USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 2
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
The Indians of Connecticut
In addition to observing the natural environment, Block noted the Indians who lived in the territory and indicated their general habits and characteristics. Ethnologists have divided Connecticut Indians into six groups. Along the coast, from the east bank of the Hudson River to the east bank of the Connecticut, lived members of the Wappinger Confederacy, which included the better known sachemships of the Connecticut River Valley. Far to the northwest lived a tribe of the Mahicans of the upper Hudson. To the northeast lived the Nipmunks of Tolland and Windham counties, whose principal seats of operation were the southern townships of Massachusetts. These last two tribes, fragments of tribes of other states, played a comparatively unimportant role in the history of Connecticut. The Niantics were located along
7
THE LAND AND THE TRADERS
the Sound, where they had been driven by the Pequots, who were to have the greatest impact upon the colonial settlers. The Western Ni- antics occupied the area from the Connecticut River to the Niantic and the Pequot from there to the Rhode Island line, except for the south- eastern tip of the state, where the Eastern Niantics lived.14
By the European, these Indians were regarded contemptuously as primitive men. Settlers, who brought with them a more advanced pattern of culture, could not see in the Indian anything but "an im- perfect copy of themselves." Aboriginal Americans were considered to "live like beasts, . .. more animal than rational." The Indians were incapable of carrying on an abstract train of thought and were without a systematic form of writing. They could communicate sufficiently well to carry on routine duties of daily living and relations with other tribes. There were similarities of language structure among the four different dialects in use by the various tribes of Connecticut. The Indian mode of life was that of the Stone Age; metal was unknown. Only the bare rudi- ments of weaving and pottery were practiced, and, as compared with those of other regions of North America, these were crude and utili- tarian. Agriculture was practiced to a greater extent than in northern New England; yet, in the absence of domesticated animals, the economy of the Indians was basically that of forest hunters for whom nature pro- vided most of the necessities. The ability of this natural man to live in accordance with the limitations and opportunities of his natural envi- ronment hastened the adaptations of the European to it and facilitated their conquest of it. Nevertheless, the Indians were, to the settler, an example of "what he must not be."15
There were, however, Indian institutions which seemed to be well defined, and, in some respects, similar to those of the European. Mo- nogamy was generally practiced except by the leaders and the wealthier Indians and divorce was permitted. Betrothals were pledged upon the acceptance of a gift, and, if a sachem gave his consent, the couple was looked upon as man and wife. The children were treated with indul- gence and affection, with reasoning used more than corporal punish- ment in training. A more severe discipline was imposed upon the girls than upon the young men, for the latter were encouraged to display their independent spirits.16 To the settlers, any basic similarity of con-
8
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
cept was less apparent than surface contrasts, which came to be regarded as incompatible and menacing.
The common desire for land was in fact the crux of the conflict between the Christian and barbaric civilizations. Indians were most
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
FARMINGTON-RED SANDSTONE MONUMENT ERECTED IN 1840 IN THE RIVERSIDE CEMETERY IN MEMORY OF THE TUNXIS INDIANS
dense along the seacoast and the rivers, the areas of greatest attraction to the white man. Those Indians who were to be the strongest oppo- nents of the white man in Connecticut were the Pequots of the Algon- quian family. The Pequots, who had come into the area, perhaps, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, had "a well defined sense of land rights." Records of colonial towns reveal their deeds of land to white men and to other Indians. In the beginning of colonial settlement, the
9
THE LAND AND THE TRADERS
basic concept of the European in regard to the right of the Indians to the land was also fairly well defined. At that time, it was considered that Indian land could be secured only by purchase, for it was held that the Indians possessed the lands as a natural right and could not be held responsible for not "going forth and cultivating the lands according to God's will." By their attacks on the settlers, however, the Indians were considered to have forfeited their natural rights, and to have become, instead, subject to the will of God. It was then asserted that Connecti- cut was the garden spot of the earth intended for occupancy by God's children, whose divine right to the land took precedence over a mere natural right. Such a right, however, entailed a responsibility to develop the land and to civilize and Christianize all inhabitants of it.17
