Who was 'Who' at Hartford: The Hartford Conventioneers and the resulting Impact on the Federalist Party - Research Paper Example

?“Who was ‘Who’ at Hartford The Hartford Conventioneers and the resulting Impact on the Federalist Party I. Introduction The Hartford Convention only lasted for less than a month starting the 18th of December 1814 until the 4th of January 1815 but it left a big impact in the political scenario of the United States and created a huge riff within the Federalist Party (Banner, 1970)1. Note that the Convention was shrouded with secrecy which created a lot of unease in many sectors. For people who are against the Federalist Party, the Convention was seen as a clandestine act which is set to wreck havoc on the federal Constitution (Banner, 1970). Most of the members of the Federalist Party at that time were business people who needed to protect their commercial interests (Buckley, 1934). Since there was a trade embargo at that time, many people believed that the Convention is all about the commercial interests of the members of the Party. The fact that the convention met secretly fueled the suspicions that the party is trying to hide something (Buckley, 1934). In fact, there were many people who believed that the Convention was set to break the Union and that the people who were part of the convention were “traitors” (Buckley, 1934). Note that during the Eve of Christmas in 1814, the Treaty of Ghent was signed to end the War of 1812 so the convention which was originally called to discuss grievances related to the war suddenly lost its significance (Banner, 1970). While many people were critical of the Hartford Convention, there were also those who believe that the Convention can help iron-out the problems brought by the war (Banner, 1970). The opposing opinions about the Hartford Convention made this convention one of the most controversial assemblies in the United States and for many years, the Convention was the subject of suspicions. As one of the turning points of the Federalist Party, the Hartford Convention gathered as number of prominent members of the party. Originally, there were 23 official delegates to the convention and these delegates represented the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island (Lyman, 1823). Twelve delegates came from Massachusetts, seven came from Connecticut and four came from Rhode Island. As the convention progressed, two representations representatives from New Hampshire and one from Vermont joined in, bringing the total number of delegates to 26. The delegation representing the state of Massachusetts included George Cabot, Harrison Gray Otis, Nathan Dane, Timothy Bigelow, Stephen Longfellow, Jr., Harrison Gray Otis, Joshua Thomas, Joseph Layman, Daniel Waldo, Samuel Summer Wilde, George Bliss and Hodijah Baylies. For Connecticut, Chauncey Goodrich, Nathaniel Swift, Zephaniah Swith, Roger Minott Sherman, John Treadwell, James Hillhouse and Calvin Goddard made several significant contributions to the outputs of the convention. Rhode Island was represented by Samuel Ward, Daniel Layman, Benjamin Hazard and Edward Manton while New Hampshire was presented by Mills Olcott and Benjamin West (Buckley, 1934). The lone representative of Vermont to the convention was William Hall, Jr. To get to know the most prominent people involved in the convention, let us take a closer look at the role that these people play in the history of the Federalist Party and the United States as a whole. II. The Convention Leaders The different delegations had their own leaders and in the case of Massachusetts, the leaders of the delegation were George Cabot and Harrison G. Otis. . Nathaniel Dane, who was also from Massachusetts, also played a big role during and after the convention (Mason, 2009)2. As for the Connecticut delegation, Chauncey Goodrich and James Hillhouse were at the forefront (Mason. 2009). The smaller delegations from Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire did not have official delegation leaders. Although all of the delegates probably actively participated in the discussions of the various issues presented for discussion during the convention, there were no complete records of the proceedings of the convention so one cannot really be certain as to who proposed what legislations and actions during the sessions (Dwight, 1833). Also, there are no records as to who voted for or against certain proposals during the convention so one cannot really be certain as to who was responsible for passing certain measures (Buckley, 1934). However, there are a few people who were considered as the primary drivers of the convention. Of the 26 delegates to the Hartford Convention, three names proved to be the most popular and these are George Cabot who was the president of the convention, Harrison G. Otis who was one of the most vocal and staunch defender of the moderates and Nathaniel Dane who helped direct the course of the convention by setting the agenda and writing the draft reports and resolutions of the convention (Buckley, 1934). a. George Cabot George Cabot was elected as convention President and presided over the discussions during the convention. Cabot was a prominent merchant, seaman and politician at that time and who lived in Boston at that time and was one of the many businessmen who were affected by the trade embargo (Dwight, 1833). As the leader of the Convention, Cabot played a big role in stirring the discussions of the convention members towards the drafting of the Hartford Report and Resolutions which were later published and made available to the general public3. According to Theodore Dwight (1833), who was the Secretary of the Hartford Convention, Cabot was elected as president and presiding officer of the convention because he was a good friend of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton who was the first Secretary of the Treasury. According to the Dwight (1833), since the convention was geared towards resolving the many economic and political issues surrounding the War of 1812, the members of the convention saw it fit to have someone who is experienced in these areas to head the convention. Cabot was the obvious choice for the members given his economic and political background. Many believed