"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 endorsement—"Mr. Sower is a German refugee at New-York, and a person of the greatest influence among the Germans in Pennsylvania."
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 Constitution, 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 principal 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 Constitution, 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, petitioned the legislature for leave to return, which petition was rejected. At the same session an act was passed 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 passed 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 petitions 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 assembly 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 petitions. 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 assembly passed 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 theprinciples of federal unionmay 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 petitioned 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 passed an act entitled "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 passage, one of which was, "that so large a portion of the citizens remained in parts of theSouthern Districtwhich were possessed by the British armies, that in most places it would be difficult, and in manyabsolutely impossible, to find men to fill the necessary offices, even forconductingelections, until a new set of inhabitants could be procured."
This bill of disfranchisement, notwithstanding the objections of the Council of Revision, was passed 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 thethirdparty, or that class of whigs "who wished to suppress all violence, and to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."
In March, 1783, the legislature passed an act entitled "An act for granting more effectual relief in cases of trespass." 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, constituted 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 constitution; 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 againstjudicial 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 constitutional 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 thoseamong 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 Rutgersvs. 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, orgentlyandimperceptibly, to effect a revolutionin thespiritandgeniusof our government; andshould there be among us characters to whom the simplicity of it is offensive, let our attention and perseverance be such as topreclude the hopes of a change."
Here again the party lines of 1777 are distinctly marked. MelanctonSmith, 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 Rutgersvs. Waddington was brought before the legislature, and on the 27th of that month the assembly
Resolved, That this adjudication is subversive of all law and good order; because, if a court instituted for thebenefit and government of a corporationmay 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 passed; 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 entitled "An act to preserve the freedom and independence of this state," passed 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 entitled "An act for granting relief in case of certain trespasses." 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 passed; 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 pass an act under the imposing title 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 class 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 anticipated by both friends and foes. Chancellor Livingston, in January, 1784, had said that there were three parties in the state:—
First. The tories.
Second. The violent whigs.
Third. Those who wished " to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."
The Council of Revision, composed of Robert R. Livingston, Justice Morris, and Judge Hobart, had solemnly placed on record their opinion, that, in some portions of the Southern District "it would be difficult, and in manyabsolutely impossible, to find whigs to fill the necessary offices even forconductingelections." Under such circumstances it was evident that thefirstandthirdparties must amalgamate, and such was the result.
In January, 1788, the legislature met, and directed the call of a State Convention, to whom was to be submitted the Federal Constitution, as adopted by the General Convention held in Philadelphia in May, 1787. During this session the same party lines continued to be visible, although the respective parties had now assumed, or were designated by new names. The Schuyler was called the Federal party, and the Clinton the anti-Federal party; thev were composed, however, of the same individuals, with very few exceptions. The great, and almost the only strength which the federal party possessed in the state was in the Southern District. Here the acquisition of the tories rendered their power and influence irresistible. From this district, composed of the counties of Westchester, New-York, Richmond, King's, Queen's, and Suffolk, the federalists had in the Assembly, during the session of 1788-89,twentyvotes, and on nopartyquestion did they command, during the whole session, more thantwenty-threevotes.
In December, 1788, a bill for carrying into operation the federal constitution being under consideration, a proposition was made to choose United States senators; but the federalists having a majority in the Senate, and the anti-federalists a majority in the House of Assembly, no compromise between the parties could be effected, and consequently no senators were chosen.
The following persons may be considered as constituting the strength of the Schuyler, now federal party, in the assembly of 1788-89:—
Brockholst Livingston, of the city of New-York. William W. Gilbert, "" Alexander Macomb, " " Richard Harrison, " " Nicholas Hoffman, " "John Watts, Jun., " " Nicholas Low, " " Gulian Verplanck, " " ComfortSands, " " Philip Van Cortlandt, Westchester county. PhilipLivingston, " " Nathaniel Rockwell, " " Walter Seaman, " " JonathanHorton, " " John Younglove, Albany county. Henry K. Van Rensellaer, "" Stephen Carman, Queen's county. Whitehead Cornwell, " " PeterVandervoort, King's county. Aquilla Giles, " " Abraham Bancker,Richmond county. John C. Dongan, " " Samuel A. Barker, Dutchesscounty.
It will be observed, that all the above Schuyler or federal members, with the exception oftwofrom Albany andonefrom Dutchess county, were elected as representatives from the Southern District.
Having stated the origin and progress of the great political parties in the State of New-York, as they appear from the public records, it may be proper to add that Colonel Burr belonged to what was termed by Mr. Livingston "the violent whig party." By that party, while the tories were disfranchised, Mr. Burr was elected in 1784 to represent the city and county of New-York in the legislature. By that party, in 1789, he was appointed attorney-general of the state. By that party, in 1791, he was appointed a senator of the United States. By that party, in 1792, he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. By that party, subsequently, he was elected a member of the Assembly and a member of the Convention to revise the Constitution of the State, of which convention he was president; and by that party, in 1800, he was elected vice-president of the United States.
