The history of political parties in the State of New York, from the ratification of the Federal Constitution, to December 1840

Preface

. Before any part of the following work was written, I addressed a letter to a highly intelligent and judicious friend residing in the city of Utica, informing him of my plan, and asking his advice whether the attempt to execute it would be discreet or prudent ? His reply, in substance, was : — " If you describe men and their actions as they really were and are, you will draw upon yourself the interminable and bitter hostility of the persons about whom you write, as well as that of their connexions and friends. If you palliate or conceal conduct which merits animadversion, your book will not be what you profess it shall be, and will, besides, be dull and unin teresting. I advise you to abandon the project." Like most men who ask advice, I have neglected to follow that which I received from my sagacious friend.

Notwithstanding the opinion I have quoted appears on its face quite plausible, I still entertain the hope that the truth may be told in relation to the political conduct of men without exciting their enmity, or that of their friends. At any rate, I am sure, that a candid, fair, and impartial narra tion of the actions of public men, may be given without affording just cause of offence. But suppose the publication of truth should occasion to some few individuals unpleasant feelings, will not such publication, in its consequences, be generally salutary ? Ought not the legislator and the politician to be fully aware, and strongly impressed with the belief, that he will be held accountable for his acts and declarations, not only to his immediate constituents and cotemporaries, but to posterity ?

Others of my friends have advised me that a history, written upon tho principles which I claim to have been governed by, ought not to have been attempted by an actor in the scenes which he describes, who, of course, must have been a participator in the passions and prejudices which pre vailed, but should have been executed by a man of another generation, or, *t any rate, by one who had not mingled in the contest, and who had kept himself entirely aloof from party conflicts. The answer to this suggestion is, that a work written by such a person must, of necessity, to a considera ole extent, be fiction and not history. Could a secluded philosopher, a cloistered monk, or a man who lived during the reign of Louis the Fif teenth, have described the actions of men in the city of Paris, and their motives of action, from Court Journals and parliamentary records, so well and truly as they arc delineated in the memoirs of Cardinal De Retz ?

PREFACE.

. My object has been to speak of men as they were. If I undertake to describe to a friend the person of one who is a stranger to him, and who happens to have red hair, do I act with good faith if I say his hair is black or chesnut colored ? Our government is a representative democracy. The Grecian, Roman, Italian and Dutch governments, though called republics, were either aris. tocracies or pure democracies. Such a government as ours was unknown in the world, until within sixty or seventy years. It is for this reason that a correct history of man acting upon this new theatre, must, of necessity, develop new traits in the human character — a new page, if I may so speak, in the natural history of man. Hence, the view I have presented, if I have successfully executed my plan, will interest the philosopher as well as the statesman.

Smith's Colonial History of New-York, and Dunlap's continuation of it, (a very valuable work,) stops at a very early period in the existence of this government, and indeed, does not, I believe, profess to be a history of the political parties which prevailed during the times of which it treats. Our biographical writers have mainly confined themselves to a description of the character and actions of the persons of whom they write : and their works generally partake more of the character of eulogy than history. Of this, it would be easy to cite examples. It may therefore, I think, be said, and truly said, that the political history of the state has not yet been writ ten. I can say, and I do say in the sincerity of my heart, that I have written the following sheets with the same regard to truth as I should answer interrogatories if testifying in a court of justice.

But notwithstanding this, it is possible, and indeed probable, that I may have, in some instances, erred as to matters of fact ; but, I hope and believe, that those errors wiri be found to be neither numerous nor very material. With respect to my inferences and conclusions from facts, the reader will, of course, judge whether they are or are not correct. It will be perceived that I have confined myself, in the description of parties, to those parties only which have affected the politics and legislation of the state of New-York. Hence, the action of the national government, and the character of the individuals who controlled it, are only noticed when the conduct and management of that government had an immediate effect upon parties in the state of New-York ; and hence, also, the action and services of some distinguished members of congress from this state are little noticed, and even the names of many of them are not given.

The history of the Senate of New-York contained in the following pages will be found ample, and, it is hoped, satisfactory. The names, and gene. rally, the political character of every senator elected since the year 1788, are given.

PREFACE.

