Who Was Absent From the Convention

Posted on September 6, 2014 by “Caius”

Timothy Pickering and John Lowell were absent from the convention.  The convention’s delegates were selected by state legislatures.  Timothy Pickering represented Massachusetts nationally in the House of Representatives.  In Washington he was noted for his obstructionism of the war with Britain.

John Lowell, Jr. was a political writer who promoted Federalist ideals.  He was the son of Judge John Lowell.  Wealthy and philanthropic, he founded the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Athenaeum.  He is best remembered for his pamphlet “Mr. Madison’s War; a Dispassionate Inquiry into the Reasons alleged by Madison for declaring an Offensive and Ruinous War against Great Britain” published in 1812.  He earned the nicknames “Crazy Jack,” or “The Boston Rebel,” from Democratic-Republicans for his attacks on Madison and the war.[1]   He was not part of the Massachusetts legislature, where the impetus for the Hartford Convention originated.  He confessed to Timothy Pickering  “I gave great offence during the sitting of our legislature by openly opposing the calling a convention.”  He was concerned the convention would not go far enough.[2]

 

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison, ”Our Most Unpopular War,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, V. 80. (1968) 48-9.

[2]John Lowell  to Timothy Pickering,  3 December 1814, Henry Adams (ed.) Documents relating to New-England Federalism 1800-1815, (Boston:  Little, Brown and Company, 1877) 413.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Was Absent From the Convention

How Other New England States Replied to Invitations to a Convention

Posted on August 30, 2014 by “Caius”

Just three New England states appointed delegates to the proposed convention.

Massachusetts led the way with twelve delegates:  George Cabot, William Prescott, Harrison Gray Otis, Timothy Bigelow, Nathan Dane, George Bliss, Joshua Thomas, Hodijah Baylies, Daniel Waldo, Joseph Lyman, Samuel S. Wilde and Stephen Longfellow.[1]

Connecticut’s legislature sent seven delegates:  Chauncey Goodrich, James Hillhouse, John Treadwell, Zepheniah Swift, Nathaniel Smith, Calvin Goddard, and Roger M. Sherman.[2]

The legislature of Rhode Island sent three delegates:  Daniel Lyman, Benjamin Hazard and Edward Manton.[3]

Vermont was under siege from the British.    The Federalist legislative caucus, with the advice of Governor Gilman, did not send delegates[4]

In New Hampshire, the legislature was not in session.  Democratic-Republicans controlled the governor’s council, and even Federalists, such as Daniel Webster, did not support the convention.  At first, New Hampshire did not send delegates. Later, two counties in New Hampshire with Federalist majorities held county conventions to send delegates to Hartford, Benjamin West and Miles Olcutt.[5]

On November 9, 1814 the Boston Centinel reported the legislatures of Rhode Island and Connecticut had accepted the invitation to send delegates to the convention.  Referring to the original federal edifice, paraded in Philadelphia after the ratification of the Constitution, the Centinel published an illustration of a new federal edifice with three columns.  On December 9, 1814 a wit, writing for Yankee, a Democratic-Republican newspaper, said the three pillars resembled a snuff bottle.  Democratic-Republicans then disparaged the meeting in Hartford as the “Snuff Bottle Convention.”[6]

Who Was Absent From the Convention

 

[1] [Theodore Lyman] Short Account of the Hartford Convention Taken from Official Documents and Addressed to the Fair Minded and Well Disposed to which is Added An Attested Copy of the Secret Journal of  that Body (Boston: O. Everett, 1813) 22.

[2] [Lyman] Short Account, 22.

[3] [Lyman] Short Account, 22.

[4] James M. Banner, Jr.  To the Hartford Convention:  The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts 1789-1815 (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1970) 328.

[5] [Lyman] Short Account, 22; Banner, To the Hartford Convention,328-9.

