to a fine of 5 pounds, and entertaining or

concealing a Quaker was to be punished by a fine of 20s.; while

undertaking to defend any of their heretical opinions was doubly

fined.--New Haven Col. Kec., ii, 217, 238,363.

In 1656, the Connecticut Court, in conformity to a suggestion from the

commissioners of the United Colonies, ordered that "no towne within

this jurisdiction shall entertaine any Quakers, Kanters, Adamites, or

such notorious heretiques, or suffer them to continue with them above

the space of fourteen days,... and shall give notice to the two next

towns to send them on their way under penalty of £5 per week for any

town entertaining any such person, nor shall any master of a ship land

such or any." In August, 1657, the above fine was imposed on the

individual who entertained the Quaker, etc., as well as on the town,

and an officer was appointed to examine suspects. A little later, a

penalty of 10s. was imposed for Quaker books and MSS. found in the

possession of any but a teaching elder. Twice the Court saw fit to

leave, notwithstanding all former orders, all such cases to the

jurisdiction of the separate towns, to order fines, banishment, or

corporal punishment, provided the fines "exceed not ten pounds."

The tone is brief and businesslike, dealing with a matter that had

already caused great trouble to the other United Colonies, and which

might become a menace to Connecticut. There are almost no recorded

cases of sentence being imposed. See Conn. Col. Kec., i, 283,303,308,

324.

70, J. Bowden, History of the Society of Friends, i, 104, quoting

Norton's Ensign, p. 52.

71, Ibid., i, 106.

72, Ibid., i, 440.

73, R. P. Hallowell, The Pioneer Quakers, p. 47.

74, R. R. Hinman, Antiquities of the Charter Government of

Connecticut, p. 229.

75, E. E. Beardsley, History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut,

i, 19.

76, A. L. Cross, Anglican Episcopate in the American Colonies, pp. 33

et seq.

77, Ibid., p. 95, note.

78, C. F. Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 377, 378.

79, Church Documents, Conn., i, 14.

80, Ibid., i, 59.

81, Ibid., i, 136.

CHAPTER VIII. THE FIRST VICTORY FOR DISSENT.

82, Church Documents, Conn., i, 153.

83, Ibid., i, 56.

84, S. D. McConnell, History of the American Episcopal Church, p. 132.

85, Conn. Col. Rec., viii, 106; and Church Documents, Conn., i, 280,

283.

86, Conn. Col. Rec., vii, 459, and viii, 123, 334.

87, Rogerine Laws. See Conn. Col. Rec., v. 248, 249.

88, C. W. Bowen, The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut, especially

pp. 48, 58, and 74.

89, The Talcott Papers, published in vols. iv and v of the

Conn. Hist. Soc. Collections.

90, Conn. Col. Rec., iv, 307.

91, Talcott Papers, i, 147, 189, and ii, 245, 246, in

Conn. Hist. Soc. Collections, vols. iv and v.

92, C. M. Andrews, The Connecticut Intestacy Law, in Yale Review, iii,

261 et seq.

93, Conn. Col. Rec., vii, 237.

94, Ibid., vii, 257.

CHAPTER IX. THE GREAT AWAKENING.

95, Jonathan Edwards' Works, iv, 306-324.

96, Ibid., iv, 81.

97, Lauer, Church and State, p. 77; also Conn. Col. Rec., vi, 33.

98, A. Johnston, Hist, of Conn., pp. 255, 256; also H. Bronson,

Historical Account of Conn. Currency, in New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers,

i, 51 et seq.

99, Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening, p. 13.

100, Edwards' Works, iv, 34-37.

CHAPTER X. THE GREAT SCHISM.

101, Conn. Col. Rec., vii, 309.

102, Ibid., viii, 522.

103, Charles Chauncy, Seasonable Thoughts, p. 249.

104, Conn. Col. Rec., viii, 438, 468; also Joseph Tracy, The Great

Awakening, p. 303.

105, Conn. Col. Rec., viii, 454 et seq.; B. Trumbull, Hist, of

Connecticut, ii, 165; C. Chauncy, Seasonable Thoughts, p. 41.

106, Conn. Col. Rec., viii, 456.

107, Ibid., viii, 456.

108, Ibid., viii, 457.

109, Trumbull, Hist, of Conn., ii, 135.

110, S. W. S. Button, Hist, of the North Church in New Haven.

111, E. D. Lamed, Hist, of Windham County, vol. ii, book 5, chapter

3.

112, O. W. Means, Hist, of the Enfleld Separate Church.

113, Conn. Col. Rec., October, 1751.

114, E. D. Lamed, Hist, of Windham County, vol. ii, book 5, chapter

3.

115, Conn. Col. Rec., viii, 501.

116, Ibid., viii, 502.

117, E. D. Larned, Hist, of Windham County, ii, 417, 419, 425, 426;

L. Bacon, Thirteen Historical Discourses, p. 245.

118, Solomon Paine's View, pp. 15, 16.

119, Thomas Clap, History of Yale, p. 27.