USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 27
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
299
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
of special assistance. The land was distributed according to Connecti- cut custom. The responsibilities of incorporator, as in colonial times, was assumed by a committee of fifteen. The practice of sizing was followed to assure an equitable distribution of land in consideration of quality and quantity. Julian Boyd describes this method as "without question, the most equitable and democratic method of land division that has ever been developed in this country."60
In 1771, there was a new attempt to get the colony to assert its authority over the western territory. The lower house of the General Assembly, in 1769, had been unwilling to assume the responsibility for releasing titles to the land to which some alleged that it had title. Two years later, in the May session of the Assembly, it was agreed that the land was "well contained within the boundaries and descriptions of the charter" and the evidence relating to the colony's title was col- lected and transmitted to England.61 The legislature still refused to act upon a request to assume authority over the western lands until a report was received from England in 1773 which did not oppose Connecticut's claim. Upon the insistence of Trumbull in the October session of the Assembly, a committee was then named and instructed to attempt to reach an agreement with Pennsylvania. When this failed, a special session of the General Assembly was called in January, 1774. At this the colony extended its jurisdiction to the Susquehanna settle- ments. The new township was named "Westmoreland" and settlement was limited to those who secured permission from the Assembly. All necessary steps were to be taken to assure Connecticut's title to the land and to present the situation properly to the Crown.62
The passage of this act was the signal for the revival of the political antagonisms which characterized the heated discussions which had grown out of the Stamp Act and the election of 1766. In general, the factions could be identified as the radical and conservative forces of that era. The personalities so aligned carried on the controversy through pamphlets, newspapers, and private correspondence. The conservatives contended that the western claim would jeopardize the charter, charged the legislators who held stock in the company with political immorality. argued that costs would be excessive, and accused the expansionists of wishing to accumulate wealth quickly at the expense of the colony.63
300
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
The radicals were quick to pronounce their opponents "the conserva- tive, pro-British 'old party' who hoped to capture control of the Colo- nial government."64 These were the same men, it was charged, who were willing to give away the colonists' natural rights during the Stamp Act controversy under the pretense of saving the charter. Now, "the same men and their tools [are] as willing to give away a part of our colony as they were all our rights and privileges."65
In an intense effort to reverse the Assembly's decision, the Conserva- tives asked the towns to elect delegates to meet at Middletown on the last Wednesday in March. Residents of towns throughout the state met to consider "the very alarming condition" stemming from the colony's claiming the Susquehanna lands. Representatives from 23 towns met in Middletown on March 30. The convention petitioned the next assembly to reconsider its actions on the Susquehanna question and to exclude the members of the company from voting. A slate of candidates was named, too, to oppose the radical party. Tensions mounted until the very day of the election when the freemen rejected the conservatives and continued the radicals in power. Immediately, then, the colony requested officers of the Crown to settle the dispute between Connect- icut and Pennsylvania. The Crown, however, was by this time en- meshed in the larger question of the general relationship of the colonies to the Crown. The final determination of the intercolonial aspect of the western claims question was held in abeyance, but the victory of the radicals on this point meant that they would be in power as Con- necticut turned to the consideration of the more momentous problem of general relationship.66
The Move Toward Revolution
A calm seemed to characterize British-Connecticut relations after the Townshend Acts had been repealed, although the three pence tax on tea had been retained. Although this was considered to violate the principle of taxation without representation, merchants who did not adjust to it learned to avoid the tax by smuggling. The equilibrium was threatened, however, in 1773, when Parliament granted to the East India Company the privilege of importing tea, duty free. The extension of this special privilege to the East India Company meant ruin for the
301
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
merchants. Yet, there were no indications of militant action, although there was an apparent determination not to buy tea. The suggestions of the radicals to organize for action went unheeded in Connecticut. Overt action in the colonies was limited to the resistance of the residents of Boston to the landing of the tea. When the Bostonians took the law into their hands and dumped the tea into the harbor, reaction was mixed. Men of property saw in this action a challenge to their own position and condemned the action. William Samuel Johnson lamented the failure of the colonies and Great Britain to solve the difficult prob- lem of the rights of Parliament. Only the radicals exhorted the people to act. No tea had been landed in Connecticut, and the temper of the colony, if judged by the election sermon of 1774, was one of cautious waiting.
