USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 26
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 "reasons" which Connecticut advanced in opposition to the taxes15 were based on two fundamental premises: they were contrary to the rights of Englishmen and they were contrary to the rights guaran-
288
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
ENFIELD-CHURCH ON THE GREEN
teed by the charter. It was held that consent was necessary before taxes could be imposed on a free people and this consent could be neither pretended nor implied, but, rather, it must be expressly granted by themselves or by their representatives. They regarded as representatives those elected directly by residents of the colony. The rights of the colony as defined by the charter were reviewed, and, to support the efficacy of charter government, the many contributions which Connecticut had made in defense of the British Empire were recounted.
289
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
Catalogued among these contributions, with a certain lack of can- dor, was the statement that the expenses incurred during the late war amounted to upwards of 400,000 pounds over and above the parliamen- tary grants. It was also asserted that "the large Arrears of which Sum will remain a heavy distressing Burden upon our people."16 When the statement was repeated in 1767, the Colonial Secretary stated that the accounts were not so complete as they ought to have been and requested that the Treasury's account of the disposition of public funds be for- warded. By this time it was stated adroitly by Pitkin that through exer- tions beyond their abilities, the debt had been reduced to 48,000 pounds. In reality, both in the "Reasons" and in a report to the Board of Trade in 1764 concerning the means provided for the redemption of the bills of credit, there was nothing said of certain assets that still re- mained on hand nor of the relief from taxes which Connecticut enjoyed during the whole of the period from the French and Indian War until the outbreak of the Revolution. This favorable situation had been made possible, partially, at least, by the monetary grants which Parliament had made for Connecticut's contribution during the war. Gipson be- lieved that Connecticut was determined "to guard, as a profound official secret, the existence of financial resources so large as to make it possible to refrain from making a number of the tax levies."17
Whereas Connecticut's protest acknowledged the supreme power of Parliament in general affairs, it was argued that this power did not extend to matters of taxation of those colonial areas which were not di- rectly represented in Parliament. Ingersoll, who had gone to England in the Fall of 1764, distributed Connecticut's "Reasons" among the members of the Ministry and Parliament. Grenville, however, denied the basic premise of the Connecticut argument and maintained, instead, that the colonials were represented in Parliament and could be taxed by it. Ingersoll devoted himself to securing a modification of the act, to counseling the colonies to act moderately, and to securing for himself the appointment as distributor of stamps in Connecticut.18
Ingersoll had written against the principle of taxation by Parlia- ment, but believed that once the tax had been imposed it would be accepted by the colony. When it was passed, the Governor and his party accepted it as an inevitability. Governor Fitch, in a letter to Richard
290
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Jackson, summed up the official attitude by writing: "If notwithstand- ing all that can be said . .. Parliament in their superior wisdom shall judge it expedient to and accordingly do pass an act . . . we must sub- mit. We never pretended in the least to Question whether Acts of Par- liament expressly extended to the Plantations are binding but always submit to them as binding."19 It became clear almost immediately that this expression did not coincide with the reactions of all elements in Connecticut society.20
The Rise of the Radicals
The radicals had already begun to prepare the residents of Con- necticut for the battle that was to come. They convinced many that they were the guardians of liberties and carried their story in the press throughout the state. As a state of tension seized the state, more positive steps were taken to exhibit opposition to the imposition of taxes. When the people of Windham learned that Nathaniel Wales had been named an assistant distributor of stamps, they warned him not to accept the office. Wales wrote Ingersoll that a thousand pounds would not tempt him.21 Ingersoll himself was burned in effigy, and, in some quarters, an attack on his person was feared.22 The zeal for liberty was overflowing and Jonathan Trumbull appealed to Governor Fitch to call a special session of the General Assembly.
