Memoirs of Aaron Burr Part 66

"Will it not be proper as well as just to have the estates of the rebels who are gone out of the king's lines among the rebels forfeited, confiscated, and sold by commissioners to be appointed for that purpose, and the moneys arising on the sales to be applied to the use of the refugees, to compensate for their sufferings by the rebels in ease of the parliamentary donations? Will not the perfidy of France and Spain justify Great Britain in proposing and entering into an alliance with the courts of Russia, Prussia, and other powers, to unite against France and Spain, the common disturbers of public tranquillity; take and divide among them all their islands in the West Indies?"

Footnotes:

1. Lord North.

2. General Vaughan.

3. Sir Henry Clinton.

4. The Hon. Joseph Reed, whom the British attempted to bribe through the agency of Mrs. Ferguson.

5. Referring to the discomfiture at Savannah of the combined forces of France and the United States; the former under the command of Count D'Estaing, the latter commanded by General Lincoln.

6. See Vol. I., Ch. XIII.

7. See Vol. I., Ch. IX.

8. On the back of Mr. Sower's letter Mr. Galloway has made, in his own handwriting, this endors.e.m.e.nt--"Mr. Sower is a German refugee at New-York, and a person of the greatest influence among the Germans in Pennsylvania."

CHAPTER III.

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 Const.i.tution, 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." [1]

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 princ.i.p.al 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 Const.i.tution, 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, pet.i.tioned the legislature for leave to return, which pet.i.tion was rejected. At the same session an act was pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sed 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 pet.i.tions 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 a.s.sembly 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 pet.i.tions. 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.

On the 11th of February, 1784, the a.s.sembly pa.s.sed a resolution directing that the names of those persons that had been attainted should be communicated to the governors of the several states; requesting to be supplied, in like manner, with "a list of the persons proscribed or banished by their respective states, in order that thereby the _principles of federal union_ may be adhered to and preserved." In the senate this resolution was permitted to sleep.

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 pet.i.tioned 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 May, 1784, the legislature pa.s.sed an act ent.i.tled "An act to, preserve the freedom and independence of this state, and for other purposes." The object of this law was to prohibit the tories from holding any office. The Council of Revision returned the bill, with objections to its pa.s.sage, one of which was, "that so large a portion of the citizens remained in parts of the _Southern District_ which were possessed by the British armies, that in most places it would be difficult, and in many _absolutely impossible_, to find men to fill the necessary offices, even for _conducting_ elections, until a new set of inhabitants could be procured."

This bill of disfranchis.e.m.e.nt, notwithstanding the objections of the Council of Revision, was pa.s.sed by more than two thirds of both branches, and thus became a law. Such were the feelings of the "violent whigs;" such the policy of the first legislature after the termination of the war. But, unfortunately, among those who had fought the battles of the revolution, there were some who doubted the capacity of the people for self-government, while there were others who sought power and influence at the hazard of principle. The Schuyler party were in the minority. The Clinton party, designated by Chancellor Livingston as the "violent whigs," were uncompromising on the question of banishing the tories, who were numerous, especially in the Southern District. It seemed probable, therefore, if restored to citizenship, that they would amalgamate with the _third_ party, or that cla.s.s of whigs "who wished to suppress all violence, and to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."

In March, 1783, the legislature pa.s.sed an act ent.i.tled "An act for granting more effectual relief in cases of trespa.s.s." 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, const.i.tuted the Court for the Correction of Errors. Having reference to the contemplated proceedings, the address closes as follows:--

"Preparatory to such an event, we exhort you to be cautious, in your future choice of senators, that none be elected but those on whom, from long and certain experience, you can rely as men attached to the liberty of America, and firm friends to our laws and const.i.tution; men who will spurn at any proposition that has a tendency to curtail the privileges of the people, and who, at the same time that they protect us against _judicial tyranny_, have wisdom to see the propriety of supporting that necessary independence in courts of justice, both of the legislature and people.

"Having confined ourselves to const.i.tutional measures, and now solemnly declaring our disapprobation of all others, we feel a freedom in sounding the alarm to our fellow-citizens. If that independence, which we have obtained at a risk which makes the acquisition little less than miraculous, was worth contending for against a powerful and enraged monarch, and at the expense of the best blood in America, surely its preservation is worth contending for against those _among ourselves who might impiously hope to build their greatness upon the ruins of that fabric which was so dearly established_.

"That the principle of decision in the case of Rutgers _vs_.

Waddington is dangerous to the freedom of our government, and that a perseverance in that principle would leave our legislature nothing but a name, and render their sessions nothing more than an expensive form of government, the preceding remarks must evidence.

"Permit us, on this occasion, earnestly to entreat you to join us in watchfulness against every attempt that may be used, either violently and suddenly, or _gently_ and _imperceptibly, to effect a revolution_ in the _spirit_ and _genius_ of our government; and _should there be among us characters to whom the simplicity of it is offensive_, let our attention and perseverance be such as to _preclude the hopes of a change_."

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.

In October, 1784, the case of Rutgers _vs_. Waddington was brought before the legislature, and on the 27th of that month the a.s.sembly

_Resolved_, That this adjudication is subversive of all law and good order; because, if a court inst.i.tuted for the _benefit and government of a corporation_ may take upon themselves to dispense with a law of the state, all other courts may do the like: therefore,

_Resolved_, That it be recommended to the honourable the Council of Appointment, at their next session, to appoint such persons to be mayor and recorder of the city of New-York as will govern themselves by the known laws of the land.

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 pa.s.sed; 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 ent.i.tled "An act to preserve the freedom and independence of this state," pa.s.sed 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 ent.i.tled "An act for granting relief in case of certain trespa.s.ses." 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 pa.s.sed; 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 pa.s.s an act under the imposing t.i.tle 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 Schuyler party sought allies. The tories were numerous, especially in the Southern District. The Clinton party, designated by Chancellor Livingston, in his letter to John Jay, as the "_violent whigs_," were uncompromising on the question of banishing the tories from the state.

It seemed probable, therefore, that, sooner or later, if restored to citizenship, they would amalgamate with that cla.s.s of whigs who wished to suppress "all violence, and to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."

The effect of these legislative measures on the tories was antic.i.p.ated by both friends and foes. Chancellor Livingston, in January, 1784, had said that there were three parties in the state:--