USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 17
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
Connecticut settlements were in a continual state of alarm as Philip successfully eluded the relentless pursuit of the colonial forces during the Summer and Fall of 1675. As the Indians retreated across the northern part of the state and burned Springfield, anxiety in- creased.32 The colony's "humble servant," Sir Edmund Andros, added
182
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
to their discomfort by transmitting intelligence that the Indians in the Hartford area were planning an attack. Forces were ordered back to Hartford, and laws were passed against desertion. Each county was ordered to raise, provision, and train 60 men, and stand ready to assist any other county. Women and children were moved to places of great- est security, and the smaller towns were ordered to secure their goods
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
HARTLAND HOLLOW, HARTLAND-JONATHAN MILLER TAVERN
and remove to larger settlements. Corn was gathered early and the ex- port of grain was prohibited. The distress of the colony was such that taxes were raised to six pence on the pound on all rateable estates.33 In December of that year, the combined forces of the united colonies at- tempted to surprise and capture the Indian leader in the Narragansett territory, but again he escaped successfully in the direction of Brook- field to Northampton and the Hudson.34
Connecticut regarded this movement a "signall favour" and made no effort to enlist the support of the Mohawks against Philip's rumored alliance with the Albany Indians. A contemporary account indicated
183
THE LEGEND OF LIBERTY
that Connecticut's reluctance to assist Andros was due to a suspicion of Andros. Andros inferred from Connecticut communications that Connecticut believed he was an accomplice to the aid furnished Con- necticut Indians from Albany. Andros assured Connecticut that noth- ing of the sort lay at his door. Connecticut reasserted the charge that the enemy received great supplies from Albany, but left "to him that stands at ye doors of all hearts" determination of whose door at which the responsibility lay. Andros, for his part, also, felt unsure of Connect- icut. He wrote, "if my loyalty & affection (which you mention) have prompted me too farre, so as to bee involved in yor warre, I may ex- pect you will leave mee both to the charge & hazard."35
In April, Captain George Denison, a member of the Atherton Company, managed to combine patriotic effort and land promotion, and he, with one hundred volunteers, as many Indians, and the young Sachem, Uncas, invaded the Narragansett country, killing 50 of the enemy and capturing 40 more, including the prize captive, Canonchet, the greatest war maker among the Narragansetts. Canonchet said that he was born a prince, and if princes came to speak to him he would answer. There being none present, he was obliged to hold his tongue, except for a request that he be put to death without torture. New Eng- land received news of his capture with enthusiasm. He was returned to Stonington, and, so "that all might share in the Glory of destruction . the Pequots shot him, the Mohegins cut off his Head and quar- tered his Body, and the Ninnicrofts Men made the Fire and burned his Quarters; and as a Token of their Love and Fidelity to the English, presented his head to the Council at Hartford." Denison continued profitably to capture and kill the Indians, clearing the land for sale and settlement.36
Tenaciously troops continued daily to search for Philip, until he was driven eventually into the swamp at Mount Hope, with perhaps ten men, one of whom fled the swamp to inform the English. Captain Church led his Plymouth company and some Rhode Island men into the swamp. Philip was found and shot on August 11, 1676. In Connect- icut, a day of Thanksgiving was declared to signal the victory.37
The remaining Indians within Connecticut were hunted down and forced to submit to the judgment of the colony. The friendly
184
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Pequot and Narragansett were permitted to hunt in the Narragansett territory on the condition that they would hunt and kill the enemy. Major John Talcott, who had succeeded to the command of the Con- necticut forces when Robert Treat was chosen Deputy Governor in 1676, was authorized to capture and kill all Indians at war with the colony, or who had surrendered, or run away. Those who could not be proved murderers were spared and sold into slavery as the colony de- creed. If after ten years of service, they could secure a certificate from their master, they were to have their liberty and live as Englishmen. If they could not secure a certificate. they had recourse to the Court.38
King Philip's war was the longest of any of the Indian wars in New England. It lasted for about two years and occasioned great loss in life and property. One tenth of the adult male population of Massachusetts was slain or captured and two thirds of her settlements suffered from Indian raids. The loss to Rhode Island was as great, but her fear that her neighbors would take advantage of an Indian war to encroach upon her territories was substantiated only in the military actions in the Narragansett territory and these were not translated directly or im- mediately into any transference of legal title. Connecticut was somewhat more fortunate in her location, but her fighting strength was seriously impaired by the war.39 In the war the colonies showed a willingness for self-defense and indicated a desire for independence of action.
The Andros Regime
The mitigation of the Indian danger left Connecticut to develop the territory to the extent of her ability, subject, of course, to whatever controls England might impose. Connecticut actions, in themselves, were provocative of the imposition of controls. The continual bicker- ings over boundaries and the attendant referrals to England which necessitated the appointment of royal commissions to settle the disputes was, at least, troublesome and, as in the case of the Atherton land grab- bers, led almost of necessity to royal restriction.4º The refusal to honor the Duke of York's claim to lands east to the Connecticut River was dangerously close to a challenge of the Crown itself. Connecticut did not precisely counterbalance these factors when. during the English war against the Dutch in 1672, she waited a year to respond to
185
THE LEGEND OF LIBERTY
the request to take aggressive action against Dutch ships, and, then, had the Secretary of her Court write: "although we have heard of yº actions at Yorke, yet because the cheefe trust of these parts did reside in other hands, . . . we made it o' business to do what was devolved upon our- selves." Connecticut actions had not increased her measure of royal favor.41
Along with the consequences entailed by her own effrontery, Con- necticut seemed bound to suffer some of the results of Massachusett's machinations, for there was a tendency, for England to regard Massachu- setts as synonymous with New England as a whole and with each of its parts. Massachusetts had contended that since she was not represented in Parliament, Charles' trade regulations were not applicable to her, and had developed an attractive trade with the Dutch and French, while she circumvented and delayed enforcement of these acts. The Crown had grown "very tender" about these violations and did not intend to extend Massachusetts any permanent immunity from con- formity. Connecticut, without enjoying Massachusetts commercial prosperity, was yet to be subjected to any controls imposed. To in- dicate a new firmness, in 1678, Edward Randolph was sent as Collector. Surveyor, and Searcher of His Majesty's customs in New England. Randolph, a persistent office seeker, was always in financial difficulties, and it was to assist in alleviating these that he was appointed to his new post. He was zealous and hardworking, but tactless and un- sympathetic with conditions in New England. He reported, accurately enough, that New England was disobeying the acts of trade and naviga- tion. When he returned to the colonies after a trip to England in 1681, he came determined to force Massachusetts to surrender her charter. It was believed, too, that he had secured sufficient power to govern Connecticut's trade, examine her treasury, and force her to "vomit up all deodands, escheats, felons, goods and fines upon penal laws."42
Plans were being formulated for uniting all the colonies north of the Delaware under one Governor. There was potential merit in such a union, and, at various times of crisis, such suggestions came from the colonists themselves. Samuel Sewall, for example, suggested that the colonies be compacted into one in view of the French danger of 1690. In this crisis with England, too, there was discussion in the col-
186
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
onies, and on an official level in Connecticut, of the suggestion that the colonies unite to avoid their utter ruin. External imposition of union, however, was a different matter to the colonists, although not one that waited on their approval: steps had already been taken to seize the Con- necticut charter.43
Connecticut's artful obstructionists delayed the process, though it is true, perhaps, that the leaders realized that the pull toward colonial centralization was too strong to permit Connecticut to resist it success- fully.44 Randolph worked almost feverishly to force Connecticut to lose her charter. Six charges of misdemeanor were made against Connecticut and forwarded to England, as the basis for the issuance against Con- necticut of two writs of Quo Warranto, or summons to show proof in the face of the charges, of her right to her charter and liberties. Be- cause of the lapse of time while they were being delivered to America, these writs became legally void before they could be served. This Ran- dolph knew, but sought to resolve by presenting them, not as a Crown official, but as a private gentleman. If the summonses were observed, sub- mission would have been secured without the formal issue of a legal writ. Such voluntary compliance would have presaged the loss of the charter, for the judgment of the matter was hardly questionable. Con- necticut was not disposed to overlook the legal technicality.45
Connecticut was urged by Massachusetts to yield and join the temporary government which had been established when Massachusetts had lost her charter. This placed Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and the King's province (Narragansett territory) under one Governor. Wait Winthrop and John Pynchon came from Massachusetts to Hartford to discuss the matter. Connecticut pleaded uncertainty as to the duration of the government in Massachusetts, and, before deciding her course of action in reference to the writs of Quo Warranto, she explored the rela- tive advantages of joining with New York.46
New York felt it not very proper "for subjects to stand upon termes wth princes," and recommended "a downright humble sub- mission" as the "most effectual means to secure wt is most advanta- geous." Thomas Dongan, who had replaced Andros as Governor of New York, hoped to persuade Connecticut to represent to the King their preference for a union with New York. The boundary dispute
187
THE LEGEND OF LIBERTY
between Connecticut and New York had been settled by a line that permitted the towns of Greenwich, Stamford, Darien, New Canaan, Norwalk, and a part of Wilton to remain with Connecticut. With this issue disposed of, Dongan now declared himself ready to "consent to every thing that will be to y' Goverm's advantage." He promised that
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
POMFRET-PUTNAM WOLF DEN ON THE DAY THE WOLF WAS PRESENT (1902)
quit rents would be minimal, and that Connecticut ports would re- main open, with ships having to put into New York only when so re- quired by "Coucil & Assebly." He offered as lure what he must have considered a meaningless concession, for he had informed the Lord's Committee that it would be absolutely impossible to make anything of His Majesty's customs without Connecticut, and, the requirement of council and assembly might be expected to be frequent. He believed that all New England and New York would be combined into a single administrative unit. He hoped, however, that New York would be-
188
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
come the vortex of such a dominion and felt that if it seemed that Con- necticut gravitated toward his colony it would appear more to be a logical center of government.47
Connecticut did not wish to appear to yield her charter willingly and easily, as she would have by submitting to a writ of Quo Warranto, when not legally bound to do so, yet she did not wish to appear dan- gerously uncooperative, or to be guilty of neglect of her due and legal responsibilities. She, therefore, decided to send an agent of the colony. Mr. William Whiting, to present the case to the King. With the help of counsel, he was to determine whether the lapse of the Quo Warranto writ relieved Connecticut of responsibility until a new summons was issued. If such a summons were issued, Whiting was to represent the colony. If, despite his representations, the charter were lost, he was to attempt to have the decision suspended until the leaders of the colony had an opportunity of speaking for themselves. If this postponement were impossible, he was to learn whether Connecticut would be joined with New York or with Massachusetts.48
The appointment of Sir Edmund Andros as Governor of the King's dominion in New England in June, 1686, lessened the possibil- ities that Connecticut would successfully retain her charter. In New York, he had proved himself a capable Governor and a worthy adver- sary for Connecticut. He was sent over now expressly to establish a strong government, the main purpose of which was to insure the neces- sary defenses of His Majesty's possessions. For this, Andros was well equipped. He was a soldier and an efficient administrator, although he lacked an understanding of fiscal affairs. He was energetic, honorable. and loyal-unlikely to betray the confidence vested in him. He knew something of the conditions which confronted him in Connecticut. but. if he understood Puritan psychology, he was yet impatient with it. He. himself, was of aristocratic background, and was unable to accept as peers those of more humble origin. His knowledge of local affairs seemed to make him even more determined to carry out the policy dictated from London.49
Randolph had no doubt that Andros would be competent to bring matters to a conclusion. When a third Quo Warranto writ was for- warded to Randolph, he wrote gleefully that he "was well assured the
