The extracts which have been given from the correspondence of Mr.
Galloway present, in a point of view sufficiently clear and distinct,
the unquestionable hostility of the tories towards the whigs; the
manner in which they wished the British ministry to conduct the
contest; the punishment they would have inflicted upon the rebels if
they had been successful, and the form in which they would have
subsequently governed the country. These views are deemed a sufficient
reason for the feelings of the whigs; a justification of those
legislative disqualifications of the tories which were adopted by the
State of New-York during the war of the revolution, and cause for the
patriotic determination that the refugees should not be protected or
permitted to remain in the land which they had so zealously struggled
to enslave.
At a very early period after the declaration of Independence, parties
were formed among the whigs. In the State of New-York, at the first
election, in 1777, for governor under the new Constitution, General
Schuyler was presented in opposition to George Clinton, but was
defeated. With that defeat it is believed commenced political
heart-burnings and collisions which, although at times smothered, were
never extinguished. Schuyler was a man of great boldness and sagacity.
He was personally unpopular, yet he possessed a commanding influence
over the mind of those with whom lie commingled or was in any manner
connected; an ascendancy which, in a measure, was to be ascribed to
the force of intellect.
On the 12th of September, 1780, General Schuyler was a candidate for
Congress. At that time the members were chosen by the legislature.
Each house, viva voce, named a candidate. The two branches then met
together and compared their nominations. If they both designated the
same individual, he was declared to be chosen. If not, they proceeded
as one body to a ballot, and the person having a majority of all the
votes given was duly elected. The house almost unanimously nominated
General Schuyler, the vote being for Schuyler, thirty-one, for Ezra
L'Hommidieu seven. The senate nominated L'Hommidieu. In joint ballot,
notwithstanding the vote Schuyler had received in the house,
L'Hommidieu was chosen. For some reason not then explained, there was
a sudden and extraordinary change of opinion in the legislature in
relation to General Schuyler.
About this period, certain individuals were for the appointment of a
"Supreme dictator, with all the powers conferred by the Roman people."
A convention was to be held at Hartford, consisting of delegates from
the five New-England states and the state of New-York, for the
purpose, among other objects, of devising more efficient measures for
the supply of the army. Judge Hobart, Egbert Benson, and General
Schuyler were the delegates. "It was for a contemplated by the
legislature to give them instructions to propose that a dictator
should be appointed, for which a majority in the more popular branch
were believed to be favourable. This 'mad project,' as Colonel
Alexander Hamilton designated it, was communicated to him by General
Schuyler in a letter of the 16th of September, 1780." [1]
The scheme was opposed with great ardour and perseverance by Governor
George Clinton, Ezra L'Hommidieu, and others; but, through the
influence of the former, in a great measure, the "mad project" was
defeated. Here again the party lines were drawn between Governor
Clinton and General Schuyler. It is highly probable that the plan for
appointing a "supreme dictator" was a principal cause for the change
of opinion respecting General Schuyler in the legislature on the 12th
of September, and contributed to defeat his election to Congress.
From this period until the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the
Clinton and the Schuyler parties continued to exist. In the ranks of
the latter there was great concert in action. On an examination of the
legislative journals from 1777 to 1788, it will be seen, that with
General Schuyler were the Jays, the Livingstons, the Van Rensellaers,
and the Bensons, and that they almost uniformly voted together.
And now of the tories. In the year 1779 some of them, who had removed
from Albany within the British lines, petitioned the legislature for
leave to return, which petition was rejected. At the same session an
act was passed requiring all counsellors and attorneys, before they
could be permitted to practice in any court, to produce evidence of
their attachment to the liberty and independence of the United States.
On the 20th of November, 1781, a special act was passed on the same
subject, confirmatory of what bad been done in 1779.
The first session of the legislature after the revolutionary war was
held in the city of New-York. It was convened by proclamation of the
governor on the 6th of January, 1784, and continued its sitting until
the 12th of May following. In the first month of the session, numerous
petitions were presented by the tories, praying to be relieved from
their banishment, and to be permitted a residence within the state.
The legislature perceived that, if they did not act promptly, their
tables would be covered with these memorials. Therefore, in the
language of Governor Clinton at the opening of the session, the
assembly said--
"While we recollect the general progress of a war which has been
marked with cruelty and rapine; while we survey the ruins of this once
flourishing city and its vicinity; while we sympathize in the
calamities which have reduced so many of our virtuous fellow-citizens
to want and distress, and are anxiously solicitous for means to repair
the wastes and misfortunes which we lament," we cannot hearken to
these petitions. They were referred to a select committee, which
committee in a few days reported against granting their prayer, and
the house instantly, without a division, agreed to the report. This
was on the 9th of February, 1784.
