About Connections: Love it or hate it, history is a map. Those who hate history think it irrelevant; many who love history think it escapism. In truth, history is the clearest road map to how we got here: America in the twenty-first century. To read Part I of the Woodbridge Little saga, click here.
It was 1800. Pittsfield was 39 years old with a population of 2,261. The Reverend Allen had been in the pulpit for 37 years. During the War his prominence and power rose to dizzying heights. He was known and highly regarded, but in 1800 opposition to Allen grew. For some time the man behind the movement against Allen was Woodbridge Little. In 1800 he wrote a document intended to unseat Allen. It succeeded only in splitting the Pittsfield Congregational Church in two.
The Federalists were the first political party in America. For the better part of 25 years, the critical first 25 years of the Republic, the Federalists held sway over national policy. They were for a strong federal government, a conciliatory attitude toward the British, and strong fiscal policy including strong central banks.
Their opponents were alternately called Democrats, Republicans, Jeffersonians, or just plain Anti-Federalists. They interpreted the Federalist position as the first step to a return, if not to a monarchy, then to an oligarchy or elitist society.
The political divide was sharp and political battles were hot. To avoid bloodshed, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists built different taverns in which to drink, and preferred to read different newspapers.
The battle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was long standing. So why did Pittsfield rise up against their decidedly Jeffersonian Pastor in 1800? It was clear twenty-five years earlier that Allen was guided by Jeffersonian principles of democracy and by another Anti-Federalist, Patrick Henry. Yet during those twenty-five years he was revered.
In 1792, there was a brief reprimand issued when Allen wrote articles for an Anti-Federalist newspaper. Congregants complained that he should not take time away from his duties to write articles and he should not introduce “affairs of state” into his sermons.
The reprimand was written by Little: “The Reverend Mr. Allen having in times past, in his official character, repeatedly interested himself in the political affairs of the country, and publically interposed therein in an undue and improper manner.”
The complaint was quickly resolved because of the popular acceptance of Allen as their pastor. The resolution of the matter stated: “We consider Mr. Allen to be liable to human frailties and error…but we by no means charge him with any sinister or criminal intention therein.”
In 1792, the grumbling was handled with dispatch and died away. Not so in the 1800s. In 1800, the Federalists lost decisively in national elections. In 1800 the most outspoken and eloquent Anti-Federalist, Thomas Jefferson, was elected President of the United States, taking office in 1801. Perhaps the Federalists didn’t know it then but they would never rise to power again. In the first blush of defeat, the Federalists clung together, redoubled their efforts to win converts to their political beliefs, and were very vocal in their opposition to Jefferson.
Pittsfield Federalists demanded that their Pastor stop using the pulpit to support Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. Little saw an opportunity.
Early on, Allen had linked democracy and Christianity in his mind. The Federalists monarchical leanings were an anathema to him. Further, Allen would not accept any limits to his right to speak his mind from the pulpit – in this he was not alone. New England ministers had long claimed the right to speak from the pulpit on any issue of the day, political or otherwise.
So Allen preached and the Federalists fumed and Little agitated from 1800 to 1806. In 1806, Little again took up his pen: “Your discourses generally…were interlarded with politics…most pointedly irritating and insulting and caused very general uneasiness in the town.” Little demanded satisfaction.
Allen replied: “[you] have left me completely in the dark as to what you would be pleased to deem adequate and reasonable satisfaction…You will, therefore, be pleased to tell me what satisfaction will be agreeable to you.”
Allen’s response satisfied no one. The dissatisfied requested a meeting of the whole church to resolve the issue. Allen declined.
Little then wrote the Association of Congregational ministers who rebuffed him in the following words: “We are of the opinion that for any members of the church to unite together in measures that implicate the character of your pastor, either as unchristian or imprudent, is an unjustifiable step.”
The matter may have died and Allen may have survived this new attack had not the unexpected happened. The Governor of Massachusetts visited Pittsfield and during the night some people burned his image in effigy. The local Federalist newspaper named Allen as one of the instigators. It was 1808, Allen was sixty-six and in poor health.
He attempted to reconcile with Little and attempted to clear his name of the false charge, but it was too late. Many had already left the church. Little could never quite remove Allen from his pulpit but he could remove himself.
That winter, Little and 108 others made application to Boston to form a new parish. It passed the House of Representatives unchallenged and the Union Congregational Parish of Pittsfield was formed.