The practice of a mythology, strange and unfamiliar to the white man, seemed to him a justification for his attempt to advance God and civilization. The mythology of the Indian, which apparently varied from tribe to tribe, was a combination of philosophy and fiction, mysti- cism and ethics. Indian belief reversed the Christian tenet that man was made long before the flood. In the Indian scheme of the universe, a supernatural enemy had destroyed the earth and it had then been restored and peopled by a supernatural being. It was believed, too, that this supernatural being had provided, in the animals and birds, guard- ian spirits who accompanied the Indians in every undertaking and willed success or failure. John W. DeForest suggests that the Indians believed in the existence of the soul after death, with the good ad- mitted to a heaven and the wicked turned away to wander forever in restless discontent. In return for the riches of Connecticut, the settlers believed they must alter these Indian concepts to conform to Christian- ity, or, more particularly, to Puritanism.18
The weakness of the Indians, in their relations with the white settlers, lay in the Indian political organization. The primary unit was the village; the authority of the leader seldom extended beyond its boundaries, and even within these did not go undisputed. During time of war, a chief would be named to command a number of villages, but the office of the sachem, who was the civil leader, was hereditary within the sachemship. It seems that, if the sachem were incapable of perform- ing his duties, he could readily be deposed and another of the same
10
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
family selected. In consequence, the sachem tried not to violate the wishes of his subjects, and, on matters of great importance, gathered all his people in council to participate in the decision. On such occasions, ceremonies, ritualism, and magic played a part. Such a "powwow" was regarded as most ominous by the white settlers. The beating of the drums and the singing aroused in the settlers the fear of a war directed against them. The Indians, however, were most often at war with each other. Proud and vengeful little quarrels were easily provoked among the villages and frequently developed into real battles that seemingly never brought peace. Family bonds were only occasionally strong enough to cause the Indians to unite against a common enemy, and the significant contest for the land was not between the Indians and the Europeans, but between the contending nationalities of Europeans.19
The Dutch Claim
With the return of Block to Amsterdam in September, 1614, and the dissemination of the information he brought concerning the land and inhabitants of Connecticut, interest quickened on the part of the Dutch merchants in the possibility of trade in the New World. They acted quickly and received from the Estates General of Holland a spe- cial trading charter to make four voyages to the "newly discovered lands lying in America ... the sea-coast whereof extends from the fortieth to the forty-fifth degree of latitude" on a figurative map that was, perhaps, prepared by Block or under his direction.20 Although Block himself turned his attention to the whaling industry and is not known to have returned to New Netherlands, as the Dutch called the Connecticut area, the representatives of this early company con- tinued to explore and trade in the New World until its charter expired in 1618. Three years later a more inclusive charter was given to the Dutch West India Company. Under this new charter this company had almost unlimited powers to colonize and govern New Netherlands.21
The Dutch claim to the Connecticut territory was based primarily upon the contention that under this charter two families and six men went to the Connecticut River area immediately upon the arrival of the first permanent Dutch settlement in Manhattan in 1624. In view of the active trading of the Dutch, and in view of the provision in the
11
THE LAND AND THE TRADERS
charter that the Dutch West India Company was to establish four forts, one of which was to be on the Connecticut, an early settlement seems quite probable. After carefully weighing the evidence, however, Charles M. Andrews concluded that "continuous occupation" of the Connecticut area by the Dutch from this time seemed unlikely. He felt that if the place were ever actually taken over, it was early abandoned.22
Later the Dutch did extend their activities in the region of the Connecticut River. In 1632, a Dutch merchantman of the West India Company landed passengers at the mouth of the river at Saybrook, which they named Kivett's Point, and affixed to a tree the arms of the Estates General of the Netherlands. Meanwhile, instructions had been given which resulted in 1633 in the purchase from Wopigwooit, the Grand Sachem of the Pequots, of about twenty acres which extended for about one Dutch mile on the west side of the river and for about one-third of a mile inland. To facilitate commercial operations on a larger scale, it was provided in the purchase agreement that the area would always be a neutral ground where other tribes might trade and where no war was to be waged. A redoubt, named "Good Hope," was erected on the site and fortified with two cannons.23
Opposition to the Dutch Claim
The Dutch were from the first opposed by the British settlers at Plymouth. Local colonial antagonisms more and more frequently cor- responded to the national policies of Britain and Holland, who were fighting for commercial supremacy. At these times the colonies were supported by the national policies of their home governments. The time had not yet come, however, when local colonial antagonisms were final determinants of policies of European nations, and, at times, other considerations led to a measure of cooperation between the English and Dutch governments. A parallel, official semblance of cordiality would then exist between the colonies, but would be only imperfectly reflected in their actions. Local rivalries were sometimes too sharp for complete conformity to policies announced in Europe. Indicative of a basic con- currence between colony and motherland in an underlying hostility toward a common rival was the tolerance with which European govern- ments viewed such departures from official policy.24
