Equally important was the moral support given to the Federal
government by the people.
After the war the Republicans were more frequently successful at the polls than the Democrats. Representation in the lower house of the general assembly, by the constitution of 1818, was based on the townships, each township having two representatives, except townships created after 1818, which had only one each; this method constituted a serious evil when, in the transition from agriculture to manufacturing as the leading industry, the population became concentrated to a considerable degree in a few large cities, and the relative importance of the various townships was greatly changed. The township of Marlborough, with a population in 1900 of 322, then had one representative, while the city of Hartford, with a population of 79,850, had only two; and the township of Union, with 428 inhabitants, and the city of New Haven, with 108,027, each had two representatives. The apportionment of representation in the state senate had become almost as objectionable. By a constitutional amendment of 1828 it had been provided that senators should be chosen by districts, and that in the apportionment regard should be had to population, no county or township to be divided and no part of one county to be joined to the whole or part of another county, and each county to have at least two senators; but by 1900 any relation that the districts might once have had to population had disappeared. The system of representation had sometimes put in power a political party representing a minority of the voters: in 1878, 1884, 1886, 1888 and 1890 the Democratic candidates for state executive offices received a plurality vote; but, as a majority was not obtained, these elections were referred to the general assembly, and the Republican party in control of the lower house secured the election of its candidates; in 1901 constitutional amendments were adopted making a plurality vote sufficient for election, increasing the number of senatorial districts, and stipulating that “in forming them regard shall be had” to population. But the greater inequalities in township representation subsisted, although in 1874 an amendment had given all townships of 5000 inhabitants two seats in the lower house, every other one “to be entitled to its present representation,” and in 1876 another amendment had provided that no township incorporated thereafter should be entitled to a representative “unless it has at least 2500 inhabitants, and unless the town from which the major portion of its territory is taken has also at least 2500 inhabitants.” These provisions did not remedy the grosser defects, and as proposals for an amendment of the constitution could be submitted to the people only after receiving a majority vote of the lower house, all further attempts at effective reform seemed to be blocked, owing to the unwillingness of the representatives of the smaller townships to surrender their unusual degree of power. Therefore, the question of calling a constitutional convention, for which the present constitution makes no provision, was submitted to the people in 1901, and was carried. But the act providing for the convention had stipulated that the delegates thereto should be chosen on the basis of township representation instead of population. The small townships thus secured practical control of the convention, and no radical changes were made. A compromise amendment submitted by the convention, providing for two representatives for each township of 2000 inhabitants, and one more for each 5000 above 50,000, satisfied neither side, and when submitted to a popular vote, on the 16th of June 1902, was overwhelmingly defeated.
| Governors of Connecticut[1] | ||
| The Colony of Connecticut. | ||
| John Haynes | 1639–1640 | |
| Edward Hopkins | 1640–1641 | |
| John Haynes | 1641–1642 | |