The colony's reaction was sharp and immediate, however, when Parliament passed coercive acts designed to vindicate its authority by punishing Boston. For the rights of a neighboring colony to be swept away by an act of Parliament was comprehended as a direct threat to Connecticut's treasured charter. At town meetings in the eastern part of the state, resolutions were made to refrain from trade with Britain, if necessary. Fiery articles in newspapers shouted resistance: "Join or Die" and "Unconquered America" were among the burning captions. The people of Farmington elaborately tarred and feathered and then burned in effigy the Massachusetts Tory Governor and, also, a copy of the Port Bill. A liberty pole was set up and the King's min- isters were cursed as pimps and parasites. In addition, sheep and cattle were sent to port-closed Boston.67
The General Assembly condemned the coercive acts. The removal of a person for trial to England and the closing of the ports in Boston were declared to be subversive to the rights of Englishmen. The estab- lishment of admiralty courts vested with powers not subject to the common law of the colony was declared to be destructive of trial by jury. There was caution in the Assembly, however. These resolutions were simply filed as a part of the records of the Assembly. It may have been that the power to name delegates to the Continental Congress was delegated to the Committee of Correspondence to minimize the im- portance of this step.68
302
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
By selecting delegates in this way Connecticut contributed to the extra-legal nature of the convention. The delegates chosen from Con- necticut were more representative of the radical elements of society than of the conservative. Richard Law and Erastus Wolcott had refused to attend on the grounds of ill health. Johnson refused the appointment ostensibly for business reasons, but possibly because he was aware that conservatives were unpopular and was dedicated to keeping the ardour of his country within bounds. Roger Sherman and Joseph Trumbull, who replaced those who refused, together with Eliphalet Dyer and Silas Deane represented the element most adamant in opposition to Parlia- ment.69 The Congress passed a Declaration of Rights and Grievances in which they denied the taxing power of Parliament. They also adopted a series of retaliatory measures against the coercive acts which called for the non-importation and non-consumption of British goods. A system of inspection in every town was devised to enforce the boycott. Lists of merchants who violated the measures were to be published. imports in violation of the acts were to be confiscated, and frugality was to be encouraged and every form of dissipation and extravagance dis- allowed. This "memorable league" of 1774 expressed the spirit of the times, and, perhaps, carried the people farther along the road of revolu- tion than they intended.70
Steps had already been taken in Connecticut to insure the success of these measures. The delegates in Philadelphia were informed of a meeting of representatives of New London and Windham where it was recommended that the towns and the provincial government take im- mediate steps to meet any military emergency. Delegates from Hart- ford, New London. Windham, and part of Litchfield met on September 15, on call of Hartford's Committee of Correspondence and announced their belief in the "absolute necessity of a non-consumption agree- ment," and stated that if the Continental Congress failed to achieve such agreement, the Connecticut committee promised independent non-consumption of banned goods. When the actions of the Congress were known, the towns not only ratified the proceedings, but supple- mented them with detailed procedures for enforcing the rules of the association.71
Preparations were being made for war. A general muster of the
303
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
militia was ordered in October, 1774, for the fourth Monday of No- vember. It was prescribed that the militia should engage in twelve half- days of training before the following May. Fire arms were to be collected and repaired and the cannon of New London were to be put in order. Bills of credit were issued and a tax assessed to defray expected expenses. The Governor was given the extraordinary power of convening the General Assembly without consulting the Council.72