[6] Samuel Eliot Morison, “Our Most Unpopular War” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, V. 80 (1968) 51.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Comments Off on How Other New England States Replied to Invitations to a Convention

What John Adams Thought About Cabot and the Convention

Posted on August 23, 2014 by “Caius”

 

Democratic-Republicans feared the Hartford Convention would lead to a confederation in New England.  So did John Adams.[1]

A twenty-three year old Federalist visited Adams, then eighty years old.  He wanted letters of introduction to Jefferson and other Virginians.  John Adams differed from his fellow Federalists.  He advocated war with Britain.  The young Federalist related:[2]

“[Adams] was dressed in a single-breasted dark-green coat, buttoned tightly by very large white metal buttons over his somewhat rotund person.  As he grew more and more excited in his discourse he impatiently endeavored to thrust his hand into the breast of his coat.  The buttons did not yield readily; at last he forced his hand in, saying, as he did so, in a very loud voice and most excited manner:  ‘Thank God! Thank God! George Cabot’s close-buttoned ambition has broke out at last:  he wants to be President of New England, sir!’”[3]

In Virginia, the young Federalist visited Thomas Jefferson.   Jefferson was certain the British would conquer New Orleans and occupy it indefinitely.[4]

Next:  How Other New England States Replied to Invitations to a Convention

 

[1] Henry Adams, History of the United States of America During the Administrations of James Madison, (New York:  Literary Classics of the United States, 1986) 1121.

[2] Adams, History…James Madison, 1121.

3 George Ticknor’s anecdote from the Life of Ticknor, quoted in Adams, History…James Madison, 1121-2.

[4] Adams, History…James Madison, 1122.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why Timothy Pickering Had His Doubts

Posted on August 16, 2014 by “Caius”

After years promoting a convention of New England states, Timothy Pickering was in favor of it. George Cabot and Harrison Gray Otis, two moderates, headed the delegation from Massachusetts.  In a confidential letter to John Lowell, Pickering began by praising George Cabot.  He wrote:

“His information is extensive; his experience and observation, invaluable.  I do not know who has more political sagacity, a sounder judgment, or more dignity of character with unspotted integrity; and perhaps no man’s advice would go further to save a nation that was in his view salvable.”[1]

But then, Pickering had his doubts.  He noted that Cabot was “pressed into this situation, reluctantly consenting to take it.” [2]

“But does he not despair of the Commonwealth?  He considers the evil—the radical evil—to be inherent in the government itself, in democracy, and therefore incurable.  Will he, then, think any plan which the wisdom of the Convention may devise worth an effort of his mind? … He once said to me… ‘Why can’t you and I let the world ruin itself its own way?’…  In this wicked world, it is the duty of every good man, though he cannot restore it to innocence, to strive to prevent its growing worse.”[3]

Next:  What John Adams Said About Cabot and the Convention

 

 

[1]Timothy Pickering to John Lowell, 7 November, 1814, Henry Adams (ed.) Documents relating to New-England Federalism. 1800-1815, (Boston:  Little, Brown, and Company, 1877)406.

2 Pickering to Lowell, 406.

[3] Pickering to Lowell, 406.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Timothy Pickering Had His Doubts

What the Committee Reported

Posted on August 10, 2014 by “Caius”

Harrison Gray Otis reported for his committee:

“The state of the national Treasury…requires an augmentation of existing taxes; and if in addition to these the people of Massachusetts, deprived of their commerce and harassed by a formidable enemy, are compelled to provide for the indispensable duty of self-defence, it must soon become impossible for them to sustain this burden…This people are not ready for conquest or submission; but being ready and determined to defend themselves, they have the greatest need of those resources derivable from themselves which the national government has hitherto thought proper to employ elsewhere.”[1]

                                                                   Harrison Gray Otis

The United States had not lived up to its constitutional duty to defend New England.  Rather than proposing a convention by a single state, Otis and his committee advised that states in New England should be invited to a joint convention.[2]

The convention would have several objectives.  The first was to provide defense for New England.  The second was to lay the groundwork for radical reform followed by a nation-wide convention of the states. [3]

The committee also advised enlisting a Massachusetts army of ten thousand troops, a million dollar loan, and a meeting with delegates from other New England states to devise methods for defense of New England.[4]

The Massachusetts legislature selected twelve delegates headed by moderate Federalists George Cabot and Harrison Gray Otis.  They would invite other states in New England to take part in a convention scheduled for December 15, 1814.

