Why the Hartford Convention Formed

The adoption of the report of the committee of the Legislature, and the calling of the convention, which assembled shortly after in Hartford, Connecticut, was censured severely by the Democratic party

Continuing The Hartford Convention,
our selection from The History of Massachusetts by John S. Barry published in 1857. The selection is presented in 2.5 easy 5 minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in The Hartford Convention.

Time: 1814
Place: Hartford, Connecticut

The resolutions which followed this report, and which were adopted by the Legislature, were quite significant. These were:

• That, the calamities of war being now brought home to the territory of this Commonwealth — a portion of it being in the occupation of the enemy; our seacoasts and rivers invaded in several places, and in all exposed to immediate danger, the people of Massachusetts are impelled by the duty of self-defense and by all the feelings and attachments which bind good citizens to their country, to unite in the most vigorous means for defending the State and repelling the invader; and that no party feelings or political dissensions can ever interfere with the discharge of this exalted duty; vigorous means for defending the State and repelling the invader; and that no party feelings or political dissensions can ever interfere with the discharge of this exalted duty;”

• That a number of men be raised, not exceeding ten thousand, for twelve months, to be organized and officered by the Governor, for the defense of the State;”

• That the Governor be authorized to borrow, from time to time, a sum not exceeding one million of dollars, and that the faith of the Legislature be pledged to provide funds for the payment of the same.”

And finally:

That twelve persons be appointed, as delegates from this Commonwealth, to meet and confer with delegates from the other States of New England upon the subject of their public grievances and concerns; upon the best means of preserving our resources, and of defense against the enemy; and to devise and suggest for adoption, by those respective States, such measures as they may deem expedient; and also to take measures, if they shall think it proper, for procuring a convention of delegates from all the United States in order to revise the Constitution thereof and more effectually to secure the sup port and attachment of all the people by placing all upon the basis of fair representation.”

The adoption of the last of these resolutions by a vote of twenty-two to twelve in the Senate and of two hundred sixty to ninety in the House shows how largely the popular sentiment was enlisted against the war. Only about a half of the House, it is true, appear to have actively participated in the passage of this resolve, and, perhaps, had the other half voted, the majority in its favor might have been lessened. But of this there is no certain proof; and it might perhaps be affirmed on the other side that, had all voted, the majority would have been increased. As the case stands, however, nearly two to one in the Senate and three to one in the House voted in favor of the resolution; and it can hardly be doubted, when all the circumstances are considered, that the vote of the Legislature reflected quite faithfully the wishes of the people.

Nor did the General Court attempt to conceal their transactions from the scrutiny of the whole nation or to withhold from the other States a cooperation in their measures; for the day after the passage of this resolution the presiding officers of the Senate and House were directed to make their proceedings known as speedily as possible, and letters were written to be sent to the different governments, inviting them to join in such measures as might be “adapted to their local situation and mutual relations and habits, and not repugnant to their obligations as members of the Union.”

The adoption of the report of the committee of the Legislature, and the calling of the convention, which assembled shortly after in Hartford, Connecticut, was censured severely by the Democratic party, at the head of which stood Levi Lincoln, Jr.; and for many years accusations were “thrown broadcast upon the members of that body, and renewed at every election,” charging them with a studied design to subvert the Government and destroy the Union. The delegates from Massachusetts, however, as well as from the other States, were gentlemen of the highest respectability and talent, and, “as far as their professions can be considered as sincere; as far as their votes and proceedings afford evidence of their designs,” so far their conduct has been adjudged to be defensible.

As has been well observed, “It is not to be supposed, without proof, that their object was treason or disunion; and their proceedings unite with their declarations and the sentiments entertained by those who appointed them to show that they neither purposed nor meditated any other means of defense than such as were perfectly justifiable, pacific, and constitutional.” Indeed, such men as George Cabot, of Boston, the president of the convention, not a politician by profession, yet “a man of so enlightened a mind, of such wisdom, virtue, and piety, that one must travel far, very far, to find his equal ;” Nathan Dane, father of the Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Territory, and the author of a digest of the common law, eminent for his services in the State and National Legislatures, and possessing the esteem and respect of all who knew him; William Prescott, of Boston, father of the historian of that name, a Councilor, a Senator, and a Representative from that town, subsequently a member of the Convention for the Revision of the Constitution, and the president of the Common Council of Bos ton as a city; Harrison Gray Otis, for two years succeeding this convention a member of the Legislature, and afterward a Senator in the Congress of the United States, a gentleman of fine talents, fascinating manners, and great legislative experience; Timothy Bigelow, of Medford, a member and the Speaker of the House, and afterward a Councilor; Joshua Thomas, of Plymouth, an upright, popular, and honored judge of probate to the time of his death ; Joseph Lyman, of Northampton, the sheriff of Hampshire County, and a member of the Convention for Revising the Constitution; Daniel Waldo, of Worcester, a member of the Senate, respected by his townsmen, as by all others who knew him; Hodijah Baylies, of Taunton, aide-de camp to a distinguished officer during the Revolution, and long judge of probate for the County of Bristol; George Bliss, of Springfield, a member of the State Government and of the Convention for Revising the Constitution; Samuel S. Wilde, of Newburyport, also a member of the State Convention, and a judge of the Supreme Judicial Court, beloved and respected by a wide circle of acquaintances, and possessing the confidence and attachment of the people; Stephen Longfellow, Jr., father of the distinguished professor and poet —- such men, by the most violent partisan, could hardly be suspected of deliberately “plotting a conspiracy against the National Government, of exciting a civil war, of favoring a dissolution of the Union, of submitting to an allegiance to George III.” Their character and standing at the period of their choice and to the day of their death are a sufficient refutation of all such charges, even if made; and if they were unworthy the confidence of the public, upon whom could reliance be more safely placed?

Simeon E. Baldwin began here. John S. Barry began here.

More information here and here, and below.

This is a good book. If you buy it, we get a commission. You can support History Moments by doing that or by doing this:
We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history