The news of the special session prompted the radicals to attempt to force the resignation of the stamp collector. Ingersoll had determined not to succumb to a force which he felt was not representative of the people. He pointed out that the General Assembly in the May session had not been opposed to the Stamp Act. He urged the people to be calm and assured them that he would not serve against their wishes. As a precautionary measure, the stamps designed for Connecticut were ordered held in New York until further notice. Ingersoll was informed that groups of men were congregating in the eastern part of the state as a preliminary to marching on New Haven to demand his resignation. Thus, when Governor Fitch went through New Haven on September 17th on his way to the special session of the General Assembly. Ingersoll sought his protection. It was agreed that the Sons of Liberty should be prevented from coming to New Haven, and it was arranged that Inger- soll should go to Hartford to meet with the Assembly.23
291
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
At Wethersfield, Ingersoll's journey was interrupted by five hun- dred horsemen, later increased to one thousand, who demanded his resignation as stamp distributor. When Ingersoll requested that he be permitted to gather the sense of the government, the reply came: "Here is the sense of the government and no man shall exercise that office."24 A committee retired to a tavern to talk things over with the stamp master. Any proposed compromise, even though approved by the com- mittee, was promptly rejected when presented to the crowd for ap- proval. Nothing was acceptable, except absolute resignation. Friends of the Sons of Liberty in the General Assembly sent word that the As- sembly could not proceed until the Sons came to terms with Ingersoll. Amidst the growing impatience of the crowd, Ingersoll resigned his post. After a dinner to confirm the action, he proceeded to Hartford ac- companied by a retinue of 1,000 Sons of Liberty and reread the Wethersfield declaration.25
The special session of the Assembly was a test of strength between the Governor and his party and the Sons of Liberty. The latter were primarily responsible for the special session. The members were able to agree that delegates should be sent to the Stamp Act Congress to join in preparing "a general and united, dutiful, loyal and humble represen- tation . .. to His Majesty and the parliament, and to implore relief."26 The Assembly was sufficiently cautious to direct the delegates to take care not to forge an agreement with the other commissioners which would bind Connecticut to a majority vote of the group.27 It seemed that Connecticut was not going to be lured into any ill-conceived revolution- ary act by patriotic enthusiasts. Opposition to the stamp act was general; acceptable limits of opposition were less consistently defined. At this time, the Sons of Liberty seemed to exceed the generally acceptable limits, however, for they seemed to pose a threat to general property rights by their assembling and demonstrating. Carefully waiting until the radicals had dispersed, the Assembly directed the Governor to issue a proclamation ordering all proper officers to endeavor to prevent such riots and tumultuous actions as those lately experienced against the laws of the colony.28
The next regular session of the Assembly revealed a lessening of the prestige of the Governor and his party. The Assembly approved
292
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress and resolved never to recede from these principles. The mother country was warned of the fatal con- sequences which would result to both the colonies and Great Britain if the latter persisted in the exercise of its parliamentary power.29 Governor Fitch made his position more untenable by urging the As- sembly to punish those who had detained Ingersoll at Wethersfield and by his repeated warnings of the dangers which beset the colony, par- ticularly in regard to the charter, if the Assembly persisted in challeng- ing the rights of Parliament.30 Yet, Governor Fitch was reluctant to take the oath binding him to carry out the provisions of the Stamp Act, although he had been directed to take this by November 1 under penalty of £1,000 sterling and loss of office. The Governor delayed his decision until the very last, but, in the face of the unwillingness of the lower house to advise him in the matter, he decided to take the oath in the presence of his assistants. After a long debate which followed this decision, the assistants from the east side of the river withdrew, declaring they could not witness the oath since they judged it unconstitutional. The four assistants who remained when the oath was executed, together with Fitch, committed political suicide.31
Even before the election in the following Spring, the effective gov- ernment of the colony passed into the hands of the radicals. During this period the government of towns and colony was superseded by an extra- legal force. Policies were made at popular meetings. For months after the passage of the Stamp Act, no courts of justice operated in Connecti- cut except in criminal matters, since no civil case could be settled with- out the use of stamps.32 Ingersoll summarized the spirit of the time with the observation that "no one dares, and few in power are disposed to punish any violence ... the springs of government are broken and nothing but Anarchy and Confusion appear in prospect."33
