JEFFREY P. BROWN
Samuel Huntington: A Connecticut
Aristocrat on the Ohio Frontier
Samuel Huntington, Jr., was one of the
many ambitious
Americans who went west in the early
nineteenth century hoping to
improve their station in life. Although
most western pioneers were
humble yeoman farmers, a significant
number of well-to-do citizens
also emigrated to the frontier in search
of their fortunes. Hun-
tington typified this latter group. Born
to one of Connecticut's most
prominent families, he moved to frontier
Ohio, became one of the
leading figures in Great Lakes politics,
and headed the coalition of
conservative Republicans and Federalists
that broke the liberal
Republican hold in the state. An
aristocratic leader in a democratic
society, Huntington's career illustrates
the ease with which a promi-
nent easterner could win high office in
the sparsely settled West.
The Huntington clan emerged in the
generation before the
American Revolution as one of the most
prominent families in Con-
necticut. One branch provided wealthy
merchants and a Revolu-
tionary War general. Another supplied
Samuel Huntington, Sr., a
self-taught farm boy who became a
successful Norwich lawyer and
served as President of the Continental
Congress in 1779-1781.
Samuel Sr. moved at the center of
American politics, and as titular
head of the nation acquired
responsibility for hosting foreign
dignitaries. Well known in America and
Europe, he capped his
career by serving as governor of
Connecticut from 1786 to 1796. A
taciturn and soft-spoken leader,
Huntington was also a confirmed
Federalist.1
Jeffrey P. Brown has taught American
history at Parkland Community College
and the University of Illinois, Urbana
and Champaign campuses. He is currently
employed as a Visiting Assistant
Professor at the University of Northern Iowa.
1. Larry R. Gerlach, Connecticut
Congressman: Samuel Huntington, 1731-1796
(Hartford, 1977), 9-12, 17, 19-21, 28,
52-58, 88-91, and 102; Deforest Van Slyck,
"Samuel Huntington," from
Dumas Malone, ed., Dictionary of American
Biography, 24 vols. (New York, 1932), IX, 418-19; David M. Roth, Connecticut's
War Governor: Jonathan Trumbull (Chester, Connecticut, 1974), 35; The Governor
came from a farm family and was
apprenticed to a barrel-cooper. He studied law and
Samuel Huntington
421
In the early 1770s Samuel Huntington
informally adopted two
children from his brother, the Reverend
Joseph Huntington. Samuel
was childless, and Joseph a recent
widower. The elder of the
children, Samuel Jr., was born in 1765
and was six or seven years
old when the adoption occurred. Although
he always called his step-
father "uncle" and stayed in
close contact with his real father,
young Samuel remained forever a part of
the Governor's surrogate
family.2
The adoption meant that Huntington grew
up in a family of ex-
traordinary prominence and some
affluence. In 1779-1781, when he
was in his mid-teens, he accompanied his
stepparents to
Philadelphia, where his uncle was one of
the most important men in
Congress. He entered Dartmouth in 1781
and later transferred to
Yale, from which he graduated in 1785.
He then embarked on a
grand tour of Europe, a rare experience
for eighteenth century
Americans. After he returned to
Connecticut, Huntington studied
law under his stepfather. He liked to
drink and court young ladies-
habits disagreeable to the Governor-but
by 1791 he had settled
down, joined the bar, and married a
cousin, Hannah Huntington.
Huntington spent the ensuing years as
his stepfather's scribe, law
clerk, and assistant at assembly
sessions.3 Fully accepted as part of
Connecticut's elite, he was apparently
being groomed to succeed his
stepfather.
This world collapsed around Huntington
in 1796, when his step-
father died. Without his stepfather's
support, his prospects for ad-
vancement dimmed appreciably.
Increasingly, he devoted his atten-
tion to western land speculation.
Huntington became one of the
nineteen proprietors in the Erie
Company, one of the leading land
firms that coalesced into the
Connecticut Land Company in 1795.
Latin on his own, and rose to eminence
in Norwich at the same time that his cousin,
Jabez Huntington, became the town's
leading merchant. Other influential
Huntingtons included General Jeremiah,
merchant Andrewand the Reverend Dr.
Joseph Huntington, the father of the
younger Samuel.
2. Gerlach, Huntington, 28. The
Reverend Joseph and Congressman Samuel had
married sisters, Hannah and Martha
Devotion. The Reverend Joseph turned over
two children, Samuel, Jr., and Frances,
but kept a baby son. He later remarried and
had nine more children.
3. Gerlach, Huntington, 52-58,
75-76, 86, 104; the Connecticut Courant,
September 26, 1785; William T. Utter, Ohio
Politics and Politicians, 1802-1815
(Ph.D. Thesis, The University of
Chicago, March 1929), 7, 96-97; The Ohio Historical
Society, The Governors of Ohio (Columbus,
1954); and The Biographical
Cyclopaedia and Portrait Gallery with
a Sketch of the State of Ohio (Cincinnati),
Vol.
1, 141. A third "adopted"
child, Mason Cogswell, described young Samuel as "cun-
ning" and his sister as "placid." Samuel
attended Dartmouth and studied law with
his full brother, Joseph Huntington, Jr., who was
raised by the Reverend. The sixty-
five Yale graduates of 1785 included
Samuel and Return J. Meigs, Jr.
422 OHIO HISTORY
The Erie group included several
Huntingtons, and Samuel's in-
terest may have been encouraged by other
family members.4
In the late 1790s Huntington drew
increasingly closer to the Jef-
fersonian Republicans, and early in 1798
he publicly declared his
allegiance to that party. It is at least
possible that he took this step
in the expectation of rising quickly in
the state's minority party,
but he clearly did not expect the
vehement Federalist reaction that
ensued. The Connecticut Land Company
directors split into
vociferous Federalist and Republican
camps. Huntington incurred
the special wrath of director Roger
Newberry, whom he called
"Granny" and an "old
superannuated bigot." By the turn of the
century Huntington wrote that the
"atmosphere of Connecticut is
infectuous-particularly Norwich"
and that he planned to "get out
of it as soon as I can."5 Huntington
also had other reasons for
emigration. He hoped to prosper as an
agent for Western Reserve
landholders, and several of his closest
friends also planned to go
west. Moreover, he was convinced that he
would be politically
ostracized in Connecticut.6 Accordingly,
Huntington made a
horseback tour of the Erie region in
1800, and moved permanently
to Ohio in 1801. He took his wife, two
young sons, and a governess,
and soon after arriving paid a Cleveland
builder to erect the largest
block house in the new town.7
4. Mary Lou Conlin, Simon Perkins of
the Western Reserve (Cleveland, 1968),
2-14; and Connecticut Courant, January
18, 1796. The old Governor died early in
January, 1796. Twelve Connecticut groups
and several out-of-state speculators met
in Hartford in August, 1795, to bid for
the state's Western Reserve, along Lake
Erie. Samuel Huntington retained his law
practice throughout these years, and had
an office in the Norwich courthouse.
