Ohio History Journal

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

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.