On the 11th of February, 1784, the assembly passed a resolution
directing that the names of those persons that had been attainted
should be communicated to the governors of the several states;
requesting to be supplied, in like manner, with "a list of the persons
proscribed or banished by their respective states, in order that
thereby the _principles of federal union_ may be adhered to and
preserved." In the senate this resolution was permitted to sleep.
Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, in a letter to John Jay dated the
25th of January, 1784, thus speaks of parties at this period. "Our
parties are, first, the tories, who still hope for power, under the
idea that the remembrance of the past should be lost, though they
daily keep it up by their avowed attachment to Great Britain;
secondly, the violent whigs, who are for expelling all tories from the
state, in hopes, by that means, to preserve the power in their own
hands. The third are those who wish to suppress all violence, to
soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists, and not to banish
them from that social intercourse which may, by degrees, obliterate
the remembrance of past misdeeds."
On the 8th of March, 1784, Peter Yates and three hundred others
petitioned the legislature to prevent those persons who had joined or
remained with the enemy during the late war from returning, and to
prohibit such as have remained from being eligible to any office of
profit or trust. On the 31st of the same month strong resolutions were
introduced into the house, and adopted by both branches, against the
tories, declaring, among other things, "That as, on the one hand, the
rules of justice do not require, so, on the other, the public
tranquility will not permit, that such adherents who have been
attainted should be restored to the rights of citizenship."
In May, 1784, the legislature passed an act entitled "An act to,
preserve the freedom and independence of this state, and for other
purposes." The object of this law was to prohibit the tories from
holding any office. The Council of Revision returned the bill, with
objections to its passage, one of which was, "that so large a portion
of the citizens remained in parts of the _Southern District_ which
were possessed by the British armies, that in most places it would be
difficult, and in many _absolutely impossible_, to find men to fill
the necessary offices, even for _conducting_ elections, until a new
set of inhabitants could be procured."
This bill of disfranchisement, notwithstanding the objections of the
Council of Revision, was passed by more than two thirds of both
branches, and thus became a law. Such were the feelings of the
"violent whigs;" such the policy of the first legislature after the
termination of the war. But, unfortunately, among those who had fought
the battles of the revolution, there were some who doubted the
capacity of the people for self-government, while there were others
who sought power and influence at the hazard of principle. The
Schuyler party were in the minority. The Clinton party, designated by
Chancellor Livingston as the "violent whigs," were uncompromising on
the question of banishing the tories, who were numerous, especially in
the Southern District. It seemed probable, therefore, if restored to
citizenship, that they would amalgamate with the _third_ party, or
that class of whigs "who wished to suppress all violence, and to
soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."
In March, 1783, the legislature passed an act entitled "An act for
granting more effectual relief in cases of trespass." The object of
this act was to enable the whigs at the termination of the war to
recover from the tories rent for any landed estate they might have
occupied; and in cases of suit for such rent, the act declares "that
no defendant or defendants shall be admitted to plead in justification
any military order or command whatsoever for such occupancy."
Under this statute an action was commenced by Mrs. Rutgers against Mr.
Waddington, in the Mayor's Court of the City of New-York, for the
recovery of rent for the occupancy of a brewhouse and malthouse, the
property of the said Mrs. Rutgers. The cause was argued on the 29th of
June, 1784, James Duane as Mayor, and Richard Varick as Recorder,
presiding. On the 27th of August the court gave judgment "that the
plea of the defendant was good for so much of the time as he held
under the British commander-in-chief; because, in the opinion of the
court, a liberal construction of the law of nations would make it so."
As this decision involved a great principle, and would materially
affect the whigs whose property had been occupied by the tories during
the war, it produced great excitement.
A meeting of the whigs was convened on the 13th of September, 1784. A
committee was appointed, and an address to the people of the state
prepared and published by them. That committee consisted of Melancton
Smith, Peter Ricker, Jonathan Lawrence, Anthony Rutgers, Peter T.
Curtenius, Thomas Tucker, Daniel Shaw, Adam Gilchrist, Junr., and John
Wiley. Of this committee Melancton Smith was the life and soul. He was
the author of the address--a clear, able, and unanswerable exposition
of the case. It states the determination of Mrs. Rutgers to carry it
up to the Supreme Court, and, if defeated there, to the Senate, which,
with the judges of the Supreme Court, constituted the Court for the
Correction of Errors. Having reference to the contemplated
proceedings, the address closes as follows:--
"Preparatory to such an event, we exhort you to be cautious, in your
future choice of senators, that none be elected but those on whom,
from long and certain experience, you can rely as men attached to the
liberty of America, and firm friends to our laws and constitution; men
who will spurn at any proposition that has a tendency to curtail the
privileges of the people, and who, at the same time that they protect
us against _judicial tyranny_, have wisdom to see the propriety of
supporting that necessary independence in courts of justice, both of
the legislature and people.