. V The history of the assembly is not so perfect ; but I flatter myself that it will be found that the names, character and actions of most of the leading members of that important department of the state government have been correctly set forth. That a work, of the kind this professes to be, is much wanted, and, in deed, indispensably necessary to the young politician, and that it is calculated to be extensively useful, will, I have no doubt, be admitted by all reflecting men ; if, therefore, this has been executed with fidelity and im partiality, it is hoped it may receive the approbation and patronage of a generous public. It may, however be, (and indeed what can be more pro bable ?) that I have wrongly estimated the merits of the work. Of this, the public must and will judge. I may, nevertheless, be permitted to say, that I believe that those who take the trouble to read the whole of what I have written, will arrive at the conclusion that the tendency of it will be to promote kind and good feelings between individuals belonging to adverse parties, and to cause the great laws by which all parties ought to be go verned in their conduct towards their own members, and towards their op ponents, to be better understood.

I also hope and believe, that this history will illustrate, by very numerous examples, the truth of a common remark: that there are good and bad men among all parties, and that the real difference in principle between an immense majority of the individuals who compose the two political parties in a state, is not so great as is generally imagined, or as is commonly represented by the leaders of the respective parties. If the result of my labors shall aid the rising generation, and especially the young politician, in forming a just estimate of the merits of distinguished individuals, and of parties who have heretofore occupied the political field; if it shall tend to assuage the bitterness of party zeal, and particu larly that bitterness which produces personal animosities and poisons social enjoyment ; and, above all, if it shall contribute towards fixing firmly in the mind of every cilizen, to whatever party he may belong, a determination that the great and fundamental principles of civil liberty, guaranteed lo us by our state and national constitutions, are never, from party considerations, or the supposed interest of any party, to be violated, I shall feel myself amply rewarded. CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

Chapter I. The State Of Political Parties In The State Of New

YORK, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. During the contest for American Independence, the existence of political parties, according to the present no tions we entertain of those associations, may be said to have been unknown in the United States. There were indeed in each of the states, a few families who, either from motives of interest, or considerations of duty, retained their attachment to the British Government; and per haps the state of New-York, in proportion to its population, contained a greater number of adherents to the King of England, than any other of the American Colonies. This was probably partly if not entirely owing to the great number of offices held in the then colony of New-York, under the Crown. But an immense majority of the peo ple, as well in this as in the other colonies, at an early stage of the controversy with the mother country, resolved at any and every hazard, to resist what they deemed to be the unconstitutional laws enacted by the Imperial Parlia ment.

After the commencement of hostilities, those who supported the claims of Great Britain, and who were called tories, were regarded by the great mass of the people, and even treated by the temporary governments which were organized, rather as alien enemies than citi zens of this country. A decided conviction that the acts of the British Government were an encroachment on their rights as freemen, a fixed and settled determination to maintain those rights, an ardent desire to establish a free government independent of all foreign control, and a sense of common clanger, constituted a strong bond of union of the friends of American liberty and independence ; — and though personal jealousies, avarice, rivalship and ambition no doubt existed, and occasionally produced combinations of individuals and consequently cabals; in general all self ish views, pursuits and interests were absorbed in the con templation of the most effectual means of resistance to unconstitutional and oppressive laws, a resolution to de fend the principle of equal rights, and a determination to establish an independent government.

But no sooner had Great Britain acknowledged the in dependence of the United States, and the treaty of peace of 1783 been ratified, than men began to speculate on and form different and adverse theories respecting the form of government best adapted to preserve personal liberty, promote the general welfare, and secure the union of the States. Leading and influential individuals also began to deliberate upon the most effectual means of advancing the separate interests of the states of which they respectively were inhabitants, and it is probable that combinations having in view the gratification of individual interests and ambition, were earlyjjformcd and organized. It required little reasoning to convince all intelligent men, that the plan of government, or rather union, con tained in the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1777, was not competent to preserve the Union, and at the same time regulate the commerce of the American nation, and enable it to discharge its debts, defray its expenses and per form its engagements with other nations.

The old Con gress was, by these articles, little other than a meeting of ambassadors from the several states : ambassadors too, who generally speaking, had not the power to bind their princi pals. They, except in a very few cases, could only recommend the adoption of such measures to the states as, in their judgment, the public welfare demanded ; but the carrying into effect of those measures depended on the voluntary action of the respective state legislatures : hence it was most evident that some scheme of general government must be adopted, which would enable that government, without the consent of all the states, to act upon the per sons of the citizens of each state; or the union if it could be preserved, would, for all important national purposes, be quite useless. A few years' experience after the peace, proved the truth of this position.

