How Hamilton Learned About Roger Griswold’s Remarks on Burr

Posted on February 17, 2014 by “Caius”

On March 11, 1804, Griswold tried to persuade Federalists that secession was necessary.  He wrote to Oliver Wolcott, Jr.  Wolcott was a prominent Connecticut Federalist.  Griswold promoted the idea that Aaron Burr was the right person to lead the North into unification.

Griswold wrote:

“[Burr] speaks in the most bitter terms of the Virginia faction, and the necessity of a union at the northward to resist it…It is apparent that his election is supported in New York on the principle of resisting Virginia and uniting the North; and it may be presumed that the support given to him by Federal men would tend to reconcile the feelings of those democrats who are becoming dissatisfied with their Southern masters…If Colonel Burr is elected in New York to the office of governor by the votes of Federalism, will he not be considered, and must he not in fact become, the head of the Northern interest?  His ambition will not suffer him to be second, and his office will give him a claim to the first rank.”[1]

                                                                             Roger Griswold

 

Griswold then wrote about his plans for a meeting with Aaron Burr in New York.  Oliver Wolcott was a friend of Alexander Hamilton.  Wolcott sent these comments to Hamilton.[2]

George Cabot wrote to Rufus King.  Again, ignoring Hamilton’s warnings, Cabot hoped that Burr would be elected governor.[3]

What happened in Rufus King’s library on April 8, 1804.

Look for it February 24


[1] Roger Griswold to Oliver Wolcott, March 11, 1804 quoted in Henry Adams, History of the United States of America during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson, (New York:  The Library of America, 1986) 423.

[2] Adams, History of the United States, 423-4.

[3] George Cabot to Rufus King, March 17, 1804 quoted in Adams, History of the United States, 424.

 

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Hamilton Learned About Roger Griswold’s Remarks on Burr

How Alexander Hamilton Reacted to Pickering and Griswold’s Scheme

Posted on February 10, 2014 by “Caius”

At first Hamilton simply opposed the whole disunion scheme.  He agreed with George Cabot.  The time was not right to secede.  Most of New York’s Federalists helped to nominate Burr as a candidate for governor, despite Hamilton’s efforts to dissuade them.[1]

As a guest at a dinner by John Tayler in Albany, on February 16, 1804, Hamilton privately remarked that Aaron Burr was “a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.”  Dr. Charles D. Cooper was there.  After hearing Hamilton’s remarks Cooper wrote an account of the conversation.  Newspapers published it.[2]

Hamilton was a leading figure in New York’s Federalist Party, but rank-and-file members of the party dismissed his opinion about Burr.[3]

On March 4, 1804, Timothy Pickering wrote to Rufus King, a moderate Federalist.  By this time he had received George Cabot’s letter advising him that disunion was impractical.  After expressing his thoughts about secession, Pickering imprudently discussed Burr’s nomination for governor.  He wrote:

“Mr. Burr alone, we think can break your democratic phalanx, and we anticipate much good from his success.  Were New York detached, as under his administration it would be, from the Virginia influence, the whole Union would be benefited.  Jefferson would then be forced to observe some caution and forbearance in his measures.  And if a separation should be deemed proper, the five New England States, New York, and New Jersey would naturally be united.”[4]

                                                                   Timothy Pickering

 

Next:  How Hamilton Learned About Roger Griswold’s Remarks on Burr

Look for it February 17


[1] Henry Adams, History of the United States of America during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Library of America, 1986) 420.

[2] Adams, History of the United States, 421.

[3] Adams, History of the United States,  420-1.

[4] Timothy Pickering to Rufus King, March 4, 1804 quoted in Adams, History of the United States,  422.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Alexander Hamilton Reacted to Pickering and Griswold’s Scheme

What Happened When Pickering and Griswold Tried to Engage New York’s Federalists

Posted on January 27, 2014 by “Caius”

If the Federalist Party had trouble with solidarity in Massachusetts, the problem was far worse in New York State.  As Timothy Pickering and Roger Griswold looked to New Yorkers to support their scheme for disunion, they walked into a hornet’s nest of intrigue.

In 1803 Aaron Burr’s term as Vice President in Thomas Jefferson’s administration was ending.  Jefferson did not trust Burr, and excluded him from involvement in his administration.  Burr made plans to run for governor of New York State.

