Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/280

270 C. Becker the first opportunity of a personal explanation as he writes in such a manner that it would not be altogether justifiable in me to condemn him at once." ^ Unless this is an exaggerated account of Sir William's influence — and it very likely is to some extent — he seems to have had as sure a grip on Albany County as any modern boss could well have. The difference lies here : the personal influence of a modern boss is secret, working through an open formal organiza- tion, and based upon the control of the spoils ; the personal influence of Sir William was open, working through a private informal organ- ization, and based to a very considerable extent upon personal at- tachment. Sir William was not a boss, he was a patron. If this serves to show what the nature of the aristocratic method of nomination was, it also indicates to what extent this method pre- vailed down to the Revolution. It is now necessary to retrace our steps and search for the beginnings of the democratic method. The period from 1730 to 1750 in New York discovers a marked advance in material prosperity and in scientific and liter- ary activity ; it is in some senses a renaissance period, having its basis in a growing democratic spirit, a coming consciousness of equality." It is here we must look for the origin of the nominating convention, which is an incident in the growth of this democratic spirit. The nominating convention is an incident in 1 William Johnson to Hugh Wallace, January 25, 1769. Johnson MSS., XVII. 52. The same sentiments are expressed in a letter to John Watts, January 26, 1769. Ibid., 56 ; and in a letter to the Rev. Dr. Auchmuty, who must have made a similar request, he says, " As to the person you particularly mention, he applied to me at his first entrance into the House, and as I had nothing then to urge against him, I made no stir, nor had he any opponents. If his conduct since will justify me, I shall at another opportunity do what is needful, as I have the pleasure to find that conduct which gives me inward satis- faction has produced me an Influence and Interest in this country which it is not in their power to deprive me of" William Johnson to Dr. Auchmuty, January 25, 1769. Ibid., 51. For a more complete account of the trouble between Johnson and Schuyler, see the letter from John Wetherhead to William Johnson. January 9, 1769. Ibid., XXV. 125. 2 Judge Jones in his history calls 1750 the golden age in New York and all modern writers have agreed in ascribing to this period a decided intellectual activity, compared, at least, with what preceded. See Memorial History of New York, II. 230, 448 ff. 631, 632 ; III. 115. To be convinced that it was a period of growing democratic conscious- ness it is only necessary to look through the newspapers and broadsides of the time, and follow through the political discussions which arose, remembering always that this was the logical outcome of the previous years of conflict between the lower house and the governors — between the representatives of the people in the colony and the representa- tives of the government in England. For example, a broadside, dated September 28, 1736, says, relative to the Van Dam-Clarke controversy, " Every freeman has a right to declare who is entitled to the government and it is no crime in a free one, though it may be in France or Spain. . . . Let every man declare boldly who he thinks entitled. Van Dam or Clarke, and the Corporation it is supposed will act according to the directions of their constituents." Vol. I., of a collection of broadsides in the Library of the New York Historical Society. See other broadsides in the same collection.