What should that plan of government be, which should remedy the evils already experienced, and guard effectually against those which were anticipated *? Thinking and reflecting men in every part of the nation turned their attenti6n with anxious solicitude to this interesting and important question. All admitted the imperfections and inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation : all admitted that a new plan of govern ment or constitution ought to be devised and adopted, but they differed widely in relation to the principles which that constitution ought to contain, and the magnitude and nature of powers which should be granted to the gene ral government. It was this difference of opinion which produced the first organized political parties in this state and nation. Here, therefore, the task I have undertaken commences.

But I do not propose to enter minutely into a detail of the movements of the leaders of the two parties to this controversy. It is to a later period to which the attention of the reader is more particularly invited, and in which I shall endeavor to delineate more in detail the character, and develop more fully the motives of the actors in the political drama, and the causes which im pelled them to action. In no state in the union was the constitution which was recommended by the National Convention, more se verely criticisedand more zealously opposed, and in none was it more ardently and ably defended than in the state of New-York. Indeed this state may be said to have furnished the principal author, and afterwards the cham pion for the defence of that instrument. It is almost un necessary to say that I allude to General Alexander Hamilton.

With him were associated John Jay, whose revolutionary services in the civil department, great legal learning, sound discriminating mind, high moral qualities, and unblemished purity of character, gave him a powerful influence with the public ; Robert R. Livingston, a man of fine address, possessing a great landed interest in the central counties on the Hudson's river, standing at the head of a powerful and influential family, and holding the highest judicial office in the state, and Gen. Schuyler of Albany; together with the Van Rensselaer family, possessing, deservedly, great influence with the people inhabiting the section of the state, where they resided, with many others eminent for their talents and standing in the com munity. In the front ranks of the other party stood George Clinton, who probably had a stronger hold on the affections of the people, than any other citizen of the state.

He may be said to have been the manufacturer of his own fortune. His father was an emigrant from Ireland, and at an early period settled in Little Britain, in the county of Orange. Although not highly distinguished either for wealth or talents, he was much respected for his patriotism and private virtues. He officiated as a county judge, and during the French war was a colonel in the British army which invaded Canada. The property which he brought with him from Ireland, and that which, by his industry and economy, he accumulated in this country, enabled him to bring up his family well, but not to leave them rich. George was his youngest son, and was bred a lawyer. Shorfly after he completed his studies, he was appointed by Sir Henry Clinton, the Colonial Governor, to whom the Clinton family are said to have been distantly related, clerk of the county of Ulster.

Mr. George Clinton was one of the earliest friends of the American cause, and was in grain and in principle a republican. He possessed a clear and logical mind, and great decision of character. His talents and private merit soon rendered him conspicuous among the patriots of that day, and he was almost unanimously elected the first Governor of the state of New-York. This election is the more honorable to him, when it is considered that there were at that time in the state, several distinguished friends to American Independence, who were men of great wealth and powerful family connections ; and that Mr. Clinton was elected without any of these adventitious aids. At the time when the controversy in relation to the adoption of the new constitution commenced, Gov. Clin ton had been repeatedly elected by the people to the first office in the state ; he had stood at the helm and dis charged his duty ably and faithfully during the long and, perilous revolutionary struggle, with the fortitude of a hero, and the zeal and devotedness of a patriot ; and clothed as he was, by the constitution of the state, with the power of distributing the patronage of the govern ment, it cannot fail to be perceived that such a man must have been capable of producing a very great impression upon the public mind.

Among the most distinguished individuals who united with him in his opposition to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, were Robert Yates, afterwards for a long time Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Lansing ; a delegate from this state in the convention that formed the constitution, and subsequentlv Chief Justice and Chancellor ; and, though last named, by no means the least; Mr. Melancton Smith. To exhibit the manner in which some of the points in controversy arose between the two parties, it is proper to state, that in pursuance of a recommendation of commissioners from several states who had met at Annapolis in Maryland, of whom Gen. Hamilton was one, in Septem ber, 1786, " to take into consideration the trade and com merce of the United States, and to consider how far an uniform system in their commercial intercourse and regu lations might be necessary to the common interest and permanent happiness" of all the States, Congress, in Feb ruary, 1787, resolved that it was expedient that on the second Monday in May, then next, a convention of delegates who should have been appointed by the several states, should be held at Philadelphia for the sole and ex press purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as should, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, under the Federal Constitution, be adequate to the exigencies of go vernment, and the preservation of the Union.

