CHAPTER XIX. THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
Attitude of the Federalists, Real and Imputed—The Convention at Hartford—Its Popular Reputation—What General Scott did not say at Chippewa.
When a destructive war had been carried on for two years, when recruiting was slow, and the Government heavily in debt, and yet no way appeared but to fight it out, it might have been expected that harsh criticism of the policy of the Administration, coming from the party that had steadily opposed the war, would subject that party to the charge of being unpatriotic and untrue to the Union. It might also have been expected that an opposition which had become chronic could not but become in some respects unjust. So when the Federalists in 1814 were flooding the Legislatures of New England with memorials on the conduct of the war, they could hardly restrain themselves from overdrawing the picture of its failures, or from representing the condition of things before the war as rather more paradisiacal than anybody had suspected. And on the other hand, they were accused not only of rejoicing in defeats of the national arms, but of plotting a separation of New England from the other States, with a view of ultimately making her again a part of the British Empire. That there were some Federalists who contemplated a dissolution of the Union as a possible remedy for certain difficulties, is quite probable, for such views were at that time not confined to either party. The contingency of disunion was frequently discussed by men of both parties. But that anybody seriously contemplated a reunion with England, there has never been any evidence worth considering. The story was gotten up by the Administration party, in order to cast odium upon the Federalists; and the occurrence most freely used to give color to it was the Hartford Convention, which unfortunately sat with closed doors, and thus was easily misrepresented as a treasonable gathering.
In the third year of the war the hand of the enemy had fallen heavily upon the coast of New England, and at the same time an unpleasant feeling had arisen from the refusal of the United States Government to pay the militia that had been in service under State officers. In this crisis, the Legislature of Massachusetts, on the 16th of October, by a vote of 260 to 90, passed a series of resolutions, the fifth of which authorized the calling of a convention to confer "upon the subject of their [the New England States] public grievances and concerns; and upon the best means of preserving our resources; and of defence 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 support and attachment of all the people, by placing all upon the basis of fair representation." The letter addressed to the governors of other States set forth the general objects of the proposed conference to be, "to deliberate upon the dangers to which the eastern section of the Union is exposed by the course of the war, and to devise, if practicable, means of security and defence which may be consistent with the preservation of their resources from total ruin, and adapted to their local situation, mutual relations, and habits, and not repugnant to their obligations as members of the Union."
In response to this call, a convention of twenty-six delegates met at Hartford, Conn., December 15th, and sat for three weeks. All sorts of absurd rumors as to the purpose of the Convention were set afloat, and the President so far participated in the vague fears thus excited, or pretended to, as to station a regiment of troops in Hartford.
On the 5th of January, 1815, the Convention adjourned, and published a long report, wherein were set forth the difficulties that the country labored under, and methods proposed by the Convention for adjusting them. These were first discussed at length, and then summarized in a series of resolutions: That unconstitutional drafts of militia should be prevented; that the New England States should be empowered to defend their own territory against the enemy; that representatives and direct taxes should be apportioned among the States according to the number of their free inhabitants; that a two-third vote of Congress should be required to admit a new State; that embargoes for more than sixty days should be forbidden; that a two-third Congressional vote should be required for the interdiction of commercial intercourse, or for the declaration of offensive war; that naturalized citizens should not be eligible to Federal offices; that the President should be ineligible for a second term, and should not be chosen from the same State twice in succession; and, finally, that if these ends were not attained, and peace not concluded, another convention should be held in Boston in the following June. This ought to have been plain enough for anybody to understand; and yet allusions to "the old blue-lights of the Hartford Convention," as a synonym for treason, have come down to our own day. Its popularity as a bugbear has never been exceeded. So great was its influence in this regard, that it caused General Scott to remember something which had never taken place. In his account of the battle of Chippewa he says: "And now the New England States were preparing to hold a convention—it met at Hartford—perhaps to secede from the Union —possibly to take up arms against it. Scott's brigade, nearly all New England men, were most indignant, and this was the subject of the second of the three pithy remarks made to them by Scott just before the final conflict of Chippewa. Calling aloud to the gallant Major Hindman, he said, 'Let us put down the Federal Convention by beating the enemy in front. There's nothing in the Constitution against that.'" * There can be no question as to the intrinsic pithiness of this remark; but if Scott made it, he must have been somewhat of a prophet, for the battle of Chippewa was fought on the 5th of July, and the call for the Convention was not issued till October. This shows the danger of writing
* Scott's Memoirs, vol. i., page 133.
memoirs half a century after the events of which they treat.
The great news from the South, and the tidings of peace, followed so quickly upon the adjournment of the Convention that its labors went for nought, its members were subjected to merciless ridicule, and the new convention proposed for June was never held.