Even so, Connecticut did not abandon customary caution as she approached the break with Great Britain. Trumbull, in a letter to Lord Dartmouth, in March, 1775, stressed that British supremacy and Ameri- can liberty were not incompatible and considered the interests of the two countries as inseparable. He gave assurances that the colony did not wish to weaken the powers of parliament in matters essential to the welfare of the whole empire, but stated that the unlimited powers lately claimed by the Parliament had driven the people of the colony to the borders of despair. According to Trumbull the colony was at a loss to see how the destruction of the tea of the East India Company could be a just ground for punishing thousands of innocent people who had no hand in the affair or for depriving them of their charter rights.73 Even after the battle of Lexington and Concord, a special mission was sent to General Gage. The bearers of the message were William Samuel Johnson and Erastus Wolcott, the same who had refused to attend the Continental Congress. Trumbull informed Gage that Connecticut was ready to defend its rights and privileges to the last extremity, but was not sure of all information on affairs and requested that Gage explain his intentions.74 Johnson and Wolcott left Gage with his reply in which he entreated Connecticut to exercise its influence on the deluded people of Massachusetts and insisted that the resort to arms was only defensive in nature and had been made necessary by unconstitutional acts of Massachusetts. The people of Massachusetts had grown apprehensive, however, of the Connecticut mission and stopped the emissaries on their return. Massachusetts citizens demanded to read the letter from Gage. After some hours, it was returned and Johnson and Wolcott continued to Connecticut, but to find that the revolutionary fever had reached new heights.75
304
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
NOTES-CHAPTER XII
1 J. P. Boyd, "Connecticut's Experiment in Expansion, The Susquehannah Company, 1753-1803," Journal of Economic and Business History, IV, 1931-32, pp. 38-44. For a detailed record of the activities of the Susquehanna Company see Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Susquehannah Company Papers (Wilkes-Barre, 1930-34). For a more popular account, see "Susquehannah Company, Connecticut's Experiment in Expan- sion," Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ. (New Haven, Conn., n.d.), by the same author.
2 Ibid., pp. 16-19.
3 Ibid., pp. 19-24.
4 Ibid., pp. 24-25.
5 Ibid. p. 25.
6 Ibid., p. 26.
7 Conn. Col. Rec., XII, p. 240, note; Lawrence Henry Gipson, Jared Ingersoll, A Study of American Loyalism in Relation to British Colonial Government (New Haven, Conn., 1920) pp. 112-14.
8 Ibid .; Oscar Zeichner, Connecticut's Years of Controversy, 1750-1776 (Williamsburg, Virginia, c. 1949) (published for the Institute of Early American History and Cul- ture) pp. 45-46.
9 Ibid., p. 46.
10 Lawrence Henry Gipson, "Connecticut Taxation, 1750-1775," Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ. (New Haven, Conn., n.d.), pp. 23-35.
11 Gipson, Ingersoll, p. 120.
12 Gipson, Ingersoll, p. 125.
13 Ibid.
14 Conn. Col. Rec., XII, p. 256.
15 "Reasons Why the British Colonies in America Should Not Be Charged With Inter- national Taxes by Authority of Parliament, Humbly Offered for Consideration in behalf of the Colony of Connecticut," Conn. Col. Rec., XII, pp. 651-72.
16 Ibid., p. 256.
17 Gipson, "Taxation," pp. 35-38.
18 Gipson, Ingersoll, pp. 126-40; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, p. 49.
19 Fitch to Jackson, February 23, 1765, Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., XIX. p. 273.
20 Zeichner, Years of Controversy, p. 50.
21 Gipson, Ingersoll, pp. 16-68, 68, note 1.
22 Ibid., p. 168; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, p. 52.
23 Gipson, Ingersoll, pp. 168-88.
24 Ibid.
25 Gipson, Ingersoll, pp. 168-88.
26 Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., XIX, pp. 409-11.
