The Disputed Election of 1792: Editorial Note
The Disputed Election of 1792
From spring 1792 through March 1793 the state of New York was rocked by a stormy political campaign for the governorship, in which John Jay challenged longtime governor George Clinton, and by a still stormier dispute over the election returns. That the Clintonians stole that election seems clear, but the Federalists were themselves not sinless.
New York’s Federalists wished to challenge Clinton’s long hold on the governorship, especially after his lack of support for the Constitution and reservations about the new national government. Rivalries among the great Hudson Valley families and allegations of cronyism and corruption in the sale of public lands also contributed to partisan divisions regarding the selection of gubernatorial candidates. Upstate Federalists led by Philip Schuyler declined to support Aaron Burr’s candidacy. Once state Supreme Court Justice Robert Yates of Albany, the Federalist candidate in the previous gubernatorial race, declined to run, as did the young proprietor Stephen Van Rensselaer, they considered Jay the only candidate with sufficient popular support and prestige to defeat Clinton. Jay, worn down by the ardors of circuit riding and anxious to spend more time with his family now that a new child was due in February 1792, agreed to run once it became clear that Congress would not soon reduce the Supreme Court Justices’ circuit court riding responsibilities. The Federalists nominated Stephen Van Rensselaer for lieutenant governor. The campaign progressed without Jay’s active participation while he traveled through New England fulfilling his circuit court duties.1
Friends and family members, particularly his former law clerk Robert Troup, his nephew Peter Jay Munro, and his wife Sally, kept Jay informed of the status of the extremely close and vituperative race, and later of the outcome of the challenges to the validity of the votes of key counties.2 Jay’s supporters responded to campaign allegations that Jay favored a society of extreme inequality; that he was an outsider unfamiliar with state affairs due to his long absences on national business; that he represented a “ministerial party” controlled by Hamilton that, if elected, would subordinate the state to the federal government and displace all Clintonian officeholders; and that he planned to withdraw from the race once Clinton was cleared of charges regarding improprieties in the sale of western lands.3 Jay himself replied to claims he favored immediate abolition of slavery in New York, confirming his commitment to gradual emancipation through manumission.4 He also denied any involvement in polemics attacking Clinton and Robert R. Livingston.5
An especially distressing aspect of the campaign for Jay was the fact that many of the press attacks on him and the electoral machinations to disqualify his votes were undertaken by some of his formerly closest friends and relatives, including Robert R. Livingston and his brother Edward (Ned), and Jay’s estranged brother-in-law, Henry Brockholst Livingston. Though formerly Federalist, much of the Livingston clan in New York was now allied with the Clintonian faction.6
The election dispute represented a conflict between a determination to enforce strictly state regulations designed to protect the integrity of the ballots and the need to insure the votes truly reflected the will of the electorate. The views of each side were strongly influenced by political considerations. Electoral technicalities invalidated all the ballots cast in three Jay-supporting frontier counties, whose sheriffs failed to observe the procedures stipulated by state law for the conveyance of election ballots to the New York secretary of state at New York City. In Tioga County, the sheriff gave the ballot box to a deputy who was taken sick on his journey, and turned his cargo over to a clerk to make the delivery. In Clinton County, the sheriff gave the box to an individual who was not formally deputized to receive it. In Otsego County, the appointment of a Jay-supporting sheriff, Richard Smith, expired on 18 February 1792, and on 30 March the Council of Appointment had named Benjamin Gilbert to take his place. Early in April, Smith was elected supervisor of the town of Otsego and took office on 1 May, the last day of the balloting, while Gilbert’s commission of appointment was not delivered to him until 11 May, ten days after the election. Meanwhile, the election inspectors had delivered the ballots to Smith, who in turn gave them to a deputy whom he authorized to deliver them to the New York secretary of state. The state canvassers assigned to examine the ballots questioned whether Smith “was sheriff of the county, when he received and forwarded the ballots by his special deputy.” In addition, they contended only part of the Otsego ballots were delivered in the box required under the election statute of 1787; one town’s ballots were sent separately in a sealed bundle.7
Had the ballots of all three counties been accepted, Jay would have won by a clear majority, but after a council with the governor, the Livingstons—especially Edward and Brockholst—developed legal opinions asserting the illegality of the returns. Before deciding, the canvassers sought the opinions of both New York senators, Rufus King and Aaron Burr. King supported the validity of the votes, but his views were countered by Burr who produced a 46-page pamphlet replete with documentation and opinions by such prominent lawyers as Edmund Randolph and Melancton Smith. Both sides sought the opinions of other prominent lawyers as well. The majority of canvassers (all Clintonians) supported the Livingston and Burr position, rejecting the ballots of the three counties, and awarding the election to Clinton on 12 June.8 The infuriated Federalists insisted that a holdover sheriff acted in accordance with established precedent and that the electoral issues should