| George Wyllys | 1642–1643 | |
| John Haynes | 1643–1644 | |
| Edward Hopkins | 1644–1645 | |
| John Haynes | 1645–1646 | |
| Edward Hopkins | 1646–1647 | |
| John Haynes | 1647–1648 | |
| Edward Hopkins | 1648–1649 | |
| John Haynes | 1649–1650 | |
| Edward Hopkins | 1650–1651 | |
| John Haynes | 1651–1652 | |
| Edward Hopkins | 1652–1653 | |
| John Haynes | 1653–1654 | |
| Edward Hopkins | 1654–1655 | |
| Thomas Welles | 1655–1656 | |
| John Webster | 1656–1657 | |
| John Winthrop | 1657–1658 | |
| Thomas Welles | 1658–1659 | |
| John Winthrop | 1659–1676 | |
| William Leete | 1676–1683 | |
| Robert Treat | 1683–1687 | |
| Edmund Andros | 1687–1689 | |
| Robert Treat | 1689–1698 | |
| Fitz John Winthrop | 1698–1708 | |
| Gurdon Saltonstall | 1708–1725 | |
| Joseph Talcott | 1725–1742 | |
| Jonathan Law | 1742–1751 | |
| Roger Wolcott | 1751–1754 | |
| Thomas Fitch | 1754–1766 | |
| William Pitkin | 1766–1769 | |
| Jonathan Trumbull | 1769–1776 | |
| The New Haven Colony. | ||
| Theophilus Eaton | 1639–1657 | |
| Francis Newman | 1658–1660 | |
| William Leete | 1661–1665 | |
| State Governors | ||
| Jonathan Trumbull | 1776–1784 | Federalist |
| Matthew Griswold | 1784–1786 | ” |
| Samuel Huntingdon | 1786–1796 | ” |
| Oliver Wolcott | 1796–1797 | ” |
| Jonathan Trumbull | 1797–1809 | ” |
| John Treadwell | 1809–1811 | ” |
| Roger Griswold | 1811–1812 | ” |
| John Cotton Smith | 1812–1817 | ” |
| Oliver Wolcott | 1817–1827 | Democrat |
| Gideon Tomlinson | 1827–1831 | Federalist |
| John S. Peters | 1831–1833 | Whig |
| Henry W. Edwards | 1833–1834 | Democrat |
| Samuel A. Foote | 1834–1835 | Whig |
| Henry W. Edwards | 1835–1838 | Democrat |
| William W. Ellsworth | 1838–1842 | Whig |
| Chauncey F. Cleveland | 1842–1844 | Democrat |
| Roger S. Baldwin | 1844–1846 | Whig |
| Isaac Toucey | 1846–1847 | Democrat |
| Clark Bissell | 1847–1849 | Whig |
| Joseph Trumbull | 1849–1850 | ” |
| Thomas H. Seymour | 1850–1853 | Democrat |
| Charles H. Pond (Acting) | 1853–1854 | |
| Henry Dutton | 1854–1855 | Whig |
| William T. Minor | 1855–1857 | Know-Nothing |
| Alexander H. Holley | 1857–1858 | Republican |
| William A. Buckingham | 1858–1866 | ” |
| Joseph R. Hawley | 1866–1867 | ” |
| James E. English | 1867–1869 | Democrat |
| Marshall Jewell | 1869–1870 | Republican |
| James E. English | 1870–1871 | Democrat |
| Marshall Jewell | 1871–1873 | Republican |
| Charles R. Ingersoll | 1873–1877 | Democrat |
| Richard D. Hubbard | 1877–1879 | Democrat |
| Charles B. Andrews | 1879–1881 | Republican |
| Hobart B. Bigelow | 1881–1883 | Republican |
| Thomas M. Waller | 1883–1885 | Democrat |
| Henry B. Harrison | 1885–1887 | Republican |
| Phineas C. Lounsbury | 1887–1889 | ” |
| Morgan G. Bulkeley | 1889–1893 | ” |
| Luzon B. Morris | 1893–1895 | Democrat |
| O. Vincent Coffin | 1895–1897 | Republican |
| Lorrin A. Cooke | 1897–1899 | ” |
| George E. Lounsbury | 1899–1901 | ” |
| George P. McLean | 1901–1903 | ” |
| Abiram Chamberlain | 1903–1905 | ” |
| Henry Roberts | 1905–1907 | ” |
| Rollin S. Woodruff | 1907–1909 | ” |
| George L. Lilley | 1909 | ” |
| Frank W. Weeks | 1909–1911 | ” |
| Simeon E. Baldwin | 1911 | Democrat |
Bibliography.—The “Acorn Club” has recently published a list of books printed in Connecticut between 1709 and 1800 (Hartford, 1904), and Alexander Johnston’s Connecticut (Boston, 1887) contains a bibliography of Connecticut’s history up to 1886. Information concerning the physical features of the state may be obtained in William M. Davis’s Physical Geography of Southern New England (National Geographical Society Publications, 1895). For information concerning industries, &c., see the Twelfth Census of the United States, and the Census of Manufactures of 1905, and a chapter in Johnston’s Connecticut. For law and administration, consult the last two chapters on
- ↑ Term of service, one year until 1876; thereafter, two years.
