_First_. The tories.
_Second_. The violent whigs.
_Third_. Those who wished " to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."
The Council of Revision, composed of Robert R. Livingston, Justice Morris, and Judge Hobart, had solemnly placed on record their opinion, that, in some portions of the Southern District "it would be difficult, and in many _absolutely impossible_, to find whigs to fill the necessary offices even for _conducting_ elections." Under such circ.u.mstances it was evident that the _first_ and _third_ parties must amalgamate, and such was the result.
In January, 1788, the legislature met, and directed the call of a State Convention, to whom was to be submitted the Federal Const.i.tution, as adopted by the General Convention held in Philadelphia in May, 1787. During this session the same party lines continued to be visible, although the respective parties had now a.s.sumed, or were designated by new names. The Schuyler was called the Federal party, and the Clinton the anti-Federal party; thev were composed, however, of the same individuals, with very few exceptions.
The great, and almost the only strength which the federal party possessed in the state was in the Southern District. Here the acquisition of the tories rendered their power and influence irresistible. From this district, composed of the counties of Westchester, New-York, Richmond, King"s, Queen"s, and Suffolk, the federalists had in the a.s.sembly, during the session of 1788-89, _twenty_ votes, and on no _party_ question did they command, during the whole session, more than _twenty-three_ votes.
In December, 1788, a bill for carrying into operation the federal const.i.tution 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 a.s.sembly, no compromise between the parties could be effected, and consequently no senators were chosen.
The following persons may be considered as const.i.tuting the strength of the Schuyler, now federal party, in the a.s.sembly of 1788-89:--
Brockholst Livingston, of the city of New-York. William W. Gilbert, "
" Alexander Macomb, " " Richard Harrison, " " Nicholas Hoffman, " "
John Watts, Jun., " " Nicholas Low, " " Gulian Verplanck, " " Comfort Sands, " " Philip Van Cortlandt, Westchester county. Philip Livingston, " " Nathaniel Rockwell, " " Walter Seaman, " " Jonathan Horton, " " John Younglove, Albany county. Henry K. Van Rensellaer, "
" Stephen Carman, Queen"s county. Whitehead Cornwell, " " Peter Vandervoort, King"s county. Aquilla Giles, " " Abraham Bancker, Richmond county. John C. Dongan, " " Samuel A. Barker, Dutchess county.
It will be observed, that all the above Schuyler or federal members, with the exception of _two_ from Albany and _one_ from Dutchess county, were elected as representatives from the Southern District.
Having stated the origin and progress of the great political parties in the State of New-York, as they appear from the public records, it may be proper to add that Colonel Burr belonged to what was termed by Mr. Livingston "the violent whig party." By that party, while the tories were disfranchised, Mr. Burr was elected in 1784 to represent the city and county of New-York in the legislature. By that party, in 1789, he was appointed attorney-general of the state. By that party, in 1791, he was appointed a senator of the United States. By that party, in 1792, he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. By that party, subsequently, he was elected a member of the a.s.sembly and a member of the Convention to revise the Const.i.tution of the State, of which convention he was president; and by that party, in 1800, he was elected vice-president of the United States.
It is not intended to discuss the policy, the humanity, or the justice of the several measures proposed or adopted in relation to the tories by "_the violent whigs_," or by those whigs who wished "_to soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists_." The historical facts have been given, and the sources from whence they were derived specified.
The feelings and opinions of "_the violent whigs_," are expressed by the legislature of the state on the 9th of February, 1784, and by Governor George Clinton at the opening of that session in the city of New-York. They say--" While we recollect the general progress of a war which has been marked with cruelty and rapine; while we survey the ruins of this once flourishing city and its vicinity; while we sympathize in the calamities which have reduced so many of our virtuous fellow-citizens to want and distress, and are anxiously solicitous for means to repair the wastes and misfortunes which we lament, we cannot hearken to these pet.i.tions."
On the other hand, the sentiments and views of those whigs who wished "_to soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists_" are to be found in the following extracts of letters.
JOHN JAY TO GOVERNOR WILLIAM LIVINGSTON. [2]
"Pa.s.say, 9th April, 1783.
"The tories will doubtless cause some difficulty; but that they have always done; and as this will probably be the _last time_, we must make the best of it. A universal, indiscriminate condemnation and expulsion of those people would not redound to our honour, because so harsh a measure would partake more of vengeance than of justice. For my part, I wish that all, except _the faithless and cruel_, may be forgiven. That exception would indeed _extend to very few_; but even if it applied to the case of one only, that one ought, in my opinion, to be saved."
JOHN JAY TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
"Pa.s.say, 12th September, 1783.
"Europe hears much, and wishes to hear more of divisions, seditions, violences, and confusions among us. The tories are generally and greatly pitied; _more, indeed, than they deserve_. The indiscriminate expulsion and ruin of that whole cla.s.s and description of men would not do honour to our magnanimity or humanity, especially in the opinion of those nations who consider, with more astonishment than pleasure, the terms of peace which America has obtained."
Footnotes:
1. See Life of Hamilton, Vol. I., p. 316
2. Jay"s Works, Vol. I., p. 128.
CHAPTER IV.