The need to defend New England finally galvanized moderate Federalists to organize a convention that radicals such as Timothy Pickering had long proposed.

Why Timothy Pickering Had His Doubts

Look for it Monday, August 18

 

[1] Senate Report of October 18, 1814, quoted in Henry Adams, History of the United States of America During the Administrations of James Madison (New York:  Literary Classics of the United States) 1066.

[2] Senate Report, quoted in Adams,  History…Administrations of James Madison, 1066.

[3] Senate Report, quoted in Adams,  History…Administrations of James Madison, 1067.

[4] Senate Report, quoted in Adams,  History…Administrations of James Madison, 1067.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the Committee Reported

How Massachusetts Reacted When the British Captured Castine, Maine

Posted on August 2, 2014 by “Caius”

New England was defenseless against the British.  Earlier in the war, Federalist governors refused to pledge their state militias to defense of the nation. [1] After the British captured Castine, a town in Maine, Governor Strong of Massachusetts called up the Massachusetts militia to defend Maine.

He then called the Massachusetts legislature for an emergency session on October 5, 1814.  He explained that President Madison refused to repay Massachusetts for the expense of calling the state militia into service.  He said:

“The situation of this State is peculiarly dangerous and perplexing.  We have been led by the terms of the Constitution to rely on the government of the Union to provide for our defence.  We had resigned to that government the revenues of the State with the expectation that this object would not be neglected…Let us then, relying on the support and direction of Providence, united in such measures for our safety as the times demand and the principles of justice and the law of self-preservation will justify.”[2]

On September 10, 1814, the widely read Boston Centinel had proclaimed the federal government was nearly defunct.  The newspaper urged New Englanders to provide for their own protection.[3]

Governor Strong’s address appealed to the state to take back the powers it had delegated to the federal government.[4]  The Massachusetts legislature formed a committee, led by Harrison Gray Otis, to explore the issue.

Next:  What the committee reported

Look  for it Monday, August 11

 

 

 

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and  Henry Steele Commager The Growth of the American Republic, V. I (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962) 427.

[2] Henry Adams, History of the United States of America during the Administrations of James Madison, (New York:  Literary Classics of the United States, 1986) 1064-5.

[3] Adams, History…Administrations of James Madison, 1065.

[4] Adams, History…Administrations of James Madison, 1065.

Posted in From The Desk, Newspaper Politics, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Massachusetts Reacted When the British Captured Castine, Maine

How Napoleon’s Defeat at Leipzig Affected War in the United States

Posted on July 27, 2014 by “Caius”

 

 

In October 1813, Napoleon was defeated in the Battle of Leipzig.  On April 11, 1814, Austria, Russia and Prussia formed an alliance, signing the Treaty of Fontainebleau.  The treaty removed Napoleon as emperor of France, exiling him to the isle of Elba.  He would not return until February 26, 1815.

Without the distraction of Napoleon, the British could pay more attention to the war with the United States.  Out of necessity, Congress repealed the detested Embargo of 1813,  on April 14, 1814.