27 Ibid.
28 Conn. Col. Rec., XII, 411; Gipson, Ingersoll, p. 167.
29 Conn. Col. Rec., XII, pp. 421-22.
30 Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 56-57; Gipson, Ingersoll, p. 190.
31 Ibid., pp. 190-91.
32 Ibid., p. 195; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 61-66.
33 Ibid.
34 Gipson, Ingersoll, p. 219, also, 218.
35 Ibid., pp. 224-25.
36 Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., XIX, pp. 63, 65-67, 71, 82; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 77-79; Gipson, Ingersoll, pp. 239-41; Conn. Col. Rec., XII, 545, 607-608.
305
THE PERIOD OF PROTEST AND PETITION
37 Johnson to Pitkin, Feb. 12, 1767, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, IX, p. 215. 38 Ibid., p. 178; Johnson to Pitkin, May 16, 1767.
39 Ibid., p. 259, Johnson to Pitkin, July 13, 1767.
40 Gipson, Ingersoll, p. 270.
42 Johnson to Pitkin, July 22 and October 20, 1768, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, IX, pp. 289-98; George C. Groce, Jr., William Samuel Johnson (New York, 1937) p. 74.
43 Ibid.
++ Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 84-85.
45 Ibid., p. 85.
46 Gipson, Ingersoll, pp. 276-79; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 85-86; Groce, John- son, pp. 76-77.
#7 Johnson to Pitkin, Oct. 20, 1768, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, IX, pp. 295-99. 48 Ibid .; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 85-86; Gipson, Ingersoll, p. 276.
49 Conn. Col. Rec., XIII, 74-76; Johnson to Trumbull, Jan. 2, 1770, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, IX, pp. 392-97; Trumbull to Johnson, Mar. 3, 1770, ibid., pp. 419-20; Jackson to Trumbull, Mar. 18, 1770, ibid., p. 428.
50 Johnson to Pitkin, July 23, 1768, ibid., p. 294.
51 Ibid., Oct. 20, 1768, p. 296.
52 Ibid., Apr. 26, 1769, pp. 334-42.
53 Ibid., May 25, 1769, pp. 346-50.
54 Ibid., Sept. 18, 1769, p. 358; May 28, 1769, p. 350.
55 Gipson, Ingersoll, pp. 285-86.
56 Johnson to Trumbull, Aug. 20, 1770, in Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, IX, pp. 445-52.
57 Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 86-89; Gipson, Ingersoll, pp. 286-89.
58 Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 122-27.
59 Boyd, "Connecticut's Experiment in Expansion," pp. 47-48.
60 Julian Parks Boyd, The Susquehannah Company: Connecticut's Experiment in Ex- pansion, Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ. (New Haven, Conn., n.d.), p. 33.
61 Conn. Col. Rec., XIII, 427.
62 Ibid., XIV, 161-62, 217-19; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, p. 145; Boyd, "Connecti- cut's Experiment in Expansion," pp. 50-60.