that the choice was made because Cabot had links to Washington and such link can help the convention gain support from the supporters of Washington. b. Harrison Gray Otis As a political leader and a judge of the Court of Common Pleases at the time he was elected as member of the Hartford Convention, Harrison Gray Otis was one of the most prominent figures in the convention (Morrison, 1969). Otis was one of the delegates who participated vigorously in the discussion of New England’s secession from the United States and he strong defended his position and the outputs of the convention. Otis was believed to be one of the primary authors of the convention resolution which criticized the abuse of authority committed by the Administration at that time and calling for changes in the government (Morrison, 1969). Long after the dissolution of the convention, Otis continued to defend the convention in a series of letters published in 1820 and in 1824 (Otis, 1824)4. In his letters, Otis vigorously defended the convention from detractors that accused the same for treachery. According to Otis, the convention never had any intentions of trying to disband the Union but rather, it was merely trying to put into context the many abuses of authority committed by the government (Morrison, 1969). He explained that Federal Constitution gave powers to the government to protect its people and since the war at that time caused great deal of loss in terms of property and commercial interest, the convention had no choice but to find solutions to the growing economic and political problems brought about by the War of 1812 (Morrison, 1969). He also pointed out that the convention did not intend to create chaos in the government but rather, it aimed to turn the excitement caused by the war into legitimate actions sanctioned by the government. In other words, Otis wanted to make the public understand that the convention was supposed to embody the legitimate concerns of the public and it was supposed to serve as a vehicle for change only that there were many hindrances and complications which prevented the convention from attaining its goal. He cited that the Treaty of Ghent preempted the outputs of the convention and put the members of the convention in a compromising position which caused a number of people to look at the convention in a negative light (Morrison, 1969). c. Nathaniel Dane Due to it time limitations, the convention did not have the luxury to craft its agenda will in advance before the delegates arrive at the meeting place. According to Dwight (1833), when the members of the convention arrived during day 1, the convention still did not have any fixed topics for discussion so a committee was created to draft the agenda and choose the topics that will be included in the discussions. Nathaniel Dane played a very important role during the convention and the two committees that he headed were crucial to the success of the convention. Dane was a member of the committee which was tasked to set the agenda for discussion during the convention. As a brilliant lawyer and legislator who helped review and codify the laws of the State of Massachusetts, Nathaniel Dane had a long experience in legislative matters to help him set the tone of the discussions during the convention. On the eve of the first day of the convention, Dane and four other members of the convention crafted the different points for discussions during the convention which include the powers of the president, the laws governing the militia and the similar items. The committee headed by Dane held the key to the discussions on the floor of the convention and with limited time to discuss matters affecting the United States at that time, Dane’s committee played a very important role in keeping the convention in the right track. Aside from heading the committee which set the agenda of the convention, Dane was also a member of the committee which was tasked to draft the convention reports. The draft convention reports made by Dane’s committee was the pivotal points for discussions during the second half of the convention period and they served as the basis for the final report submitted by the convention to Congress. Without the reports created by Dames Committee, it would be difficult for the convention to publish its reports and resolutions. III. Effect of the Hartford Convention on the Federalist Party According to Buckley (1934), the Hartford Convention was a major embarrassment for the Federalist Party. Note that in the middle of the convention which was set to find solutions to the effects of the War of 1812 but since the War of 1812 officially ended with the Treaty of Ghent which was signed while the convention is still on-going, the agenda of the convention became moot and academic (Buckley, 1934). In other words, there was really no need for the convention because the issue that it sought to resolved no longer existed. However, in defending the Harford Convention, Otis (1824) said that the provisions set in the resolution published by the convention were not only limited to the impacts of the war but rather, geared towards solving the major problems caused by the abuses of authority committed by the Administration. Otis pointed out that the final resolution submitted by the convention to the governors of the states which sent representatives to the convention and to congress contained proposed amendments to the federal constitution including (1) limitations in the number of days for trade embargo (2) Congressional vote requirements for declaration of offensive war, (3) removing the representation advantage of the Southern States, (4) limiting the term of the future president, and (5) prevention of political dynasty by requiring that the succeeding president should not come from the same state as his or her predecessor (Buckley, 1934). Otis argued that these proposed constitutional amendments are not only applicable to the present time but can have a big impact for the future (Morrison, 1969). Despite the arguments presented by Otis in his letters published in 1820 and 1824, there is no denying the fact that the convention had a big impact on the Federalist Party and that the convention may have triggered a major collapse in the political party (Morrison, 