In June 1814, the British began a blockade of ports in Massachusetts.  In July, the British captured parts of Maine.  Citizens in the occupied territories were forced to swear allegiance to King George.  On August 31 New Englanders received news that the British captured Washington burning the Capitol and White House.[1]

How New Englanders Reacted to the British

Look for it Monday, August 4

 

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison, “Our Most Unpopular War” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, V. 80 (1968) 45.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Napoleon’s Defeat at Leipzig Affected War in the United States

How the Embargo of 1813 Affected New England

Posted on July 21, 2014 by “Caius”

Despite Federalist protests against the war, New England’s economy prospered.  Enterprising New Englanders profited by smuggling goods to the British in Canada.  Madison was outraged.  He reported to Congress on December 9, 1813:

“The tendency of our commercial and navigation laws…favor the enemy…Supplies of the most essential kinds find their way…to British ports and British armies…Even the fleets and troops infesting our coasts and waters are by like supplies accommodated and encouraged in their predatory and incursive warfare.”[1]

                                                                             James Madison

 

Madison’s motives for a new embargo remain unclear.  Other laws prohibited contact with the enemy.  An embargo would have little effect on the British.  Congress, nevertheless, approved it.[2]

The Embargo of 1813, passed December 17, 1813, banned American ships and their cargoes from departure.  It outlawed certain British products from importation.  It barred a foreign ship from entering American ports unless three-quarters of its crew were from the nation it represented.  It forbade the ransom of ships.

The Embargo spurred New England once again into action.  Forty New England towns held meetings, resulting in addresses to the Massachusetts legislature, the General Court.[3]

How Napoleon’s Defeat at Leipzig Affected War in the United States

Look for it Monday, July 28

 

 

[1]James Madison’s address to Congress, December 9, 1813, quoted in Henry Adams, History of the United States of America During the Administrations of James Madison (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1986) 873.

[2] Adams, History…Administrations James Madison, 874.

[3] Adams, History…Administrations James Madison, 909.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Embargo of 1813 Affected New England

How the Peace Party Failed

Posted on July 12, 2014 by “Caius”

 

Noah Webster’s friends tried to broaden the scheme for a convention.  They proposed a state-wide convention in Massachusetts.   Federalist Party leaders knew the Massachusetts senate would never approve of a convention.  It had a Democratic-Republican majority.[1]

Instead, they backed DeWitt Clinton as a “peace party” candidate.  Clinton had pledged to seek peace if elected.  In September 1812, Federalists met in a clandestine convention to propose Clinton.[2]

The movement toward a peace party and a peace candidate failed when Clinton was narrowly defeated by James Madison.  Clinton needed just nineteen more electoral votes.  Had Pennsylvania supported Clinton, he would have won.[3]

This was the fourth time Federalists supported a candidate who was defeated.  Working with the moderate Federalists within the Massachusetts state government brought no results.  Federalists opposing Madison, the war and the use of Massachusetts’ state militia for national defense had to look outside the state government.[4]

Next:  How the Embargo of 1813 Affected New England’s Federalists

Look for it Monday, July 21

 

 

[1]James M. Banner, Jr. To the Hartford Convention:  The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts 1789-1815, (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf 1970) 310-312.

[2] Banner, To the Hartford Convention 311-2.

[3] Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 312-3.

[4] Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 313-4.

Posted in From The Desk | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Peace Party Failed

What Noah Webster Had Already Done

Posted on July 5, 2014 by “Caius”

Noah Webster had proposed a convention to Governor Strong.  Cautiously, Strong brought Webster’s idea to his council, controlled by the Federalists.  The council shelved Webster’s proposal.  They favored a more cautious approach.  They advocated Federalists hold conventions in the counties.  Each locality was to send memorials to Madison and Congress denouncing the war.[1]

Their caution was well advised.  Democratic-Republicans held the Massachusetts senate.  As representatives of Madison’s party, they would thwart any attempts at a convention.[2]

Moderate Federalists had their eye on the autumn elections.  They proposed  a “peace party,” nominating a Democratic-Republican to run against Madison.  They favored DeWitt Clinton, who had privately assured them that he would pursue peace if elected.  [1]

How the Peace Party Failed

Look  for it Monday, July 14.

[1] James M. Banner, Jr.  To the Hartford Convention:  The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts 1789-1815, (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf)  310.

[2]  Banner, Jr. in To the Hartford Convention , 310-11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Noah Webster Had Already Done