5. Conlin, Perkins, 12-14, 31,
49. See Samuel Huntington to Moses Cleaveland,
November 15, 1801 and February 10, 1802,
Moses Cleaveland Papers, Western
Reserve Historical Society, cited above
in Conlin, and Huntington to the Reverend
E.D. Griffin, January 10, 1801, MS 2063,
Western Reserve Historical Society.
Griffin had married Huntington's sister
Frances. Other early Republicans met the
same hostility in Connecticut. Ephraim
Kirby, a Revolutionary War hero and promi-
nent lawyer, was so shunned in a church
that he left and helped found the Litchfield
Episcopal Church. See Theodatus Garlick,
"Biography of Ephraim Kirby," Western
Reserve and Northern Ohio Historical
Society Tract No. 58 (Cleveland,
1883),
183-86. See also, Richard J. Purcell, Connecticut
in Transition, 1775-1818
(Washington, D.C., 1918), 225-36. The
Connecticut Republicans polled only a few
hundred votes in 1796. They did a little
better in 1800, with Gideon Granger and
Pierrepont Edwards leading their
campaign, but they were still a weak minority.
6. On the turn in Connecticut consult
Stephen G. Kurtz, The Presidency of John
Adams. The Collapse of Federalism
1795-1800 (New York, 1961), 147-48.
7. Charles Whittlesey, Early History
of Cleveland, Ohio ...(Cleveland, 1867),
379-80. On his tour Huntington went to
Cleaveland in the spring of 1800, arrived in
Youngstown by July, and went on to
Marietta late in the fall. He met Northwest
Territory Governor Arthur St. Clair at
some point in his trip. Cleaveland later
altered its spelling to the modern
Cleveland.
Samuel Huntington 423
By 1801, when Huntington settled in the
Northwest, the ter-
ritorial government was thirteen years
old. The Northwest had
recently reached the population level
that entitled it to an assembly,
and many residents expected statehood to
follow shortly. The
statehood movement was opposed by
Governor Arthur St. Clair, an
ardent Federalist who feared that
statehood would end his own
tenure, place the frontier in the hands
of inexperienced men, and
possibly send Republican Senators and a
Representative to
Washington. By 1800 St. Clair had
concluded an alliance with a
number of Cincinnati and Marietta
politicians. Some of these men
were Federalists and some Republicans,
but all were united by a
desire to end the political and economic
domination exercised by the
centrally located Scioto Valley and its
chief town, Chillicothe. They
feared that statehood would make
Chillicothe's dominance perma-
nent, and hence they sought either to
delay statehood or to divide
the territory along the Scioto, with
Marietta and Cincinnati becom-
ing the new regional capitals. Not
surprisingly, the statehood move-
ment received strong support from the
Scioto assemblymen, largely
Virginia Republicans under the
leadership of Edward Tiffin and
Thomas Worthington.8 Since both groups
had equal strength in the
assembly, and both had influential
friends in the East, each side
looked to Connecticut's Western Reserve
for decisive extra support.
Huntington could easily have landed in
either camp. His general
political sympathies lay with the Scioto
Republicans. However,
Governor St. Clair readily courted
Republican support, and he had
recently chosen as his personal
secretary George Tod, a close friend
of both Huntington and Connecticut
Republican leader Gideon
Granger. Tod, like Huntington, came to
the Northwest as a
representative of Connecticut Land
Company shareholders. He was
the sort of man who kept his eye firmly
on the main political chance,
and decided that his best prospects
would come as a St. Clair ally.
The Governor hinted to Tod that a
successful effort to divide the
Northwest would delay statehood and
probably leave the Reserve
the dominant region in the eastern half,
a hint he left "to work for
itself in his mind."9 Huntington,
who often followed Tod's lead,
8. Beverley W. Bond, Jr., The
Foundations of Ohio (Columbus, 1941), 396-476;
Alfred Byron Sears, Thomas Worthington-Father of
Ohio Statehood (Columbus,
1948); and Gordon L. Wilson,
"Arthur St. Clair and the Administration of the Old
Northwest" (unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Southern California, 1957).
See also, Jeffrey P. Brown, "Frontier Politics-The
Evolution of a Political Society
in Ohio, 1788-1814" (unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana,
1979).
9. Arthur St. Clair to Dudley
Woodbridge, December 24, 1801, from The Arthur
St. Clair Papers, microcard edition,
Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio Historical Society,
424 OHIO HISTORY
muted his own Jeffersonian sympathies
and developed cordial rela-
tions with St. Clair. This enabled him
to thwart efforts by the Com-
pany directors to promote a Federalist
administration in the
Western Reserve. The directors nominated
officers they preferred
for government posts, entrusting their
list to a safe Federalist set-
tler, John Starke Edwards, rather than
to Huntington. St. Clair ap-
pointed the bulk of their nominees, but
gave some of the posts to
Tod's friends. Thus Huntington became
justice of the peace for
Trumbull County, the Reserve county, and
also a lieutenant colonel
in the militia. The combination of his
earlier prominence, his legal
background, and his new official
preference quickly made Hunt-
ington the political leader of the
county.10
Both Huntington and Tod fully supported
a territorial assembly
resolution late in 1801 asking Congress
to divide the Northwest
along the Scioto River. They assumed
that Congress would comply
and that it would appoint for the
eastern half, which they privately
called the Erie Territory, the usual
governor and three judges.
These offices were the most important
positions in any territory,
and the men who held them could hope to
move on to a governorship
or United States Senate seat when
statehood followed. Determined
to win one of these territorial offices
for Huntington, Tod wrote to
Gideon Granger, the Connecticut
Republican who had just become
Postmaster General, recommending
Huntington for governor or
judge in the Erie Territory. Tod had not
consulted Huntington
before making these nominations, but the
latter was willing to hold
either office.11 The
"scheme" as Tod called it, illustrates the manner
in which a competent and well-connected
easterner, by his mere
with copy furnished by the Illinois
Historical Survey, University of Illinois, card 65
frame 37 to card 66 frame 1. See also,
George Tod to William Henry Smith, ed., The
St. Clair Papers: The Life and Public
Services of Arthur St. Clair, 2 vols.
(Cincinnati,
1882), II, 584-85. For Huntington's ties
to the Connecticut Land Company, see also,
Moses Cleaveland to Colonel Huntington,
August 16, 1801, from The Western
Reserve Historical Tract No. 95,
Annual Report for 1914-1915, and Letters from the
Samuel Huntington Correspondence,
1800-1812 (Cleveland, 1915), hereafter
referred-
to as Huntington Tract No. 95.