It has been seen that the Livingstons were of the Schuyler party during the revolutionary war, and that they continued so until the year 1787, when, in common with their political friends, they were the warm and ardent champions of the Federal Const.i.tution. After its adoption, and the organization of the government under it, they soon became dissatisfied. The cause of that dissatisfaction has been differently explained. On the one hand it was said that they were alarmed at the doctrines of those who had been called to administer the government, and at the a.s.sumption of powers not delegated by the people. That they apprehended the government was verging towards a _consolidated national_, instead of a _federal_ government of states.
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 Const.i.tution, one of its most splendid and efficient supporters, he and his connexions antic.i.p.ated his appointment to some exalted station; but that, while he was pa.s.sed 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.
Soon after the adoption of the new const.i.tution, the anti-federal party were recognised by a name more descriptive of their principles and their views. They a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of democrats. They considered themselves anti-consolidationists, but not anti-federalists. They knew that a section of the dominant party were the friends of a splendid national government. That they were the advocates of a system, by means of which all power would have concentrated in the general, and the state governments been reduced to the level of mere corporations.
Against this system the democrats reasoned and contended with unabated zeal. They were the early, unflinching, and faithful champions of state rights_.
From the year 1790 until 1800, the democratic and federal parties were alternately triumphant, both in the city and in the state of New-York.
In the former, the result of an election was frequently decided by the operations of some local or exciting topic. No decisive contest took place between the parties previous to 1800, founded on any great or controlling principle of government. But, during the years 1798 and 1799, the whole country was agitated from one extreme to the other.
Revolutionary France was convulsed, and, in the midst of her convulsions and sufferings, was daily committing the most cruel and wanton excesses towards her own citizens, while she was offering taunts and insults to foreign nations. The federal party seemed to sigh for a war with France. Pretending that they apprehended a French invasion, a large standing army was raised. At the head of this army, second in command to General Washington, was placed General Alexander Hamilton. To support the army and other useless extravagant expenditures, a land tax and an _eight per cent._ loan was found necessary. To silence the murmurs of an oppressed people, a sedition law was enacted. Such were some of the fruits of the elder Mr. Adams"s administration.
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 const.i.tutional remedy (the ballot-boxes) 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.
"In New-York all depends on the success of the city election, which is of twelve members, and of course makes a difference of twenty-four, which is sufficient to make the two houses, joined together, republican in their vote. * * * * * * Upon the whole, I consider it as rather more doubtful than the last election (1796), in which I was not deceived in more than a vote or two. * * * * * * In any event, we may say, that if the city election of New-York is in favour of the republican ticket, the issue will be republican; if the federal ticket for the city of New-York prevails, the probabilities will be in favour of a federal issue, because it would then require a republican vote both from New-Jersey and Pennsylvania to preponderate against New-York, on which we could not count with any confidence."
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 circ.u.mstances, 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.
Mr. Burr held frequent private meetings with his most intimate and confidential friends. At all these meetings it is believed the success of the democratic party was the only question under consideration. No local or personal interests were permitted to be discussed. The triumph of the party, as a whole, was the great object. By his adherents, it was deemed indispensable that he should be a member of the legislature to be chosen in April, which body was to appoint the presidential electors. While, on the other hand, it was considered not less necessary that he should be free to act at the polls in the city of New-York during the election. How was this to be effected? After much conference and deliberation it was resolved that he should be elected from Orange county, if the arrangement could be made, and the execution of the plan was intrusted princ.i.p.ally to Peter Townsend, Esquire, of Chester, who, with the aid of other influential friends, accomplished it.
The next question was, Of whom shall the a.s.sembly 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.
The following persons were nominated: George Clinton, Horatio Gates, Samuel Osgood, Henry Rutgers, Elias Nexsen, Thomas Storm, George Warner, Philip I. Arcularius, James Hunt, Ezekiel Robins, Brockholst Livingston, and John Swartwout.
In this ticket the three sections of the democratic, but at this election designated the _republican party,_ are fully represented.
Governor Clinton at the head of one section, Brockholst Livingston representing another, and General Gates, well known to be the personal and political friend of Colonel Burr. This ticket being nominated by the committee, the difficulty was to procure their consent to stand as candidates. A majority of them had no expectation of success. They considered the contest as a forlorn hope, and shrank from being set up as targets to be shot at. Governor Clinton, General Gates, Brockholst Livingston, and others, had repeatedly declared their fixed determination not to permit their names to be used.
A sub-committee was appointed to wait upon the candidates, and obtain permission to present their names for approval to a general meeting of citizens to be convened for that purpose. The sub-committee consisted of Aaron Burr, David Gelston, John Swartwout, John Mills, and Matthew L. Davis. After various communications and much persuasion, _nine_ of the candidates consented, some of them conditionally. But Governor Clinton, General Gates, and Brockholst Livingston were for a time immoveable. At length Colonel Burr induced Judge Livingston to agree that he would serve, if Governor Clinton and General Gates consented to serve. The sub-committee next waited upon General Gates, and Colonel Burr appealed to him in the most mild and persuasive language.
After much importunity he yielded, provided Governor Clinton was also a candidate.
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 (which he subsequently exercised) 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.
An imperfect sketch of the scene at the house of Colonel Burr was published in the year 1802, in a pamphlet under the signature of _Aristides_. The following is extracted from it. The note of reference here given is also extracted. Its correctness was never publicly denied by either of the gentlemen named. There exists no longer any reason for concealment on the subject; and it is therefore now admitted that this _note_ was written from memorandums made at the time by the author of this volume.
EXTRACT,