USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34
Such was the situation at the time the pioneers of these two nations met on the Connecticut River. Each party had its own view of rights secured by discovery and established by patent. These were in dispute between their home governments, and, in fact, were irreconcilable except by an arbitration then uncommon, or the fortunes of war. The Dutch were the first on the ground. Late in the spring of 1633, acting under the authority of Wouter van Twiller, the newly appointed Director General of New Netherland,
1 Bradford's History, p. 311.
2 Prince's New England Chronology, 1826 edn., p. 434; Goodwin's Pilgrim Republic, p. 371.
3 Brodhead's History, I: 210; New England's Memorial, Davis's edn., App. p. 395.
4 Coll. Rec., X: 16; Trumbull's History, I: 30; Hutchinson's History, I: 43.
5 Bradford's History, pp. 312, 313; Winthrop's History, I: 125.
103
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE
Jacob van Curler with six others, sailed up the river, and, having made a treaty with the Indians, June 8th, began to erect a blockhouse on the southern bank of the Little River. This they surrounded with a redoubt, and two cannon were mounted for its defence. They named it the "Huys de Hoop" [House of Hope], but for what special reason we are not told.1 The Plymouth authorities, returning home after the disappointment of their visit to Governor Winthrop in July, at once made preparations to establish their river trading post. In the hold of their "great new barke," they stowed the frame of a house, with boards and nails to com- plete it, and such provisions as were necessary, and, under the command of Lieutenant William Holmes, their resolute expedition set sail. The house had been prepared partly as a defence against the Pequot Indians, who, it was expected, would be displeased because they were to carry with them Natawanute, the exiled sachem of Windsor, and restore him to his ancient domain. They arrived at the House of Hope, probably, September 16th, not surprised to find the Dutch located on the river, nor expecting any gracious welcome. "When they came up ye river," says Bradford, "the Dutch demanded what they intended, and whither they would goe; they answered, up ye river to trade (now their order was to goe and seat above them). They bid them strike, & stay, or els they would shoote them; & stood by ther ordnance ready fitted. They answered they had comission from ye Govr of Plimoth to goe up ye river to such a place, and if they did shoote, they must obey their order and proceede; they would not molest them, but would goe one. So they passed along, and though the Dutch threatened them hard, yet they shoot not. Coming to their place, they clapt up their house quickly, and landed their provissions, and left ye companie appoynted, and sent the barke home; and after- wards palisadoed their house aboute, and fortified them selves better. The Dutch sent word home to ye Monhatas what was done; and in proces of time, they sent a band of aboute 70. men, in warrlike maner, with collours displayed, to assaulte them; but seeing them strengtened, & that it
1 Other forms of the name that occur in early literature are: "Fort Hope," "Fort Good Hope," "The Dutch House, the Hope," and "House of Good Hope."
104
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
would cost blood, they came to parley, and returned in peace." 1 Thus the first chapter of this conflict was ended.
The above incident brings into the light one fact that now becomes important: the native inhabitants, to whom the river lands had originally belonged, had found in the English the allies they had sought. Some years before, this tribe had been subdued by the Pequots, and made tributary to them. Their cause had now been espoused by the English in a most public manner, by the restoration of Natawanute. Nor is it supposed that the visit of Wahginnacut to Governor Winthrop had been entirely without results. In this course the English may have been actuated by justice or policy. Perhaps they were pleased to be prompted by both. The Dutch, on the other hand, had for some years maintained friendly relations in trade with the Pequots - ever since 1626, when Peter Barentsen overcame the prejudice caused by Jacob Eelkens's treachery at Sickenames. As traders it was naturally their practice to consider the advantages, to be gained by their friendship. Now, therefore, in the matter of securing grants of land from the Indians, the alli- ances of each party were of great value.
We have no record of any deed signed by the Indians, in which they conveyed Suckiaug lands to the Dutch. The evidence the latter presented in a subsequent statement of their case, was the record of a treaty made with the Indians, embodying the rights of both parties and witnessed by the Dutchmen who were present, as the practice was on some other occasions. This record is as follows:
"Condition and Agreement entered into between Com- missary Jacob van Curler and the Chiefs of Sickenames, on the 8th of June, 1633 as follows:
The aforesaid Curler, and the sachem named Wapyguart or Tattoepan, chief of Sickenames river, and owner of the Fresh river of New Netherland, called, in their tongue, Conettecuck, have amicably agreed for the purchase and sale of the tract named Sickajoock, a flat extending about one league down along the river and one-third of a league in width to the high land, and beyond the kill upwards, being a flat extending to the next adjoining little stream,
1 Bradford's History, pp. 313, 314.
105
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE
on condition that all tribes might freely, and without any fear or danger, resort to the purchased land for the purposes of trade; and whatever wars might arise between them and others, may be waged or carried on without any of them entering on our said territory. It is further expressly con- ditioned by this contract, and assented to by the afore- named chief, that the Sequeen should dwell with us, all at the request, and to the great joy of the Sequeen Altarbaen- hoot, and all interested tribes. This has taken place, on the part of the Sequeen, with the knowledge of Magaretinne, chief of Sloop's Bay. The chief of Sickenames is paid for the said land by Jacob Curler one piece of duffels, twenty- seven ells long; six axes, six kettles, eighteen knives, one sword-blade, one shears, and some toys. All which was signed by Jacob van Curler, Frederick Lubbersen, Gillis Pieters, Claes Jans Ruyter, Domingo Dios, Barent Jacobs Cool, and Pieter Louwerensen." 1
It does not seem that there are sufficient reasons to doubt the main fact set forth in this record. The English at Hartford, and the Commissioners of the United Colonies, it is true, challenged the claim, and asked to see the convey- ance. Probably no Indian deed was given, or it would have been produced then or later. Still, such a purchase was inherently probable. There were then no reasons why the Dutch could not have secured land from the Pequots, as they repeatedly claimed they had done and the record asserts, for that tribe were then their friends, though they soon had a falling out, because the Dutch killed a Pequot chief.2 The sachem named as the grantor, Wapyquart, was doubtless the same as Wopigwooit, who is thought to have been the Pequot conqueror of the Sequins.3 They
1 Holland Documents, II: 139, 140. See also Ibid., I: 128, 543; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 271, 272; and Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 172, 175; X: 65, 66.
2 O'Callaghan's History, I: 157; Bradford's History, p. 349.
3 Wopigwooit was the son of Woipeguand, sachem of the Pequots, and grand- son of Muckquntdowas, whose father was Tamaquashad the earliest known chief of that tribe (De Forest's History, pp. 66, 67). The spelling "Wapyquart" is nearer that generally used. Governor Stuyvesant has "Nepequate" (Ply. Col. Rec., X: 66); Hazard, "Nepaquate" (State Papers, II: 263); Trumbull, "Nepu- quash" (History, I: 35); and Dr. Barnard "Nepaquash" (Armsmear, p. 18), following Stuart (Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 245). The Connecticut records spell the name "Nupequah," or "Nupequate" (Conn. Rec., New England, p. 124).
106
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
may also have obtained the assent of the Narragansett sachem, Magaretinne, [Miantinomo] to their neighborly arrangement with a band of Sequins, dwelling probably at the other end of the South Meadow, in Wethersfield. It is very improbable, however, that Natawanute, if he is the chief mentioned as "Altarbaenhoot," was a party to this transaction. At the date of the record, he is believed to have been in exile, having fled to the English for protec- tion against the Pequots, and he was brought back by Holmes in the autumn. Apparently Governor Bradford did not doubt the Dutch purchase, for he says of the Plym- outh traders: "They did ye Dutch no wrong, for they took not a foote of any land they bought, but went to ye place above them, and bought that tract of land which belonged to these Indeans which they carried with them, and their friends, with whom ye Dutch had nothing to doe." 1 As for Sequassen, he testified in court, in 1640, that "he neur sould any grownd to the Dutch." 2 The evidence seems, therefore, to justify the conclusion that the Dutch bought from the Pequots their tract of land, which comprised the South Meadow, extending westward to the upland, and northward "a musket shot" distance along the river, to include Dutch Point. On the other hand, the English made their purchases of the Sequins, the ancient owners, and, in so doing, they declared their opinion that the subjugation of this tribe by the Pequots did not give to the conquerors the rights of ownership in the river lands. Lord Saye and Sele wrote in 1642 that the "Pequots had no just but a usurped title." 3 This, however, was the English view of the matter, and was earnestly challenged by the Dutch.
