CHAPTER III

THE HARTFORD CONVENTION

DURING the War of 1812 with Great Britain, discontent of a very violent, not to say revolutionary, character existed in New England, especially in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

The Hartford Convention met on the call of the Legislature of Massachusetts, the invitation being directed by name only to the New England States. Connecticut and Rhode Island, through their Legislatures, accepted the call. Official delegates were appointed by the authorities of these States, and there were also delegates representing local communities in New Hampshire and Vermont.

The Resolution of Massachusetts calling the convention provided for twelve delegates to it to "confer with delegates from the New England States, or any other, upon the subject of their public grievances and concerns; and upon the best means of preserving our resources; and of defense against the enemy; and to devise and suggest for the adoption of their respective States such measures as they may deem expedient, and also to take measures, if they shall think 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 support and attachment of all the people by placing all upon a fair basis of representation."

In the letter to the other States of the Union, sent by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, it was stated that the object of the convention was to deliberate upon the dangers to which the eastern section of the Union was exposed by the war, and to devise, if practicable, measures of security and defense consistent with the preservation of their resources from total ruin and adapted to their local situation, mutual relation, and habits; and not repugnant to their obligation as members of the Union. It was

also suggested that the convention inquire whether the interests of those States demanded persevering endeavors by each State to procure such amendments to the National Constitution as might secure to them their equal advantage; and also to consider the propriety of obtaining a convention of all the States, or such of them as might approve of the measure, with a view to obtaining such amendment.

The letter concluded with an avowal of the attachment of the people of Massachusetts to the National Union and to the rights and independence of their country.

The answer of Connecticut was contained in a report to the Legislature, in which complaint was made of the conduct of the war. It stated that "occupying a comparatively small territory and naturally associating during the Revolutionary War with States whose interests were identified with our own interests and inclinations led us to unite in the great national compact, since defined and consolidated by the Constitution of the United States; that they anticipated from the Union the preservation and advancement of their dearest rights and interests; that whilst the Father of his Country, and other good and wise men, guided our councils, they were not disappointed. But the present national administration had formed a coalition with Napoleon, aspiring to the dominion of the world, and had left unattempted no means, however destructive or hazardous, to aid him; that protection is the first and most important claim of the States on the Federal Government, and a primary condition essential to the obligation of every compact between rulers and their subjects. To obtain that, as a principal object, Connecticut became a member of the National Confederacy."

The report also stated: "They duly appreciate the great advantages which result from the Federal compact, were the government administered according to the sacred principles of the Constitution. They have not forgotten the ties of confidence and affection which bound these States to each other during their toils for independence; nor the national honor and commercial prosperity which they mutually shared during the happy years of a good administration. They are at the same time conscious of their rights and determined to defend them. Their sacred liberties, those inestimable institutions, civil and religious, which their venerable fathers had

bequeathed to them, are, with the blessings of heaven, to be maintained at every hazard and never to be surrendered by the tenants of the soil, which the ashes of their ancestors have consecrated."

The report concludes with recommending the acceptance of the invitation of Massachusetts as an eligible method of combining the wisdom of New England in devising, on full consultation, a proper course to be adopted consistent with our obligations to the United States.

A resolution was adopted to "appoint seven delegates for conference with other delegates from the New England States for the purpose of devising and recommending such measures of safety and welfare of these States as may consist with our obligations as members of the National Union.”

Rhode Island, by its Legislature, accepted the invitation, noting that its Governor had been requested by the Legislature to confer with "our neighboring sister States," and appointed delegates "to confer with such other delegates as are, or shall be, appointed by other States upon the common dangers to which these States are exposed, and upon the best means of cooperating for our mutual defense against the enemy and upon such measures which it may be in the power of said States, consistently with their obligations to adopt, to restore and secure to the people thereof their rights and privileges under the Constitution of the United States.'

That the convention was to be solely of the New England States is evident, not only from the language of the call, but from the answers of Connecticut and Rhode Island.