The Clintons, a prominent family in New York, used pamphlets and newspaper articles attacking Burr, discrediting him.  Burr fought back.  He counter-attacked  the Clintons, and another prominent family, the Livingstons.  Burr asked his friend William Peter Van Ness to challenge the charges the Clintons had made against him.  Van Ness complied, using a pseudonym, Aristides.  The work was published in December, 1803.[1]

In January, 1804, Burr met with Jefferson asking him for public endorsement and an office in the administration.  Jefferson refused.[2]

The New England Federalists did not trust Burr, but Timothy Pickering approached him anyway in February 1804.  Pickering’s hope for disunion hung on the results of Aaron Burr’s campaign for governor of New York.

Burr was slated to remain as Jefferson’s vice president until 1805.  In the spring of 1804 New York State’s governor, Governor George Clinton announced his retirement.  His nephew, DeWitt Clinton, tried to dissuade his uncle from retiring, out of deep distrust of Burr.  DeWitt tried to enlist Jefferson’s aid.  Jefferson did not trust the Clintons.  Jefferson refused.[3]

Burr persuaded his friends in New York’s legislature to nominate him for governor.  Timothy Pickering had not yet received George Cabot’s reply suggesting that disunion was not practical.   In February 1804, he was at work in New York State organizing a caucus of Federalists to support Burr’s campaign.  If Pickering and Griswold backed Burr, he would be perceived as the leader of New York’s Federalists in New England.  Alexander Hamilton, in Albany on business, attended the caucus. [4]

Next:  How Alexander Hamilton Reacted

Look for it Monday, February 3

 


[1] Henry Adams, History of the United States of America during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson (New York:  Library of America, 1986) 416-7.

[2] Adams, History of the United States, 419.

[3] Adams, History of the United States, 418.

[4] Adams, History of the United States,  420.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Happened When Pickering and Griswold Tried to Engage New York’s Federalists

Pickering and Griswold Promote A Scheme for Secession

Posted on January 19, 2014 by “Caius”

Secessionist schemes were slow to gain popular support.  While they had been the topic of conversation in Massachusetts since 1786, they did not gain traction until 1804.[1]  After Jefferson purchased Louisiana Federalists in both houses of Congress agreed that a crisis was certain.  Only Senators Simeon Olcott of New Hampshire and John Quincy Adams from Massachusetts disagreed.[2]

Senator Timothy Pickering and Representative Roger Griswold began to think of forming a confederation, starting with Massachusetts.  They were certain that the rest of New England would join.  New York, they agreed, had to be involved.  New Yorkers, however, would need to be persuaded.[3]

Pickering outlined his thoughts in a letter to George Cabot, one of the leaders of the Essex Junto.[4]  Pickering insinuated that disunion was needed.

In Massachusetts the Federalist majority was fragile. Cabot, and leaders of the Essex Junto, Fisher Ames, Stephen Higginson, and Theophilus  Parsons knew any suggestion of disunion would incur the wrath of John Quincy Adams and moderate Federalists.  Cabot responded that separation from the United States would not work.   He knew any attempt at disunion would destroy the Federalists.[5]   He wrote to Pickering:

“A separation is now impracticable, because we do not feel the necessity or utility of it.  The same separation then will be unavoidable when our loyalty to the Union is generally perceived to be the instrument of debasement and impoverishment.  If it is prematurely attempted, those few only will promote it who discern what is hidden from the multitude.”[6]

                                                                             George Cabot

 

Roger Griswold grew impatient.  He wrote to Oliver Wolcott:

“We have endeavored during this session to rouse our friends in New England to make some bold exertions…they think the time has not yet arrived.  Prudence is undoubtedly necessary; but when it degenerates into procrastination it becomes fatal…democracy is making daily inroads upon us, and our means of resistance are lessening every day…Under these circumstances I have been induced to look to New York.”[7]

 

                                                                             Roger Griswold

Next:  What Happened When Pickering and Griswold Tried to Engage New York’s Federalists

Look for it Monday, January 27.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] James Mr. Banner, Jr. To the Hartford Convention: The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts 1789-1815 (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1970) 116.

[2] Henry Adams, History of the United States of America during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson (New York:  Library of America, 1986) 409.

[3] Adams, History of the United States, 410-11.

[4] Timothy Pickering to George Cabot, January 29, 1804, quoted in Adams, History of the United States, 409.

[5] Adams, History of the United States, 411-413.