The views of the politicians of the state of New-York, on the questions involved in this recommendation, were fully developed in the debates and proceedings which took place in the legislature which convened in the city of New-York, in the winter of 1787. But in order pro perly to understand them, it is necessary to state that in 1781, in pursuance of the recommendation of Congress, an act was passed which granted to the United States the import duties to be collected in the port of New-York, and provided that those duties should be levied and collect ed in such manner and form, and under such penalties and regulations, and by such officers as Congress should, from time to time make, 'order and appoint. But in March, 1783, (after the peace,) this act was repealed and an act was passed again, granting the duties to the United States, but directing their collection by officers who should be ap pointed by the slate.

This law was afterwards modified at the request of Congress, so as to render the collectors amenable to and removable by the authorities of the Uni ted States. In reference to this proceeding, Gen. Schuy ler, on the 4th May, 1783, wrote to Gen. Hamilton, "Al though our legislature seems still inclined to confer powers on Congress adequate to the proper discharge of the great duties of the sovereign council of these states, yet I perceive with pain that some, chagrined at disappoint ment, are already attempting to inculcate a contrary prin ciple, and I fear it will gain too deep a root to be eradi cated, until such confusion prevails as will make men deeply feel the necessity of not retaining so much sover eignty inthe states individually." Mr. J. C. Hamilton, in the life of Gen. Hamilton, vol. 2, p. 387, remarks, that " early in the year seventeen hun dred and eighty-four, a motion was made in the legisla ture of New-York, urging the abolition of the offices of superintendent of finance and of continental receiver, which was followed by the acts establishing a custom house and a revenue system.

" The immense and improvident speculations made on the return of peace, poured into the coffers of that state a large revenue. This was subsequently increased by the navigation acts of other states, which rendered New-York the entrepot of the whole region east of the Delaware, and presented to her tempting prospects of future wealth. " To whatever cause it may be attributed, it became the settled policy of New-York to defeat the proposition for a national revenue. A measure conforming with the recommendation of Congress was proposed in the legislature in seventeen hundred and eighty-four, and failed. It was again brought forward in seventeen hundred and eighty-five, and again failed by two votes in the senate. " At the close of the session of seventeen hundred and eighty-six, in which the exertions of Schuyler to induce the grant were most conspicuous, a law was enacted giv ing the revenue to Congress, but reserving to the state ' the sole power of levying and collecting' the duties ; the conferring of which power on Congress, was an indispensable and express condition of the acts of some of the other states.

Instead of making the collectors ame nable and removable by Congress, it subjected them to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts. " It also rendered the duties payable in the bills of credit of the state, and thus so entirely contravened the plan of seventeen hundred and eighty-three, as to be equivalent to its rejection. This enactment was defended by the argument that Congress, being a single body, and consequently without checks, would be apt to misapply the money arising from it." Mr. Hamilton then proceeds to remark, that Congress " perceiving that no benefit could be derived from the law recently passed by this state ; that if acceded to, the acts of twelve adopting states (for Rhode Island had mean while concurred) would, by their conditions, which requi red the concurrence of all the states, become void ; that the provision which rendered the duties payable in bills of credit was most pernicious, as it would, on the same principle, admit of all the paper money of the other States at various rates of depreciation, thus reducing the revenue, producing an inequality in the public burdens, and deterring the states averse from paper money from engaging in the measure — Congress treated it as a nullity."

Mr. H. adds that they thereupon " passed a resolution requesting Governor Clinton to convene the legislature for the purpose of submitting this subject again to its consideration. To this application, involving such momentous consequences, Clinton replied by letter, stating that ' he entertained the highest deference and respect for the authority of Congress, and that it would afford him the greatest pleasure to have it in his power to com ply with their recommendations, but that he had not the power to convene the legislature before the time fixed by law for their stated meeting, except upon ' extraordinary occasions;' and as the present business had already been particularly laid before them, and so recently as at their last session received their determination, it cannot come within that description.' " The Governor, in his speech to the legislature at the opening of the session of which I am speaking, gave a statement of this application which Congress had made to him to call an extra meeting of that body; and his reasons for refusing to comply with the request, being the same as that which he had assigned in his reply to Congress, name ly, that inasmuch as the legislature had but a few months before deliberated upon and solemnly decided that very question, he could not consider the recommendation of Congress a circumstance which created that extraordinary occasion contemplated by the constitution which alone au thorized him to require a meeting of the legislature.