The radicals, however, moved to gain control of the official reins of government. A meeting of the Sons of Liberty was called for March, 1766, in Hartford. This has been referred to as the first nominating convention held in the state. The delegates to this meeting approved the resolutions of 1765 against the Stamp Act, applauded the spirit of liberty in the other colonies and named a committee of correspondence to consist of Israel Putnam, John Durkee, Hugh Leslie, Thaddeus Burr,
293
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
John Sturgis, Samuel Bradley, Jr., John Brooks, and LeGrand Cannon. Too, the spectators were asked to withdraw and the delegates were called into secret session. It was explained that because of the dissatis- faction within the colony, they were to decide whether it might not be necessary for there to be a change in the ministry. To assure the election of certain candidates, it was sought "to collect the Minds of the People, for Unity, and by that Means be able to give the Freemen a Lead in the ensuing election."34 In the May election William Pitkin, who had been Deputy Governor, was elected Governor and Jonathan Trumbull was elected Deputy Governor. Although the proposal to select nominees for the Council met with too much opposition to be accomplished, not one of the assistants present when Fitch had taken the oath to enforce the Stamp Act gained reelection. Concurrently with this success, news came of the repeal of the Stamp Act. Inhabitants of New Haven were awakened on the morning of May 19th by the banging of flintlocks, the ringing of bells and the boom of cannon. There were celebrations in New Haven and Hartford and a general feeling of relief.35
The success of the radicals and the repeal of the Stamp Act did not result in the elimination of internal tensions. The differences between the Connecticut radicals and conservatives continued. Jackson reiter- ated to Pitkin, Lord Hillsborough's lack of regard for Connecticut's traditional self-government. Concern was increased when it was learned that an order in council had revived an appeal of the Mohegan Indians against the holders of land in eastern Connecticut and with the receipt of General Gage's request that the colony billet British troops. Gage was piqued when Pitkin refused without the approval of the General Assembly. This conditional refusal was tempered with more caution than that exercised by the other colonies who had responded with abso- lute refusals and Connecticut's agents sought to turn this to the colony's advantage.36
Taxes and Imports
Great Britain was unrelenting in her insistence that Parliament had the right to tax the colonies. Lord Townshend, in a reference to Amer- ica in February, 1767, did not acknowledge any distinction between in- ternal and external taxes, describing this as a distinction without a
294
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
difference. "It is perfect nonsense. If we have the right to impose one we have the other."37 Johnson did not anticipate a direct attack upon the charter, but rather was of the opinion that by general regulations the universal liberties of America would be endangered, and, in effect, the charter would be rendered useless.38 Townshend suggested that all of the colonies contribute a more reasonable share to the support of the troops in America, and on June 29, 1767, a new revenue act was passed which provided that all the colonies pay import duties on glass, lead, painted colors, tea, and paper, effective June 29, 1767. The revenues were not to be used for support of troops specifically, but, it was be- lieved, would constitute an even greater transgression upon Connecticut principles. The monies were to be used in the administration of justice and would, in the opinion of Johnson, render the justices independent of the people, but dependent upon the crown. "The Governors would be rendered independent of the people and wanting no support from them will have very little inducement to call the assemblies together, and it may be feared very soon, the King's government will all become sine- cures for the support of the King's administration here."39
Reaction against the Townshend duties developed rather slowly in Connecticut, starting in Boston and spreading through New England town by town. Town meetings became stages for protest. Instead of properly confining themselves to prudential concerns, according to a report of the American Board of Customs Commissioners to the Treas- ury in February, 1768, they were converted to political ends. At these meetings, reported the Commissioners, "the lowest Mechanics discuss the most important points of government, with the utmost freedom, which being guided by a few hot and designing men became a constant source of sedition."40 Johnson was completely out of sympathy with these methods, as were the officers of the Crown. These deplored such attempts to "carry all their points by violence and tumult."
