USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 10
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 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
Transportation was inadequate, and although ships were built locally, especially at New Haven and New London, colonial Connecticut was not an important ship building center. A first ship was built in 1645 and smaller craft before that date. Because of the bar at the Sound, New Haven could build only the smallest vessels. New London became
100
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
a strong competitor for New Haven, beginning, soon after settlement, to build boats to be used in the carrying trade and to be sold at foreign ports. These ships, however, were, also, comparatively small. Andrews suggests that the larger vessels used by the colony were never built locally, but were procured from the Netherlands or from England.42 In 1688. Connecticut possessed only nine vessels, and, in 1708, she had no more than 20, engaging 100 seamen. Thus, she could not have had an extensive carrying trade.43
The inadequacy of shipping was a factor forcing Connecticut goods to be dumped on the markets of neighboring colonies where prices were driven down. The protests of these colonies forced Connecticut in 1644, to place the sale of grain under government control. The court designated those merchants who were to carry on the trade, fixed the price of the commodity, and deferred the payment for it until the merchant's ship returned, when payment was to be made in good Eng- lish goods. For the next two decades, Connecticut attempted enforce- ment of this law, reenforcing it in 1654, and again in 1662, by provi- sions to force outgoing vessels to stop at the river's mouth and submit to search.44
These difficulties had not been anticipated at the time of settle- ment. New Haven had experienced and wealthy merchants among her settlers who, on the basis of their confident expectations of carrying on a large commerce, built the best houses of the period and a long wharf. They established trade relations with Boston, Delaware Bay, New Amsterdam, and the Barbados. English products were desired by the Dutch. but they imposed a duty of ten percent on all imports which had not paid an export duty in the United Netherlands. Although the merchants of New Haven proved rather skillful at evading the duty, they found that it restrained their trade. New Haven did not bene- fit to any considerable extent through the trade to Barbados, although the first trip was made in 1647 and relations were continued through- out the colonial period. She found that she could not profitably meet the competition of the eastern colonies in a trade based on an exchange in which fish was such an integral item. Her locally salted alewives could not compare to cod. Such was the disappointment of the New Haven settlers that they were somewhat tempted by Cromwell's in-
101
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
ducements, proffered about 1651, to remove to Jamaica, and, in 1654, considered transfer to Delaware where the colony had already expended £1,000 for Indian titles and explorations for trading posts. In spite of ambition, New Haven remained basically an agricultural colony.45
New London quickly rivaled New Haven. New London estab- lished trade with coastal towns, and, until 1700, maintained a triangular trade with Newfoundland and the Barbados, as well as direct trade to the Barbados. New London quickly became the point of deposit for Connecticut River towns. The British government was partial to New London, and by 1680 it was regarded as the best port of the colony. The potential even of the commercial center of the colony, however, was limited by the general lack of capital, and the trade of the colony re- mained subordinate to agriculture.46 At the end of the century, Con- necticut was reporting that she still had no merchants whose estates were sufficient to enable them to import such stores of European goods or West Indian produce as might broaden trade and enable Connecticut to sell to other colonies. Since manufactured goods still came primarily through Boston instead of through direct importation, Connecticut was drained of specie instead of enabled to build up a capital based on im- ports trade.47
Some indication of the extent of trade is provided by the customs duties collected for a decade on all exports from the river's mouth. This tariff was imposed when Connecticut purchased Saybrook from George Fenwick in 1644 to provide fortified protection for the mouth of the river. It was stipulated that Fenwick would receive, for ten years, a small duty on corn, biscuit, livestock, and beaver skins exported from the mouth of the river.48 Although there was controversy over the legality of this tax, it seems to have been collected without interrup- tion.49 Contemporaneous estimates placed the amount collected dur- ing the decade at £1,600.50