12
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
To the settlers at Plymouth, the Dutch were "interlopers" and "in- truders." The Plymouth settlers repeatedly reported the intolerable abuse of the savages by the Dutch and the promiscuous trading between the two which was asserted to endanger seriously the British plantation. These protests from Plymouth were recognized by a British royal proc- lamation which limited trade in New England to the planters and ad- venturers of that place. After the treaty of alliance between England and Holland against Spain in 1625, and after Charles I had ordered the English colonies to trade with the Dutch, assurances of friendship were exchanged between the colonies. The Dutch Ambassador was enter- tained by William Bradford, then Governor of Plymouth, whose re- sponsibility as a host did not prevent his questioning the right of the Dutch to trade within the limits of New England. In the same year, the Dutch "seeing that the Puritans were seated there in barren quarters, with friendly purposes told them of a river" and recommended it as a fine place for a plantation. Yet, Peter Minuit's vessel was arrested in 1632 when a storm forced it to stop at Plymouth. The Dutch protested earnestly, but Charles I, instead of rebuking the colony, was strangely "uninformed of his rights" to do so and delayed an answer. When, in the same year, the Dutch submitted to the English a formal request for recognition of her claim to New Netherland, it was firmly denied.25
The English Traders
The English claimed to have settled the Connecticut area prior to the Dutch. This is based essentially on an assertion by Edward Wins- low of Plymouth that he visited Connecticut in 1632 and selected and temporarily occupied the area a year before the Dutch appeared there. On this basis he contended that the area was not vacuum domicilium at the time of the Dutch arrival. This would not have corresponded to the English theory that an area could be preempted only by effective occupation and would hardly have been honored by the English had it been offered by a rival. It should be noted that the only evidence that Winslow was in Connecticut in 1632 is a letter which he, himself, wrote to John Winthrop in 1644, some years after settlers from Plym- outh had confronted the Dutch on the Connecticut River. Moreover, the letter was written to support the claims of the English settlers.
13
THE LAND AND THE TRADERS
There is no reference to corroborate Winslow's claim in the record of his visit to Massachusetts in July, 1633, "to confer about joining in a trade in Connecticut for beaver and hemp," although it would be ex- pected that he would have mentioned, at this time, any previous visit to Connecticut.26
Winslow's proposed adventure was regarded officially in Massachu-
(Angell Collection)
(Courtesy Norwalk Historical Society)
NORWALK-SITE OF OLD "FRUITFUL SPRING," TREASURED BY SETTLERS THREE CENTURIES AGO AND REFERRED TO IN EARLIEST RECORDS. LOCATED UNDER OLD BEECH TREE AT EDGE OF MARSH BETWEEN SHOREHAVEN GOLF COURSE AND THE SOUND
setts as "not fit to meddle with," but there were individuals in the colony who were interested. A group of these left for Connecticut in Sep- tember, 1633, "directed by a special providence," according to the con- temporary chronicler, Hubbard, and induced "to take advantage of an opportunity for trade," according to the modern historian, Andrews. Among the adventurers were men such as John Oldham, who was rest- less, independent, contentious, and courageous and seemed born for the frontier. Although he was regarded by some as a man "unfit for us to deale with," he was an indomitable trail blazer. He was accompanied by Samuel Hall and others whose names are unrecorded.27
14
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
When Oldham and Hall returned to Massachusetts, they carried beaver, hemp, and black lead as examples of what might be found in Connecticut. Oldham reported that on the Connecticut River there were "many desirable places fit to receive many hundred inhabitants." The next year, he accompanied ten householders and planters who set- tled at Pyquag or Wethersfield. The settlement was reinforced the fol- lowing May by additional settlers. As the land was broken and rye was sowed, Wethersfield took on some of the characteristics of a permanent settlement. Oldham's restless nature changed less, and he was murdered at Block Island when on one of his trading expeditions.28
In the meantime, Winslow had determined to trade in Connecti- cut without the assistance of the Bay colony. He commissioned William Holmes to occupy a point on the Connecticut River. Aware of the pos- sibility of difficulty with the Indians and with the Dutch, the Holmes group stowed the frame of a house, complete with nails and other needed items in the hole of their "great new bark" and sailed for the Connect- icut. As they came in sight of Fort Good Hope, the Dutch demanded to know "what they intended and whither they would go." When the English indicated they were bound up the river, the Dutch "bid them strike and stay or else they would shoote them." The Dutch ordnance remained silent, however, as the settlers from Plymouth proceeded past the fort to establish a place on the river as ordered. When they came to a spot about nine miles further up the river, slightly below a rivulet (the Tunxis or Farmington River), they "clapt up their house quickly, and landed their provisions, and left the company appoynted, and sent the barke home."29
In Connecticut, the era of exploration was over, and the period of settlement beginning.