Official reaction of the colony of Connecticut was contained in a petition, in which there was admission of due subordination to Parlia- ment, but which was sent directly to the King lest a petition to Parlia- ment be construed as tacit admission of its power to tax the colony. By this, however, Connecticut taxed parliamentary tolerance. The act was interpreted as "trampeling upon the poweres of parliament." Hills-
295
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
borough informed Johnson that "you mistake too in petitioning the King alone. . . . He cannot you know well enough repeal the acts of parliament; and we understand why you take the step; but let me tell you it will only serve to excite the indignation of parliament, before whom I expect the petition will be laid by His Majesty. What will be done I do not know; but depend upon it parliament will not suffer their authority to be tampered with."42 The contest had become pointed. There would be no repeal of the Townshend Acts until the authority of Parliament was recognized. In the meantime, the acts would be enforced in the most effectual manner possible.43
The petition to the King, substantively speaking, was moderate enough, but, in letters to Connecticut agents, the Governor revealed the temper of the times more accurately. To Johnson, he stated that "op- pressive measures will break the coalition" of the colonies and the home government. He suggested that the only way to preserve the empire was to see that "the colonies are treated friendly and indulged their freedom." In a long letter to Jackson he outlined the political and economic effects of the acts.44
Protests and rioting proved of no avail, but there was another way in which the colony could indicate its displeasure-commercial retalia- tion. Boston and New York merchants had agreed in the Spring of 1768 not to import English goods, but Connecticut did not follow this ex- ample until the July of the next year. It was said that the merchants were "sacrificing their private fortunes to the cause of liberty."45 Never- theless, the non-importation was not adhered to as strictly as desired by a Son of Liberty, who charged that, despite all of the talk, the seaport towns were full of English goods. It was claimed that eventually the vessels brought in every article which could be named and that mer- chants' shelves were stocked with the prohibited goods.46 The retaliation was effective enough, however, to strain any tolerance which might have prevailed in England.47
To make the non-importation agreements more effective, colonial manufacturing was encouraged. A meeting of colonists with trading interests was called for Middletown in February, 1770. This was at- tended by the principal merchants of the colony. A society for the pro- motion of the arts, agriculture and manufacturing, trade and commerce
296
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
was organized. Friends in England felt that it was just that the colonists should develop manufactures, but asked that they not make such a parade of their efforts. Johnson warned against such manifestations, but the spirit of resistance was rising and it was easy to dismiss the advice of one who, although an honored and respected servant of the state, was known to be conservative, at least, in his views, if not loyalist in his sympathies.48
The five percent import duty, levied by Connecticut concurrently with the framing of the formal petition to the King, threatened to be- come an issue with the officers of the Crown. The bill was cleverly drawn. On casual reading it would seem designed to protect Connecti- cut merchants from those of neighboring colonies who sold on the Con- necticut market without contributing to the colonial treasury through taxes or in any other way. Yet the bill was actually intended to include all goods which were imported into the colony. Jonathan Trumbull stated clearly to Johnson that British goods were not distinguished: "North American and West India merchandise and wares were equally liable under the law." Complaints against the act were brought to the attention of the Crown's officers and were scheduled for a hearing before the Board of Trade, in the expectation that the colony would repeal the duties. This was done in 1771.49
The Townshend Act was maintained long after it proved to be ineffective and for reasons other than revenue. Hillsborough had said as early as the Summer of 1768 that it had been agreed that the acts would be repealed, but that colonial resistance had made it impossible.50 Hillsborough reiterated this in October of the same year. If Connecticut had but petitioned on the ground of inexpediency, the request could have been granted, he said, but as long as the colony called into question the right of Parliament to tax, Parliament could not hear.51 While repeal was expected almost any day, the issue became snarled in British politics. It became an instrument whereby the Rockingham party, which was usually favorable to the American cause, could embarrass the party in power and hope, thereby, to force a change in the min- istry.52 No sooner had Parliament recessed than the council agreed that the Act would be repealed in the next session, but it was increasingly clear that the principle of the right to tax was going to be defended by
