Read Ebook: Memoirs of Aaron Burr Volume 2. by Burr Aaron Davis Matthew L Matthew Livingston Editor

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 1896 lines and 139221 words, and 38 pages

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."

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.

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 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:--

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.

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 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:--

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.

JOHN JAY TO GOVERNOR WILLIAM LIVINGSTON.

"Passay, 9th April, 1783.

JOHN JAY TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

"Passay, 12th September, 1783.

Footnotes:

On the other hand it was alleged that the family were disappointed and disgusted at the neglect which they experienced from General Washington. That, as Robert R. Livingston had been, in the state convention which adopted the Constitution, one of its most splendid and efficient supporters, he and his connexions anticipated his appointment to some exalted station; but that, while he was passed by unnoticed, his colleagues in that body, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, had both received distinguished appointments--the one as Chief Justice of the United States, and the other as Secretary of the Treasury. Whatever may have been the cause of this change, it is certain that they soon abandoned the federal, and united their political destiny with the anti-federal party. Although these gentlemen, as politicians, were acting in concert with Mr. Burr, yet there was no cordiality of feeling between them. In their social intercourse, however, the most perfect comity was observed; and as they were in a minority, struggling to break down a party haughty, proscriptive, and intolerant beyond any thing that the American people had beheld, they zealously united their efforts in effecting the revolution of 1800.

In the autumn of 1799 and the winter of 1799-1800, the interesting and vital question was presented to the American nation:--Will you sustain this administration and these measures, and thus rivet chains upon yourselves and your posterity? Or will you calmly, but firmly and in union, resort to the constitutional remedy for relief from wrongs and oppressions which, if permitted to endure, must terminate in the horrors of intestine war? Here was a question of principle; and, it is believed, a question which was to decide the character of the government. Each party felt that it was a mighty struggle, decisive of its future political influence, if not of its existence.

The elections in the state of New-York were held in the month of April. In the year 1799 the federalists had a majority in the city of more than nine hundred. During the summer, it was universally conceded that on the state of New-York the presidential election would depend, and that the result in the city would decide the fate of the state. That this opinion was as universal as it was true, cannot be more distinctly exhibited than by the following extract of a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, dated 4th March, 1800.

Reference has been made to the conflicting factions of which the democratic party was now composed. The Clinton section, the Livingston section, and the Burr section. The first and last were apparently the same, but not so in reality. Colonel Burr's commanding talents had acquired for him an influence in the ranks of the democratic party in other states, which created some jealousy in the Clinton family, the younger and collateral branches of which were extremely hostile to him. The ambition of Burr, sustained by a daring spirit and unconquerable perseverance, awakened the apprehensions of Governor George Clinton lest he should be supplanted. The governor was a man of great sagacity and shrewdness. But these two sections, or, perhaps, more properly, the heads of them, united in their opposition to the Livingstons.

During the winter of 1800, the efforts of Colonel Burr to bring about a concert in action of these discordant materials were unceasing. With his own personal friends he had no difficulty, for it was ever one of his characteristics to secure inviolable the attachment of his friends. They were of the most ardent and devoted kind. Confiding in his patriotism and judgment, and feeling that he was incapable of deceiving them, they seemed willing, at all times and under all circumstances, to hazard their lives and fortunes in his support. They were generally young men of gallant bearing and disinterested views. No sordid calculations were made by them. No mercenary considerations influenced their conduct. They beheld in Colonel Burr a patriot hero of the revolution, who had commingled with their fathers in the battle-field, and who had perilled every thing in his country's cause. Such were his friends, and such their zeal in his behalf. It was here that Colonel Burr was all-powerful, for he possessed, in a pre-eminent degree, the art of fascinating the youthful. But with all this tact and talent, he was credulous and easily deceived. He therefore often became the dupe of the most worthless and unprincipled.

The next question was, Of whom shall the assembly ticket for the city be composed? On the suggestion of Colonel Burr, the names of certain distinguished individuals, venerable in years, and respected for their services, for months before the election were put in circulation as candidates; and, among others, Governor George Clinton and General Horatio Gates. At length the nominating committees were chosen; but so general had been the conversations as to suitable candidates, that very little diversity of opinion prevailed in the formation of the ticket.

No terms can give a correct idea of the scenes between Governor Clinton and the sub-committee, for they had an interview with him on three different days. The last was at the house of Colonel Burr, where Mr. Clinton met the committee by appointment. He never did consent to stand, but pledged himself to Colonel Burr and the committee that he would publish nothing in the newspapers, reserving to himself the right of stating in conversation that his name was used without his authority or permission. Thus it is evident, that but for the matchless perseverance of Colonel Burr, the ticket, as it stood, never could have been formed, and, when formed, would have been broken up, and the republican party discomfited and beaten.

EXTRACT,

"Governor Clinton, however, remained unmoved by the most earnest solicitations; and, with matchless firmness, resisted the arguments of Mr. Burr, who forcibly asserted that it was a right inherent in the community to command the services of an individual when the nature of public exigences seemed to require it. He was inflexible to the last, and then was nominated and elected without a distinct expression of his approbation. Justice, however, induces me to acknowledge, that the reasons he assigned for the reluctance with which he acted were plausible and potent.

