Between 1815 and 1818 the Newspaper Connecticut Courant
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF CONNECTICUT’S STANDING ORDER A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Chad D. Lower May, 2013 Dissertation written by Chad D. Lower B.A., The Ohio State University, 1999 M.A., Ashland Theological Seminary, 2005 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2013 Approved by Kim Gruenwald Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Leonne Hudson Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Diane Barnes Jerry Lewis Jeffrey Wattles Accepted by Kenneth Bindas Chair, Department of History Ray Craig Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………….……………………......v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………….……………1 The Political and Religious Landscape………………….…………..…...5 Historiography……………………………………………………...…..13 Definitions……………………………………………………….……..17 Chapter Overview……………………………………………………....19 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...21 II. CHAPTER ONE: WINDS OF CHANGE…………………..………….23 Part One: The Status Quo of the Established Church…………….…….25 Part Two: Social Changes and the Standing Order…………………….33 Part Three: The Established Church’s Response……………………....52 Part Four: The Dissenter Perspective………………………….……….67 Conclusion………………………………………………………….…..79 III. CHAPTER TWO: THE PILLARS OF THE STANDING ORDER.…..82 Part One: Timothy Dwight: The Beacon at New Haven……….………84 Part Two: David Daggett: The Persuasive Politician………………....107 Part Three: Zephaniah Swift: Judicial Power…………………………118 Conclusion……………………………………………………...……..131 IV. CHAPTER THREE: LIBERTY AND VIRTUE………...………..…..134 Part One: Church and State in America…………………………….…136 Part Two: Virtue and Republicanism in the Early Republic……..……149 Part Three: Creating a Virtuous Republic…………………………......164 Conclusion………………………………………………………...…...182 V. CHAPTER FOUR: THE PARTY SPIRIT…………..……..…………184 Part One: Alliances Between Churches and Political Parties…………188 Part Two: Limits of Freedom and Democracy………………………..203 Part Three: Debating the Merits of Establishment……………….........215 Conclusion………………………………………………………….....237 VI. CHAPTER FIVE: THE LAST BATTLE……………..………………240 Part One: Erosion of Standing Order Support…………………….…..243 Part Two: The Battle for Establishment…………………………...….264 Part Three: The Debate in the Republic………………………………273 Conclusion………………………………………………………...…..286 VII. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………..289 iii The Aftermath of Disestablishment……………………………...……290 Conclusion……………………………………………………….……300 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………309 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is important to first acknowledge those at Kent State who have guided me throughout my time at the university. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kim Gruenwald, who patiently worked with me from my first day at Kent. Her counsel, reassurance, and ability to get me to meet deadlines spurred me to the finish line of this project. I am deeply grateful for the sage wisdom that Dr. Ken Bindas dispensed seemingly every time I spoke with him. I sincerely appreciate the other members of my committee, Dr. Leonne Hudson, Dr. Diane Barnes, and Dr. Jerry Lewis, not only for agreeing to work with me on this dissertation but especially for their comments, advice, and genuine interest in my work. I also appreciate the extra encouragement, challenge, and exhortation given by Dr. Jeffrey Wattles. Certainly, I would be remiss to not recognize the importance of Kay Dennis, who remained consistently helpful and gracious despite my many questions and mistakes. In the course of research, many strangers provided invaluable help and insight. I am grateful for the generous support and assistance offered by those at the various libraries and archives at Yale University. Additionally, the librarians and staff at the Connecticut Historical Society, Connecticut State Library, The Ohio State University, and Western Reserve Historical Society were very kind and helpful. I am also humbled by the support given by two professors whom I have never met in person, Dr. Robert Imholt and Dr. Michael Besso. I appreciate their thorough and thoughtful replies to my inquiries concerning their research in Connecticut history. v For me, at least, completing a doctoral program and writing a dissertation was not possible without the help of friends and family. Specifically, I am grateful to my parents for their love and support. I also value the encouragement of my in-laws throughout this process. I am thankful for the generosity shown by Aunt Sharon and Uncle Chuck, for opening their home to me a couple of days a week for several years. Finally, a special thanks to my colleague and dear friend Greg Jones. Thank you for your advice, encouragement, and most