What is meant in these proceedings by a "fair basis of representation" in the call made by Massachusetts, and by measures "consistent with their obligations as members of the Union," will be evident from the sequel.

The convention met on December 14, 1814, at Hartford. Among the delegates were the most distinguished names in New England, including Cabot, Prescott, Harrison Gray Otis, Nathan Dane, and Chauncey Goodrich. At that time New Orleans was threatened by the British army and fleet.

The convention, after a session of several weeks behind closed doors, made a report that was drawn with great skill and ability. It is not deemed necessary to set out the whole report, but only to note some of the salient points of it.

This report noted the difficulty of devising means of defense against danger and relief from oppression from acts of their own government without violating constitutional principles or disappointing the hopes of a suffering and injured people; and it stated that the recommendation of patience and firmness to the distressed sometimes drives them to despair. "But," continues the report, "when abuse reduced to a system and accumulated through a course of years has pervaded every department of the Government, and spread corruption through every region of the State, and when these are clothed with the forms of law and enforced by an executive whose will is their source, no summary means of redress can be applied without resort to direct and open resistance."

Apologizing for not recommending this open resistance, the report states that the experiment of resistance, when justifiable, cannot fail to be painful to good citizens, and that precedents for resistance to the worst administration are eagerly seized upon by those who are hostile to the best.

"Necessity alone can sanction a resort to this measure, and it should never be extended in duration or degree beyond the exigency, until the people, not merely in the fervor of sudden excitement, but after full deliberation, are determined to change the Constitution.

"It is a truth not to be concealed that a sentiment prevails to no inconsiderable extent that the administration has given. such construction to that instrument and produced so many abuses under color of its authority that the time for a change is at hand." The report goes on to say that those so believing regard the present evils as incurable and intrinsic under the present Constitution, and that no change can aggravate the misery of the country. This opinion may prove correct but the evidence is not yet conclusive that it is, and as measures adopted on that assumption might be irreversible, they submit some reflections to reconcile the people to a course of moderation and firmness.

After adverting to the once high prosperity under the Constitution, and to the present miseries, and expressing the hope that their brethren in other States may yet undergo a revolution in opinion, they proceed to give reasons against a present dissolution of the Union, as follows:

"Finally, if the Union be destined to be dissolved, by reason of multiplied abuses of bad administration, it should, if possible, be the work of peaceful times and deliberate consent. Some new form of confederacy should be substituted among these States which shall intend to maintain the Federal relation to each other. Events may prove that the causes of our calamities are deep and permanent; they may be found to proceed, not merely from the blindness of prejudice, pride of opinion, violence of party spirit, or the confusion of the times; but they may be traced to implacable combinations of individuals with States to monopolize power and office, and to trample, without remorse, upon the rights and interests of the commercial section of the Union. Whenever it shall appear that these causes are radical and permanent, a separation by equitable arrangement will be preferable to an alliance by constraint among nominal friends, but real enemies inflamed by mutual hatred and jealousy, and inviting by intestine divisions contempt and aggression from abroad."

The report then denies the authority of the United States over the militia as it had been exercised, and denies the power of Congress to compel the militia and other citizens, by forcible draft or conscription, to serve in the regular army, declaring "that an iron destiny can impose no harder servitude on a citizen than to force him from his home and his occupation to wage offensive wars undertaken to gratify the pride and passion of his master; that the forcible draft as recommended by the Secretary of War is not delegated by the Constitution to Congress, and the exercise of it would be not less dangerous to the liberties of the citizen than hostile to the sovereignty of the State; that it is as much the duty of the State authorities to watch over the rights reserved as of the United States to exercise the powers which are delegated."

They then proceed to declare it to be undeniable that Acts of Congress in violation of the Constitution are absolutely void, but it "does not, however, consist with the respect and forbearance of a Confederate State towards the General Government to fly to open resistance upon every infraction of the Constitution. The mode and energy of the opposition should always conform to the nature of the violation,