"He explicitly declared that he had long entertained an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Jefferson's talents as a statesman and his firmness as a republican. That he conceived him an accommodating trimmer, who would change with times, and bend to circumstances for the purposes of personal promotion. Impressed with these sentiments, he could not, with propriety, he said, acquiesce in the elevation of a man destitute of the qualifications essential to the good administration of the government; and added other expressions too vulgar to be here repeated. 'But,' said he, with energy, 'if you, Mr. Burr, was the candidate for the presidential chair, I would act with pleasure and with vigour.'"

It is so notorious that these were Governor Clinton's sentiments, that it is scarcely necessary to produce authority to prove it. To remove, however, every doubt in the reader's mind, I will refer him to Mr. David Gelston, Mr. John Mills, Mr. John Swartwout, or Mr. Matthew L. Davis, in whose presence these sentiments, and many others more disrespectful, if possible, were uttered. It was at the house of Mr. Burr, who, anticipating the evil consequences that at that critical moment would result from such conduct in Governor Clinton, insisted, before he left the house, that he should promise his friends to desist from using such language previous to or during the election. This was very reluctantly complied with on the part of Mr. Clinton.

"Notwithstanding this, they were continually reiterated by his son, who publicly and loudly animadverted upon the character of Mr. Jefferson with the most vulgar severity. Similar sentiments were certainly entertained by all Governor Clinton's connexions, as their conduct during the election clearly evinced. Mr. Dewitt Clinton, through the whole contest, never appeared at the poll, but observed the most shameful indfference and inactivity."

The nomination of a ticket having been made and approved at a public meeting over which Anthony Lispenard presided, its effect upon both parties was tremendous. The character and standing of the candidates seemed a presage of victory. It elated, and gave life and vigour to the republicans, while it paralyzed and depressed the federalists.

Never before or since has a ticket been presented to the citizens of New-York composed of men combining such talents, patriotism, experience, and public services, as the republican assembly ticket for the year 1800.

Those who possess a knowledge of the character of Colonel Burr know what were his qualifications for execution. The plan of the campaign having been opened, it only remained to be executed. In the performance of this duty, all Mr. Burr's industry, perseverance, and energy were called into operation. Nor were the federal party idle or inactive. They possessed wealth and patronage. Led on to the contest by their talented chieftain, General Hamilton, whose influence in their ranks was unbounded, they made a desperate but ineffectual resistance to the assaults upon their political citadel. If defeated here, their power was gone, and the administration of the government lost. Both General Hamilton and Colonel Burr exerted themselves personally at the polls during the three days of election. They repeatedly addressed the people, and did all that men could do. They frequently met at the same polls, and argued, in the presence of large assemblages, the debatable questions. Their deportment towards each other and towards their opponents was such as comported with the dignity of two of the most accomplished and courtly gentlemen of the age in which they lived.

The polls of the election opened on the morning of the 29th of April, and finally closed at sunset on the 1st of May. Immediately after, the inspectors commenced counting and canvassing the ballots. Sufficient progress was made during the night to render it, in a great measure, certain that the republican ticket had succeeded; and on the 2d of May this result was announced, the average majority being about 490. All doubt as to the presidential vote of the state of New-York was now removed, unless the federal party, in their expiring agonies, could devise some plan by which the will of the people, thus clearly expressed, should be defeated. Such apprehensions were entertained, and, it was soon discovered, not entertained without good reason.

TO JOHN JAY.

New-York May 7, 1800.

DEAR SIR,

You have been informed of the loss of our election in this city. It is also known that we have been unfortunate throughout Long Island and in Westchester. According to the returns hitherto, it is too probable that we lose our senator for this district.

The moral certainty, therefore, is, that there will be an anti-federal majority in the ensuing legislature; and the very high probability is, that this will bring Jefferson into the chief magistracy, unless it be prevented by the measure which I shall now submit to your consideration; namely, the immediate calling together of the existing legislature.

I am aware that there are weighty objections to the measure; but the reasons for it appear to me to outweigh the objections; and, in times like these in which we live, it will not do to be over scrupulous. It is easy to sacrifice the substantial interests of society by a strict adherence to ordinary rules.

In observing this I shall not be supposed to mean that any thing ought to be done which integrity will forbid; but merely that the scruples of delicacy and propriety, as relative to a common course of things, ought to yield to the extraordinary nature of the crisis. They ought not to hinder the taking of a legal and constitutional step to prevent an atheist in religion and a fanatic in politics from getting possession of the helm of state.

You, sir, know in a great degree the anti-federal party; but I fear you do not know them as well as I do. 'Tis a composition, indeed, of very incongruous materials, but all tending to mischief--some of them to the overthrow of the government, by stripping it of its due energies; others of them to a revolution after the manner of Bonaparte. I speak from indubitable facts, not from conjectures and inferences. In proportion as the true character of the party is understood, is the force of the considerations which urge to every effort to disappoint it; and it seems to me that there is a very solemn obligation to employ the means in our power.

The reasonable part of the world will, I believe, approve it. They will see it as a proceeding out of the common course, but warranted by the particular nature of the crisis and the great cause of social order.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet