When the United States went to war with Great Britain in the War of 1812, Andrew Judson and the Federalists strongly opposed the war. The New England economy depended on trade with Great Britain, and the war threatened local jobs. Governors from New England withheld state militia support; some in the Federalist Party even discussed the possibility of secession from the Union.80 Many Federalists believed the war would destroy the country. Instead, it destroyed the Federalists.81 In 1813, as U.S. ships attempted to leave the Connecticut harbor of New London in an effort to break through a British blockade, someone on shore reportedly alerted the British warships by signaling with blue lanterns. The American ships were forced to turn around and remain in the harbor. The press blamed the Federalists, and the phrase “blue light Federalist” was born, equating Federalists with treachery and treason.82 An investigation raised many questions as to whether a British or American spy gave the “blue light” signal, or whether there was any signal at all. The Republican Party, however, succeeded in portraying the Federalists—who opposed the war—as unpatriotic and responsible for “the blackest treason.”83
Andrew Judson never served his country in the War of 1812. In hindsight he viewed his failure to enlist as a terrible mistake even though the Federalists opposed the war and many refused to serve. Public support for the war increased as it progressed. Judson later claimed that he tried to enlist and was rejected because he was not a political friend of the officials who processed new recruits.84 His explanation did not make sense, however, as recruits were hard to come by and the national goal of fifty thousand volunteers was never met.85 Judson realized he had miscalculated badly by siding with the Federalists in their opposition to the war. He found himself on the wrong side of public opinion and resolved not to make that mistake again.
With a newfound appreciation for the unpredictable nature of politics, Judson ran for office and won election to the State House of Representatives in 1813. The tradition in the House at that time, Judson wrote, was for new members to be seen and not heard. Judson behaved accordingly. “I made no speeches,” Judson wrote. “Once or twice an opportunity offered, but the idea alone gave me the palpitation to such a degree, that it was well my seat was retained.”86
There were two significant changes in Judson’s life in 1816. On March 20, when he was thirty-one years old, he married Rebecca W. Warren of Windham. He said they “trudged along together, harmonizing in our views, and mode of life, as well and perhaps better than most others.”87 Judson also changed political parties and no longer associated with the “blue light Federalists.” He joined the new Toleration Party.88 The Toleration Party replaced the Federalist Party as the dominant force in Connecticut politics, and Judson’s switch came at an opportune time. The Toleration candidates for governor and lieutenant governor won the election of 1816, and the new party took control of the general assembly in 1817.89
As a more seasoned politician, Judson became involved in the creation of the state constitution in 1818. He regarded drafting the Connecticut Constitution as the most important achievement of the Toleration Party. At the end of 1819, the state’s attorney for Windham County, William Perkins, died, and Judson secured the plum patronage position. “There is perhaps no point in my life to which I can turn with more propriety, and say this is the most important,” Judson later said.90 The office of state’s attorney became an elected office with a two-year term in 1821; Judson served a total of twenty-five years in that post.
Andrew Judson had great political ambitions and sought numerous offices during the next two decades. While serving in the legislature in 1829, he competed with State Representative Thomas S. Williams for an appointment to a judgeship. “The Hon. Thomas S. Williams and myself were opposing candidates for a seat on the bench … and he was successful, which I did not much regret,” Judson later wrote, “and this session closed all in good humor.”91 Judson won election to the state senate in 1830 and lost in a bid for reelection in 1831. He expressed interest in the U.S. Senate seat in 1832—at that time senators were elected by a vote of the state legislature instead of the public. After three ballots, Judson—who had changed parties again and was affiliated with supporters of Andrew Jackson in the Jackson Party—lost to Republican Nathan Smith.92 Judson returned to the state legislature as a member of the house in 1833.93
Andrew Judson and his wife Rebecca did not have any children. In 1822, however, they took in Charles Ames, a ten-year-old boy whose mother recently had died and whose sea captain father, Isaac, either was deceased or was forced to give up his son because of time away on merchant ships. Andrew and Rebecca cared for Charles until he turned eighteen in 1830, just one year before Prudence Crandall started her school across the street from Judson’s home. When Charles left Canterbury for New York and life on his own, Judson provided him with a “certificate of good moral character,” documenting his good behavior and fitness as a young man.94 Charles Ames loved Andrew and Rebecca Judson and was grateful for their care. Ames married in 1837; when he celebrated the birth of his first child in 1838, he named his son Andrew Judson Ames.
As the controversy concerning Prudence Crandall’s school for “young ladies and Misses of color” intensified, Andrew Judson organized the opposition. Judson saw Crandall’s plan as an attack on all he and others had done to improve Canterbury and Windham County. Crandall had benefited from Judson’s good will and the help of other town leaders when she launched her school; now she turned away from her original supporters and embraced the abolitionists from Boston and New York. Judson called the abolitionists “dictators” and was offended by their opposition to the Colonization Society.95 Judson believed Crandall’s new antislavery friends cared nothing for Canterbury.
23. Andrew T. Judson, initially a supporter of Crandall, became her chief antagonist and prosecutor after the admission of the black student Sarah Harris.
Andrew T. Judson. Collection of the Prudence Crandall Museum, Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development.
The two meetings between town leaders and Prudence Crandall failed to resolve the controversy, so Judson called for a formal town meeting. Word quickly circulated concerning a meeting at the Congregational Church, and George W. Benson read the news in the Liberator while in Providence. On Saturday, March 2, 1833, Benson decided to travel to Canterbury to offer his help. He arrived at Crandall’s schoolhouse on Sunday morning and found her “calm and undaunted” in the face of increasing opposition.96 Crandall told him about the meetings with the town fathers.97 Later that Sunday morning, and just before the start of services at the Congregational Church, Benson watched as Andrew Judson walked from the church to the town signpost across the street where official notices were displayed. As Judson posted a notice for the March 9 town meeting for the purpose of denouncing Crandall’s school, Benson thought it was hypocritical for Judson to take this official action on the Sabbath.98
The letters that Prudence Crandall wrote at the end of February, pleading for help, were delivered in early March. On receiving Crandall’s letter, Samuel May contacted his friend George Benson, who was visiting his family in Brooklyn. When May learned that Benson had already met with Crandall the previous day, he convinced Benson to go with him to Canterbury again that afternoon so that he could meet Crandall and offer his help.99 Arnold Buffum learned that Crandall had requested his help. Buffum told Garrison he could not go to Canterbury given the increasingly volatile situation. “I am informed that the excitement is so great that it would not be safe for me to appear there,” Buffum wrote.100
On arriving in Canterbury, townspeople warned May and Benson that if they proceeded to Crandall’s school they might face physical attack because of the “furious” opposition to Crandall’s school.101 May and Benson learned that Crandall’s decision to teach black women surprised everyone in town, including her friends and supporters. A man who otherwise thought the town reaction to Crandall’s decision was a “dreadful