189
THE LEGEND OF LIBERTY
physick was to operate." He had heard that "the little Quacks" in Con- necticut were "endeavoring to divert their coming under one govern- ment, but his Excellency has his Majesty's commands to accept their surrender."50 Actually, further delay was made possible by the third Quo Warranto, for its issuance meant that no change in status would be forced until after due legal process. In a letter from Andros, transmitted at the same time as the writ, it was indicated that he was authorized to receive the surrender of the charter "if tendered," which invited, but neither demanded, nor forced surrender.51
Connecticut, wittingly or unwittingly, resolved the problem by writing the English Secretary of State that, whereas they desired their present status, if they must submit, Connecticut preferred to be under Andros rather than under Dongan of New York. This was interpreted by the Crown as a request. The prosecution of the summons was stopped, and Andros was informed to proceed to incorporate Connect- icut under his government.52
Whiting's further attempts to defend the charter in the courts of England might be cited as an indication that Connecticut did not in- tend for her letter stating preference to be construed as concurrence in a change of government. When Whiting indicated that defense of the charter would necessitate increased colonial representation, however, the Court declared "we doe not see ourselves in a fit posture to rayse money" for additional representation to defend the charter.53 Mr. Whiting was to be instructed to continue his efforts, for which he would be given reasonable satisfaction. Later, in 1689, Gershom Bulkeley wrote that "the people were divided in their opinions; many grudged at the charge of that Affaire, whence it was hard (if possible) for them seasonably to raise money to maintaine the suite."54 Bulkeley asserted that he knew "who were then as hot against the raising of money for that purpose (and cry'd out it was illegall) as now are hot for the Patent and ready to cry out upon the losse of that as illegall."55
Gershom Bulkeley was the most articulate of the element evidencing in Connecticut, as it had in Massachusetts, a preference for royal rather than for charter government. Bulkeley believed that the authors of the letter stating a preference for union with Massachusetts had been con- scious of its import at the time it was sent. He felt it was likely that they
190
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
had reasoned that "it would be a grate Charge to maintaine the Action [at law], and it might go against you at last, and you should be annexed to Yorke; and hereupon you submit to the King's Wisdome and pleas- ure, begging that you may be annexed to the Bay." Bulkeley believed that the Government was not, therefore, taken into the King's hand without "Submission, and some sort (at least) of Consent."56
In any case, the Connecticut General Court, in the face of the Eng- lish interpretation, busied itself with the disposition of affairs, moving as many as possible out of Andros' reach. Control of affairs with Eng- land was transferred from the Court to the Governor and Council. To secure land titles, the Court validated all titles which had been con- firmed by the towns. The colony in its corporate capacity had granted land titles to towns, regarded, too, as corporations. In their corporate capacity, towns had granted titles to individuals. There was a question. however, as to whether the colony, as the original company, had had the right to create other corporations. If not, the land titles of all indi- viduals could be held invalid. It was ordered that it was to be under- stood that all titles confirmed by towns were made by the Governor and Company who had delegated the authority to sign in their name.57 In addition, grants were given for all vacant lands, including those west of the Connecticut River to the Housatonic River. It was arranged that debts due the colony were to be collected and that whatever surplus remained in the treasury was to be transferred to the several towns.58
Also, in response, as the record puts it, to demands of "sundry of the Court" that they might see the charter, the Secretary sent for it and showed it to the Court at the session held June 15, 1687. The rec- ord formally records that it was then put again into its box, which was placed on the table with the key in it.59 Here the record leaves the charter, its story to be continued by legend and conjecture.