10. Winthrop Sargent, et al., The
Executive Journal of the North-West Territory
(Columbus, 1955), 525-26, 532. While
Huntington and Tod were friends as well as
allies in 1800, their friendship may
have later deteriorated. Some years later
Huntington's wife Hannah wrote that she
despised Tod for "the plenitude of his ill
breeding," and lamented that she
would never again see a book Tod had just bor-
rowed. See Hannah Huntington to Samuel
Huntington, September 26, 1808, from
The Hannah Huntington Papers, MSS 884,
in the Western Reserve Historical Socie-
ty. See also Conlin, Perkins, 35-36.
Whittlesey, Cleveland, 382-83 notes that Ed-
wards was later a Republican, but
overlooks his earlier Federalist phase.
11. George Tod to Samuel Huntington,
January 14, 1802, Huntington Tract No.
95, 69-72.
Samuel Huntington 425
presence on the frontier, could
seriously aspire to the highest
political positions. In this case,
however, Tod's plans for Hunt-
ington went awry. Congress rejected the
proposal for a division,
voting instead to admit the southern
portion of the Northwest-
modern Ohio-as a state as soon as it
drew up a constitution.12
The Republican Congress that approved
this statehood bill did so
expecting that the new frontier state
would regularly vote
Republican. The growing Republican
strength on the frontier
rendered Tod and Huntington
increasingly vulnerable. In mid-1802
a friend wrote Tod that Gideon Granger
was beginning to question
his Republicanism because of his ties
with Governor St. Clair and
that such ties could be ruinous.13
Huntington, in turn, recognized
that his own career was in jeopardy if
he continued to work with the
Federalists. Thus, he ignored a request
from St. Clair to speak out
against statehood.14 Moreover, in
1802 Huntington won one of
Trumbull County's seats in the state
constitutional convention,
defeating John S. Edwards, a
Federalist.15 Apparently unaware that
Huntington had already decided to part
company with the
Federalists, Tod wrote to him urging
that even if he were not fully
devoted to the Republican party, he
allow others to "believe you one
of them." Tod insisted that if Huntington were considered a
Republican, he could easily become a
supreme court justice, for
other Republicans believed that he
could lead the Reserve into the
Republican camp.16 Tod
emphasized his points by enclosing a letter
he had written to Thomas Worthington in
which he introduced
Huntington as a good Republican.17
Already attuned to the direc-
tion in which the political winds were
blowing, Huntington wrote
back to Tod, assuring him that he had
become a dedicated
Republican and could thus support that
party without embarrass-
ment. He said that Republican leaders
had already offered him a
judgeship for his support, and that
some spoke of higher office-
possibly a United States Senatorship.18
Huntington continued to
12. Bond, Foundations of Ohio, 396-476.
13. Timothy Phelps to George Tod, May
25, 1802, The George Tod Papers, #122,
Western Reserve Historical Society.
14. Arthur St. Clair to Samuel
Huntington, Pittsburgh, July 15, 1802,
Huntington Tract No. 95, 80-81.
15. Conlin, Perkins, 53.
16. George Tod to Samuel Huntington,
November 2, 1802, from Samuel Hun-
tington Papers MSS 3497, #68, Western
Reserve Historical Society, hereafter refer-
red to as Huntington Papers.
17. George Tod to Thomas Worthington,
October 23, 1802-Thomas Wor-
thington Collection, Ohio Historical
Society (Thomas Worthington Microfilm Edi-
tion), roll 1 frames 392-93, hereafter
referred to as Thomas Worthington Collection.
18. Samuel Huntington to George Tod,
November 18, 1802, The George Tod
Papers, #109.
426 OHIO HISTORY
lodge with Federalists in 1802, but his
open cooperation with the
Republicans at the constitutional
convention startled the Federalist
delegates, who had counted on his
support. Huntington thereafter
associated, both in public and private,
almost exclusively with
Republicans. He was pleased to discover
that his new allies included
men of talent, and that politics in the
Northwest lacked the rancor
found in Connecticut.19
Huntington's new political affiliation
was timely, for Ohio turned
overwhelmingly Republican; in the first
state elections Federalists
put up only token candidates. Moreover,
in the Presidential canvass
of 1804 Republican electors outpolled
Federalists by a margin of
about eight to one. Thus, Huntington
aligned himself with the win-
ning side, and just in time.20
Ohio's early Republican leadership
included Charles W. Byrd of
Cincinnati, Return J. Meigs of Marietta,
and a group of Scioto
Valley
men-Tiffin, Worthington, Nathaniel Massie, Michael
Baldwin, and Elias Langham. This
leadership, however, was not
united. Baldwin's 1801 role in
organizing Chillicothe saloon toughs
into a political street mob had aroused
Worthington's open con-
tempt, while Langham and Worthington had
been enemies ever
since a quarrel over land sale ethics.
The brothers-in-law Byrd and
Massie slowly drew away from all the
Scioto Republicans, while
Meigs remained virtually independent.21
This division left Samuel
Huntington considerable room in which to
maneuver.
Huntington's desire for a federal
position was soon dashed. Hop-
ing to win a federal judgeship in Ohio,
he wrote to Postmaster
General Granger to ask for the position.
Another candidate, Charles
W. Byrd, emerged at the same time. Byrd,
the young territorial
19. See Journal of the First
Constitutional Convention Convened November 1,
1802, from Daniel J. Ryan, ed., Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Publications
Volume V, From Charter to
Constitution, passim. Huntington did
little of note at
the convention, but did serve on a
committee that drew up a compliment to Thomas
Jefferson. Utter, Ohio Politics, 8,
notes that Huntington shared lodgings with
Federalists attending the convention.
Julia Perkins Cutler, Life and Times of
Ephraim Cutler Prepared from his
Journals and Correspondence, with Biographical
Sketches of Jervis Cutler and William
Parker Cutler (Cincinnati, 1890), 69,
il-
lustrates how surprised the Federalists
were by Huntington's apparent switch of
allegiance at the convention. See also
Conlin, Perkins, 53-54.
20. Chillicothe Scioto Gazette, November
19, 1804 (microfilm copy furnished by
the Western Reserve Historical Society).
The Republican Presidential electors,
Nathaniel Massie, William Goforth of
Cincinnati, and James Pritchard of Steuben-
ville, outpolled their Federalist
counterparts by a total of 7,570 votes to 883.
21. See Edward Tiffin to Thomas
Worthington, November 2, 1803; December 8,
1803; February 17 and 20, 1804, all four
letters from Thomas Worthington Papers,
Reel 90, Ohio Historical Society,
hereafter referred to as Worthington Reel 90. Most
Ohio historians pay much attention to
the colorful Baldwin, but ignore Langham.