[6] George Cabot to Timothy Pickering, February 14, 1804, quoted in Adams, History of the United States, 412.

[7] Roger Griswold to Oliver Wolcott, unspecified date, 1804 quoted in Adams, History of the United States,  415.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pickering and Griswold Promote A Scheme for Secession

What Other New Englanders Wrote About Disunion between the East and West

Posted on January 11, 2014 by “Caius”

In private correspondence to Noah Webster and Cyrus King respectively, Thomas Dawes and Ephraim Lock promoted a return of the government to the original thirteen states.  They wanted to remove the three-fifths clause.  They suggested permission from all states was needed for further expansion.  They wanted to ban naturalized voters.[1]

Timothy Pickering, a radical Federalist, wrote several letters to prominent Federalists.  He objected to “the aristocratic democrats of the South…”  He imagined a nation divided between North and South with the states with large African-American populations forming the boundary.  After Louisiana became a state in 1812, he feared the West would ally with the South.  That alliance would destroy New England’s influence in the Union.  Next, he anticipated the West would jettison the South.  It would dominate the entire east coast of the nation.  Should the West be defeated in its attempts, it would leave the Union.  New England would be left to fend for itself with its debts.[2]

While New England favored a union of the original thirteen states, they feared Western expansion.  Soon, they began to consider secession from the rest of the nation.[3]

Next:  How Schemes for Disunion Gained Traction

 

 


[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) 114.

[2] Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 114.

[3] Banner, To the Hartford Convention,  114-5.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Other New Englanders Wrote About Disunion between the East and West

Why John Lowell, Jr. Advocated Uniting North and South Against the West

Posted on December 30, 2013 by “Caius”

Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans imagined a nation of farmers boldly opening the frontier of the Louisiana Territory.  Massachusetts Federalists were tied to the Atlantic, and its mercantile trade.  They were apprehensive about what was happening in the West.[1]

The West, to New England’s Federalists, represented their reduced status in national influence.  The West was also less conservative and more Democratic-Republican than New England.  Many of New England’s Federalists doubted that westward expansion would keep the nation united.  For them, it was not a question of if the West would secede, but when.[2]

Nothing bothered the Federalists in New England more than the thought that the West and the South would come to dominate New England and the North.  Federalists began to promote the notion of uniting North and South against the West.[3]

John Lowell, Jr. summarized the Federalist view, in a pamphlet entitled Thoughts in a Series of Letters.  Lowell argued the United States should be divided at the Allegheny Mountain range.  Size mattered.  The states formed from the thirteen colonies were the correct size for a republic.  The Louisiana Purchase, he wrote, not only encroached on the original agreement between the states, it also threatened the nation’s republican notion of government.  The Alleghenies were a natural barrier.  They protected the Eastern, Mid-Atlantic and Southern states from the West.  In a republic governed by opinion, citizens needed to live in close-knit communities.

“…where general opinion governs, it is necessary that the people should be less extended, and more enlightened, and that there should be some similarity in the manners, habits and pursuits.[4]”

                                                          John Lowell, Jr.

Lowell feared the West would promote moving the capital, taxing the East and ignoring the East’s interests.  He urged unifying North and South against the West.  To sweeten the pot for Southerners, he urged New England to allow the three-fifths clause to remain in place.

What Other New Englanders Wrote About Disunion between the East and West

Look for it Monday, January 6

 


[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) 110-111.

[2] Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 111-112.

[3] Banner, To the Hartford Convention,  112.

[4] John Lowell, Jr.  Thoughts in a Series of Letters, quoted in  Banner,  To the Hartford Convention, 113.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why John Lowell, Jr. Advocated Uniting North and South Against the West

How New England’s Federalists Regarded the Union (continued)

Posted on December 22, 2013 by “Caius”

New England’s Federalists were concerned about the loss of representation and power.  In 1788, during the Constitutional Convention,  Northerners made a concession to the South.  They gave Southern states the ability to count five slaves as three free white men, for representation in the House of Representatives.  New England wanted three-fifths clause revoked.

“…slave representation is the cause of all the difficulties we labor under.[1]”

Josiah Quincy

The movement to remove the offending three-fifths clause began in 1802.  It gained momentum in 1804.  Again in 1809 and 1812, Federalists clamored for an amendment to repeal the offending three-fifths clause.[2]

New England saw itself as bound to the Atlantic Ocean.  Jefferson and his party envisaged a nation of farmers and slaveholders expanding into the interior.[3]  For some Federalists, the possibility of dissolution of the union was not if, but when.  Caleb Strong, a prominent Massachusetts Federalist wrote:

“…the territory of the U.S. is so extensive as to forbid us to indulge the expectation that we shall remain many years united.”