1969). Note that when the convention was organized in 1814, there was so much secrecy in terms of its agenda. In fact, during the first three weeks of the convention, the members of the convention conducted close door meetings which fuel speculations that the convention had a questionable agenda (Morrison, 1969). Note that although the convention had a secretary who was supposed to document the proceedings, it did not keep any minutes of its proceedings. The notes of the presiding officer George Cabot also did not contain any significant information as to what were discussed during the close door sessions. Although there are no official records of the speeches and debates held during the convention, the communications that the members sent to each other provide some insights on what really happened during the convention. The most telling of all the documents were the communications between the members of the convention which shows that the members of the convention were trying to procure the secession of New England. According to Buckley (1934), the surviving letters sent by the members of the convention to their peers shows that there were attempts among the members of the convention to procure the secession of New England. The letters sent by the members of the convention to their peers fueled rumors of treason and prompted the government at that time to send an army officer to watch the comings and goings of the members of the convention. Although some of the members of the convention may actually be in favor of the secession of New England from the United States and form a new government, the convention never really passed a formal resolution to this effect. In fact, there was no mention about the secession of New England in the resolutions that were eventually published by the convention. As the convention ended, the delegates crafted resolutions containing provisions and proposed amendments to the federal constitutions. According to Buckley (1934), the members of the convention knew beforehand that the members of congress would never ratify the resolutions passed during the Hartford Convention but the members still pursue their agenda. According to Buckley (1934), the resolutions and proposed amendments crafted at the Hartford Convention were meant to embarrass the President and the Republicans who sit in Congress at that time. The plan of the members of the convention backfired and put them in a very compromising position. Note that the news about the Treaty of Ghent only reached the members of the Convention one month after the signing of the treaty and by that time, the plan of the convention members to discreet the President and Congress for the way they handled the war was already well underway. In an attempt to influence the way the government handled the War of 1812, the state of Massachusetts sent three commissioners to Washington to negotiate the terms proposed by the Hartford Convention (Dwight, 1833). However, when the members of the convention reached Washington to seek audience from Congress and present the resolutions they crafted at Hartford, the news about the victory at the Battle of New Orleans led by Andrew Jackson and the consequent signing of the Treaty of Ghent have reached the capital making the resolutions of Hartford convention irrelevant (Dwight, 1833). Following these events, the commissioners went home to Massachusetts without accomplishing their purpose. IV. Conclusion The convention is one of the primary reasons why the Federalists party lost its influence in the government and eventually disbanded. Technically, the Convention was part of the turning point of the party and its members. Even before the convention started, some of the influential members of the Federalist Party were already wary about the outcome of the convention and some of the governors did not send delegates to the convention for fear of negative repercussions (Dwight, 1833). Since there was already unease within the party even before the convention, the rumors surrounding the closed-door sessions of the convention made the party members even more suspicious and a number of moderate members of the party started to detach themselves from the party. The signing of the Treaty of Ghent which facilitates the end of the War of 1812 further undermined the influence of the Federalist Party. During the Hartford Convention, the separatist movement was discredited which caused further erosion of the powers and influence of the Party. As the powers and influence of the Federalist Party slowly vanish, many of its prominent members abandoned the party. The disenfranchised Federalist Party eventually disbanded in 1818 but some of its local chapters remained until the early party of 1920s. The Party was formally dissolved during the last party congressional caucus in 1825 (Dwight, 1833). Works Cited Banner, James M. “To the Hartford Convention: The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts, 1789–1815”. New York: Knopf, 1970. Buckley, William Edward. “The Hartford Convention.” Yale University Press (1934) Chambers, William, ed., ed (1972). “The First Party System: Federalists and Republicans.” Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1972. Dwight, Theodore. "History of the Hartford Convention," Boston: N. & J White, Russell, Odiorne, & Co, 1833. Formisano, Ronald P. "State Development in the Early Republic," in Boyd Shafer and Anthony Badger, eds. Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775–2000, (2001) pp. 7–35. Lyman, Theodore. “A short account of the Hartford Convention: taken from official documents, and addressed to the fair minded and the well disposed; To which is added an attested copy of the secret journal of that body.” Boston: O. Everett, 1823. Mason, Matthew, “Federalists, Abolitionists, and the Problem of Influence,” American Nineteenth Century History 10 (March 2009), 1–27. Morison, Samuel Eliot. “Harrison Gray Otis, 1765-1848: The Urbane Federalist (1913); revised edition.” 1969 Otis, Harrison Gray. “Otis’ Letters in Defence of the Hartford Convention, and the People of Massachusetts.” Boston: S. Gardner, 1824. Wood, Gordon S. “Empire of Liberty: A history of the Early Republic, 1789-1815” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Read More