The representatives of these two nations now in disagree- ment over both their territorial rights and Indian titles, might, perhaps, have adjusted themselves to neighborly relations, had it not been for the settlement of the English under the Warwick Patent. The authorities at Plymouth and Boston had learned in 1633 of the Dutch venture upon the river. The former had sought to thwart it. Governor Winthrop, unwilling to join with Plymouth, for reasons that
1 Bradford's History, p. 314.
2 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 56.
3 Holland Documents, I: 128.
107
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE
must be a matter of conjecture, had, nevertheless, sent his bark to Manhattan with a commission to signify to the Dutch "that the king of England had granted the river and country of Connecticut to his own subjects," and, therefore, he desired them "to forbear to build there." He may have referred to the lands included in the Warwick Patent. Director van Twiller returned a courteous reply, but ex- pressed the hope that the English would not intrude upon a Dutch possession until the King of England and the States General could adjust the matter.1 He further protested in writing on October 25th to the commander of the Plymouth trading house, and sent an account of proceedings to his superiors in Holland.2 It was without effect. "John Oldham and three with him" journeyed thither that season. During the next summer the Newtown agents went to spy out the land. Finally, in the autumn of 1635, the pioneers of Hartford settled upon the land north of the Little River, and, as already stated, the compromise of the following winter cleared the way for occupation, under the Warwick Patent, of those lands claimed by the Dutch. Thus in the year 1636, these traders of the West India Company found them- selves surrounded by English colonists, who professed, and doubtless honestly believed, that the Warwick Patent had established their rights.
After the protest that the Dutch made to Elder William Goodwin, which was referred to the younger Winthrop, agent of the patentees at Saybrook fort, there was a lull in the storm for some years. The Dutch expressed their sentiments by protesting, and the English by ploughing. On June 9, 1639, the Dutch navigator DeVries arrived at the House of Hope, where Gysbert Opdyck was then the commissary. He thus narrates his experience as a peace- maker: "The commander gave me orders to make a protest against them, as they were using our own land, which we had bought of the Indians. Some of our soldiers had for- bidden them to put the plough into it; but they had dis- regarded them, and had cudgelled some of the Company's
1 Winthrop's History, I: 134; O'Callaghan's History, I: 152; Brodhead's His- tory, I: 239.
2 O'Callaghan's History, I: 154, 155.
108
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
soldiers. Going there, I was invited by the English governor [John Haynes] to dine; when sitting at the table, I told him that it was wrong to take by force the Company's land, which it had bought and paid for. He answered that the lands were lying idle; that though we had been there many years, we had done scarcely anything; that it was a sin to let such rich land, which produced such fine corn, lie uncul- tivated; and that they had already built three towns upon this river in a fine country." 1
The next spring trouble began in earnest. On April 23rd, by the new style reckoning of the Dutch, they told Governor Hopkins of their intention to plough "a piece of land lying behind Fort Hope," and forbade the English to interfere. The usual dispute concerning Indian titles ensued. Hop- kins said "Show your right: we shall show ours." As a "bluff" that was about even, for in all probability the Dutch had no Indian deed, and the English no patent to show. The next day the Dutch began to plough the land in ques- tion, which had been distributed either to James Ensign or to Andrew Bacon, as these two lots were behind the fort.2 Thereupon the English constable - who was most likely Thomas Hosmer - living near, came with a dozen men armed with sticks. With blows and shouts, they frightened the horses so they ran away. An hour later the Dutch re- sumed their ploughing, without hindrance. That night, however, the English sowed corn in the field. Commissary Opdyck protested in writing to Governor Hopkins, and Governor Hopkins protested to Commissary Opdyck. Then both parties resorted to a truce. On May 30th, one of the Dutchmen's mares strayed upon an Englishman's land, to feast on his green grass. Governor Hopkins's servant impounded it, and Opdyck went to Manhattan with a complaint. Three weeks later, "The English carried off," according to Dutch authorities, "in the twinkle of an eye, a cow and calf, and drove them to their pound." The General Court, being then in session, promptly adjudicated the matter as a case of trespass, for the cow and calf had been in an Englishman's corn patch. The decree was that
1 "Voyages of DeVries," in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., III: 86.