                                                                   Caleb Strong[4]

Next:   What Federalist pamphleteer John Lowell, Jr. proposed

Look for it Monday, December 30


[1]  Josiah Quincy, Synopsis of Debates in the Massachusetts Legislature (Boston? 1814) quoted in 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) 102.

[2] Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 102-3.

[3] Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 110.

[4] Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 112.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How New England’s Federalists Regarded the Union (continued)

How New England’s Federalists Regarded the Rest of the United States

Posted on December 14, 2013 by “Caius”

Federalists and other New Englanders considered themselves exceptional.  They claimed superiority over other American regions, especially the South.  Their claims were based on religion. A writer for the Columbian Centinel in Boston explained:

“The God of nature, in his infinite goodness has made the people of New England to excel every other people that ever existed in the world” [1]

                                                                   “Warren”, Columbian Centinel

New Englanders considered themselves exceptional because of their Puritan heritage.  New England’s founders had established a unique society based on religious beliefs.

New England, in contrast to the South, was a region of yeoman farmers.  They prided themselves on their work ethic.   Caleb Strong, a prominent Massachusetts Federalist, wrote:

“…with the labor of their own hands, –with the sweat of their own brows…And by this their habitual mode of hardy industry, they acquire a vigor of nerve, a strength of muscle & a spirit & intelligence somewhat characteristic.”[2]

                                                          Caleb Strong, Massachusetts Federalist 

By 1800, Massachusetts Federalists were losing ground to the Democratic-Republicans expanding in the South and into the West.  Southern slaveholders were moving westward into Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase.   New England’s Federalists were losing the balance of power in the House of Representatives.   New Englanders were concerned that Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans were heedless of the nation as a whole.   They feared the new party ignored New England’s interests.[3]

 Next:  How New England’s Federalists Regarded the Rest of the United States (continued)

Look for it Monday, December 23

 


[1] “Warren,” Boston Columbian Centinel, Feb. 2, 1814, quoted in To the Hartford Convention:  The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts, 1789-1815 by James M. Banner, Jr. (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1970)  84.

[2] Caleb Strong, Patriotism and Piety, The Speeches of his Excellency Caleb Strong, Esq…from 1800 to 1807 (Newburyport, Mass, 1808) quoted in Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 85.

[3] Banner, To the Hartford Convention, 93.

Posted in From The Desk, Newspaper Politics, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How New England’s Federalists Regarded the Rest of the United States

How Mathew Carey Cleverly Avoided Accusation

Posted on December 9, 2013 by “Caius”

In December 1799, John Ward Fenno, Junior, editor of the leading Federalist newspaper, Gazette of the United States, published an editorial claiming the United Irishmen in the United States were plotting a rebellion.  He identified the suspected leaders of the organization:  Dr. James Reynolds, William Duane, Matthew Lyon, John Daly Burk and James and Mathew Carey.  It was a devastating accusation.   Mathew Carey demanded that Fenno retract it.  Fenno did not comply.  Instead  he published statements by Mathew and James.  Mathew admitted he had once attended a meeting, but denied being a member.  With cheek, James denied ever attending a meeting.  He stated if he were asked to join, he would.[1]  William Cobbett reprinted Fenno’s dangerously incriminating charges in his paper.

Carey’s finances were strained.   He depended on loans from banks.   Any implication that he was a radical trying overthrow of the government would have destroyed him.   He had been imprisoned for sedition in Ireland.  Carey knew the improper use of his pen could damage him professionally and personally.  He prudently hedged his bets.    In January 1799, Carey ran an advertisement that read, “Books Selling Very Cheap.   Mathew Carey, Proposing to quit the Book Selling business, offers his large and valuable collection of Books for sale.”