Samuel Huntington
427
secretary, was related to many of the
best families in Virginia and
Philadelphia. Furthermore, Byrd's
candidacy was supported by
Thomas Worthington, the ablest of the
Scioto Republicans and a
Virginian with close ties to the
Jefferson administration. Wor-
thington favored Byrd at least partly
because he believed that only
Byrd could beat a third candiate,
Cincinnati lawyer and St. Clair al-
ly William McMillan.22 Huntington
was helpless against this array
of Virginians. He pointed out to
Worthington his own services for
the party in defending the new state
constitution, but Worthington
continued to support Byrd. By the time
Granger presented
Huntington's name to the President,
Jefferson had decided to select
Byrd. Granger could only promise
Huntington to recommend him
for other posts that might become
available.23
Huntington next set his sights on the
United States Senate. He
believed that he had the support of
Republican leaders, and rumors
quickly spread through Ohio that he and
Worthington had agreed
to share the two Senate seats. Although
no such deal was consum-
mated, Huntington was nevertheless
surprised when he did not win
a seat. The new Senators were elected
by Ohio's first state
assembly, which convened in Chillicothe
on March 1, 1803, with
Huntington attending as a state senator
from Trumbull County.
The two houses met in joint session on
April 1, one month into the
session, and by secret ballot chose
Worthington and Republican
John Smith of Cincinnati for the
Senate. Only one man, Wor-
thington's personal enemy Michael
Baldwin, later acknowledged
that he had voted for Huntington.24
Despite his disappointment,
22. On the Byrd story see, Charles W.
Byrd to James Madison, January 31, 1802,
and Thomas Worthington to Albert
Gallatin, November 17, 1802, both from
Clarence E. Carter, ed., United
States, The Territory North-West of the River Ohio
1787-1803 (Washington, D.C., 1934), Vol. 3, 208, 256; Byrd to
Worthington,
December 4, 1802, Worthington Reel 90;
information on Byrd in Charles E. Rice
MSS., Box 20, No. 1, Folder 7, Ohio
Historical Society; and John Theodore
Grupenhoff, "Politics and the Rise
of Political Parties in the Northwest Territory
and Early Ohio to 1812 with Emphasis on
Cincinnati and Hamilton County" (un-
published Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Texas at Austin, 1962), 138. McMillan, a
leading Cincinnati lawyer, was a
Jeffersonian Republican temporarily allied to the
St. Clair camp. Byrd retired from active
politics after he got the judgeship.
23. Samuel Huntington to Thomas
Worthington, January 5, 1803, Worthington
Reel 90; and Gideon Granger to
Huntington, January 3, 1803, Huntington Papers,
#95.
24. Utter, Ohio Politics, 31, 36.
Baldwin came from an ambitious rising Connec-
ticut family-one brother became a
Georgia Senator, and another a Supreme Court
Justice-but he had degenerated to an alcoholic
rabble-rouser. He may have voted
for Huntington because he hated
Worthington, or simply because both men came
from Connecticut. Baldwin was chosen
House Speaker and remained a powerful
figure until gambling debts and acute
alcoholism ruined him. See also Journal of the
Senate of the State of Ohio First
Session ... (Chillicothe, 1803), 3, 4,
63, hereafter
referred to as Senate, First Session.
428 OHIO HISTORY
Huntington restrained his anger. In
October he wrote a letter to
Senator Worthington in which he
discussed a variety of political
events, then also mentioned, without
comment, the prevalent
rumors that Worthington had broken his
promise to support him.
The new Senator replied that these
rumors were Federalist-inspired
and false.25
Scioto Valley Republicans quickly took
control of Ohio's state
government. Besides Worthington's
victory, they elected Edward
Tiffin governor, and through Nathaniel
Massie and Michael
Baldwin-the latter admittedly an enemy
of his Scioto neighbors
-they controlled both houses of the
general assembly. There was
relatively little opportunity for Yankee
converts like Huntington or
Return J. Meigs of Marietta (Meigs, too,
was from Connecticut), but
even so Huntington played a fairly
active role in the 1803
legislature. He drew up the Senate
rules, headed the committee on
elections, helped draw up a court
system, and on several occasions
served as speaker pro tempore.26 Nevertheless,
he exercised little
political influence. Towards the end of
the session both he and
Meigs were placed on the state supreme
court by joint assembly
election. These were prestigious
seats-George Tod lobbied to win
one for Huntington, and no doubt the
Trumbull lawyer himself
preferred the court to a minor role in
the assembly-but they were
probably dead ends politically, for they
offered little power and little
opportunity to become involved with the
issues of the day.27 The
Scioto Republicans were happy to shunt
their allies off to these
prestigious but powerless posts. By
December, 1803, Governor Tif-
fin wrote Worthington that Samuel
Huntington no longer had
popularity or influence, and when he
later named Huntington chief
justice, it was at best only a
gesture.28
Stymied in Ohio, both Huntington and
Meigs began to look to
other parts of the West. Meigs was
interested in Louisiana, Hun-
tington in Michigan. The sparsely
settled region between Lakes
Huron and Michigan had been an isolated
part of the Northwest
Territory. Its French voters had a
reputation for having Federalist
25. Samuel Huntington to Thomas
Worthington, October 35 (an obvious
misdate), 1803, Worthington Reel 90;
Thomas Worthington to Samuel Huntington,
Washington, October 19, 1803, Huntington
Papers #105.
26. Senate, First Session, 4,
5-7, 8, 17, 40, 66-67, 117.
27. George Tod to Samuel Huntington,
February 10, 1802 (clearly, from the con-
text, 1803), Huntington Papers, #69; Senate,
First Session, 66-67.
28. Edward Tiffin to Thomas Worthington,
December 17, 1803, Worthington
Reel 90; and Tiffin to Samuel
Huntington, December 5, 1804, Huntington Papers,
#71. Meigs was the first Chief Justice,
but resigned from the bench within a year.
Samuel Huntington 429
sympathies, and consequently in 1802
Congress had insured that
Ohio would be Republican by lopping off
the Michigan region and
adding it to Indiana Territory. Since
Indiana did not yet have an
assembly, Detroiters felt politically
deprived; after two years of
petitions, the government created for
them another territory, called
Michigan.29 Samuel
Huntington set his sights as early as October,
1803, on becoming governor of Michigan,
even though that Ter-
ritory was not created until a year
later.
Huntington knew that if he wanted to
become Governor of
Michigan, he needed Worthington's help.
Thus, when he first wrote
the Senator in October, 1803, about his
dashed Senate hopes, he
also asked who would become the
governor of "Detroit."30 Wor-
thington replied early in 1804 that
while a bill separating Michigan
from Indiana had passed the Senate, it
would probably fail in the
House. Furthermore, although promising
to recommend
Huntington to the President,
Worthington said that he had already
recommended Judge Meigs for the post.31
Huntington, in turn, told
the Senator that while he respected
Meigs, he still wanted to be con-
sidered for the governorship.32 He
also apparently wrote to Ohio's
other Senator, John Smith, who
possessed little influence but could
at least keep him informed on the fate
of the Indiana division bill.33
Huntington grew more hopeful in late
1804 when Meigs took a
position in the new Louisiana
Territory. He again wrote to Senator
Worthington, to reaffirm his candidacy
and to oppose any plans to
annex Michigan to the state of Ohio.34
However, a new rival ap-
peared on the scene. Solomon Sibley of
Detroit, a Massachusetts
native, became a candidate for the
Michigan Secretaryship late in
1803. Although he did not obtain this
post, Sibley met with Presi-
dent Jefferson in January of 1805 to
recommend General William
29. Alec R. Gilpin, The Territory of
Michigan (1805-1837) (East Lansing, 1970),
5-13; Timothy Frederick Sherer,
"The Rule of the Governor and Judges in Michigan
Territory 1805-1823" (unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1976);
and Jonathan Schieffelin to Thomas
Worthington, September 30, 1803, Thomas
Worthington Collection, roll 1, frames
679-82.
30. Samuel Huntington to Thomas
Worthington, October 35 (?), 1803,
Worthington Reel 90.
31. Thomas Worthington to Samuel
Huntington, January 4, 1804, Huntington
Papers, #106.
32. Samuel Huntington to Thomas
Worthington, February 4, 1804, Worthington
Reel 90.
33. John Smith to Samuel Huntington,
February 22, 1804, Huntington Papers,
#4.
34. Samuel Huntington to Thomas
Worthington, October 30, 1804, Worthington
Reel 90.
430 OHIO HISTORY
Hull of Massachusetts for the
Governorship.35 Huntington did not
learn about Hull's candidacy for some
time, and as late as February
5, 1805, in another letter of
application, he mentioned Meigs as his
only rival.36 When
he finally heard that Hull was also a candidate, he
hastily wrote to Worthington to remind
the Senator that he spoke
fluent French.37
Huntington's barrage of letters proved
unavailing. On February
26, 1805, Worthington wrote Huntington
that while he, John
Smith, and Ohio Congressman Jeremiah
Morrow had all recom-
mended him, President Jefferson had
chosen Hull. Worthington
then recommended Huntington for one of
the Michigan judgeships.
The President agreed to nominate
Huntington to the bench, and
Worthington was confident that the
Senate would approve.38
The judicial appointment came as a total
surprise to Huntington.
Accepting it would not further his
career, for he would merely be
tranferring laterally from one bench to
another. His chances of
becoming governor or going to Washington
seemed much better in
Ohio than in Michigan Territory, where
either Hull or the new
Secretary, Huntington's old friend
Stanley Griswold of Connec-
ticut, would most likely hold sway. Low
salaries in Michigan, plus
the damage done by a fire that had
recently incinerated most of
Detroit, made the territory seem even
less congenial. Nevertheless,
Huntington weighed accepting the
appointment for some time, for
he feared that his refusal would doom
any chances he had for
holding other territorial offices.
Despite his qualms, in December
1805 he formally declined the judgeship.
During the next year he
sponsored his friend George Tod for the
vacant bench, but failed to
secure the post for him.39
35. Solomon Sibley to Thomas
Worthington, June 8, 1803, Worthington Reel 90;
and Sibley to Worthington, December 27,
1803, Thomas Worthington Collection,
roll 3, frames 54-56 (letter on deposit
from the State Library of Ohio). Sibley even ap-
pealed for Worthington to help him as a
brother Mason; Jeremiah Morrow to
Samuel Huntington, January 17, 1805, Huntington
Tract No. 95, 100-01, which
stated that Sibley was going to meet
that day with President Jefferson to promote
both his own candidacy (which Morrow
expected would fail) and Hull's.
36. Samuel Huntington to Thomas
Worthington, December 29, 1804; and
Huntington to Worthington, February 5,
1805, both Thomas Worthington Collec-
tion, roll 3, frames 175-76 and 429-30,
both letters on deposit from the State Library
of Ohio.
37. Samuel Huntington to Thomas
Worthington, February 12, 1805, Thomas
Worthington Collection, roll 3, frames
509-10, letter on deposit from the State
Library of Ohio.
38. Thomas Worthington to Samuel
Huntington, February 26, 1805, Huntington
Papers, #108. One must wonder whether
Worthington made the recommendation in
an effort to get Huntington, a potential
rival, out of the state.
39. Samuel Huntington to Thomas
Worthington, December 10, 1805, Thomas
Samuel Huntington 431 |
|
Huntington remained on the Ohio bench, but devoted most of his attention to private business concerns in Cleveland. His neighbors chose him for minor local offices and indicated their respect by habitually dubbing him "esquire." In 1805 Huntington temporarily moved from Cleveland, perhaps because wild wolves attacked him outside his home one winter night. He operated mills and ac- cumulated land and by 1807 he had amassed some 4,000 acres along Lake Erie. During that year he returned to his large Cleveland log home, which soon doubled as both a family residence and a boarding house. Huntington remained one of the more prosperous citizens of the Reserve.40
Worthington Collection, roll 3, frames 627-28, letter on deposit from the State Library of Ohio. Huntington said he was declining the job because the salary was too low to support his large family. On Tod, see George Tod to James Madison, August 25, 180(?), and Huntington to Tod, April 12, 1806, George Tod Papers. Tod deliberately did not approach the influential Gideon Granger, saying that such in- fluence seeking would be a demeaning way to apply for a job. Perhaps Tod's per- sonality had drastically changed, but it seems more likely that he had had a falling out with Granger. Tod, instead, would up joining Huntington on the Ohio Supreme Court. See Scioto Gazette, May 22, 1806. In Huntington to Tod, July 24, 1805 (really 1806?), George Tod Papers, Huntington speculated that Jefferson would appoint a Mr. Root of New York. 40. Whittlesey, Cleveland, 385-86, 414-15; and on Huntington's property see, |
432 OHIO HISTORY
Huntington continued to take an interest
in Ohio politics. Two
developments gave him grounds for
renewed optimism. Within the
Republican party, bitter infighting
became a normal feature of
political life. Baldwin and Langham
opposed Tiffin; Massie quar-
reled with Tiffin; and newer leaders
like James Pritchard of
Steubenville developed other splinter
groups within the party.
These divisions ended the domination of
the Scioto leaders. Further-
more, the famous conflict in 1807-1808
over whether the state
courts could rule legislative acts
unconstitutional cast most of the
judges into the role of conservative
defenders of order and stability.
These conflicts divided the voters into
two camps: one strongly
Republican, Scioto-based, and supporting
the legislature as the
voice of the people; the other a mixture
of Yankee Republicans and
old-line Federalists who praised the
courts and called the assembly
power-hungry.41 The pro-court
group was often in the minority. In
the Congressional election of 1808, for
example, its candidate,
Federalist Philemon Beecher, lost by a
two to one margin. Still, the
court faction enjoyed considerable
influence.42 It made its best mark
in the gubernatorial election late in
1807, when it helped Return J.