A fairly accurate account of the magistrates' evaluation of the economy of Connecticut seems to have been contained in answers given in 1680 to the queries of a committee of the Privy Council. Connecticut had not long before received her charter and was not disposed to irri- tate the authorities unnecessarily. To the extent that her answers can be corroborated they seem dependable. It was asserted that there was so
102
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
little foreign commerce that there was no need for a vice-admiralty court. Few vessels came to the colony which did not first go to New York or Massachusetts. Consequently, the number of foreign merchants in Connecticut were few. Most of the commodities continued to be trans- ported to Boston, with only small quantities being sent to Jamaica, Bar- bados, or other Caribbean islands, and rarely to Madeira. Connecticut explained her lack of commerce by a shortage of capital and the high cost of labor. She emphasized her commercial potential, pointing out that the harbor of New London could accommodate ships of 500 tons; those of New Haven and Fairfield, ships of 300 tons; and those of other coastal points and Hartford, anything under 100 tons. It was recom- mended that trade could be improved by making the ports at New Lon- don, New Haven, Fairfield, and Hartford free for "20, 15, or ten yeares."51
In 1662, Connecticut had rescinded all of her former orders im- posing customs and had ordered "that there shalbe free trade in all places in this Colony."52 Connecticut's avowed advocacy of free trade had followed Charles II's arrangements for the supervision and regula- tion of trade. There is general agreement that the trade restrictions had little deleterious effect upon Connecticut's commerce. To some extent they protected the trade, providing it with expanded markets; for the rest they were loosely administered and largely evaded. Since Con- necticut had no direct connection with England or the continent, she could have been affected only by the plantation duty of 1673 which taxed intercolonial trade. Although the object of this duty was not revenue, but the prevention of evasion of other acts, it entailed the ap- pointment of royal customs officials and had to be paid in silver which was scarce. Even before the passage of this tax, however, the restrictions were unpopular in Connecticut. In 1665, as well as in 1680, she had petitioned for free ports.53
The greatest advantage to commerce before the century's end ap- parently came because of the extent to which privateering and piracy flourished. The provisioning of such ships in exchange for prize goods was engaged in extensively by the coastal towns of all of the colonies. Governor Fletcher accused Connecticut of being quite busy in this illicit trade and of being considerably enriched by it. In obedience to royal
103
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
proclamations, Connecticut passed laws in 1683 against privateers and pirates. There was little public sentiment against a trade that secured otherwise unavailable foreign wares at cheap prices, and prosecution of offenders was difficult when the juries would not convict them.54
Internal Trade
Internal trade was similarly hampered by a lack of capital and an inadequacy of transportation. The Connecticut River provided a trans- portation route to the river settlements, but as new inland settlements developed, difficulties increased. The roads were little more than In- dian trails for a long period, though cart bridges were more frequently mentioned after King Philip's war. New London connected itself with Norwich in 1670 and with New Haven and Waterbury in 1686. The New Bay Road was established after 1690. The roads were poor, but it should be remembered that pack horses were still used for internal trade in Europe at the same time.55
Connecticut, recognizing that the "mainteineing of high wayes in a fitt posture for passage . . . is not onely necessary for the comfort and safety of man and beast, but tends to the proffitt and advantage of any people," tried to provide for this in her code of 1650. Each town was to appoint a surveyor to oversee the mending and repairing of roads. He was given power to impress carts and persons for a minimum of two days a year and for as many more as the surveyor considered necessary. Fines were established for refusal or neglect by a person whose team or services were requested and for the surveyor's negligence in not report- ing such default.56 By May 20, 1668, it was necessary to add a five pounds fine for refusal to accept appointment as surveyor without a justification satisfying the Assistant or Commissioner of the town.57