It is not intended to discuss the policy, the humanity, or the justice of the several measures proposed or adopted in relation to the tories by "the violent whigs," or by those whigs who wished "to soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists." The historical facts have been given, and the sources from whence they were derived specified. The feelings and opinions of "the violent whigs," are expressed by the legislature of the state on the 9th of February, 1784, and by Governor George Clinton at the opening of that session in the city of New-York. They say—" 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 petitions."
On the other hand, the sentiments and views of those whigs who wished "to soften the rigour of the laws against the loyalists" are to be found in the following extracts of letters.
"Passay, 9th April, 1783.
"The tories will doubtless cause some difficulty; but that they have always done; and as this will probably be thelast time, we must make the best of it. A universal, indiscriminate condemnation and expulsion of those people would not redound to our honour, because so harsh a measure would partake more of vengeance than of justice. For my part, I wish that all, exceptthe faithless and cruel, may be forgiven. That exception would indeedextend to very few; but even if it applied to the case of one only, that one ought, in my opinion, to be saved."
"Passay, 12th September, 1783.
"Europe hears much, and wishes to hear more of divisions, seditions, violences, and confusions among us. The tories are generally and greatly pitied;more, indeed, than they deserve. The indiscriminate expulsion and ruin of that whole class and description of men would not do honour to our magnanimity or humanity, especially in the opinion of those nations who consider, with more astonishment than pleasure, the terms of peace which America has obtained."
Footnotes:
1. See Life of Hamilton, Vol. I., p. 316
2. Jay's Works, Vol. I., p. 128.
It has been seen that the Livingstons were of the Schuyler party during the revolutionary war, and that they continued so until the year 1787, when, in common with their political friends, they were the warm and ardent champions of the Federal Constitution. After its adoption, and the organization of the government under it, they soon became dissatisfied. The cause of that dissatisfaction has been differently explained. On the one hand it was said that they were alarmed at the doctrines of those who had been called to administer the government, and at the assumption of powers not delegated by the people. That they apprehended the government was verging towards aconsolidated national, instead of afederalgovernment of states.
On the other hand it was alleged that the family were disappointed and disgusted at the neglect which they experienced from General Washington. That, as Robert R. Livingston had been, in the state convention which adopted the Constitution, one of its most splendid and efficient supporters, he and his connexions anticipated his appointment to some exalted station; but that, while he was passed by unnoticed, his colleagues in that body, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, had both received distinguished appointments—the one as Chief Justice of the United States, and the other as Secretary of the Treasury. Whatever may have been the cause of this change, it is certain that they soon abandoned the federal, and united their political destiny with the anti-federal party. Although these gentlemen, as politicians, were acting in concert with Mr. Burr, yet there was no cordiality of feeling between them. In their social intercourse, however, the most perfect comity was observed; and as they were in a minority, struggling to break down a party haughty, proscriptive, and intolerant beyond any thing that the American people had beheld, they zealously united their efforts in effecting the revolution of 1800.
Soon after the adoption of the new constitution, the anti-federal party were recognised by a name more descriptive of their principles and their views. They assumed the title of democrats. They considered themselves anti-consolidationists, but not anti-federalists. They knew that a section of the dominant party were the friends of a splendid national government. That they were the advocates of a system, by means of which all power would have concentrated in the general, and the state governments been reduced to the level of mere corporations. Against this system the democrats reasoned and contended with unabated zeal. They were the early, unflinching, and faithful champions of state rights_.
From the year 1790 until 1800, the democratic and federal parties were alternately triumphant, both in the city and in the state of New-York. In the former, the result of an election was frequently decided by the operations of some local or exciting topic. No decisive contest took place between the parties previous to 1800, founded on any great or controlling principle of government. But, during the years 1798 and 1799, the whole country was agitated from one extreme to the other. Revolutionary France was convulsed, and, in the midst of her convulsions and sufferings, was daily committing the most cruel and wanton excesses towards her own citizens, while she was offering taunts and insults to foreign nations. The federal party seemed to sigh for a war with France. Pretending that they apprehended a French invasion, a large standing army was raised. At the head of this army, second in command to General Washington, was placed General Alexander Hamilton. To support the army and other useless extravagant expenditures, a land tax and aneight per cent.loan was found necessary. To silence the murmurs of an oppressed people, a sedition law was enacted. Such were some of the fruits of the elder Mr. Adams's administration.
In the autumn of 1799 and the winter of 1799-1800, the interesting and vital question was presented to the American nation:—Will you sustain this administration and these measures, and thus rivet chains upon yourselves and your posterity? Or will you calmly, but firmly and in union, resort to the constitutional remedy (the ballot-boxes) for relief from wrongs and oppressions which, if permitted to endure, must terminate in the horrors of intestine war? Here was a question of principle; and, it is believed, a question which was to decide the character of the government. Each party felt that it was a mighty struggle, decisive of its future political influence, if not of its existence.
The elections in the state of New-York were held in the month of April. In the year 1799 the federalists had a majority in the city of more than nine hundred. During the summer, it was universally conceded that on the state of New-York the presidential election would depend, and that the result in the city would decide the fate of the state. That this opinion was as universal as it was true, cannot be more distinctly exhibited than by the following extract of a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, dated 4th March, 1800.