NOTES-CHAPTER I
1 Credit to Block for the discovery of Connecticut is based almost entirely upon Johannes de Laet's publication, New World or Description of West India. The original Dutch edition of this was published in 1625, a second Dutch edition in 1630, a Latin version in 1633, and a French translation in 1640. Chapter 8, Book III, is of greatest interest for Connecticut, and, fortunately, there are only slight variations of the text of this chapter in the various editions. See Johannes de Laet, "Extracts from the New World or a description of the West Indies," Collection of the New York Historical So- ciety (New York, 1841, 1849). Also, J. Franklin Jameson, "From the New World by John DeLaet, 1625, 1630, 1633, 1640," Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664 in
15
THE LAND AND THE TRADERS
Original Narratives of Early American History, J. Franklin Jameson, ed. (New York, 1909), pp. 29-60 (Hereafter cited as Jameson, ". .. DeLaet."). There seems little doubt that de Laet used Block's journal, but it is impossible to determine if any of the description of Connecticut came from other reports made after Block's journey but before the publication of the New World.
2 William North Rice and Herbert Ernest Gregory, "Manual of the Geology of Connecti- cut," Bulletin No. 6, State of Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey (Hartford, 1906), pp. 17-38. (All bulletins of the State Geological and Natural History Survey will hereafter be cited as "Geol. Bull." with the appropriate number.)
3 John Romeyn Brodhead, History of the State of New York (New York, 1853), pp. 55-56; Jameson, ". . . De Laet," p. 44; Richard Foster Flint, "The Glacial Geology of Connecticut," Geol. Bull. No. 47 (Hartford, 1930), pp. 215-220; Wilbur G. Foye, "The Geology of Eastern Connecticut," Geol. Bull. No. 74 (Hartford, 1949), pp. 23-29; Henry Staats Sharp, "The Physical History of the Connecticut Shoreline," Geol. Bull. No. 46 (Hartford, 1929), p. 94.
4 Geol. Bull. No. 6, pp. 17-22, 74-81; Geol. Bull. No. 47, pp. 30-31; "Preliminary Ge- ological Map of Connecticut," 1956, Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey (Convent Station, New Jersey, 1956) (Hereafter cited as Geol. Map of 1956); Jameson, ". . . De Laet," p. 44.
5 Brodhead, History of New York, pp. 55-56; Jameson, ". . De Laet," p. 44; Geol. Bull. No. 46, p. 94; Geol. Map of 1956.
6 Joseph Barrell, "Central Connecticut in its Geological Past," Geol. Bull. No. 23 (Hart- ford, 1915), pp. 1-44; Geol. Bull. No. 6, pp. 17-22, 251; Geol. Bull. No. 46, p. 30. 7 Brodhead, History of New York, p. 56; Jameson, ". . . De Laet," pp. 43-44; Geol. Bull. No. 46, pp. 87-94; Geol. Bull. No. 47, pp. 163, 226.