2 Original Distribution, pp. 222, 223, 240.
Andrew Bacon
James Cole
Thos. Judd.
charter Oak
6
Andrew Warner
Samuel Wakeman
wm. Hills 5
41 acres
Thomas Hosmer
Thomas Welles
John Webster
Wm. Whiting
Wm. Gibbons
John White
For
Governor
Edward Hopkins
George Grave
Stephen Post
Ano John Arnold
James Ensign to Wm. Gibbons
Andrew Bacon
Gregory
Wolterton
4
5 First School house.
George steele
Dutch Point
wm. Gibbons 12 1/2 A.
Dutchmens Land 23/2 acres
Manorolos
of
Lord Richard
The Sands
"ye" Indian Fort. 5
*To Indian Land
Pequot Heads
Colony 1/2 A.
- 9'%. A.
GREAT RIVER
Dutch Island
Nath Ward
George wyllys.
The South-side Plantation 1636
Nm. At Lass Love 1914
Seguassen's Reservation
1 Dutch House of Hope. 2 Governor Hopkins House 3 Hopkins-Whiting warehouse Major James Richards House
LITTLE
-
To the Dutch Land
RIVER
6 Hopkins Grammar School. 7 First Meeting House of South Church.
Large Upland, Meadow and Swamp Lots of Andrew Warner, George Wyllys, Thomas Welles, John Webster, William whiting and John Haynes.
Indian Land
109
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE
the Dutch could have their animals by paying, within three days, the damages and charges, and, if they did not the cow and calf would be sold. There was further excitement the next week, and the town had something to talk about. On June 28, 1640, as the Dutch story runs, "An English minister tooke [a load] of the hay which our masters ser- vants had cut and made upon theire owne bought and paied
for and possessed lands; tooke it away and applyed it to his own use without giuing any recompense or satisfaction." Opdyck at once "served him with a protest, at the house of the Governor who was not at home." It may be that the clergyman got on the wrong land, as laymen have since in the undefined lots of the South Meadow. Or, perhaps, the load of hay was a donation from one of his parishioners. If we must express an opinion upon such a delicate matter between two ministers, it looks very much as if the offender was Samuel Stone, who owned eight acres along the road to the Indian Land, near the Dutchmen's bouwerie, perhaps then considered by them a part of it. There was further friction in harvest time, but at last they had winter and peace for a season.
The conflict was renewed in the following year, by the vote of the North-side inhabitants, February 26th, to join doubtless with the South-side, to build a fence between the Dutchmen's land and the adjoining owners.1 It is believed that this was the fence, a part of which, by Dutch testi- mony, the English began to build May 24th, driving posts in the ground around the fort, and with rails fencing it off in such a manner that the garrison could not use the wagon road to their wood and hay land. The Dutch at once tore it down. The most serious encounter had occurred on April 17th, when Peter Colet, Evert Duycking and Sybrant Sibols, who were ploughing a disputed field about the fort, were attacked by the English. They cut the trace ropes, drove off the horses, threw the plough into the river, and in the fracas knocked down and hurt one or more of the Dutchmen. It can be said on Dutch authority, that Gover- nor Hopkins had given warning to his violent countrymen, which may have had some effect after such an encounter.
1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 43.
110
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
At all events, it does not appear in Dutch testimony that, after the summer of 1641, they had any ill-treatment to complain of, except the English occupation of the lands they claimed and the impounding of their stray animals, wherein all inhabitants were treated alike. Such was the Dutch- men's presentation of their grievances.1
The English had a similar story. All their early complaints arose out of the disputed title to the lands in the South Meadow, which they had distributed among themselves. They had left for the Dutch a comparatively small tract. This was not fenced. Naturally, therefore, the Dutch ani- mals strayed on the lands the English were cultivating. To protect their crops, they sought to fence their lands, which their Dutch neighbors would not permit, especially as such fences surrounded much of their fort and cut off access to their bouwerie. If a certain receipt for twenty- eight shillings, dated June 3, 1641, which John Carrenton gave to John Talcott, "for cetting vp of the rayles betwene the town & the diuch grond," represents the whole or one- half of the cost of this experiment, the English did not get far with it.2 At that juncture Governor Haynes wrote to the Massachusetts authorities for advice, and Winthrop's narrative states the situation. "Letters came," he says, "from the governour, etc., of Connecticut for advice about the difference between them and the Dutch. The Dutch governour had pressed them hard for his interest in all Hartford, etc., as far as one might see from their house, alleging he had purchased as much of the Pequods, and threatened force of arms. They of the river alleged their purchase of other Indians, the true owners of the place, etc., with other arguments from our patent and that of Saybrook. We returned answer without determining of either side, but advising to a moderate way, as the yielding of some more land to the Dutch house (for they had left them but 30 acres). But the Dutch would not be thus pacified, but prepared to send soldiers to be billeted at their house. But it pleased the Lord to disappoint their pur-
1 Holland Documents, I: 543 ff .; II: 141 ff .; Ply. Col. Rec., X: 66-69; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., II: 276.