"In New-York all depends on the success of the city election, which is of twelve members, and of course makes a difference of twenty-four, which is sufficient to make the two houses, joined together, republican in their vote. * * * * * * Upon the whole, I consider it as rather more doubtful than the last election (1796), in which I was not deceived in more than a vote or two. * * * * * * In any event, we may say, that if the city election of New-York is in favour of the republican ticket, the issue will be republican; if the federal ticket for the city of New-York prevails, the probabilities will be in favour of a federal issue, because it would then require a republican vote both from New-Jersey and Pennsylvania to preponderate against New-York, on which we could not count with any confidence."
Reference has been made to the conflicting factions of which the democratic party was now composed. The Clinton section, the Livingston section, and the Burr section. The first and last were apparently the same, but not so in reality. Colonel Burr's commanding talents had acquired for him an influence in the ranks of the democratic party in other states, which created some jealousy in the Clinton family, the younger and collateral branches of which were extremely hostile to him. The ambition of Burr, sustained by a daring spirit and unconquerable perseverance, awakened the apprehensions of Governor George Clinton lest he should be supplanted. The governor was a man of great sagacity and shrewdness. But these two sections, or, perhaps, more properly, the heads of them, united in their opposition to the Livingstons.
During the winter of 1800, the efforts of Colonel Burr to bring about a concert in action of these discordant materials were unceasing. With his own personal friends he had no difficulty, for it was ever one of his characteristics to secure inviolable the attachment of his friends. They were of the most ardent and devoted kind. Confiding in his patriotism and judgment, and feeling that he was incapable of deceiving them, they seemed willing, at all times and under all circumstances, to hazard their lives and fortunes in his support. They were generally young men of gallant bearing and disinterested views. No sordid calculations were made by them. No mercenary considerations influenced their conduct. They beheld in Colonel Burr a patriot hero of the revolution, who had commingled with their fathers in the battle-field, and who had perilled every thing in his country's cause. Such were his friends, and such their zeal in his behalf. It was here that Colonel Burr was all-powerful, for he possessed, in a pre-eminent degree, the art of fascinating the youthful. But with all this tact and talent, he was credulous and easily deceived. He therefore often became the dupe of the most worthless and unprincipled.
Mr. Burr held frequent private meetings with his most intimate and confidential friends. At all these meetings it is believed the success of the democratic party was the only question under consideration. No local or personal interests were permitted to be discussed. The triumph of the party, as a whole, was the great object. By his adherents, it was deemed indispensable that he should be a member of the legislature to be chosen in April, which body was to appoint the presidential electors. While, on the other hand, it was considered not less necessary that he should be free to act at the polls in the city of New-York during the election. How was this to be effected? After much conference and deliberation it was resolved that he should be elected from Orange county, if the arrangement could be made, and the execution of the plan was intrusted principally to Peter Townsend, Esquire, of Chester, who, with the aid of other influential friends, accomplished it.
The next question was, Of whom shall the assembly ticket for the city be composed? On the suggestion of Colonel Burr, the names of certain distinguished individuals, venerable in years, and respected for their services, for months before the election were put in circulation as candidates; and, among others, Governor George Clinton and General Horatio Gates. At length the nominating committees were chosen; but so general had been the conversations as to suitable candidates, that very little diversity of opinion prevailed in the formation of the ticket.
The following persons were nominated: George Clinton, Horatio Gates,Samuel Osgood, Henry Rutgers, Elias Nexsen, Thomas Storm, GeorgeWarner, Philip I. Arcularius, James Hunt, Ezekiel Robins, BrockholstLivingston, and John Swartwout.
In this ticket the three sections of the democratic, but at this election designated therepublican party,are fully represented. Governor Clinton at the head of one section, Brockholst Livingston representing another, and General Gates, well known to be the personal and political friend of Colonel Burr. This ticket being nominated by the committee, the difficulty was to procure their consent to stand as candidates. A majority of them had no expectation of success. They considered the contest as a forlorn hope, and shrank from being set up as targets to be shot at. Governor Clinton, General Gates, Brockholst Livingston, and others, had repeatedly declared their fixed determination not to permit their names to be used.
A sub-committee was appointed to wait upon the candidates, and obtain permission to present their names for approval to a general meeting of citizens to be convened for that purpose. The sub-committee consisted of Aaron Burr, David Gelston, John Swartwout, John Mills, and Matthew L. Davis. After various communications and much persuasion,nineof the candidates consented, some of them conditionally. But Governor Clinton, General Gates, and Brockholst Livingston were for a time immoveable. At length Colonel Burr induced Judge Livingston to agree that he would serve, if Governor Clinton and General Gates consented to serve. The sub-committee next waited upon General Gates, and Colonel Burr appealed to him in the most mild and persuasive language. After much importunity he yielded, provided Governor Clinton was also a candidate.