On the legislature which was now in session, was de volved the duty of deciding whether this state would send delegates to the National Convention which was to as semble in May following ; and if they should decide that question in the affirmative, then it would become their duty to select and appoint the delegates. For this reason friends of a national government early saw the neces sity that General Hamilton should be one of the members of the State legislature, and take a part in the discussion of these important and interesting questions. To effect this very desirable object, the most strenuous efforts were made at the April election to elect him a member from the city of New-York, and by the vigorous exertions of the merchants of that city, aided by his political friends, he was chosen.

Gen. Schuyler, the father-in-law of Gen. H., also a zealous friend of the establishment of an energetic nation al government, was at that time a member of the Senate. The national politics of these gentlemen, both eminent for their talents and public services, placed them in a position adverse to Gov. Clinton, and around them the op position in each house rallied. Mr. Hamilton had been placed at the head of the committee to draw an answer to the Governor's speech, and he drew one which was silent in respect to that part of it which stated his refusal to call an extra session of the legislature at the request of Congress. The friends of the governor, the leading and strong man among whom was Samuel Jones, a very learned and able lawyer, afterwards Comptroller, and the father of the late Chancellor Jones, offered an amendment to the an swer, as reported by Mr. Hamilton, approving of the con duct of the governor in refusing to convene the legislature upon the occasion to which I have referred.

On the ques tion of adopting this amendment, an interesting debate ensued, conducted principally by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jones. The point in controversy, was whether the occa sion of the proposed call was such an extraordinary one as, by the constitution, authorized and required the o*o vernor to make such call ; but in the progress of the discussion, the claims of the confederated States on this state, and the relations which it had and ought to have with the confederacy, were considered. This opened a wide field of debate, which was conducted with great ability and some asperity, on both sides. On the ques tion being taken, the amendment was adopted by a vote of 36 to 9. If this vote is to be considered as a test vote of the strength of parties on the question, whether any material alterations ought to be made in the Articles of Confederation — and it probably is — it is obvious that the anti-federalists at that time held a powerful preponderance in the popular branch of the legislature.

In the senate, too, there was a large majority who concurred with the governor. The legislature decided in favor of sending delegates to the National Convention, and appointed three delegates. The political principles of the two houses accounts for the reason why a majority of the delegates, (Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing) were opposed to any material alteration in the Articles of Confederation, or rather to the formation of a new government, while the election of Gen. Hamilton by the same bodies of men, so large a proportion of whom accorded with the views of Gov. Clinton, affords a demonstration of the liberality with which the partizans of that day conducted towards each other. So far from making a war of extermination on their opponents, or treating them as enemies to the coun try, the majority of the legislature of 1787 were willing and desirous that the views and wishes of the minority should be represented in the grand National Conven tion about to be held ; and therefore elected General Hamilton, their most able, zealous and ultra opponent, as one of the delegates.

By a reference to the resolution authorizing the appointment of delegates to the National Convention, it will be seen with what extreme caution and jealousy of their rights as an independent sovereignty, the New-York le gislature consented to become a party to that convention. resolution declared that the delegates were appointed, " for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and amendments therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the several states under the Federal Constitution be ade quate to the exigencies of the government, and preserva tion the union." The National Convention assembled at Philadelphia, at the time appointed by Congress. In reviewing the proceedings of that distinguished as semblage of men, it will be found that they were divided into three classes.

One portion of them desired to confine the convention to an enlargement of the powers of the then existing Con federacy, or rather to an amendment of the Articles of Con federation. To this object the delegates from New-York were, by the above resolution, in the opinion of Messrs. Yates and Lansing, restricted ; accordingly these gentle men, after a majority of the convention had determined to propose a constitution which, instead of amending would abolish the articles of the confederacy, withdrew from it, though in the midst of its most active operations; but Mr. Hamilton elected to remain on his own responsibility, and take a part in the deliberations of that body. The delegates from New-Jersey and Delaware, and the celebrated Luther Martin of Maryland, entertained views similar to those of Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing in respect to the proper business and duty of the convention.