Meigs win a narrow victory. Meigs's
election was voided on
grounds of non-residency, but even so
the election demonstrated
that a conservative Yankee Republican
could carry the state.43
Early in the following year, Samuel
Huntington decided to run for
governor himself. By this time he had
achieved a solid reputation as
a judicial conservative. When Daniel
M'Faddon successfully sued
Benjamin Rutherford for $35 in a justice
of the peace court, Ruther-
ford appealed to the state supreme
court. Huntington and associate
justice George Tod ruled that a justice
of the peace could only hear
cases worth less than $20. In making
this decision, they voided a
legislative act, which had given
justices greater authority.
Huntington argued that the state
constitution carried over that pro-
vision of the Ordinance of 1787 which
guaranteed trial by jury, and
that the right to a jury was ultimately
based on the federal Con-
stitution, which promised such hearings
for all cases except simple
Samuel Huntington, County and Town
List for 1807, May 10, 1807, Western Reserve
Historical Society Vertical File.
Huntington also owned 361/2 town lots in Cleveland,
some animals, and "one log."
41. On the very controversial struggle
between courts and the legislature, a good
source is Utter, Ohio Politics, 75-87.
42. Ibid., Appendix,
Congressional Election of 1808.
43. Ibid., 69-75. Meigs had lived
in St. Louis as a Louisiana Territory official.
Ohio's constitution required governors
to be residents of the state for four years
prior to election.
Samuel Huntington
433
contracts under $20. This surprising
extension of the United States
Constitution to an Ohio law passed
without notice, as popular atten-
tion focused on the fact that the court
had challenged a legislative
act.44
Huntington's decision threw him into
the maelstrom of the ongo-
ing court-assembly struggle, making him
a judicial hero to conser-
vative voters. By April, 1808, it was
clear that he would be their
candidate for the governor's chair that
fall.45 Huntington's can-
didacy disturbed Tiffin and
Worthington-the leaders of the Scioto-
assembly wing of the party-especially
since Worthington
planned to run for the office himself.
One astute Federalist, Bezaleel
Wells, warned Huntington that the two
hoped to persuade federal
judge Charles Byrd to resign, and then
get President Jefferson to
appoint Huntington to his seat. As
Wells put it, Huntington would
be "Snugly laid up in dry
dock."46 Worthington himself wrote
Huntington in July, expressing his deep
respect and urging him to
bow out of the governor's race and to
try instead for the United
States Senate.47
Huntington ignored this advice, and by
September had received
public endorsements from various parts
of the state. In many cases,
Federalists openly avowed their support
for him. He received the
support of the "Federal
Republicans" of Marietta-a group that
also endorsed Federalist Philemon
Beecher for Congress-and he
won a ringing endorsement from a
largely Federal gathering in War-
ren, Ohio.48 He was also
supported by many anti-Worthington
Republicans, including Nathaniel Massie.49 In
the election,
44. Ibid., 95-96; and Senate,
First Session, 110. In the 1803 Assembly, Hun-
tington and several other legislators
protested that a law on sheriff and coroners'
elections was unconstitutional. Thus
Huntington was well disposed towards the
idea that an assembly must stay within
its constitutional bounds.
45. John Sloane to Thomas Worthington,
April 11, 1808, Thomas Worthington
Collection, roll 4, frames 676-78,
letter on deposit from the State Library of Ohio.
46. Bezaleel Wells to Samuel Huntington,
July 20, 1808, The Samuel Huntington
Collection, Ohio Historical Society
(Samuel Huntington Microfilm Edition), roll 1,
frames 260-62, letter on loan from the
Rice Collection. Wells, the founder and richest
citizen of Steubenville, was a
semi-retired Federalist.
47. Thomas Worthington to Samuel
Huntington, July 29, 1808, Huntington
Papers, #110.
48. Ohio Gazette and Virginia Herald (Marietta),
September 22, 1808, microfilm
and original copies both at Marietta
College Library, Marietta College; and Ben-
jamin Tappan to Thomas Worthington, September 15, 1808,
from William T. Utter,
"Judicial Review in Early
Ohio," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 14 (June,
1927), 3-24.
49. Edward Tiffin to Thomas Worthington,
December 2, 1808, Thomas Wor-
thington Collection, roll 5, frames
83-85, letter on deposit from the State Library of
Ohio.
434 OHIO HISTORY
Huntington polled well throughout the
state, while receiving his
largest totals in New England-settled
areas. He carried the Mariet-
ta region nearly unanimously, and in the
two counties around Cin-
cinnati he got 1,138 votes to 831 for
all his opponents.50 Wor-
thington and Acting-Governor Thomas
Kirker split the center of
the state. Huntington wound up with
about 45 percent of the vote,
while Worthington took 34 percent and
Kirker the remaining 21 per-
cent. It is clear that Huntington's
victory was partly due to
Kirker's candidacy; Kirker, a Scioto
Valley man and pro-assembly
partisan, drew from essentially the same
constituency as Worth-
ington. But it is also clear that
Huntington had forged a powerful
coalition of northern Federalists and
conservative Republican
voters.51
Although Ohio's governors had few formal
powers and no veto,
they had considerable influence, and
thus both of the state's
political factions sought Huntington's
patronage. The pro-assembly
Chillicothe Scioto Gazette complimented
him on his "elegant and
patriotic" inaugural address, while
the neo-Federalist Chillicothe
Supporter labeled him a "federal republican" and gave
thanks for
his election against "the intrigues
and base deceptions" of his
rivals.52 At his
inauguration, Huntington came down firmly on the
side of the regular Republicans in
foreign policy matters. He praised
the moderation and firmness of
Jefferson's Embargo and urged all
political factions to support the
President. His inaugural speech
completely ignored the most
controversial issue-the court-
assembly struggle.53 Throughout
his term of office, Huntington con-
tinued to sidestep this issue. Ever
cautious, he sought to alienate no
one and he did not even involve himself
in the exciting impeachment
trial of his friend and ally, Justice
George Tod. Although Tod
escaped removal, the result owed nothing
to the governor.54
50. Utter, Ohio Politics, Appendix,
Gubernatorial Election of 1808. Huntington
carried Washington County (Marietta) by
636 to 3.
51. Ibid., 84. The totals were
Huntington 7,293 (44.7 percent), Worthington, 5,601
(34.3 percent), and Kirker 3,397 (21
percent). Kirker, a Massie associate, became
Acting-Governor when Tiffin first
resigned, and retained his position when Meigs's
election was voided.
52. See Scioto Gazette, December
12, 1808; and Chillicothe Supporter, November
17 and December 15, 1808.
53. Supporter, December 15, 1808;
and Journal of the Senate of the State of Ohio
Being the Sixth [really the seventh] General Assembly ... December
seventh, 1808
(Chillicothe, 1808), 55-60.