No terms can give a correct idea of the scenes between Governor Clinton and the sub-committee, for they had an interview with him on three different days. The last was at the house of Colonel Burr, where Mr. Clinton met the committee by appointment. He never did consent to stand, but pledged himself to Colonel Burr and the committee that he would publish nothing in the newspapers, reserving to himself the right (which he subsequently exercised) of stating in conversation that his name was used without his authority or permission. Thus it is evident, that but for the matchless perseverance of Colonel Burr, the ticket, as it stood, never could have been formed, and, when formed, would have been broken up, and the republican party discomfited and beaten.
An imperfect sketch of the scene at the house of Colonel Burr was published in the year 1802, in a pamphlet under the signature ofAristides. The following is extracted from it. The note of reference here given is also extracted. Its correctness was never publicly denied by either of the gentlemen named. There exists no longer any reason for concealment on the subject; and it is therefore now admitted that thisnotewas written from memorandums made at the time by the author of this volume.
"Governor Clinton, however, remained unmoved by the most earnest solicitations; and, with matchless firmness, resisted the arguments of Mr. Burr, who forcibly asserted that it was a right inherent in the community to command the services of an individual when the nature of public exigences seemed to require it. He was inflexible to the last, and then was nominated and elected without a distinct expression of his approbation. Justice, however, induces me to acknowledge, that the reasons he assigned for the reluctance with which he acted were plausible and potent.
"He explicitly declared that he had long entertained an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Jefferson's talents as a statesman and his firmness as a republican. That he conceived him an accommodating trimmer, who would change with times, and bend to circumstances for the purposes of personal promotion. Impressed with these sentiments, he could not, with propriety, he said, acquiesce in the elevation of a man destitute of the qualifications essential to the good administration of the government; and added other expressions too vulgar to be here repeated. 'But,' said he, with energy, 'if you, Mr. Burr, was the candidate for the presidential chair, I would act with pleasure and with vigour.'"
It is so notorious that these were Governor Clinton's sentiments, that it is scarcely necessary to produce authority to prove it. To remove, however, every doubt in the reader's mind, I will refer him to Mr. David Gelston, Mr. John Mills, Mr. John Swartwout, or Mr. Matthew L. Davis, in whose presence these sentiments, and many others more disrespectful, if possible, were uttered. It was at the house of Mr. Burr, who, anticipating the evil consequences that at that critical moment would result from such conduct in Governor Clinton, insisted, before he left the house, that he should promise his friends to desist from using such language previous to or during the election. This was very reluctantly complied with on the part of Mr. Clinton.
"Notwithstanding this, they were continually reiterated by his son, who publicly and loudly animadverted upon the character of Mr. Jefferson with the most vulgar severity. Similar sentiments were certainly entertained by all Governor Clinton's connexions, as their conduct during the election clearly evinced. Mr. Dewitt Clinton, through the whole contest, never appeared at the poll, but observed the most shameful indfference and inactivity."
The nomination of a ticket having been made and approved at a public meeting over which Anthony Lispenard presided, its effect upon both parties was tremendous. The character and standing of the candidates seemed a presage of victory. It elated, and gave life and vigour to the republicans, while it paralyzed and depressed the federalists.
Never before or since has a ticket been presented to the citizens of New-York composed of men combining such talents, patriotism, experience, and public services, as the republican assembly ticket for the year 1800.
Those who possess a knowledge of the character of Colonel Burr know what were his qualifications for execution. The plan of the campaign having been opened, it only remained to be executed. In the performance of this duty, all Mr. Burr's industry, perseverance, and energy were called into operation. Nor were the federal party idle or inactive. They possessed wealth and patronage. Led on to the contest by their talented chieftain, General Hamilton, whose influence in their ranks was unbounded, they made a desperate but ineffectual resistance to the assaults upon their political citadel. If defeated here, their power was gone, and the administration of the government lost. Both General Hamilton and Colonel Burr exerted themselves personally at the polls during the three days of election. They repeatedly addressed the people, and did all that men could do. They frequently met at the same polls, and argued, in the presence of large assemblages, the debatable questions. Their deportment towards each other and towards their opponents was such as comported with the dignity of two of the most accomplished and courtly gentlemen of the age in which they lived.
The polls of the election opened on the morning of the 29th of April, and finally closed at sunset on the 1st of May. Immediately after, the inspectors commenced counting and canvassing the ballots. Sufficient progress was made during the night to render it, in a great measure, certain that the republican ticket had succeeded; and on the 2d of May this result was announced, the average majority being about 490. All doubt as to the presidential vote of the state of New-York was now removed, unless the federal party, in their expiring agonies, could devise some plan by which the will of the people, thus clearly expressed, should be defeated. Such apprehensions were entertained, and, it was soon discovered, not entertained without good reason.