2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 8.
111
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE
pose, for the Indians falling out with them, killed four of their men at their fort Orange, whereof three were Eng- lish, who had gone to dwell among them, whereby they were forced to keep their soldiers at home to defend them- selves; and Mr. Peter going for England, and being well acquainted with the chief merchants in Holland, undertook to pacify the West India company, but for want of commis- sion from those of Hartford, the company there would not treat with him." 1
These references are illuminating. The force of soldiers Director Kieft had prepared to send to Fort Hope, consisted of fifty men in two yachts, under the command of Johannes la Montagne.2 Thus, possibly, the battle of Hartford nar- rowly missed taking place. Here, moreover, it appears as the English asserted, that the land claims of the Dutch were various and uncertain, covering sometimes all the river lands, and, at others, only the South Meadow. More than the latter tract, they had not bought from the Pequots, as their own record shows. And here is stated the position of the English, which was that they claimed under the Warwick Patent emanating from the Council for New England, as also by right of purchase from the original native tribe. They never abandoned this right of ownership, acquired, they asserted, "by purchase, patent and possession." So far as their colonial authorities could settle the matter, they were sustained after an examination by the Governor and Council of Massachusetts and by the Commissioners of the United Colonies.3
It is true that Rev. Hugh Peters, one of the delegation sent to England by Massachusetts in 1641, was asked to seek some adjustment of these differences in Holland. He was subsequently authorized by Governors Winthrop and Haynes to do so. Edward Hopkins also going that season to England, was empowered by the Connecticut General Court to arbitrate the matter. The Earl of Warwick, Lord Saye and Sele, and others in England, endeavored to assist them. Little, however, came of this peaceful attempt. Sir William Boswell, then ambassador at the Hague, suggested
1 Winthrop's History, II: 38, 39. 2 Brodhead's History, I: 322.
3 Winthrop's History, II: 155-157; Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 13, 175, 179, 182; X: 16.
112
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
a plan of procedure, in a letter dated January 22, 1641-2, which was probably brought back by Edward Hopkins.1 Its concluding recommendation has furnished the text for much censure of the English. He advised "that in the mean tyme, th' English there doe not forbeare to put forward their plantacons, and crowd on, crowding the Dutch out of those places where they have [occupied] but without hostility or any act of violence." The fact is, however, that the crowding the English did, occurred before this letter was written; and the most hostile acts of the Dutch, after the English had abandoned violence and had attempted a peaceful settlement. In 1650, the four arbitrators, two of whom were chosen by each party, on examination of the English complaints, found that "most of the offences or grievances were things donn in the time and by the order and comaund of Monseir William Keift the former Gou"," in which they were undoubtedly correct.2 He was a man, as Dutch his- torians have stated, who "hankered for war." Provoked by repeated conflicts with the English elsewhere, and taking advantage possibly of their abandonment of violence at Hartford, he encouraged the Dutch garrison in hostile measures for several years, so that, in 1646, they had "growne to a strange & vnsufferable boldnes." 3 They were charged with putting their cattle in English corn- fields, buying stolen goods and refusing to return them upon equal satisfaction, persuading servants to run away from their masters, releasing criminals and harboring fugitives from justice, resisting and assaulting the watch with arms, marrying some couples refused at the English plantations, and finally, with receiving at the House of Hope an Indian captive who had fled from her mistress, refusing to deliver her up to the magistrate and consenting to her abuse and defilement by a Dutch servant.4 Of the last offence, the agent himself had given information. It was a public affront to the morality of a Puritan community that had long been tried by their manner of garrison life. It kindled a
1 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 565, 566; Holland Documents, II; 150; Brodhead's History, I: 324.
2 Ply. Col. Rec., X: 18.
3 Ibid., IX: 64. 4 Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 61, 64, 76-79, 181; X: 16.
113
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.