54. Scioto Gazette, January 30,
1808. It is worth noting that Huntington went
unmentioned in either of the two leading
party organs, the Gazette and the Sup-
porter, from December, 1808, to May, 1809.
Samuel Huntington 435
Huntington was forced to fill an
important office in 1809, when
Senator Edward Tiffin resigned the
United States Senate seat he
had held since 1807. Since Ohio's
assembly was out of session,
Huntington, as governor, had to appoint
a temporary successor. He
stunned everyone by choosing Stanley
Griswold, the Connecticut
Republican recently dismissed as
secretary of Michigan Territory.
The appointment aroused a storm of
protest. Griswold had just
recently moved to Ohio and thus could
barely be considered a citizen
of the state. Moreover, he was a
bitter, arrogant, ascerbic man, and
completely self-centered as well. Why,
then, did Huntington select
him? Friendship and politics provide an
explanation. The two men
had been close friends in Connecticut,
where Republicans were
scarce, and when Griswold moved to Ohio
he settled in Cleveland
near the Huntingtons. One observer,
perhaps biased, noted that
Huntington pointed out to Federalist
audiences that Griswold had
been fired by Jefferson, while telling
Republican gatherings that
Griswold was a dedicated Republican.55
It is therefore reasonable to
assume that Huntington hoped to make
the Griswold appointment
palatable to both ends of Ohio's
political spectrum.
This ploy backfired. The Federalist
newspapers, led by the Sup-
porter, made almost no comment on the appointment, beyond
apologizing for Huntington's delay in
filling the seat (he waited
several months after Tiffin resigned).
The Supporter did mention,
regarding Huntington, that to err was
human.56 That newspaper
rarely mentioned Huntington's name
afterward, apparently
because it did not know whether or not
to support his policies and
appointments. The regular Republicans
were similarly bewildered
by the Griswold appointment. Thus the Scioto
Gazette vacillated,
first condemning Griswold as a
non-resident, then noting his
staunch Republicanism in Connecticut
and Michigan, and finally
recalling that he had been removed from
office by the sainted Jeffer-
son. By summer, 1809, however, the Gazette
took a firmer stance
when it called on Ohioans to decide
whether Jefferson or
Huntington had better judgement; and in
November the paper
printed a letter asking whether Ohio
did not have abler sons than
Huntington.57 In the end,
the appointment won Huntington no
55. Supporter, March 30, 1809;
and Scioto Gazette, January 3, 1810, letter of "A
Federalist"; and for an example of
Griswold's vindictiveness, see Stanley Griswold
to Samuel Huntington, April 3, 1810, The
Samuel Huntington Collection, roll 1,
frames 431-33, letter on loan from the
Rice Collection. In this letter, Griswold was
happy to note that Governor Hull's
daughter had hanged herself.
56. Supporter, May 25, 1809; June
1, 1809; June 15, 1809; and December 16, 1809.
57. Scioto Gazette, June 12,
1809, letter of "Junius Brutus"; June 26, 1809, July
436 OHIO HISTORY
friends and made many enemies. Griswold
was ultimately replaced
by the assembly and went on to the
Illinois frontier, where he re-
mained bitter and unpleasant as always.58
The major issue of Governor Huntington's
term in office re-
mained the struggle between the
legislature and the courts.
However, Huntington continued to avoid
identification with either
side. His annual message in late 1809
simply mentioned his interim
appointments (including Griswold) and
called for revisions in the
militia laws, a plea which the assembly
had already ignored once
that year. Huntington did not deliver
this message in person, but in-
stead had it read by a clerk.59 Perhaps
he hoped to benefit by Jeffer-
son's recent examples, but it is also
possible that in light of the
universally-criticized Griswold
appointment he was reluctant to ap-
pear before the assembly. In any event,
the legislature again ig-
nored his call for militia reforms, and
instead precipitated a new
crisis by adopting a resolution
declaring most of the state's offices
vacant. This "sweeping
resolution" was designed to expel all pro-
court enemies from office, especially
the judges, and to open up ex-
tensive patronage. The anti-court
Republicans also organized Tam-
many Societies to marshall Republican
voters to their cause. Gover-
nor Huntington played no role in either
the furious debate over the
resolution or the Tammany organizations.60
At some point early in 1810 Huntington
decided not to seek
reelection. He probably concluded that
he could not expect enough
support within the Republican party to
carry the state again. In-
stead, he set his sights on the United
States Senate, an office filled
by assembly election. This decision may
explain his reluctance to
oppose the assembly over the sweeping
resolution. Huntington soon
came to an agreement with Return J.
Meigs, who was then in the
Senate: Meigs was willing to resign from
the Senate to run for
governor, which would permit Huntington
to make a bid for the
17, 1809, letter of "Ajax";
November 29, 1809, letters of "Cato" and "Publicola";
and December 6, 1809, letters of
"Cato," "Publicola," and "Franklin."
58. William A. Taylor, Ohio in
Congress from 1803 to 1901 ... (Columbus, 1900),
97; and Gilpin, Michigan, 15-18.
Also see, Stanley Griswold to John Walworth,
December 21, 1809, The Samuel Huntington
Collection, roll 1, frames 391-94, letter
on loan from the Rice Collection. See
also the vindictive letter of Griswold to Samuel
Huntington, November 12, 1808,
Huntington Papers, #115.
59. Journal of the House of the State
of Ohio Being the First Session of the Eighth
General Assembly ... December 1809 (Chillicothe, 1809), 24-28.
60. Supporter, January 13, 1810.
The Senate passed the resolution 14-10, and the
House 27-18. For Tammany, see William T.
Utter, The Frontier State 1803-1825, Vol.
II of The History of the State of
Ohio, ed. by Carl Wittke (5 vols.; Columbus, 1942),
55-62.
Samuel Huntington
437
vacated Senate seat. In effect, the two
Yankees decided to trade of-
fices.61 The trade
proved to be only half successful, for although
Meigs won a term as governor, Samuel
Huntington lost his bid for
the Senate.62 Thomas
Worthington, still a powerful figure with
many assembly friends, ran against him
after being defeated by
Meigs for the governorship.
Huntington's men countered by spon-
soring a third candidate, James
Pritchard of Steubenville, hoping to
drain off votes from Worthington, but
this scheme failed. Wor-
thington and Huntington were pitted
head to head in several close
secret ballots, and after six counts,
Worthington won a narrow vic-
tory, 35-31.63
Bereft of office, Huntington considered
leaving Ohio. He debated
moving to the Mississippi frontier,
where his friend Gideon Granger
held large land warrants and needed an
agent.64 However,
Huntington decided to remain in Ohio,
and he won a seat-
representing Geauga, Ashtabula, and
Cuyahoga Counties-in the
1811 assembly. When the assembly
convened, he launched a cam-
paign to become speaker of the house,
but lost to Matthias Corwin,
24-18. Despite this loss, Huntington
played an important role dur-
ing this session. He authored a report
recommending the impeach-
ment of an arbitrary judge, John
Thompson; by favoring the im-
peachment, which failed, Huntington
thus seemingly placed himself
on the side of those who distrusted the
courts. However, he also
launched an assault against the
sweeping resolution, proposing an
appointment that presumed it null and
void. This effort to restore
the older office-holding rules won
support from both court partisans
and those who had not benefitted from
the resolution's new
patronage, but even so the appointment
and thus the repeal of the
sweeping resolution failed by one vote,
23 to 24.65
61. Return J. Meigs, Jr., to Samuel
Huntington, April 15, 1810, Huntington Tract
No. 95, 142-43.