In both branches of the legislature elected in 1799 the federalists had a majority. The time of service of the members would expire on the 1st of July, 1800. After the nomination of the republican assembly ticket, but previous to the election in April, 1800, it was suspected that certain federalists had in contemplation a project to render the city election null and void if the republicans succeeded. When the polls were closed, therefore, discreet and intelligent men were placed at them to guard, if it should be found necessary, the inspectors from committing, inadvertently, any errors, either in canvassing or making their returns. Every movement, subsequently, of leading federal gentlemen was narrowly and cautiously watched. The result of the election was announced on the 2d of May. On the 3d of May, in the evening, a select and confidential federal caucus was held. On the 4th a letter was written to William Duane, editor of the Aurora, stating that such a caucus had been held the preceding night, and that it was determined by the caucus to solicit Governor Jay to convene the existing legislature forthwith, for the purpose of changing the mode of choosing electors for president, and placing it in the hands of the people by districts. The effect of such a measure would have been to neutralize the State of New-York, and, as the result finally proved, would have secured to the federal party their president and vice-president. This letter was published in the Aurora of the 6th of May, and called forth the denunciations of those federal papers whose conductors were not in the secret. The author of the letter was assailed as aJacobincalumniator, and the whole story was pronounced a vile fabrication. One of the New-York city papers reprinted the letter, and thus closes its commentary on it:—"Where is the American whowill not detest the author of this infamous lie? If there is a man to be found who will sanction this publication, he is worse than the worst of Jacobins!"
What effect, if any, was produced by this immediate exposure of the caucus proceedings, it is not necessary now to inquire. It is sufficient to say that the development was, in all its parts, literally correct, and the subject is here introduced for the twofold purpose of showing,first, the vigilance, promptitude, and arrangement of the republican party of that day; and,second, the means to which certain desperate federalists were willing to resort for the purpose of retaining power. That the representations contained in the publication of the Aurora were strictly true, is now matter of recorded history.
In the life of John Jay, vol. i., p. 412, the letter addressed to the governor on this subject is published. It bears dateone dayafter the publication in the Aurora, but before the paper reached the city of New-York. The author of the work, after some preliminary remarks, Says—"These details will explain the proposal made in the following letter, which was received by the governorfrom one of the most distinguished federalists in the United States." [1]
New-York May 7, 1800.
You have been informed of the loss of our election in this city. It is also known that we have been unfortunate throughout Long Island and in Westchester. According to the returns hitherto, it is too probable that we lose our senator for this district.
The moral certainty, therefore, is, that there will be an anti-federal majority in the ensuing legislature; and the very high probability is, that this will bring Jefferson into the chief magistracy, unless it be prevented by the measure which I shall now submit to your consideration; namely, the immediate calling together of the existing legislature.
I am aware that there are weighty objections to the measure; but the reasons for it appear to me to outweigh the objections; and, in times like these in which we live, it will not do to be over scrupulous. It is easy to sacrifice the substantial interests of society by a strict adherence to ordinary rules.
In observing this I shall not be supposed to mean that any thing ought to be done which integrity will forbid; but merely that the scruples of delicacy and propriety, as relative to a common course of things, ought to yield to the extraordinary nature of the crisis. They ought not to hinder the taking of a legal and constitutional step to prevent an atheist in religion and a fanatic in politics from getting possession of the helm of state.
You, sir, know in a great degree the anti-federal party; but I fear you do not know them as well as I do. 'Tis a composition, indeed, of very incongruous materials, but all tending to mischief—some of them to the overthrow of the government, by stripping it of its due energies; others of them to a revolution after the manner of Bonaparte. I speak from indubitable facts, not from conjectures and inferences. In proportion as the true character of the party is understood, is the force of the considerations which urge to every effort to disappoint it; and it seems to me that there is a very solemn obligation to employ the means in our power.
The calling of the legislature will have for object the choosing of electors by the people in districts; this (as Pennsylvania will do nothing) will ensure a majority of votes in the United States for a federal candidate. The measure will not fail to be approved by all the federal party, while it will, no doubt, be condemned by the opposite. As to its intrinsic nature, it is justified by unequivocal reasons ofpublic safety.
The reasonable part of the world will, I believe, approve it. They will see it as a proceeding out of the common course, but warranted by the particular nature of the crisis and the great cause of social order.
If done, the motive ought to be frankly avowed. In your communication to the legislature, they ought to be told that temporary circumstances had rendered it probable that, without their interposition, the executive authority of the general government would be transferred to hands hostile to the system heretofore pursued with so much success, and dangerous to the peace, happiness, and order of the country. That under this impression, from facts convincing to your own mind, you had thought it your duty to give the existing legislature an opportunity of deliberating whether it would not be proper to interpose, and endeavour to prevent so great an evil, by referring the choice of electors to the people distributed into districts.
In weighing this suggestion, you will doubtless bear in mind that popular governments must certainly be overturned; and, while they endure, prove engines of mischief, if one party will call to its aid all the resources which vice can give, and if the other (however pressing the emergency) confines itself within all the ordinary forms of delicacy and decorum.
The legislature can be brought together in three weeks, so that there will be full time for the object; but none ought to be lost.
Think well, my dear sir, of this proposition; appreciate the extreme danger of the crisis; and I am unusually mistaken in my view of the matter if you do not see it right and expedient to adopt the measure.
Respectfully and affectionately yours.