297
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
continuing the tax on tea.53 Once it was agreed that the principle would not be abandoned, the repeal came almost with a rush and was accom- plished in March, 1769. Johnson thought the British were ready for peace at almost any price. He had observed earlier that to retain a tax on any item was an exercise of the right of taxation and this was a crucial point to the radicals in the colonies.54
After the repeal of the Townshend Acts in March, 1769, Connecti- cut continued to support the non-importation agreements after other colonies had discontinued them. Each of the colonies was critical of the other's actions. New York had been critical of Connecticut's tardiness in adopting non-importation, and, it appears, New York adhered to the agreement comparatively well until the Townshend Acts were repealed. When New York, along with other colonies, resumed importation of goods, Connecticut was vehement in her denunciation of the New York backsliders, who, it was charged, had "prostituted the common cause to the present sordid prospect of a little pelf."55 Johnson observed that New York's action had the effect of confirming the policy of prudence and firmness of the British ministry, which expected that the other colonies would quickly follow New York's example. The American con- troversy was regarded as at an end.56
In Connecticut, however, the Middletown Resolves of 1770 were repeated and indignation meetings were held in several towns. At these, it was agreed to continue the non-importation agreements. In New Haven, New York merchants were requested to draw out their accounts. Connecticut tavern keepers posted a list of New York importers, and, it was said, refused to give them lodging or entertainment. The non- importation agreement, however, began to collapse by 1771. Connecti- cut papers conjectured about the benefits which might have resulted from a religious adherence to the program. Continuation meant bank- ruptcy for all but the richest merchants, and, so, the patriotic resolves of the merchants disappeared and in their stead were advertisements of English goods.57
There seemed a possibility of settling the differences between the colonies and Britain amicably during the years 1770-73. The knowl- edge of the "Boston Massacre," which had occurred on the very day of the repeal of the Townshend Acts, had aroused some feeling in Britain.
298
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
In general, however, there was strong sentiment in England that com- merce rather than taxation was the way to get the colonies to produce desired revenues. Connecticut seemed to have grown a little tired of the altercations with the mother country.
Conservative forces in Connecticut sought to turn this period of calm to advantage and attempted to return James Fitch as Governor. Fitch did receive a larger vote than at any time since he had been ousted in 1767, yet the effort to elect him was more significant because it identified the hard core of radicalism.58 The attempt of the radicals to secure the support of the colonial government in the settlement of the western lands further divided the political community.
The Opening of Western Lands to Settlement
The Treaty of Fort Stanwick on November 5, 1768, had been interpreted by the leaders of the Susquehanna Company as a suspension of the Proclamation of 1763 and as an opportunity to establish a per- manent settlement in the West. To check such a possibility, the agents of Pennsylvania, at the time of the treaty, had secured a deed to the lands claimed by the Connecticut land company and had induced it to renounce the Lydius deed which they had secured from the Indians in 1754. The favoritism shown in Pennsylvania to large land speculators drove the small farmers of western Pennsylvania to the support of Con- necticut settlement. Among the disaffected Pennsylvanians were the hardy Paxtang Boys, who proved themselves a great asset to Connecti- cut, in the border warfare which followed and which resulted in the permanent possession of the territory by a large number of Connecticut settlers in the Summer of 1771.59
To assure the population necessary for the effective settlement of the territory, ingenious land policies had been introduced to attract settlers. The granting of gratuities in excess of the equity in the com- pany was a method introduced in 1762, continued again the following year, and repeated in 1768. A gratuity of five towns, ten miles square, was granted to 240 settlers. The forty firstcomers were to have their choice of towns and the next 200 were to take the remaining towns. Additional shares were given to individuals who performed particular services for the colony or who were believed to be capable of being
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.