Travel became extensive enough by 1644 that each town was re- quired to have an ordinary for provisioning and lodging of passengers and strangers and their horses. So that a convenient house of entertain- ment would not result in excessive tippling by inhabitants, innkeepers were restricted to serving half a pint of wine to one person at one time, and persons were restricted to a half-hour's stay which was not to be at an unseasonable time or after nine o'clock at night. Fine, double and treble fines, whipping, stocks, and prison were penalties for offense and
104
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
repeated offenses.58 A New Haven act required that 12 horses be kept in 5 towns for public use at fixed rates.59
Transportation difficulties were mitigated somewhat by establish- ment of a weekly market in Hartford in 1643 for "all matter of commod- ityes that shall be brought in, and for catell, of any merchandise whso- ever." After 1645, a fair was held on the second Wednesdays of May and September. The problem of distribution was mitigated considerably by these, and, also, by the general store, which seems to have replaced fairs in the inland towns.60
The report of 1680 did not indicate an increase in internal trade. At that time there were twenty merchants in the colony who ex- changed products for clothes, primarily in Boston. The Indian trade had become inconsequential and there was none at all with the French.61 Internal trade was supplemented by the peddlers, though the extent of their volume of traffic is indeterminable. Early in the period. however, they were beginning to arouse the criticism and resentments which are reflected in the composite stereotype. Connecticut, for ex- ample, fined "David the Jew" 20s. in 1659 for going into houses when heads of families were absent and trading with the children for provi- sions.62 Andros' law of 1687 concerning peddlers is prefaced by the charges that they went about vending sundry wares, and that which was unserviceable, at excessive rates, to the great detriment of the settled trade of the country. This law forbade anyone to trade out- side his own town except merchants and factors coming from beyond the seas.63 The crescendo of opposition from merchants against the multitudes of foreign peddlers, which reached an apex in the next cen- tury, indicates that the itinerant traders were not reduced in number, the vacuum being filled by foreigners, or, one can not refrain from sur- mising, by those assuming the guise of a foreigner.64
Industry
Connecticut attempted to regulate industry into existence both to find an export and to gain a closer approximation to self-sufficiency. That general benefits might accrue from a lack of restriction was in- conceivable in the 17th century milieu. From the beginning controls were introduced by which the individual was theoretically subordinated
105
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
to the general welfare. Thus, labor could be impressed for particular service in the interest of public need. This arrangement in connection with road maintenance has been mentioned above. In similar vein, in 1670, in order to encourage sheep-growing, Connecticut ordered every person to work one day a year clearing underwood to benefit pas- turage.65
Since, in practice, it was oftentimes assumed that the general wel-
(Courtesy Stamford Historical Society)
STAMFORD-CAPTAIN WEBB'S TAVERN, USED AS HEADQUARTERS BY GENERAL LEE IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR
fare would be served by an individual's success, regulation many times took the form of a subsidy, including group support, and aid, to an in- dividual for general benefit. At Stamford, Connecticut, in order to establish a gristmill, the town made a dam, then Samuel Swane built the frame and body for £51, then those of the town "fit to do such work" completed the other parts. The property was then sold as a private ven- ture to two men for £74.10.66
Needed trades were encouraged in various other ways. Land was customarily granted to those who would establish needed trades. To encourage Winthrop's sawmill at New London, he was granted the tim-
106
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
ber from three or four swamps.67 Monopolies, too, were sometimes al- lowed. In 1691, for example, the General Court offered a ten year pat- ent providing a monopoly for making salt for public sale to anyone with adequate skill, experience, and estate for the undertaking.68 Even under the law passed in England in 1624 when criticism of monopolies was at its height, monopolies were still permitted in the case of invention, or in the name of order and price control, as in the case mentioned of Pynchon, and, also, of the grain merchants.