The Supporter, June 30, 1810, made it plain that Huntington would
not run for reelection as governor.
62. Utter, Ohio Politics, Appendix,
Gubernatorial Election of October, 1810.
Meigs beat the perennial candidate,
Worthington, by 6,320 to 4,986.
63. The Western Spy and Hamilton
Gazette (Cincinnati); and Carlos A. Norton to
Thomas Worthington, December 16, 1810,
Thomas Worthington Collection, roll 5,
frames 353-55, letter on deposit from
the State Library of Ohio. See also Journal of
the House of Representatives of the
State of Ohio Being the Ninth General
Assembly . .(Chillicothe, 1811), 65. Huntington had already given
his last state-of-
the-state address, calling for public
education and, once again, for reforms in the
militia laws.
64. Gideon Granger to Samuel Huntington,
June 16, 1811, Huntington Tract No.
95, 144-47. Granger had large claims,
stemming from the Yazoo case, in the
Mississippi Territory.
65. Jesup N. Couch to Thomas
Worthington, November 16, 1811; John Hamm to
438 OHIO HISTORY
Thereafter, Huntington's political
career declined rapidly. He con-
sidered running for Congress in 1812,
but in the face of strong op-
position decided against it.66
The legislature, dominated by his
political opponents, probably drew up
northern Ohio's Congres-
sional districts at least partly to
divide his normal constituency and
thus reduce his chances of running or
winning.67 Huntington served
as an Army district paymaster during
the War of 1812, but soon fell
ill, probably from cancer, and after
years of agony died in June of
1817 at the age of fifty.68
Samuel Huntington's career illustrates
several of the major
themes of frontier political history.
As a prominent easterner in the
West, he rose rapidly to leadership,
probably more quickly than he
would have had he remained in
Connecticut. Like other leading fron-
tier figures, he tried to exercise
influence in the nation's capital,
using ties with important men there to
win major appointive posts.
In the new, unstable Ohio political
system, his career typified the
sort of personal rivalry and
competition that split the dominant
Republican party. With his equally
typical ally and foe, Return J.
Meigs, he led a coalition of northern
Republicans and conservative
Federalists who for a time dominated
the state and thus prevented
complete control by the Scioto Valley
Jeffersonian Republicans. He
sought offices, such as the
governorship, for power and prestige
rather than to pursue specific
programs, and as a result his brief
political tenure brought no lasting
results. Finally, in his rapid
changing interests in offices and
goals-from "Erie" to Ohio to
Michigan to Ohio to Mississippi, from the
courts to the governor-
ship, to the Senate, the assembly, and
the Army-he further
reflected much of the instability of
politics in a newly-formed fron-
tier society. Like Meigs, Worthington,
and others, Samuel Hun-
tington exemplified the ambitious, well-educated
Eastern politician
transplanted to the frontier.
Worthington, December 2, 1811; J. Van
Horne to Worthington, December 14, 1811,
all from Thomas Worthington Collection,
roll 5, frames 621-23, 671-73, 697-98, and
710-13, all letters on deposit from the State Library
of Ohio. See also, Supporter,
December 7, 1811; December 14, 1811;
December 21, 1811; and February 8, 1812.
66. Samuel Huntington to Thomas S. Web,
October 3, 1812, Samuel Huntington
Collection, VFM 1053, roll 1, frames
576-77.
67. Carlos A. Norton to Thomas
Worthington, January 8, 1812, Thomas Wor-
thington Collection, roll 6, frames
42-44.
68. Julian C. Huntington to J. Barr,
March 15, 1848, from Western Reserve
Historical Society Mss 1, Container 10,
Vol. 14, Manuscripts Relating to the Early
History of the Connecticut Western
Reserve 1795-ca. 1860, folder 10; and Samuel
Huntington Correspondence, roll 3, frame
221, list of heirs. Huntington was sur-
vived by his widow, five sons, and one
daughter. They inherited a good deal of
Cleveland-area real estate.
JEFFREY P. BROWN
Samuel Huntington: A Connecticut
Aristocrat on the Ohio Frontier
Samuel Huntington, Jr., was one of the
many ambitious
Americans who went west in the early
nineteenth century hoping to
improve their station in life. Although
most western pioneers were
humble yeoman farmers, a significant
number of well-to-do citizens
also emigrated to the frontier in search
of their fortunes. Hun-
tington typified this latter group. Born
to one of Connecticut's most
prominent families, he moved to frontier
Ohio, became one of the
leading figures in Great Lakes politics,
and headed the coalition of
conservative Republicans and Federalists
that broke the liberal
Republican hold in the state. An
aristocratic leader in a democratic
society, Huntington's career illustrates
the ease with which a promi-
nent easterner could win high office in
the sparsely settled West.
The Huntington clan emerged in the
generation before the
American Revolution as one of the most
prominent families in Con-
necticut. One branch provided wealthy
merchants and a Revolu-
tionary War general. Another supplied
Samuel Huntington, Sr., a
self-taught farm boy who became a
successful Norwich lawyer and
served as President of the Continental
Congress in 1779-1781.
Samuel Sr. moved at the center of
American politics, and as titular
head of the nation acquired
responsibility for hosting foreign
dignitaries. Well known in America and
Europe, he capped his
career by serving as governor of
Connecticut from 1786 to 1796. A
taciturn and soft-spoken leader,
Huntington was also a confirmed
Federalist.1
Jeffrey P. Brown has taught American
history at Parkland Community College
and the University of Illinois, Urbana
and Champaign campuses. He is currently
employed as a Visiting Assistant
Professor at the University of Northern Iowa.
1. Larry R. Gerlach, Connecticut
Congressman: Samuel Huntington, 1731-1796
(Hartford, 1977), 9-12, 17, 19-21, 28,
52-58, 88-91, and 102; Deforest Van Slyck,
"Samuel Huntington," from
Dumas Malone, ed., Dictionary of American
Biography, 24 vols. (New York, 1932), IX, 418-19; David M. Roth, Connecticut's
War Governor: Jonathan Trumbull (Chester, Connecticut, 1974), 35; The Governor
came from a farm family and was
apprenticed to a barrel-cooper. He studied law and