Читать книгу Aaron Burr: A Biography - Nathan Schachner - Страница 45

Table of Contents

Meanwhile politics had been steadily growing more exacerbated and party lines more sharply delimited in New York State. The Federal Constitution had been fought over and adopted in 1787. Governor George Clinton had been its bitterest opponent, preferring the prestige and power of a semi-independent State. Names were being called, in spite of the unanimity with which George Washington had been elected President. Already the lines were being drawn for the agrarian revolt under Jefferson and others.

The situation in New York was rather peculiar. Under the State Constitution of 1777 it was comparatively easy for the few with power, influence and wealth to rule the many. It could not in any modern sense of the term be considered a democracy. Nor, for that matter, could the political set-up of any other State in the newly formed United States.

The government consisted of a Governor, a bicameral Legislature—the Assembly, 70 members elected annually, and the Senate, 24 members chosen for terms of four years. These were the nominal government; actually there were two other bodies specified in the Constitution that held as much, if not more, of real power. The Council of Revision, composed of the Governor, the Chancellor and Judges of the Supreme Court, was vested with veto power over all legislation, subject to be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the Legislature. The Council of Appointment was even more curious. It consisted of four Senators nominated and appointed by the Assembly, who, together with the Governor, appointed all state officials with the exception of the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and State Treasurer. The patronage was enormous, ranging from Supreme Court Judges down to justices of the peace and auctioneers. It can readily be seen what a powerful and flexible weapon this Council could be in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.

Suffrage was heavily restricted. To be permitted to vote for members of the Assembly there were property qualifications—to wit, one must be a freeholder with a freehold of the value of £20, or the renter of a tenement of the annual value of 40 shillings, and a taxpayer to boot. For the Senate and for Governor the qualifications were much more stringent. The prospective voter must be a freeholder possessed of a freehold worth £100, over and above all debts and incumbrances. In 1790 there were only 1303 out of a total of 13,330 adult male residents of New York City with the requisite property qualifications to vote for Senators and for Governor.^[177] Ten percent of the citizenry, in other words, ran the government; ninety percent to all intents and purposes were largely or completely disfranchised.

It is small wonder then that the State found itself in the grip of a few powerful families. The Clintons generally; in Westchester the Morrises and Van Cortlandts; along the Hudson the Livingstons and the Coldens; in Albany the Van Rensselaers and Schuylers; and to the west Sir William Johnson. All of them were owners of princely domains and exceedingly wealthy. Together they could have dominated the State with irresistible influence. Actually they were usually at cross-purposes, and the Clintons, in the person of the veteran and perennial Governor, George Clinton, rode the conflict of interests and of families with an agility that commands the admiration of the beholder.

The situation has been stated rather succinctly, if with undue simplification. “The Clintons had the power, the Livingstons had numbers, the Schuylers had Hamilton.”^[178]

Alexander Hamilton had married the daughter of General Philip Schuyler, of Revolutionary fame, and a land speculator and canal builder extraordinary. Already had the young West Indian made his mark in state and national politics. He was decidedly a Federalist with all that the name implies; he had fought valiantly and hard for the Constitution; he was soon to be the first Secretary of the Treasury and the power that motivated the President of the United States. Yet he cannily realized that political influence must have a local habitation and a name, and set to work to entrench himself strongly in New York.

Accordingly there ensued a jockeying for position. The Clintons were in control. An alliance between the Livingstons and the Schuylers (Hamilton) might oust the ruling family. It simplified matters, too, that the Livingstons were equally with the Schuylers of the Federalist persuasion. Governor Clinton was well aware of the situation. He needed counterbalances. The other families were too feudal—and feudist—in their characteristics to promise much help. He was in trouble.

Meanwhile, in April 1788, Burr had been nominated once again as candidate for the Assembly from New York City by the anti-Federalists. The ticket was advertised in the newspapers and handbills as follows:

“The sons of liberty, who are again called upon to contend with the sheltered aliens [Tories], who have, by the courtesy of our country, been permitted to remain among us, will give their support to the following ticket:—

“William Denning, Melancton Smith, Marinus Willet, and Aaron Burr.”^[179]

The ticket went down to ignominious defeat. The Federalists won overwhelmingly, and it looked gloomy for the gubernatorial election the following year. Burr does not seem to have canvassed for votes very actively. No doubt he had permitted his name to be entered at the urging of friends who were active. It was known in advance that defeat was certain. He still was not very politically minded.

The Federalists now had a majority in the State Senate and had gained heavily in the Assembly. They were jubilant and assured of success in the coming gubernatorial contest. Clinton seemed doomed to be ousted from the seat he had held so long. It was routine, of course, for him to be renominated on the anti-Federalist ticket.

On February 11, 1789, a meeting of citizens was called in New York City, mostly Federalist in complexion, to nominate an opposition candidate to Clinton. It is noteworthy of remark that they were not all Federalists. Personalities still entered into the consideration of office-holders, though with ever-decreasing force. Judge Robert Yates was nominated to contest the seat with Clinton. Aaron Burr attended this meeting, and was appointed, with Hamilton, Troup, and William Duer, to a committee of correspondence to promote Yates’ election.^[180]

Yates was now a moderate Federalist. Burr was certainly not. He had run on the opposition ticket only the year before. Yet he appeared now to vote for and advance actively the candidacy of a Federalist. Several considerations entered into this seeming abandonment of his own party.

In the strict sense of the term he never was a party man. Aside from the fact that his interest in politics had been comparatively slight, he was essentially a moderate in disposition. He was too coolly intellectual and keenly logical to yield to fanatical extremes on either side. Furthermore, he did not consider this particular contest as one involving national principles. It was a contest of men, of personalities. And Robert Yates was his close, his personal friend. He remembered gratefully the time when Yates had eased the way for his admission to the bar and the ties had deepened and strengthened ever since. He owed no allegiance to George Clinton.

Clinton defeated Yates, but by an uncomfortably close vote. And the Federalists won majorities in both branches of the Legislature. Clinton more than ever was determined to strengthen his lines. His eye fell on Aaron Burr. Burr was a comparatively young man, only thirty-three years of age, of excellent family and background, and had risen by his own unaided efforts to the top of his profession. Though he had supported Clinton’s antagonist in the recent election, he was still in fact an anti-Federalist. And, most important of all, he had no entangling alliances in the welter of interfamily quarrels that made of New York politics such an intricate web.

Clinton acted swiftly and decisively. He appointed his late opponent, Robert Yates, to the Chief Justiceship of the Supreme Court, and thereby eliminated him from future political consideration. Then he attempted to attach Burr to himself by offering him the office of State Attorney General. On September 25, 1789, Burr accepted, after some hesitation. He was reluctant to give up his law practice.