63 Ibid., pp. 61-63; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 146-49. 64 Ibid., p. 150.
65 Ibid., p. 151.
66 Ibid., pp. 151-54
67 Groce, Johnson, p. 98; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 163-64.
68 Conn. Col. Rec., XIV, pp. 261, 324, 347-50.
69 Ibid., p. 324; Groce, Johnson, p. 98; Zeichner, Years of Controversy, p. 165.
70 Groce, Johnson, p. 102; Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago, 1896) pp. 84-85.
71 Zeichner, Years of Controversy, pp. 179-82.
72 Conn. Col. Rec., XIV, pp. 327, 346, 386.
73 Ibid., pp. 410-13.
74 Ibid., p. 416, 440-41.
75 Groce, Johnson, pp. 102-103.
Chapter XIII Connecticut in the Revolution
C ONNECTICUT RESPONDED unhesitantly to the immedi- ate demands of the Revolution. In the formal actions to effect independence and confederation, she moved with, if not ahead of, the spirit of the times. Her relative security enhanced her importance as a base of supply; but because of the apparent vulnera- bility of her coastline, the state's demands for protection frequently ran counter to the plans made for the conduct of the war. Connecticut man- aged the home front with characteristic ability. She cooperated with the federal congress and other states in establishing embargoes and price controls. After the break of a first wave of hate, a liberal policy was adopted toward the Tory for the protection of his person. However, by the confiscation of the estates of Tories, they were unwilling contrib- utors to the financing of the Revolution. The state managed its cur- rency with consummate skill, and, as in previous wars, Connecticut emerged from the Revolution in a better economic position than when she entered it.
The news of Lexington and Concord quickly spread from town to town after it reached Norwich on April 20, 1775. Governor Trum- bull immediately dispatched a courier to apprise Israel Putnam, Con- necticut's foremost soldier, of the news. It is said he left his plow in the field and, within 18 hours, arrived in Boston. After gaining first hand information of the incident, he returned to Connecticut to advise the General Assembly on the condition of affairs.1 Benedict Arnold boldly defied the selectmen of New Haven by demanding the keys to the powder house, and, with his company of militia and some enthusiasts from Yale, set off for Cambridge.2 Ethan Allen hurriedly returned to Bennington
307
CONNECTICUT IN THE REVOLUTION
to await news from Hartford of Connecticut's support of a western cam- paign.3 The Sons of Liberty held British sympathizers up to scorn and local communities generally showed intolerance of loyalists.4
The revolutionary spirit ran high in the special session of the Gen- eral Assembly in April, 1775. The election sermon of the Reverend Joseph Perry was peppered with references to "absolute despotism," "cruel tyranny," and "total slavery," and, as Zeichner points out, "of course" held up the spectre of "the destruction of the Protestant churches."" Governor Trumbull presented the issue as the choice be- tween subjugation and slavery.6 The Assembly took steps for the defense of the colony and for assistance to Massachusetts. Connecticut was placed on a war basis by an embargo on essential foodstuffs, a grant of bounties for fire arms, the issuance of bills of credit, and the levy of a tax of seven pence per pound on the rateable estates of the colony. Al- though there is a suspicion that the state could not at any time have raised the full numbers authorized, the organizational strength of the militia was fixed at about 20,000. Two additional regiments organized in July brought the total number of regiments to eight. Three of these were assigned to the Northern Department and five were dispatched to Boston where they assisted in thwarting the British at Bunker Hill.7
In Boston, with his Connecticut regiment, Israel Putnam urged the occupation of Bunker Hill, which precipitated the decisive action. "Old Put" was not only the oldest of the Connecticut commanders, but also the most colorful. Legends of heroics had grown up about him as he served almost continuously in the French and Indian War and par- ticipated in numerous expeditions to the West. When he returned to his farm at Pomfret at the conclusion of Pontiac's uprising, he had be- come involved in the Stamp Act controversy and had dared Governor Fitch to admit stamps into the colony. It was said that he would lead where any man would follow, and "his reputation for bravery, his rugged character, his democratic manner, his dynamic energy, and his zeal for the American cause commended him to the yeomen of New England."8 At Bunker Hill, he led his men from the Cambridge Com- mons, where the troops assembled on June 16th, to an advanced posi- tion on Breed's Hill, from which they could command the ships in the harbor.9 When the British awakened the following morning, they im-
308
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
mediately began the attempt to dislodge the colonials from this com- manding position and cannonading was followed by assault.1ยบ Under the continual urging of Putnam, who was serving as aide to Colonel William Prescott in the field.11 reinforcements were brought up, re-
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.) WINSTED-REVOLUTIONARY CANNON AT WINCHESTER HISTORICAL SOCIETY, 1936
doubts constructed, positions improved, and the New Englanders were urged to exact heavy payment in lives for any British advance on the hill. Three assaults were made; two repulsed. The battle report might have read "Too many British, too few cartridges." Connecticut officers and troops acquitted themselves commendably and retreated in an or- derly manner. As these American forces awaited further British attack, news was received of a thrust at the British in the West.