Mr. Jay's biographer adds—"On this letter is the following endorsement in the governor's hand,Proposing a measure for party purposes which I think it would not become me to adopt."
Footnotes:
1. As there were butfewof "the most distinguished federalists in the United States" residing at that time in the city of New-York, the intelligent reader will form his own conclusions as to the source from whence it emanated.
During the summer of 1800 General Hamilton prepared for the press his celebrated pamphlet, entitled—"A letter from Alexander Hamilton, concerning the public conduct and character of John Adams, Esq., president of the United States." It was the design of the author of this pamphlet that it should be privately printed, and circulated in South Carolina only a few days before the election, for the purpose of preventing Mr. Adams from getting the vote of South Carolina, but securing it to Mr. Pinckney, who was the federal candidate for the vice-presidency. The consequence would have been to place Mr. Pinckney's electoral vote higher than Mr. Adams's, and thus, if the federal party succeeded, Mr. Pinckney would have been elected president and Mr. Adams vice-president. Colonel Burr ascertained the contents of this pamphlet, and that it was in the press. Its immediate publication, he knew, must distract the federal party, and thus promote the republican cause in those states where the elections had not yet taken place. Arrangements were accordingly made for a copy, as soon as the printing of it was completed; and when obtained, John Swartwout, Robert Swartwout, and Matthew L. Davis, by appointment, met Colonel Burr at his own house. The pamphlet was read, and extracts made for the press. Mr. Davis was charged with forwarding these extracts to William Duane, editor of the Aurora, and to Charles Holt, editor of the Bee, printed in New-London, which was accordingly done, and the extracts immediately published. [1]
The effect of this sudden and unexpected explosion was such as might have been anticipated. It rent the federal party in twain. The publication, from time to time, of extracts, and the excitement which was produced throughout the country by them, at length compelled Mr. Hamilton to authorize the publication of the entire pamphlet; and accordingly, in October, as the electors were to be chosen in November, it was advertised for sale in the Daily Gazette. The editor of the paper explained that it was not the intention of General Hamilton to give publicity to this letter at the time it was made public; but that extracts from it by some unknown means had found their way to the public, and therefore the whole was now given.
Further evidence of the vigilance and efficiency of Colonel Burr in promoting the revolution of 1800 is deemed unnecessary. It is most solemnly believed that the overthrow of the federal party at that time would not have been accomplished but through his zeal, sagacity, and industry. His friends, therefore, have ascribed to him, and not without some foundation, the election of Mr. Jefferson to the presidency.
Governor Jay having refused to comply with the wishes of "one of the most distinguished federalists in the United States," as proposing a measure for party purposes which he (Governor Jay) thought it would not become him to adopt, the legislature did not convene until the fourth day of November, 1800, and on the sixth they proceeded to the choice of electors for president and vice-president. The republican ticket prevailed. It was composed of the following, persons:—
Isaac Ledyard, of Queen's County.
Anthony Lispenard, of New-York.
P. Van Courtlandt, of Westchester
James Burt, of Orange.
Gilbert Livingston, of Dutchess.
Thomas Jenkins, of Columbia.
[continued list of Republican electors]
Peter Van Ness, of Columbia.
Robert Ellis, of Saratoga.
John Woodworth, of Rensellaer.
J. Van Rensellaer, of Albany.
Jacob Eacker, of Montgomery, and
William Floyd, of Suffolk.
The vote stood:—
Republican. Federal.In the Senate 18 24 In the Assembly 64 39
Thus, on joint ballot, the republican majority was nineteen; and consequently, as the city of New-York electedtwelvemembers, if the federalists had succeeded in the city, they would have had, in joint ballott, a majority of from six to ten.
As a part of the history of this election, the following letter and extracts from letters are here inserted.
Washington, December 15, 1800.
Although we have not official information of the votes for president and vice-president, and cannot have until the first week in February, yet the state of the votes is given on such evidence as satisfies both parties that the two republican candidates stand highest. From South Carolina we have not even heard of the actual vote, but we have learned who were appointed electors, and with sufficient certainty how they would vote. It is said they would withdraw from yourself one vote. It has also been said that a General Smith, of Tennessee, had declared that he would give his second vote to Mr. Gallatin, not from any indisposition towards you, but extreme reverence to the character of Mr. Gallatin. It is also surmised that the vote of Georgia will not be entire. Yet nobody pretends to know these things of a certainty, and we know enough to be certain that what it is surmised will be withheld, will still leave you four or five votes at least above Mr. Adams. However, it was badly managed not to have arranged with certainty what seems to have been left to hazard. It was the more material, because I understand several high-flying federalists have expressed their hope that the two republican tickets may be equal, and their determination in that case to prevent a choice by the House of Representatives (which they are strong enough to do), and let the government devolve on a president of the Senate. Decency required that I should be so entirely passive during the late contest, that I never once asked whether arrangements had been made to prevent so many from dropping votes intentionally as might frustrate half the republican wish; nor did I doubt, till lately, that such had been made.