"Having confined ourselves to constitutional measures, and now
solemnly declaring our disapprobation of all others, we feel a freedom
in sounding the alarm to our fellow-citizens. If that independence,
which we have obtained at a risk which makes the acquisition little
less than miraculous, was worth contending for against a powerful and
enraged monarch, and at the expense of the best blood in America,
surely its preservation is worth contending for against those _among
ourselves who might impiously hope to build their greatness upon the
ruins of that fabric which was so dearly established_.
"That the principle of decision in the case of Rutgers _vs_.
Waddington is dangerous to the freedom of our government, and that a
perseverance in that principle would leave our legislature nothing but
a name, and render their sessions nothing more than an expensive form
of government, the preceding remarks must evidence.
"Permit us, on this occasion, earnestly to entreat you to join us in
watchfulness against every attempt that may be used, either violently
and suddenly, or _gently_ and _imperceptibly, to effect a revolution_
in the _spirit_ and _genius_ of our government; and _should there be
among us characters to whom the simplicity of it is offensive_, let
our attention and perseverance be such as to _preclude the hopes of a
change_."
Here again the party lines of 1777 are distinctly marked. Melancton
Smith, Jonathan Lawrence, &c., were of the Clinton party, while Mr.
Duane and Mr. Varick were attached to the Schuyler interest.
In October, 1784, the case of Rutgers _vs_. Waddington was brought
before the legislature, and on the 27th of that month the assembly
_Resolved_, That this adjudication is subversive of all law and good
order; because, if a court instituted for the _benefit and government
of a corporation_ may take upon themselves to dispense with a law of
the state, all other courts may do the like: therefore,
_Resolved_, That it be recommended to the honourable the Council of
Appointment, at their next session, to appoint such persons to be
mayor and recorder of the city of New-York as will govern themselves
by the known laws of the land.
Subsequently Waddington compromised the claim against him; but the law
in similar cases became operative, and remained so until its repeal by
the legislature. In the following session, March, 1785, an
unsuccessful attempt was made to repeal the act of 1781, disqualifying
tory counsellors and attorneys; some modification, however, of other
laws of a similar character was effected. In April, 1786, the
repealing act passed; and the restriction on the tory lawyers being
removed, they were permitted to practise in the several courts of the
state. During the same month, "an act for the payment of certain sums
of money" was amended by adding a clause, "restoring to the rights of
citizenship, on taking the oath of abjuration and allegiance," all
such persons as had been disfranchised by the third clause of the act
entitled "An act to preserve the freedom and independence of this
state," passed the 12th of May, 1784. During this session the Schuyler
party had the ascendence, and on all questions having a political
aspect the names of Alexander Hamilton, Richard Varick, C. Livingston,
Nicholas Bayard, David Brooks, James Livingston, &c., will be found on
the same side.
On the 10th of March, 1787, Mr. Hamilton asked leave, which was
granted, to bring in a bill to repeal the act entitled "An act for
granting relief in case of certain trespasses." This was the act under
which the suit had been commenced against Waddington, and which case
produced so much excitement in the summer and autumn of 1784. Mr.
Hamilton's bill passed; but, lest there should be some forgotten
statute that might restrict or limit the political privileges of the
tories, it was deemed expedient, on the 13th of April, to introduce
and pass an act under the imposing title of "An act to repeal all laws
of this state inconsistent with the treaty of peace." As its
provisions met every possible case, the tories were now placed on a
footing with the whigs. All they wanted was leaders. The rank and file
they already possessed.
The Schuyler party sought allies. The tories were numerous, especially
in the Southern District. The Clinton party, designated by Chancellor
Livingston, in his letter to John Jay, as the "_violent whigs_," were
uncompromising on the question of banishing the tories from the state.
It seemed probable, therefore, that, sooner or later, if restored to
citizenship, they would amalgamate with that class of whigs who wished
to suppress "all violence, and to soften the rigour of the laws
against the royalists."
The effect of these legislative measures on the tories was anticipated
by both friends and foes. Chancellor Livingston, in January, 1784, had
said that there were three parties in the state:--
_First_. The tories.
_Second_. The violent whigs.
_Third_. Those who wished " to soften the rigour of the laws against
the royalists."
The Council of Revision, composed of Robert R. Livingston, Justice
Morris, and Judge Hobart, had solemnly placed on record their opinion,
that, in some portions of the Southern District "it would be
difficult, and in many _absolutely impossible_, to find whigs to fill
the necessary offices even for _conducting_ elections." Under such
circumstances it was evident that the _first_ and _third_ parties must
amalgamate, and such was the result.