309
CONNECTICUT IN THE REVOLUTION
The assault on Ticonderoga was the result of the planning of two equally restive minds who sought to combine patriotism with glory and, perhaps, with profit. Benedict Arnold, on his way to Cambridge, im- pressed upon the Committee of Correspondence in Hartford the advisa- bility of an attack on the western fort and Ethan Allen's brother hurried to Bennington to inform Ethan of Connecticut's willingness to supply money and troops for the expedition. Arnold, with a commission from the Massachusetts General Assembly to reduce Ticonderoga, arrived as the expedition was being organized with Connecticut men occupying key positions. Allen had the advantage of men and materials, for Ed- ward Mott had arrived from Hartford, bringing with him three hun- dred pounds advanced by Connecticut residents. Arnold reconciled himself, nominally at least, to a joint command, and, with Allen, se- cured the surrender of the fort on May 10. Five days later, Crown Point with its valuable stores was captured by Seth Warner.12 Both Allen and Arnold viewed this western expedition as a preliminary to a more ambi- tious attack on Canada. To promote these Canadian plans, albeit inde- pendently of each other's effort, Arnold returned to Boston and Allen proceeded to Philadelphia.13
In Philadelphia, the First Continental Congress was in session. The membership of the Connecticut delegation changed frequently during the course of the war, but, in 1775, it reflected the influence of the firebrands of the revolution, John Hancock and Sam Adams. Ten days after the battle of Lexington and Concord, these two had arrived in Hartford to consult with Trumbull on the problems of the war. They had continued to Philadelphia with the Connecticut delegates, and, as they passed from town to town in Connecticut, they were greeted by cheering crowds and assured of safe passage to the next. Of the Con- necticut delegates, Roger Sherman is identified among the group of delegates who regarded independence as essential, and Eliphalet Dyer voted with this group on critical measures. Silas Deane, however, was willing to "swim with the current" and be identified with the moderate majority. When the Congress assembled in 1775, independence was still a year away. Yet, Congress committed itself to the prosecution of a war although in the minds of some it was to be a defensive operation.14
As in any other controversy involving the British colonies in North
310
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
America, Canada was important to the relative balance of strength and its acquisition was recognized to be of immediate and immeasurable importance. It was believed that a victory would unite the thirteen colonies into an indissoluble union. "To whomsoever it belongs," wrote Washington, "in their favor probably will the balance turn." It was planned, then, that the main Continental force, which included the Connecticut troops raised by Allen, would proceed by the way of the lakes up the Saint Lawrence. General Schuyler commanded these troops until replaced by his deputy, Brigadier General Richard Montgomery. A second expedition, independent of continental command, was to proceed through the Maine woods as a diversionary force. Washington recog- nized in Benedict Arnold a temperament and ambition suited to this hazardous journey.15 Arnold left in mid-September, and, in spite of being delayed by the rapids of the Kennebec, dispirited by the shortage of food, and infected with dysentery, his troops fought their way through the wilderness and down the churning waters of the Chaul- dron. They arrived before Quebec in the first part of November to find that the main force had been delayed. Arnold, therefore, retreated sev- eral miles from Quebec, where the union with Montgomery was effected on December 1. This and subsequent delays were costly. When the attack was made on December 31, the British had greatly strengthened the garrison and the prize which might have been gained was lost. The army retreated to reorganize and requested reenforcements from New England. Connecticut had anticipated this need. By mid-March fresh troops began to arrive, yet they were too few and too late. Hopes of an intensive attack lingered, and Connecticut's General Wooster, who had succeeded Arnold and who had proved ineffectual, was replaced. Yet, it was necessary to order a general retreat during the first week in May, 1776, without achieving the alternative to a hazardous and bloody war.16
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.