importantly your friendship. Of course, I also appreciate the times you and your wife allowed me to crash in your guest room! Most importantly, I lift up my family for their unyielding love and support throughout my graduate studies. This process has been a sacrifice for them as much as it has been for me. Mandee, I appreciate your willingness to be by my side in order to help me see this journey through to completion, never once questioning or wavering in your commitment to this goal. Thank you for occasionally playing the role of single parent while I traveled for research trips, conferences, and days when I had to get away in order to write and edit this project. Ethan and Jack, I am sorry for all the times that the necessities of my research pulled me away from your presence. The energy and joy of your lives overflows, splashing onto me. I am so very proud of you boys. I hope that when we reflect upon what we have been through on this journey together, you will be proud of me, too. vi INTRODUCTION Between 1817 and 1820 the newspaper Connecticut Courant periodically updated its readers on the reports of a sea serpent off the north Atlantic coast. Ship captains pledged to swear under oath that they had seen the fearsome oceanic beast. At first this creature was only spotted off the Massachusetts coastline. Descriptions varied, with some sailors claiming the monster had a head the size of a horse, while others likened the size to that of a dog. There was consensus that the beast had the body of a snake. Disagreement ensued again on the creature’s length, with reports ranging anywhere from forty to eighty feet.1 Not to be outdone, reports of a different leviathan in the waters of Connecticut surfaced in January of 1820. This sighting signified that the “monopoly” of sea serpent sightings in Massachusetts was broken. More importantly, a “winter Dragon [was] more consequential than a summer one,” meaning that the threat to Connecticut was greater than the rest of New England.2 As public interest in the creature mounted, so did the number of skeptics who doubted the tales. Regardless of what anyone wished to believe, the true believers argued that a terrifying monster lurked underneath the waves in the north Atlantic. In the early nineteenth century alarmed clergymen, politicians, and lawyers warned of another sort of monster lurking throughout New England. In Connecticut, this 1 Connecticut Courant, August 26, 1817. 2 Connecticut Courant, February 1, 1820. 1 2 menacing creature threatened to devour the good people of the state and the society they had built unless it could be stopped. To those who belonged to a church that was not part of the state’s religious establishment, or those who favored the politics of the Republican Party, the feared monster was the “Standing Order” of Connecticut, the coalition of Federalists and Congregational clergymen who controlled the leadership of the state. By and large, Federalists and Congregationalists shared the same perspectives on politics, society, and religion. Federalism had long been the dominant political party of Connecticut, exerting an almost suffocating control of the political system at all levels of government.1 Most upsetting to the Republican coalition was the state’s ecclesiastical establishment. The Congregational Church had enjoyed the privilege of being Connecticut’s established church since the colony’s founding. It was on this issue that the political and religious dissenters chided the Standing Order in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It was also on this issue that this coalition united around in order to finally wrestle control of the state government in 1818. Conversely, for those within the Standing Order, the real hydra that threatened to destroy the state was the dual-headed monstrosity of Republicans and their religious dissenter allies. Federalists disdained the democratic populism of the Republicans while the established clergy could not tolerate the “unlearned” preachers and theological convictions of the “minor sects.”2 The Republicans, also known as “Jeffersonians,” and religious dissenters of Connecticut attempted to discredit the Standing Order as an 1 John Von Rohr, The Shaping of American Congregationalism 1620-1957 (Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim’s Press, 1992), 248-49. 2 Harry S. Stout, “Rhetoric and Reality in the Early Republic: The Case of the Federalist Clergy,” in Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the Present, eds. Mark A. Noll and Luke E. Harlow (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 68. 3 archaic order of social and political hierarchy that was both corrupt and immoral. Most importantly, they were adamant in their conviction that Connecticut had prospered for approximately two hundred years based in part on the “steady habits” of institutions