In January, 1788, the legislature met, and directed the call of a
State Convention, to whom was to be submitted the Federal
Constitution, as adopted by the General Convention held in
Philadelphia in May, 1787. During this session the same party lines
continued to be visible, although the respective parties had now
assumed, or were designated by new names. The Schuyler was called the
Federal party, and the Clinton the anti-Federal party; thev were
composed, however, of the same individuals, with very few exceptions.
The great, and almost the only strength which the federal party
possessed in the state was in the Southern District. Here the
acquisition of the tories rendered their power and influence
irresistible. From this district, composed of the counties of
Westchester, New-York, Richmond, King's, Queen's, and Suffolk, the
federalists had in the Assembly, during the session of 1788-89,
_twenty_ votes, and on no _party_ question did they command, during
the whole session, more than _twenty-three_ votes.
In December, 1788, a bill for carrying into operation the federal
constitution being under consideration, a proposition was made to
choose United States senators; but the federalists having a majority
in the Senate, and the anti-federalists a majority in the House of
Assembly, no compromise between the parties could be effected, and
consequently no senators were chosen.
The following persons may be considered as constituting the strength
of the Schuyler, now federal party, in the assembly of 1788-89:--
Brockholst Livingston, of the city of New-York. William W. Gilbert, "
" Alexander Macomb, " " Richard Harrison, " " Nicholas Hoffman, " "
John Watts, Jun., " " Nicholas Low, " " Gulian Verplanck, " " Comfort
Sands, " " Philip Van Cortlandt, Westchester county. Philip
Livingston, " " Nathaniel Rockwell, " " Walter Seaman, " " Jonathan
Horton, " " John Younglove, Albany county. Henry K. Van Rensellaer, "
" Stephen Carman, Queen's county. Whitehead Cornwell, " " Peter
Vandervoort, King's county. Aquilla Giles, " " Abraham Bancker,
Richmond county. John C. Dongan, " " Samuel A. Barker, Dutchess
county.
It will be observed, that all the above Schuyler or federal members,
with the exception of _two_ from Albany and _one_ from Dutchess
county, were elected as representatives from the Southern District.
Having stated the origin and progress of the great political parties
in the State of New-York, as they appear from the public records, it
may be proper to add that Colonel Burr belonged to what was termed by
Mr. Livingston "the violent whig party." By that party, while the
tories were disfranchised, Mr. Burr was elected in 1784 to represent
the city and county of New-York in the legislature. By that party, in
1789, he was appointed attorney-general of the state. By that party,
in 1791, he was appointed a senator of the United States. By that
party, in 1792, he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. By that
party, subsequently, he was elected a member of the Assembly and a
member of the Convention to revise the Constitution of the State, of
which convention he was president; and by that party, in 1800, he was
elected vice-president of the United States.
It is not intended to discuss the policy, the humanity, or the justice
of the several measures proposed or adopted in relation to the tories
by "_the violent whigs_," or by those whigs who wished "_to soften the
rigour of the laws against the loyalists_." The historical facts have
been given, and the sources from whence they were derived specified.
The feelings and opinions of "_the violent whigs_," are expressed by
the legislature of the state on the 9th of February, 1784, and by
Governor George Clinton at the opening of that session in the city of
New-York. They say--" While we recollect the general progress of a war
which has been marked with cruelty and rapine; while we survey the
ruins of this once flourishing city and its vicinity; while we
sympathize in the calamities which have reduced so many of our
virtuous fellow-citizens to want and distress, and are anxiously
solicitous for means to repair the wastes and misfortunes which we
lament, we cannot hearken to these petitions."
On the other hand, the sentiments and views of those whigs who wished
"_to soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists_" are to be
found in the following extracts of letters.
JOHN JAY TO GOVERNOR WILLIAM LIVINGSTON. [2]
"Passay, 9th April, 1783.
"The tories will doubtless cause some difficulty; but that they have
always done; and as this will probably be the _last time_, we must
make the best of it. A universal, indiscriminate condemnation and
expulsion of those people would not redound to our honour, because so
harsh a measure would partake more of vengeance than of justice. For
my part, I wish that all, except _the faithless and cruel_, may be
forgiven. That exception would indeed _extend to very few_; but even
if it applied to the case of one only, that one ought, in my opinion,
to be saved."
JOHN JAY TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
"Passay, 12th September, 1783.
"Europe hears much, and wishes to hear more of divisions, seditions,
violences, and confusions among us. The tories are generally and
greatly pitied; _more, indeed, than they deserve_. The indiscriminate
expulsion and ruin of that whole class and description of men would
not do honour to our magnanimity or humanity, especially in the
opinion of those nations who consider, with more astonishment than
pleasure, the terms of peace which America has obtained."
Footnotes:
1. See Life of Hamilton, Vol. I., p. 316
2. Jay's Works, Vol. I., p. 128.