"While I must congratulate you, my dear sir, on the issue of this contest, because it is more honourable, and, doubtless, more grateful to you than any station within the competence of the chief magistrate, yet, for myself, and for the substantial service of the public,I feel most sensibly the loss we sustain of your aid in our new administration. It leaves a chasm in my arrangements which cannot be adequately filled up. I had endeavoured to compose an administration whose talents, integrity, names, and dispositions should at once inspire unbounded confidence in the public mind, and ensure a perfect harmony in the conduct of the public business. I lose you from the list,and am not sure of all the others. Should the gentlemen who possess the public confidence decline taking a part in their affairs, and force us to take persons unknown to the people, the evil genius of this country may realize his avowal that 'he will beat down the administration.' The return of Mr. Van Benthuysen, one of your electors, furnishes me a confidential opportunity of writing this much to you, which I should not have ventured through the postoffice at this prying season. We shall, of course, see you before the fourth of March. Accept my respectful and affectionate salutations."
The letter is, in a great measure, incomprehensible. It indicates nothing but Mr. Jefferson's extreme terror and apprehension lest he should be disappointed in his anticipated elevation to the presidency. It displays thetactof the ostrich, and thesincerityof a refined Jesuit. What does Mr. Jefferson mean by the declaration that he had formed a cabinet, of which Mr. Burr was to be a member? What when he says—"I lose you from the list?' Can any man believe that Mr. Jefferson expected to be elected president, but that Colonel Burr would be defeated; and that, acting upon such a state of facts, he had already selected the members of his administration, and that Mr. Burr was one of them? The supposition is absurd; but, without such a supposition, what becomes of the truth of Mr. Jefferson's declaration when he says—"I feel most sensibly the loss we sustain of your aid in our new administration.It leaves a chasm in my arrangementswhich cannot be adequately filled up?" If this letter is carefully read and analyzed, its object may be comprehended. It was written a few weeks before the balloting was to take place in Congress. Mr. Jefferson expresses doubt as to the vote Mr. Burr will receive, but considers it certain that he will have "four or five votes at least above Mr. Adams." Four days after this letter he writes in a very different tone to a friend.
"Washington, December 19, 1800.
"Mrs. Brown's departure for Virginia enables me to write confidentially what I would not have ventured by the post at this prying season. The election in South Carolina has, in some measure, decided the great contest. Though, as yet, we do not know the actual votes of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Vermont, yet we believe the votes to be, on the whole, Jefferson, 73; Burr, 73; Adams, 65; Pinckney, 64. Rhode Island withdrew one from Pinckney. There is a possibility that Tennessee may withdrawonefrom Burr, and Burr writes that there may be one vote in Vermont for Jefferson. But I hold the latterimpossible, and the formernot probable; and that there will be an absolute parity between the two republican candidates. This has produced great dismay and gloom on the republican gentlemen here, and exultation in the federalists, who openly declare they will prevent an election, and will name a president of the Senatepro tem.by what, they say, would only be astretchof the constitution. The prospect of preventing this is as follows. Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New-York can be counted on for their vote in the House of Representatives, andit is thought, by some, that BAER of Maryland and LINN of New-Jersey will come over."
The preceding extract shows that Mr. Jefferson entertained no doubt "that there would be an absolute parity between the two republican candidates," notwithstanding his doubting remarks on that subject to Colonel Burr. Hopes were also entertained "that Mr. Baer of Maryland andLinn of New-Jersey would come over." Reference will hereafter be made to these two states. The result of the electoral vote was as Mr. Jefferson anticipated.Seventy-threerepublican andsixty-fivefederal.
Although the ballots for president and vice-president had not been examined officially, yet it was well known that there was a tie between Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Burr.
On the 5th of February, 1801, Mr. Bayard, in the House of Representatives, offered a resolution declaring that, in case of a tie, the house would continue to ballot until a choice of president was made. It was referred to a select committee, and, on the 10th, it, with other rules to govern the house during the balloting, was adopted. The Senate passed a resolution that the ballots should be opened with closed doors. William H. Wells, of Delaware, of the Senate, and John Nicholas, of Virginia, and John Rutledge, of South Carolina, of the House of Representatives, were appointed tellers.
On the 11th of February the ballots were opened. During the performance of this ceremony a most extraordinary incident occurred. As it is known to but few now living, and never been publicly spoken of, it has been deemed proper to record it here, as a part of the history of that exciting contest.
The Aurora of the 16th of February, 1801, remarks, that "the tellers declared that there was some informality in the votes of Georgia; but, believing them to be true votes, reported them as such." No explanation of the nature of this informality was given; nor is it known that any has ever been given since. Had it been announced at the time, there can be no doubt it would have proved fatal to the election of Mr. Jefferson. Whether the interest of our country would or would not have been thereby promoted, is not a question for discussion here.
By the Constitution of the United States at that time it was provided, Art. 2, sect. 1, "The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each,which list they shall sign, and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, openall the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president, if such number bea majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose, by ballot, one of them for president; and if no person have a majority, then from thefive higheston the list the said house shall, in like manner, choose the president. But, in choosing the president, the votes shall betaken by states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."