Tax exemptions were a more frequently used form of encourage- ment. In 1647, the gristmill which the colony had assisted William Fowler in establishing was freed from all rates.69 New Haven, in its enthusiasm to attract John Winthrop, Jr., exempted all those entirely engaged in the iron works and their estates from rates.70 Three years later, Connecticut followed New Haven's example and freed the iron workers from taxation for seven years.71 In 1666, the colony did not levy any taxes on ships' sails on the stocks.72 Exemptions from impressed service and military training were granted, too, to certain trades, as in 1686 in the case of Francis Thresher and his servant for as long as they followed their employment of making cloth serge.73 The quality of manufactured cloth was considered high.74 At times pleas for aid on the grounds of public or semi-public service were refused, as in the case of those requesting a loan for seven years to build a vessel to export masts for the royal navy.75
In part legislation was passed in an attempt to enforce production and manufacture, especially of fibers into cloth. This became especially important after England established an export duty on woolen cloth. Apparently the homespun industries supplied a significant amount of fabric for home consumption, but none for export, although weaving was not confined to the household, for as early as 1669 a Windsor inventory referred to "yarne at the weavers." In 1684 a New London inventory listed "four looms and tacklings: a silk loom." The silk loom is evidence of skill. Fulling mills for the finishing of homespun were established in various towns from an early date.76
Certain regulations were pointed toward the protection of the consumer by a control of prices and standards. The size, weight, and price of bread, for example, were specifically regulated.77 Inspectors were
107
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
appointed to examine pipestaves and to observe the steps in the proc- essing of leather. The various processes in this endeavor were carefully defined in an attempt to secure the desired quality. The final product could be offered for sale only if sealed by an inspector. Through main- tenance of these standards, it was hoped to force a specialization of skill and a separation of craft.78 Standards were established for specific skills and amended at various times. The appointment in October 1677 of a committee "to treat wth the most prudent and conscienscious of each severall calling, and to prepare such orders and instructions for the reg- ulateing and stateing of trades and workmen," was an attempt to secure acceptance of the regulations, "so as that all oppression may be removed from vs."79 As late as 1692, leather inspectors were empowered to search for shoes or boots made of leather tanned by the shoemaker and so un- sealed.80 When there was still difficulty with the quality of leather, it was ordered that no one should exercise the trade of tanner unless he demonstrated his ability to the county court and received permission from them to set up vats.81 Because of the limited market, however, it proved impossible for artisans performing very specialized tasks to sup- port themselves in one locality. Too, the absence of a quantity of skilled labor made it necessary for every settlement to utilize the secondary as well as the primary skill of the mechanics.82
Regulations were intended, primarily, to control products for home consumption, and, incidentally, those provided for foreign ex- port. Magistrates were aware that a solution to Connecticut's commer- cial and economic plight lay in the conversion of raw products into a more finished state. An effort in this direction was indicated when, in 1641, the order restraining the cutting of timber was removed. Instead, it was provided that cut timber should be improved into pipestaves or some other merchantable commodity within one month after felling. Individual sales were forbidden so that the staves could be used for bringing in provisions. The price was fixed at £5 per thousand, for the reason, as it was explained, that Mr. Hopkins, to whom they were to be sold, could "provide shipping and aford to give that price." This in- dustry continued throughout the century, and the staves and heads were sent to foreign ports for use in casks and barrels. There are no figures on the extent of the export, though the order that those who prepared
108
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the staves were responsible for transporting them to the river's mouth underlined one of the obstacles to the development of Connecticut's economy. New Haven was able to export shoes on one occasion, but for the most part few finished articles were manufactured in sufficient quantity for export.83
Although manufactures hardly developed during the century to the extent that might have been expected from the effort expended in promoting them, slight beginnings were made. Town histories record the presence of carders and weavers, sawyers and millers, smiths and tanners, shoemakers and brick burners and the like. There is no doubt that some of them developed an excellent craftsmanship, but it seems unlikely that many of them produced for a market beyond their immediate community.