George Clinton, by Ezra Ames and John Chester Buttre, n.d. (Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-110647)
Jay took the news of his defeat with his accustomed equanimity and counseled moderation in his followers’ response. Not wishing the invalidation of his votes to go unchallenged, however, he later raised the possibility of a special convention to review the canvassers’ decision.10 As he made his way down from Vermont at the end of his circuit court tour, he was greeted at Hudson Valley towns by large Federalist turnouts, surpassed only by the even larger assemblage that hailed him on his arrival in New York City. Huge banners proclaimed “JAY GOVERNOR BY THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE” and “JAY AND LIBERTY,” cannons were shot off, and church bells rung, while hostile anti-Clinton demonstrators menaced the Governor’s mansion and violence erupted in both Kingston and Albany. The Mechanics Society, among other groups, demanded that Clinton resign.11
Clintonians countered with rallies in support of the canvassers and further challenged the Otsego votes by publicizing affidavits alleging that William Cooper, the “Bashaw of Otsego,” had engaged in the intimidation of voters, as had other big landowners. They also contended that Cooper had received Gilbert’s commission but deliberately failed to deliver it to him until after the election.12 Outside New York State, Clinton’s stance alienated some leading Republicans, who feared a political backlash. Since it “seems probable,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, that Jay had a majority, Clinton “would have honored himself by declining to accept and agreeing to take another fair start” in a new election, which he would probably then win.13
The Federalists demanded a legislative inquiry into the canvassers’ actions. When the legislature, in which Clintonians were in the majority, finally did grant a hearing, it questioned its authority in the case. By a close vote it found the canvassers not guilty of “any mal or corrupt practice,” and declared their decision “binding and conclusive.”14
The belief that the Clintonians had defied the will of the people by their tactics led the voters to sweep the Federalists into legislative offices in the 1793 election in New York.15 When, in 1795, Jay’s name was put up again as a gubernatorial candidate even though he was abroad on a diplomatic mission, he was easily the victor.
1. See, generally, Jabez D. Hammond, The History of Political Parties in the State of New York, from the Ratification of the Federal Constitution to December, 1840 (2 vols.; Albany, N.Y., 1842), 1: 62–71; , 201–27; Carol R. Berkin, “The Disputed 1792 Gubernatorial Election in New York,” M.A. thesis, Columbia University, 1966; , 304–23. For the reports on Robert Yates’s decision to decline the nomination and the swing of support to JJ, see the broadside dated Albany, 16 Feb. 1792 (, no. 46412); the broadside signed by John Alsop and Leonard Gansevoort for the Southern and Northern Committees of 24 Mar. 1792 (, no. 46441); and the circular letter of JJ’s supporters, in Daily Advertiser (New York), 11 Apr. 1792. On JJ’s refusal to consider running until he learned there was no likelihood of an alteration in the arrangements of the judiciary in regard to circuit riding, see , 1: 732–33. JJ’s daughter Sarah Louisa Jay was born in February 1792. On the candidacy of Aaron Burr, see PAB, 1: 103–4, 104–6n1.
2. For correspondence reporting the progress of the campaign, see Robert Troup to JJ, 26 Apr., ALS, NNC (EJ: 07186), quoted in the notes to JJ to Troup, 2 May; Troup to JJ, 2, 6, 20, and 27 May, 3, 10 and 13 June, all below; PJM to JJ, 29 Apr., below; and 21 May, ALS, NNC (EJ: 09370), and Dft, NNMus (EJ: 00420); and SLJ to JJ, 2 June, and 10[–12] June 1792, both below. For the support JJ’s longtime friend Peter Van Schaack of Kinderhook gave to his campaign, see his letter to Andrew Carshore of 13 Apr. 1792, in Henry C. Van Schaack, The Life of Peter Van Schaack, L.L.D. (New York, 1842), 437–39.
3. See, for example, “Democritis”, in the Diary (New York), 22 Feb.; “A Clintonian”, 28 Mar., Poughkeepsie Journal, 29 Mar.; Albany Gazette and Albany Register, both 26 Mar.; American Spy (Lansingburgh), 30 Mar.; “Plain Truth”, To the Independent Electors of the State of New York, 11 Apr. 1792 (, no. 24859); statement of John Williams, 25 Apr., Daily Advertiser (New York), 8 May 1792; the statement of the Albany Committee of Correspondence of 18 Apr. 1792, Broadside, N: John Williams Papers, 3: 96 (EJ: 04366), and , no. 46372; and Joshua Purdy, Ezekiel Halstead, and Daniel Horton to the Public, 5 Apr. 1792, below; “D”, New-York Journal, 23 June 1792.
4. For the allegations regarding the New-York Manumission Society and abolition of slavery, and JJ’s response, see J. C. Dongan to JJ, and JJ’s reply, both 27 Feb. 1792, below; “I.C.”, 28 Feb., Albany Gazette, 5 Mar. 1792; “A Jayite”, Albany Register, 2 Apr. 1792; and Peter Van Gaasbeek to Aaron Burr, 28 Mar. 1792, PAB, 1: 103–4, 105n2.