Carey cleverly avoided a trap that Cobbett had set for him.  He countered Cobbett’s attack with a satirical poem publishing A Plumb Pudding for…Peter Porcupine, on January 16, 1799.  He delivered it to his nationwide network, and circulated 6,000 broadsides with portions of the poem entitled “a slice of the plumb pudding.”  Cobbett responded by delivering slices of venison in jelly sandwiched between two plates to Carey’s shop at 118 Market Street.  Carey sent the venison back to Cobbett in the hands of a burly Irishman, directing him to drop the plates in front of Cobbett, with intent to break them.[2]

On March 2, Carey attacked again, this time with The Porcupiniad:  A Hudibrastic Poem.  He quoted Cobbett turning his invective phrases into cleverly crafted verse.  In April, Carey continued the campaign with two more poems.  Using satire, Carey gained public support, effectively silencing Cobbett.[3]

The Society of United Irishmen in the United States was founded in 1797.  Members took an oath of secrecy calling for the “attainment of Liberty and Equality of Mankind, In Whatever Nation” the members lived.   Early historians point to his involvement.   Carey associated with many suspected members.  He was prominent in the Irish community and active with immigrants.  Fenno’s charges were probably correct.[4]

Next:  How New England’s Federalists Regarded the Union

Look for it Monday, December 16.

 


[1] Edward C. Carter  II,  “Political Activities of Mathew Carey, Nationalist, 1760-1814” PhD. Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1962,  258-9.

[2] Mathew Carey, Autobiography (Brooklyn:  Research Classics, 1942) 34.

[3] Carey, Autobiography, 32-9.

[4] Carter, “Political Activities of Mathew Carey,” 277 ff 23;  262-3.  David A. Wilson, United Irishmen, United States:  Immigrant Radicals in the Early Republic, (Ithaca:  Cornell University Press, 1998) 11.

Posted in From The Desk, Newspaper Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Mathew Carey Cleverly Avoided Accusation

How the Federalists Tried to Tamper with the Presidential Election

Posted on November 30, 2013 by “Caius”

 

The Federalists wanted a victory in the presidential election.  They boldly attempted to tamper with electoral votes. Their proposed bill used a “Grand Committee” selected from the House, Senate, and Supreme Court.  They controlled all three.  The “Grand Committee” would meet in secret choosing the electoral votes to count and those to change, determining the election’s outcome in their favor. Three Democratic-Republican senators slipped Duane a copy of the bill.  Duane published it, condemning the bill as “an offspring of this spirit of faction secretly working.”[1]

Mortified, the Federalist senators redoubled their efforts to silence Duane.  In a novel effort to evade a trial by jury, they conspired forming a “committee on privileges” to nail Duane for his comments as being in contempt of the Senate.  Evading all due process, they ordered him to appear at a Senate hearing to respond to a pre-determined verdict, denying his lawyers the opportunity to represent him effectively.[2]

From then on, Duane deftly outmaneuvered the Federalist senators.  He refused to re-appear before their committee and went underground.  While in hiding, he continued his rant about persecution in the Aurora.  By one means or another, he avoided prosecution.

“If to be ready, at any time that my slender efforts could in the least tend to the emancipation of Ireland from the horrid yoke of Britain, to embark in her cause, and to sacrifice my life for that country as readily as I should for this which gave me birth—then am I as very an United Irishman as any tyrant could abhor.”[3]                                                                William Duane

During the summer of 1799, Secretary of State Pickering began to round up other Irish suspects thought to be involved with the United Irishmen in organizing a rebellion in the United States.  One by one, the government tried Mathew Carey’s Irish associates before Federalist judges who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to suppress Democratic-Republican opposition.[4]

By October 1798, the rebellion in Ireland had failed, but controversy about the motives of the United Irishmen continued in the United States.  Somehow, Mathew and James Carey had avoided prosecution.

How Mathew and James Carey Came under Attack

Look for it December 9.


[1] Duane’s comments from the Aurora, January 27, 1800, quoted in James Morton Smith, Freedom’s Fetters, The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties (Ithaca:  Cornell University Press, 1998) 289; Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800 (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1993) 704.

[2]James Morton Smith, Freedom’s Fetters, 289-299;  Elkins and McKitrick, The Age of Federalism, 704-5.

[3] David A. Wilson, United Irishman, United States:  Immigrant Radicals in the Early Republic (Ithaca:  Cornell University Press, 1998) 41.

[4]Edward  C. Carter II, “The Political Activities of Mathew Carey, Nationalist 1760-1814” Ph.D Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1962, 258; Walter Berns,  “Freedom of the Press and the Alien and Sedition Laws:  A Reappraisal,”  The Supreme Court Review (1970) 111.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Federalists Tried to Tamper with the Presidential Election