The precise state of colonial affairs was not generally known, and some, apparently, feared that agreement to surrender the charter, or, perhaps, the actual surrender had already been made. It is possible that it was to allay the fears of these "sundry of the court" that the charter was displayed. It has, also, been conjectured that this was another preparation for the contingency that Andros might take over the gov- ernment: the faction opposing submission arranging a move essential
191
THE LEGEND OF LIBERTY
to putting the charter out of Andros' reach. This seems somewhat sub- stantiated by the very formality of the record of an exhibition that took the charter and even its box and key from the custodial committee and left it on a table rather than returned to someone's charge.60
Opinion was divided on the question of submission and as to whom. Governor Dongan of New York wrote the Earl of Sunderland that for every one in Connecticut who wished the government joined with Massachusetts, there were one hundred in the colony who wished to join New York. Dongan, of course, can not be regarded as an objec- tive observer. He was truly convinced, however, that Governor Treat and Secretary Allyn were responsible for the statement of a preference to join Massachusetts. In fact, Dongan stated that it was by their fraud and without the knowledge of the rest of the Court that this union oc- curred. Dongan displayed a clearer perception of the nature of Con- necticut's government than one might be inclined to admit when he reminded the inhabitants that they but stood on a sandy foundation "when one or two among you can dispose of you at their pleasure."61
Perhaps, because the divided opinion and factious spirit of the Court made a satisfactory determination of a course impossible, or, perhaps, because of the knowledge that Randolph was bringing another message from Andros, the summer session of the Court came abruptly to a close.62 The next day there arrived from Andros a request that the colony surrender the charter. The Secretary of the Colony quite prop- erly expressed sorrow that the Court had adjourned the evening before the arrival of the request, but minimized the importance of this by adding: "judging by what notice we took of their minds, we conclude they would not have altered or varyed anything from what in their former letter they wrote unto you."63
Andros had been informed that Connecticut, in accordance with its request, had been annexed to his government, and, on October 31, he arrived in Hartford to effectuate incorporation.64 He was received by the Government officers, who, in the words of Perry Miller, supinely agreed to surrender the charter.65 Facile agreement to its surrender, of course, could have stemmed from a conviction of inevitability, from a desire for union,-or from knowledge that the charter would be found missing.
192
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
According to legend, the charter was brought to the Assembly that night, whereupon the candles were extinguished, shrouding the room in darkness. And when "the candles were quietly relighted . . . the charter had disappeared,"66 later to be brought out of its conceal- ment in the Charter Oak.
The story of the concealment of the Connecticut charter first ap- peared in public print, not in America, but in London. George Chal- mers, in The Political Annals of the United States from the Settlement to 1763, published in 1780, refers to the action of the Governor and Company in "carefully concealing their charter in a venerable elm."67 The source of Chalmers' information. apparently, was not a Connect- icut patriot, but an arch-Tory of the American Revolution, Samuel Peters. the same to whom history is obligated for a catalogue of Con- necticut Blue Laws. Peters, in his own General History of Connecticut, published a year after Chalmers' work, refers to "an elm esteemed sa- cred for being the tree in which their charter was concealed."68 A geog- rapher's editing was applied to the story by Jedidiah Morse in 1789 to identify the tree as an oak.69 With publication of Trumbull's history in 1818, the story achieved a status of respectability which only a Con- necticut author of Trumbull's position could give it,70 and the tradi- tion continued to be of more significance in the subsequent life of Connecticut than the actual history of the period.
The tradition of the Charter Oak has been characterized as a symbol of the "spiritual strength and the love of freedom which in- spired our Colonial forebears in the militant resistance to tyranny."71 The refusals of the early leaders of Connecticut to give up the charter, despite the royal order and threat of arms, is described in Connecticut's Blue Book as "one of the greatest episodes of determined courage in our history."72
The failure of Andros to gain physical possession of the charter did not deter him from formally assuming control over Connecticut the day after his arrival. The Governor and Secretary of the Colony, in their affidavit taken in June, 1689, stated simply that Andros "caused his commission to be read, and declared our government to be dis- solved."73
After the fall of Andros, the royalists contended that Connecticut
193
THE LEGEND OF LIBERTY
had surrendered the charter by the tacit consent implicit in her ac- ceptance of Andros. Gershom Bulkeley asserted that many of the As- semblymen were only too glad to see the change in government. Bulke-
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
GREENWICH-PUTNAM COTTAGE BUILT IN 1731, ORIGINALLY KNAPP'S TAVERN. SCENE OF PUTNAM'S ESCAPE FROM BRITISH, PHOTO 1934
ley writes: "Do they think that nobody took notice of how Sir E. A. was caressed by them? How brisk and jocund they were at that time? What liberal healths some of them . . . drank then, and afterwards in re- membrance of it?"74 The Chartist faction in the colony, however, in- terpreted the transferance of government as being involuntary and im- posed and considered this to be indicated by the avoidance of the physical surrender of the charter. To the Chartists, then, Andros gov-
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.