8 Geol. Bull. No. 6, pp. 18-38; Geol. Bull. No. 46, pp. 77-87; Geol. Bull. No. 47, pp. 30-31; Geol. Map of 1956.
9 Jameson, De Laet," p. 43; Geol. Bull. No. 6, pp. 220-21; Geol. Map of 1956.
10 Jameson, “. . De Laet," p. 43; Geol. Bull. No. 6, pp. 254-55.
11 Ibid., pp. 224, 247-249.
12 Jameson, ". De Laet," p. 431; Geol. Bull. No. 46, pp. 64-77. 13 Ibid.
14 There is a wide difference of opinion as to the numbers of Indians in Connecticut at the time of the coming of the white man and as to the number of distinct tribes in the area. Benjamin Trumbull, writing late in the eighteenth century, estimated that the number of Indians in Connecticut at the time of its settlement by Europeans might possibly amount to twenty thousand. See his A Complete History of Connecticut, 2 vols. (New London, Conn., 1898.) Half a century later, John W. DeForest considers this an exaggeration and contends that an estimate of six or seven thousand would be liberal. See his History of the Indians of Connecticut (Hartford, 1852.) More recently, James Mooney, in 1928, estimated the population of the various tribes in 1600 as follows: Mohegan-Pequot, 2200; Wappinger of Connecticut, 1750; Western Ne- hantic, 600. The main center of operation of the Nipmunk was in Massachusetts and their total population was estimated as 500. Only eight or nine of their 29 villages were located in Connecticut. It seems, therefore, that there could not have been more than 150 in the state. There are no estimates of the Mahicans or the Eastern Nehantic in Connecticut, but it is known that they were inconsiderable. The population of the Indian was increasing slowly, if at all, in the years immedi- ately previous to the coming of the English. (See DeForest, p. 68.) It would seem that the population of the Indians in Connecticut was very probably less than five thousand in 1630. (See John R. Swanton, "The Indian Tribes of North America,"
16
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Smithsonian Institute, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 145 (Wash- ington, 1953), pp. 22-23, 28, 33, 41, 44-48.) (Hereafter bulletins of this bureau of the Smithsonian Institute will be cited as "Smithsonian Eth. Bull." with the appropriate number.) The problem of identifying the tribes is as great. DeForest (PP· 51-58) lists eleven or more tribes. It seems that there is no method of classifica- tion which is completely free of inconsistencies. The one used in this chapter is that suggested in the Smithsonian Eth. Bull. No. 145 in which the Indian is identified with the region with which he was most closely associated historically. For a popular account, with the origin of Indian place names, see Mathew Spies, "The Indians of Connecticut," Tercentenary Commission of the State of Connecticut, Committee on Historical Publications (New Haven, n.d.) (Hereafter publications of this com- mission will be cited as "Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ.")
15 James Truslow Adams, The Founding of New England (Boston, 1921), p. 16; Harold C. Bradshaw, "The Indians of Connecticut" (Deep River, Conn., [1935]), pp. 10-12; DeForest, Indians of Connecticut, p. 38; Roy Harvey Pearce, The Savages of America (Baltimore, 1953), pp. 3-8, 19-45; Frank G. Speck, "Native Tribes and Dialects of Connecticut," Forty Third Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1925-1926 (Washington, 1928), p. 212; Ruth Murray Underhill, Red Man's America (Chicago, 1953), p. 47; Clark Wissler, The Indians of the United States (New York, 1940), pp. 58-62.
16 Bradshaw, "Indians of Connecticut," p. 14.
17 Underhill, Red Man's America, p. 66; DeForest, Indians of Connecticut, p. 52; Pearce, Savages of America, pp. 3-8, 19-35.
18 Bradshaw, "Indians of Connecticut," pp. 11-12; Wissler, Indians of U. S., pp. 58-63; DeForest, Indians of Connecticut, pp. 25-26.
19 Henry G. Ahlberg, The American Guide (New York, 1949), p. 24; DeForest, Indians of Connecticut, p. 49; Adams, Founding of New England, p. 17.
20 Brodhead, History of New York, pp. 60-65.
21 Ibid., p. 97.
22 Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial Period of American History, II (New Haven, c. 1936), pp. 70-71, incl. n. 4, p. 150; Brodhead, Hist. of New York, p. 153.
23 Arthur L. Peale, Uncas and the Mohegan-Pequot (Boston, 1939), p. 21; Brodhead, History of New York, pp. 215-217, 234; Samuel Drake, Indians of North America (Boston, 1937), p. 49; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., I (New Haven, Conn., c. 1936), p. 70.
24 Max Savelle, The Diplomatic History of the Canadian Boundary, 1749-1763 (New Haven, Conn., 1940), pp. vii-x.
25 Brodhead, History of New York, pp. 138, 162, 207-17; Bradford's History "Of Plimoth Plantation" (printed from the original manuscript, under the direction of the Sec- retary of the Commonwealth by order of the General Court), (Boston, 1898), pp. 370-71.
26 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 68-69; James Kendall Hosmer, ed., Win- throp's Journal, "History of New England, 1630-1649," 2 vols. in Original Narratives of Early American History (New York, c. 1908), I, p. 103.
27 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., I, pp. 69-70, 375-376; William Hubbard, The History of New England (Boston, 1878), pp. 169-170.
28 George L. Clark, A History of Connecticut (New York, 1914), p. 11; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 69-70.
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.