5. See JJ to the Public, 4 Apr. 1792, below.
6. On JJ’s formerly close relationship with RRL, see , 1: 34; on RRL’s role during the campaign, see , 285–86; , 256–61; and , 291–93. For an indication that JJ considered this period the end of his “Intimacy” with RRL, see the excision in the draft of his letter to GW, 30 Apr. 1794, recorded in note 2 to that letter. For the polemic against JJ, in response to a piece by “Timothy Tickler” that RRL erroneously attributed to JJ, see “Timothy Tickler,” Daily Advertiser (New York), 31 Mar. 1792; the piece signed “Aristides,” below, which appeared in the New-York Journal, 4 Apr. 1792; and JJ to the Public, 4 Apr. 1792, below. For JJ’s break with his brother-in-law and former secretary Brockholst Livingston, see , 2: 362, 480–85, 525, 601n31; and “Lewis Littlepage Redivivus” (editorial note), , 4: 235–42.
7. Hammond, History of Political Parties, 63–66; , 24: 114; Troup to JJ, 6 and 20 May 1792, below.
8. Troup to JJ, 3, 10, and 13 June, and notes, below; SLJ to JJ, 4 and 10[–12] June 1792, below; , 11: 589nn1–2; 12: 64–68; Impartial Statement of the Controversy; Appendix to the Impartial Statement; Journal of the Assembly of the State of New York, 16th Sess. (New York, 1793; , no. 25900), 90–93; PAB, 1: 106–22, 126–28, 131–37, 140–42.
9. Reasons in Support of an Opinion Offered to the Public Respecting the Votes of Otsego County on the 7th of June, 1792 (New York, 1792; , no. 24730); New-York Journal, 16 June 1792.
10. JJ to Troup, 2 and 25 May, and to PAJ, 9–11 May, all below; to SLJ, 18 June 1792, , 3: 434–35.
11. New-York Journal, 10, 14 July 1792; Daily Advertiser (New York), 11 July 1792. On JJ’s escort by his supporters into New York City, see Troup to JJ, 9 July 1792, ALS, NNC (EJ: 07195); , 12: 20–21. For examples of statements of support for JJ on his return to New York, and JJ’s responses, see Address of the Linsingburgh Committee and JJ’s reply, 30 June, below; Address of a Committee of the Citizens of Albany, and JJ’s reply, both 2 July, below; and New York City Committee to JJ, 13 July 1792, and his reply, both below; and Hudson Gazette, 5 July 1792.
The problems such addresses posed for JJ was commented upon in “Extract of a letter from Connecticut” in the Diary (New York) on 11 Aug. 1792. Although the author criticized the rejection of the votes of three counties as “almost criminal”, he lamented the addresses presented to Clinton and JJ and the public entertainments given to them by their respective adherents.
Mr. Jay’s friends have reduced him to the necessity of answering those public addresses—a situation which they should have never placed him in. To have returned no answer at all would have been uncivil. To have told his friends it was perhaps impolite or improper; would have implied a censure on them, that would have violated the rules of good breeding, and give offence. To give an answer to those addresses, without dropping some expressions which faction might misrepresent or censure, was a matter of extreme difficulty. In short Mr. Jay’s friends led him, by the warmth of their attachment into a dilemma from which his superior judgment, good sense, and prudence, could not extricate him, without incurring unmerited censure.
The letter went on to criticize the violent parties forming in the state and queried whether public indignation would not better show itself in the next election, or in a legislative way.
For AH’s response to the tumultuous Federalist reaction to their loss and his opposition to the idea of a convention, see his correspondence with Rufus King, , 11: 588–89; 12: 20–21, 99–100, 125–26.
For additional comments on the legal issues and on the partisanship and conflict of interest of some of the canvassers invalidating JJ’s votes, see Peter Van Schaack to Theodore Sedgwick, 19 and 25 June, and 31 Aug. 1792, all ALS, MHi (EJ: 04755, EJ: 04756, EJ: 04757).
12. See New-York Journal, 16, 30 June 1792.
13. TJ to JM, 21 June 1792, and to James Monroe, 23 June 1792, , 24: 105, 114.
14. Journal of the Assembly of the State of New York. Sixteenth Session (New York, 1793; , no. 25900), 105–8, 121, 134–36, 173.
15. On the belief that JJ should have won, and on Federalists keeping alive the resentment at his loss, see for example, the report on a meeting of a number of gentlemen from the counties of Tioga, Herkimer, and Otsego, at Cooperstown, 15 Jan. 1794, with toasts related to the disputed election, including one to JJ as the rightful governor of the state, and a related footnote, appearing in the Gazette of the United States, 3 Feb. 1794, New-York Daily Gazette, 4 Feb., and other papers.