From the above extract it will be seen that the Constitution is imperative as to theformandmannerin which the electoral returns are to be made. The ceremony of opening was performed in the presence of the two houses. The package of a state having been opened by the vice-president, it was handed by him to the tellers. Mr. Jefferson was the presiding officer. On opening the package endorsed Georgia votes, it was discovered to be totally irregular. The statement now about to be given is derived from an honourable gentleman, a member of Congress from the state of New-York during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, and yet living in this state. He says that Mr. Wells (a teller on the part of the Senate) informed him that the envelope was blank; that the return of the votes was not authenticated bythe signatures of the electors, or any of them, either on the outside or the inside of the envelope, or in any other manner; that it merely stated in the inside that the votes of Georgia were, for Thomas Jefferson _four, and for Aaron Burrfour, without the signature of any person whatsoever. Mr. Wells added, that he was very undecided as to the proper course to be pursued by the tellers. It was, however, suggested by one of them that the paper should be handed to the presiding officer, without any statement from the tellers except that the return was informal; that he consented to this arrangement under the firm conviction that Mr. Jefferson would announce the nature of the informality from the chair; but, to his utmost surprise, he (Mr. Jefferson) rapidly declared that the votes of Georgia werefourfor Thomas Jefferson andfourfor Aaron Burr, without noticing their informality, and in a hurried manner put them aside, and then broke the seals and handed to the tellers the package from the next state. Mr. Wells observed, that as soon as Mr. Jefferson looked at the paper purporting to contain a statement of the electoral vote of the state of Georgia, his countenance changed, but that the decision and promptitude with which he acted on that occasion convinced him of that which he (a federalist) and his party had always doubted, that is to say, Mr. Jefferson's decision of character, at least when his own interest was at hazard. Mr. Wells further stated, that if the votes of Georgia had not been thus counted, as it would have brought all the candidates into the house, Mr. Pinckney among the number, Mr. Jefferson could not have been elected president.
The same honourable member of Congress further stated, that some few years after receiving the above information from Mr. Wells, he became intimately acquainted with John Nicholas, who was one of the tellers referred to, and who had removed from Virginia into the western part of the State of New-York. Mr. Nicholas gave to the honourable member the same statement in substance, not knowing that it had been previously derived from Mr. Wells. Mr. Nicholas was a warm personal and political friend of Mr. Jefferson, and declared that he never felt so astounded in his life as when he discovered the irregularity. He claimed some credit for the adroit manner in which he had managed Mr. Rutledge, so far as to obtain his consent to hand the paper to Mr. Jefferson without public explanation from the tellers, and which was effected by a conciliatory appeal to the magnanimity of the member from South Carolina.
The whole number of electoral votes given at the election in 1800 wasone hundred and thirty-eight: necessary to a choice,seventy. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr had each, according to the return made, seventy-three. Georgia gave _four _votes. If that number had been deducted from Jefferson and Burr, as illegally returned, of which there is no doubt, they would have had onlysixty-ninevotes each; consequently they would not have had, in the language of the Constitution, "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed," and the candidates out of which a choice of president must be made would have been Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Burr, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Pinckney. The federal members would then have said to the republicans, We will unite with you in the choice of either of the gentlemen presented to the house except Mr. Jefferson; and if the government is to be brought to a termination by our failure to elect a president, the responsibility will be on you. And is it to be believed, that in such a case thedoubtfulmembers who were sighing for office, if any such there were, would have rejected the suggestion in toto?
The balloting continued from the 11th until the 17th of February inclusive.Ninestates were necessary to a choice. On the first ballot Mr. Jefferson hadeight, Mr. Burrsix, andtwostates were divided. At every ballot the same result was announced, until thethirty-sixthballot, which was given on the 17th of February, when Mr. Jefferson was declared duly elected,tenstates having voted for him.
On the first ballot Mr. Jefferson received New-York, New-Jersey,Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, andTennessee—eight.
Mr. Burr received New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,Connecticut, Delaware, and South Carolina —six.
Divided, Vermont and Maryland—two.
On the final ballot Mr. Jefferson received New-York, New-Jersey,Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee,Maryland (fourvotes andfourblanks), Vermont (onevote andoneblank)—ten.
Mr. Burr received New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, andConnecticut—four.
Delawareblank, South Carolinano vote.
During the ballotingone hundred and sixmembers of the House of Representatives were present. Of this numberfifty-one, on the first ballot, voted for Mr. Jefferson; and on no subsequent vote was that number increased. The election was effected by the states of Maryland and Vermont giving their vote, instead of remainingequally divided, and thus having no vote; and that change was produced in Maryland by Mr. Craick, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Baer, and Mr. Chew Thomas votingblank, and Mr. Lewis R. Morris, of Vermont, in like manner voting blank, leaving Mr. Matthew Lyon the sole representative of the state.
Previous to the balloting, Mr. Burr addressed to General S. Smith, of Baltimore, a member of the House of Representatives, the following letter. It will be seen by the date, that as soon as Colonel Burr supposed that there was a probability of a tie, he constituted General Smith his proxy to declare his sentiments.