Labor
Connecticut, as the other colonies, was plagued by the lack of an adequate labor supply. Frederick Jackson Turner suggested that the large amount of free land operated generally to reduce the number of laborers available in America. Enforced restrictions on informal occupation of land made it less easily available in New England than in other regions. However, regulations to insure that a servant's term of serv- ice would be completed, were considered necessary in Connecticut. In part this legislation was motivated by the fear that freed servants would become a public charge, and former masters were made responsible for seeing that those set at liberty were employed. In part, however, it was the scarcity of labor that caused the reluctance to see terms ended-for the master's well-being took precedence over the premature advance- ment of servants. Servants, said Ames, should be faithful and obedient to bad masters as well as to good ones, for the primary ground of the duty was not the merit of the masters but the ordinance of God, and if they ran away from their masters they were thieves.84 And so, to prevent any "stubborne, refrectary and discontented searuants and app'ntices" from withdrawing themselves to improve their time to their own ad- vantage before the end of their term of service, they were to be recap- tured at the public charge and to serve their previous masters an addi- tional three times the length of their absence. It was provided further
109
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
that no servant should give, sell, or truck any commodity without li- cense from his master, for whom he should work the whole day.85
The term "servant" applied to various kinds of service, from that of agents attending the business of their principals in England, through that of farm and house workers and apprentices and those contracting their labor, to that of slaves. The indentured servant was one of the most important groups of laborers. Debtors sometimes worked out fines, sometimes sold their services for debt. Many worked out passage money in apprenticeship. The magistrates of the colony were empowered to place persons with no permanent place of abode where their mainte- nance and employment best fitted. Children of deceased or neglectful parents, or those born to mothers while in jail were placed by the court with a "good family." As Hooker wrote, the magistrates must restrain the "vagabonds, beggars and vagrant persons," settle them and assign them to employment.86
Contracts governed care during service and the settlement at the end of the term. Usually some education as well as training in a trade was provided during service. A "freedom suit" and a small gift of money or goods were customary at the end of the term.87 A servant could be transferred to a new master by court order, if the servant consented and released his former master from his obligation to teach the servant a trade.88 The conditions of service were often rigorous and the disci- pline for bad behavior was very severe. The servant-master relationship fell into the category of the relation between superior and inferior. As Ames explained, inferiors owed superiors reverence and submission because of their eminence in degree and inasmuch as they were thc cause of the inferiors' well-being. This subjection, it was said, was necessary to the maintenance of order.89
Apprenticed labor was inadequate and recourse was had to Indians forced into service and to negro slaves. A Puritan justification offered by Emanuel Downing to Governor Winthrop in 1638 was that this was necessary to the improvement of the country in view of the labor shortage.90 The Puritans had operated from the beginning on the assump- tion that their divine right to the land carried the obligation to improve it. In addition. Indian slavery seemed to have as a referent the Greek theory concerning captives. Since Indians were "of the enemie" and
110
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
"have submitted to mercy," they were subject to the disposal of the con- quering authority by which they were allocated to selected colonists. If they ran away they were to be disposed of by the master as captives by transportation out of the country.91 An attempt was made to prevent
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
CORNWALL HOLLOW-GENERAL JOHN SEDGWICK MONUMENT
Indians from shielding runaways by allowing payment of two yards of cloth to an Indian who returned a runaway and by imposing a fine of 40 shillings and a month's imprisonment on an Indian who hid or shielded a runaway.92 Captive Indians were brought up from the Carolinas until Connecticut forbade their importation in 1715.93
There was little sentiment in opposition to the enslavement of negroes, even though they were not "of the enemy." Negroes appeared
111
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
early in the inventories as slaves, as in Mr. Chesther's inventory at Hart- ford, which listed about 1650, a "neager Maide £25."94
Colonists found it very difficult to secure the necessary labor, but found it more difficult to accept the idea that its scarcity should enable free labor to state and command its own reward. Lest laborers be paid too much, wages were specifically regulated by impositions of maxi- mums. The many readjustments of these are an indication of the in- terest and difficulties involved. In February, 1640, the General Court rescinded regulations concerning work and wages. By June, 1641, how- ever, it pointed out that it had declared its apprehensions about excesses in wages among laborers and artificers and had provided them an opportunity to make a law for themselves. Since the court had found that this had not been done, certain specific prices were again estab- lished for the hire of men and animals. Specific penalties were not listed, but the censure or judgment of the court applied both to those who "shall giue or take any greter wages." In Connecticut, the provision was not repealed until mid-century.95 Although Massachusetts had exacted similar penalties in 1633, it had repealed legislation against those paying wages the next year.96
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.